AN ELECTED DICTATORSHIP?

This from A TANGLED WEB: A TANGLED WEB: AN ELECTED DICTATORSHIP?: "AN ELECTED DICTATORSHIP? Get this. Last May, Labour won 36% of the vote, and the Conservatives won 33%. This resulted in 355 seats to Labour and 198 to the Conservatives. Had the Conservatives won 36% of the vote and Labour had come second with 33%, they would still have won a substantial majority of seats! This all links back into the changes wrought by the Boundary Commission back in the early 1990's. As a consequence of these alterations, the Conservatives won the 1992 election securing 43% of the vote but only enjoyed a 21 seat majority over Labour which won 34% of the vote! Writing in the Spectator, Peter Oborne covers this vital area. It is disturbing to think that the UK has become a virtual elected dictatorship in which the leftists in Labour get to stay in power in perpetuity even though more people vote for the Conservative Party. It is also a MASSIVE damnation on goons like Norman Fowler who presided over the carve up of seats in such an ineffective way. Political debate in the UK has been forever changed by an unelected quango - the Boundary Commission - and it may mean that the Left rules us for the forseeable future." In the comments section somone argues for PR to solve this inbalance and argument I have seen several times, the answer: The problem here is not one of PR, in my opinion, but one of treating each Party fairly. In 2005, Labour voters cast 27,600 votes for each MP, Conservatives cast 45,000. How is that fair? It's not, that's how. It is a skew that is destroying our Parliamentary democracy by keeping Labour in power forever.