I'm glad I am not the only one who has picked this up. I'm about to e-mail her on two of her answers in particular. I'll put a copy on this blog. Actually it would appear that these answers were prepared before today otherwise she would surely have been aware that the "review" had been published.

I have e-mailed Ms H as below. I wonder if anybody else will do similarly. Why is MVC not suitably castigating her? I do not expect a reply - that would be out of line with normal Labour practice where PR is concerned.

I think you are flattering the report when you say that it is "academic". The "review" was carried out with one conclusion in mind: that for Westminster we hang onto FPTP.

'Dear Ms Harman,

"She (Thatcher) was as every bit as nasty as all the men in her cabinet. Feminism is about progressive politics and solidarity with other women. Thatcher was neither".

"We have introduced proportional representation in European elections, Scottish council elections and London Assembly elections. We'll shortly be publishing a review of how the new systems worked. But the evidence suggested is that it doesn't boost turnout and people find it complicated"

The above are from answers in today’s Independent. (It is interesting that you say "We'll SHORTLY be publishing a review". I've had a copy of that report on my desk for some time now. So presumably either your answers were prepared some time ago or you had taken your eye off the ball!)

For what it is worth - given that this so called "review" was nothing more than a phoney temporising device - here is what the report said about perceived "complication", and turnout:-

"We do not find, on balance, any evidence to suggest that voters find one voting system easier or more confusing than another voting system." (para 6.170)

Proportional systems were found, on international comparison, to be associated with higher voter turnout than First Past the Post and other majoritarian systems. (para 7.97)"

But in any case your side-stepping reaction to the question on proportional representation was in line with what we have come to expect from New Labour politicians.

The way we elect our representatives is fundamental to what you refer to as "progresive politics", a fact high-lighted by the very fact that Thatcher was able to come to power in the first place. For nearly two decades she was able to ram down the throats of the MAJORITY her vicious reactionary policies even though she never had the support of more than a third of the electorate. And it is worth noting that in 1983 she owed here majority of 144 entirely to the fact that the LibSDP got a mere 23 seats instead of around 160 that their share of votes - more than a quarter of all votes cast - would have entitled them under a rational system.

In 1997 we were led to believe that the Thatcher era had at last led Labour to see the light; hence their unequivocal commitment to a referendum on changing to PR. However, when victory was achieved with a huge majority under FPTP (even though unsupported by 69% of the electorate) the tribalists took over, and the manifesto commitment was cynically abandoned. This has led to a much greater New Labour achievement: an elective dictatorship unsupported by almost 80% of the electorate!

Two further questions to you: (1) - are we likely to see the final honouring of the referendum commitment? and (2) - if PR systems (particularly STV) are so hopelessly complicated, as you claim to believe, are we to infer that the Irish (both North and South), who have had STV for many years, are more intelligent, and are therefore more able to comprehend the art of putting 1,2,3 on a form than are the English (or the Scots whose intelligence will apparently decline when it comes to Westminster elections)

Finally it does astonish me that the Labour leaders cannot see that, by reneging on the 1997 referendum commitment, they could, after the next election, very well again find themselves on the opposition benches instead of leading a left-of-centre coalition

Best wishes,

Joe Patterson

PS I should perhaps add that I am one of the many Labour members who have resigned from the party. I resigned precisely on the issue of the party's bad faith in so cynically abandoning the most fundamental commitment in the 1997 manifesto. I shall not be returning unless or until the commitment is honoured.'

You didn't expect Hattie to be straight with the electorate, did you?