In 1995 I aspired to become a Labour candidate in the Saddleworth and Littleborough byelection. The party preferred Phil Woolas. When he become my MP in 1995, I followed his career closely. I got to know him and I found him to be a hard-working member and a decent and conscientious person. He assisted many hundreds of constituents. I was delighted when he achieved ministerial rank. Now, following the decision of the electoral court (Report, 6 November), he has suffered massive financial penalties, been stripped of his livelihood and had his political career blighted. It appears to me that the penalties are grossly disproportionate. If his election leaflets were ill-judged, they would normally be unremarkable in the hurly-burly of a close-fought election. His dismissal highlights the need for a review of electoral law.

Jack Schofield

Oldham

• We will doubtless hear much from Mr Woolas about democracy being damaged by the court decision to bar him as an MP. Many of us have faced Labour campaigns where their literature contained intentional lies and wild exaggerations, but have not had the resources to challenge them in the courts. Elwyn Watkin is to be thanked for his service in helping to establish a clear line between what is and what isn't acceptable in our democracy. In future, candidates will face disqualification if they tell deliberate lies. Our democracy is greatly enhanced as a result.

Dr Mick Taylor

Lib Dem candidate, Leeds Central, 2010

• In making their judgment against Phil Woolas in Oldham, the judges agreed that his supporters had lied about the links between the Lib Dem candidate and extremists in the minority ethnic community. Did they consider, I wonder, what would have happened if the campaign literature of the Labour party had said that the same Lib Dem candidate had no intention of keeping his promise on tuition fees, early savage cuts, raising VAT, or Trident?

Rob Bygrave

Sherborne, Dorset

• You justify (Editorial, 6 November) ejecting Phil Woolas from parliament on the ground that "election must be conducted according to the law and the courts have to enforce the law". But the court did not enforce the law against Peter Griffiths, who won Smethwick in 1964 by using the slogan "If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour". The then prime minister, Harold Wilson, called Griffiths a "parliamentary leper". But the final decision was left to Smethwick voters, who got rid of him in the 1966 election. I think the coalition should have left it to the electors of Oldham.

Randhir Singh Bains

Gants Hill, Essex