Letters for Fair Votes

Last month I wrote to Lord Falconer regarding his statements on reform of the voting system.
In essence I wanted to know the government position on this:

"We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system."
Labour Party Manifesto, 1997.

I have received a reply:

24 June 2005

Dear Mr Hamster,

Electoral Reform

Thank you for your letter to the Lord Chancellor dated 24th May 2005, regarding the voting system employed to return members of Parliament to the House of Commons.

I can Confirm that an internal review is currently underway within the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which will review the new electoral system introduved for the devolved administrations, the European Parliament and the Londom Assembly. his review is at an early stage, and decisions regarding any steps for the review will be taken id due course.

The government still maintains that a referendum remains the right way to agree any change for Westminister.

Thank you for writing to Lord Falconer and I hope this is of use to you.

Yours...

It's not a great deal of use to be honest. First paragraph is polite, no problem, but no information. The second is completely irrelevant to my question. The third is an attempt to answer my question without answereing my question.

Furthermore, it bears a striking resemblance to this reply received by doctorvee:

Regarding Mr Stephen’s first concern [making my vote count], I can confirm that an internal review is currently underway within my Department, which will review the new electoral systems introduced for the devolved administrations, the European Parliament and the London Assembly. This review is at an early stage, and decisions regarding any next steps for the review will be taken in due course.

The government still maintains that a referendum remains the right way to agree any change for Westminster.

And that doctorvee post has a trackback reference to this reply to Murky which also contains exactly the same reply. It's matching evasive half truths all round. Hurray! OK, I understand that the government has a standard position, but when that standard position contains no information and is repeated word for word to all and sundry, I'm not too pleased.

Right, another letter is what's needed.

Dear...
Thank you for your reply dated 24th June 2005. Unfortunately, I have not found the information it contains as useful as you had hoped.

Your reply states "The government still maintains that a referendum remains the right way to agree any change for Westminster."

This is not the position expressed in the 1997 Labour Manifesto:
"We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system."

My understanding of "appointed early" leads me to believe that the government has reneged on this commitment. I would like an explanation as to why this has happened. The only other possibility I can see is that I might have misunderstood "appointed early". In this case, I would like an outline of the projected timetable for the referendum, in order to better understand the phrase (and the commitment).
Yours...

To the postbox, I say.

Feel free to cut, paste, print and send your own version btw. It's appears to be a standard and accepted practice.