I am sitting here feeling pretty incensed after reading the news on the BBC news website about Labour , linked initially from Paul Linford's blog. Firstly because it is typical cowardly Labour who admit one thing in their government initiated report yet make some startling admissions about the "value" that they put on certain criteria in their practice, and secondly because it has spawned an absolutely piss-poor article from the BBC.

First up, Michael Wills, a party poodle that clearly does what is best for the family than for the people as he strongly agrees with bullshit like ID cards, terror detention extensions, war and conveniently disappears when it comes to voting on "parliamentary transparency". In fact his apparent lack of care for whether or not the people are able to freely hold parliament to account only dissipates when it means potentially that his party might lose overall power, and as such issues a statement that goes as such in response to a government review on election systems in the UK...

We hope this review will inform that ongoing debate but we do so in the firm belief that the current voting system for UK general elections works well, and that any future change would require the consent of the British people in a referendum. [...] Voting systems must not become a focus of partisan action but need to endure for many years.

Firstly I'd like to ask where he gets off deciding that a report that pretty squarely comes down with a 50/50 argument for FPTP versus PR allows him to state that FPTP is one that works well, and that given the huge stake Labour have in keeping their seats relies on NOT moving to PR systems how he has the nerve to say that this must not become the focus of partisan action! I would also like to say to the minister when we, the British people, can expect such a referendum. Or is it more likely that referendum is just a word being spread around right now to make it sound like the government give a shit about what we think without ever actually GIVING us one.

The report itself, as I said, is neither damning nor praising of either system. In brief it suggests that PR is a step in the right direction if you want a more representative government for the peoples wishes, but you do so at a cost of administration time and potentially more confusion over the system if you don't spend any extra time explaining it. It also states that FPTP is fine enough if you like a simple life administering your elections and is pretty damn simple to use, but is not representative, certainly isn't so much more simple that it has higher turn outs and belittles the value of votes of people in "safe" constituencies.

In effect, for Mr Wills to suggest the current system is working well he is making a simple and powerful statement that the Labour government believe a system that is working well is a system that makes votes carry different weights depending on how marginal your constituency is, that is one of the least representative of the general public's views and that stifles debate by more than one opposition despite the peoples wishes. This is a government that would rather have less administration in the process, values its disproportionate power, and would seemingly think that we're too stupid to comprehend more complicated voting systems.

And then aside all this you have the BBC and by far the worst article I've read on their site for a long while. While technically not too inaccurate, though it has its moments, it is as misleading as an article can get and I do wonder whether some lazy journalist has just lifted the key labour defined points off a press release and ran with it without checking any of their facts.

If PR was introduced in Westminster elections, constituencies could be represented by more than one MP, said the review.

It also could mean that constituencies are still only represented by one MP, at no point does the reporter try to explain what the benefits or disadvantages of more than one MP is nor how likely it would be. They simply state it as a worthless statement that could potentially confuse people reading in to thinking that they would have a more confusing time with PR systems.

But there is no guarantee PR would increase turnout in a general election or make Parliament more diverse, the report says.

There is no guarantee that PR or FPTP is better than one another for turn out according to the report, so turn out is a moot point. However the report DOES say that it would make parliament more diverse, check paragraph 6.169 of the report where it says the following...

The consequence is that more parties become represented in assemblies and parliaments, and in the case of the devolved jurisdictions, this has improved opportunities for local parties and small parties to compete with the large three parties usually represented at Westminster.

Quite clearly it says that far from PR not being guaranteed to make parliament more diverse it says that it is very likely. Indeed this is one of the reasons that FPTP apologists use as to why PR is supposedly bad...it seems as though when it comes to towing the party line on this issue anything goes in trying to play down the importance of PR systems despite more independant reviews to the contrary.

It also warns that it could cause complications between the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

It actually says that it needs to be taken into consideration with House of Lords and that further analysis would be needed. There is no explicit mention of "complications" in a two house political system, so where has this claim come from? In fact there is only one mention of the word "complication" in the whole document and it is nowhere near the issue of the house of lords. Far from just misrepresenting PR systems in this report the BBC obviously feels it needs to make things up to discredit them too!

In the end the facts are simple. Labour hold between 48 and 96 seats more than they should based on public opinion, and despite there being working examples in our own union of PR systems working, not being too complicated, not reducing turn out, and making government more representative of the people this government is going to do whatever it can to keep hold of FPTP until it gets over the hurdle of what will be a messy general election between 2009 and 2010. It's despicable, it's an example of everything that's wrong with modern "democracy" and it is authoritarian bullshit that has to end as soon as possible.