Sir.–With regard to your item concerning the turn-out in elections, I feel that people are disillusioned because politicians, both local and national, are really only interested in the public when they are looking for our votes.

Once we have voted, whatever the turnout, they claim to have a mandate to do whatever they want.

There are certain words and phrases that politicians use which seem to validate their illusions of being "in touch" and thus are used ad nauseum. For the most part, these are meaningless and yet are used all the time. They include:- Choice – Between what? One set of selfserving politicians and another?

Change – Again from what to what?

Transparency – Was transparency in play over the Manydown issue? I don't think so.

Consultation – This, as far as I can see, means asking those in favour to validate the proposed policy in question.

Affordable housing – This means nothing.

I have asked local politicians from Basingstoke MP Maria Miller downwards, and nobody seems to be able to define it.

At a national level, we need politicians who have lived normal lives, holding down regular jobs and facing regular everyday issues – not politically-motivated people who move straight from university to the research departments of the main parties, before becoming special advisors and then MPs.

At the end of the day, politicians need to remember that they are the servants of the people, and not vice-versa.

Lastly, I would never fail to vote. My father fought a war to allow me that privilege.

However, I think that consideration should be given to the Australian model of making voting compulsory, and I do regard the spoiling of a ballot paper as a legitimate contribution if you feel that nobody really represents your views.

–Chris Aris, Address withheld.

Sir.–Low turn-out is a perennial issue but it does appear to be worsening – nationally as well as locally (article and editorial May 10, above).

Rather than ‘why don't people vote?’ or ‘how can we get more people to vote’, I think it's informative to turn the question round and ask: ‘Why do people vote?’ It seems to me there are three main reasons. First, they will turn out on the basis of ‘established brand loyalty’ – the declining but still significant minority who ‘always vote for X political party’.

Second, they will turn out in response to an effective campaign based on an issue that they believe will directly affect them – the threat of unwelcome local development is an example.

Third, they will turn out to support an individual who, whether through political or other activities, has made themselves known and liked (or at least respected) locally.

I suggest that the decline in brand loyalty may well be irreversible – we are seeing it internationally as well as here, and it is perhaps the main factor that opens the door for single issue or extremist parties, and in some cases for purely ‘local’ brands, such as Community Campaign Hart. It is, I believe, the main factor at work, just as decades ago it was the main factor behind much larger turn-outs. The exception is where a nation votes for one individual against another for a position of real power, as in the examples of the French and US presidencies.

Can anything be done? One possibility is that the localism agenda could make a big difference, but only in places where parish or neighbourhood councils summon up the energy and courage to bring forward significant proposals for local development.

For our borough, we just might see increased turn-out if, and when, whatever administration is in power responds to the localism agenda with some truly innovative, rule-breaking and game-changing propositions, giving incumbents and opposition some real meat to base their campaigns on!

–Cllr Horace Mitchell, Burghclere, Highclere and St Mary Bourne Ward, Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council.

Sir.– In my part of the Oakley ward I think the voters matched the lethargy of the candidates.

The only electioneering that happened was a leaflet through the door for the Conservatives.

Labour and Liberal candidates were conspicuous by their absence. If they think it is such a foregone conclusion, why expect the electorate to bother.

Another point regarding this election was that the fact that it was local seemed to have been totally overlooked. The party political broadcasts stressed the strengths or failings of each of the major parties at the central government level, none of which had any real relevance to the local issues.

The broadcast media also treated the exercise as a referendum on the performance to date of the Coalition Government – as such the point of a local election became obscured. We should have been voting on candidates’ ability to represent the people at the local level on local issues.

I suppose we just have to accept that we get the democracy that we deserve if we don't do anything about it!

–Alan F Shout, Address withheld.