Sir, Conservatives esctatic about getting 44 per cent of the vote at the local elections forget that this was achieved on a much lower turnout than there will be at the next general election. And it is common knowledge that small turnouts work to the detriment of the Labour Party. We should also recall the fact that Scotland, where the Tories polled less than 16 per cent in 2005, didn’t vote last Thursday. David Cameron shouldn’t start preparing to move into Downing Street just yet.

Tim Mickleburgh

Grimsby

Sir, I take issue with Nicholas Timpson’s complacent assessment of Labour’s electoral misfortunes (letter, May 3). This is a case of chickens coming home to roost. Successive Labour governments have singularly failed to think through the consequences of their actions. The impact of the abolition of the 10p tax rate on the lower-paid was entirely foreseeable a year ago. Brown’s damaging raid on pensions is linked to the strikes at Grangemouth and it is now clear that the Chancellor has failed to think through the implications of his retrospective imposition of swingeing increases in car tax for larger cars. These were obviously aimed at the popular target of “Chelsea tractors” but will have a serious impact on the less well-off who cannot afford to change cars at will. Nobody likes taxes but retrospective taxation is unjust and rightly resented; Labour has only itself to blame.

Mike Sant

Basingstoke

Sir, The massive rejection of Labour on May 1 must lay to rest any idea that the present House of Commons is the true representative of the British people. So it is clearer than ever that parliamentary ratification of the Lisbon treaty, without the promised referendum, would be devoid of democratic legitimacy. The people would be under no moral obligation to accept such an outcome. Governments across the EU should reflect on this iron rule of the British constitution: “No Parliament may bind its successors.”

This unrepresentative Parliament may pass the Bill to ratify the Lisbon treaty, but other EU member states would be wise to regard that as no more than a provisional ratification, which may later be revoked after a retrospective referendum — even if the treaty had come into force by that time.

Dr D. R. Cooper

Maidenhead, Berks

Sir, I am saddened but not surprised that Dan Murphy (letter, May 3) has not voted since 2001 because of his concerns that his ballot paper number is recorded against his name on the corresponding number list. As a regular polling station presiding officer, I have heard this at every election. The simple fact is that this procedure is a legal requirement. If this did not happen, it would be impossible to investigate any allegation of electoral fraud or personation.

Once the corresponding number list is finished with, at 10 pm, it is sealed in an envelope that will be stored securely and cannot legally be opened again without a court order from the High Court or county court. They must be satisfied that an order is needed to help to prosecute for an election offence. This is a very rare step. The procedure is there to protect the integrity of the democratic process, not to undermine it.

Tony Nicholls

Swindon

Explore Letters

• Feedback