Peter Harris, I think that what Peter Gooderham meant was that Oliver Letwin should speak English that can be understood by the majority, not a quasi-legal gibberish only understood by a very small minority. I got bored afetr the first couple of paragraphs, as I didn't understand a word, so even if Oliver has something to say (quite likely) I didn't get the message.

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

>>When Conservative spokesmen express themselves like this, it is time my vote went elsewhere.

You mean , when politicians start talking to the public like they're grown-ups and letting us know that they're thinking about the most fundamental principles which underpin the governance of society (rather than just pouring out spin), your vote goes elsewhere. I agree it's rather vague and terminology ridden (possibly due to with length restriction - there's a full version on the Telegraph site which might be clearer), but I'd rather this than Blair's vacuity. Having said that, all political theorists talk like this and underpin all political parties, so you'd end up not being able to put your vote anywhere, if you tried to avoid it. This stuff is actually how the people who most control our lives think, so best join in I say, if you want to understand why your taxes go up and down (though that may just be to get votes, in truth).

Peter Harris, London,

Communism implemented (enforced) Marxism through the mechanism of a centralized state. Thus, while it is true that the terms of the debate have shifted somewhat away from economics, the fundamental ideological conflict remains the same--a conflict between total state and limited government.

Nathan Earle, Greenville, SC, USA

I totally agree! Of course, all of the work will be in the slow and steady translation of these unfamiliar models into ideas and examples that more people can understand, followed by the experiments and follow-up. I have been canvassing a lot of these ideas and examples with some success - it's a huge shift for people, but they can get quite excited about it - I think that this is because they start to feel a spark of that empowerment in themselves ...

H. Jewell, Toronto, Canada

Am I the only one who cannot understand a word of what Letwin is going on about ....? If this man is in charge of policy then Brown has nothing to worry about as the voters will not and do not understand the 'Cameron Conservatism' policies...

Andy Wigmore, London,

"First, a shift from an econocentric paradigm to a sociocentric paradigm. Secondly, a shift in the theory of the State from a provision-based paradigm to a framework-based paradigm. "

>>When Conservative spokesmen express themselves like this, it is time my vote went elsewhere.

Peter Gooderham, Cardiff, Wales

I believe Milton Friedman said - and I paraphrase - that he won all the economic arguments and lost all the political arguments. That is an important addition to the paradigm shifts that Oliver Letwin is discussing. It is true that free-market ideas have triumphed in the economic debate: but they remain, largely, unimplemented. The size of the state over the past 30 years or so has varied from around 38% to around 43% and is currently at the top end of that range. I would hope the Conservatives can develop an agenda to bring that down, at least to the bottom end of that range, and preferably well below. Otherwise, the intellectual triumph has been for nought.

Quentin Langley, Woking, UK

I disagree with James Gallagher. Establishing a better framework in which all of us act and make our decision is quite different from 'decentralising' decisions, even if a Milliband approach ever came about. Decentralising still implies decisions made by governments and public institutions at every level. I think what Letwin is about is the role of Government in establishing and maintaining the framework in which the rest of us live, act and make our decisions, in the private as well as the public sphere.

But I agree with James that few Conservatives will follow and endorse Letwin's argument; they - and the population generally - will need a much simpler explanation. And it will take stacks of patience as well as courage to break away from the present government's tendency to act - or react - every day and in every way, especially when we have grown so accustomed to a government that responds so quickly to all those siren calls for the government to 'do something'!

Horace Mitchell, Basingstoke, Hampshire

Is Oliver Letwin out to prove that a good is a barrier to political life?

"First, a shift from an econocentric paradigm to a sociocentric paradigm. Secondly, a shift in the theory of the State from a provision-based paradigm to a framework-based paradigm."

If he carries on writing like this he will disappear up his own agenda. Conservatism has to be a simple message put succinctly else he will lose a good percentage of those educated before 1990 and all those educated since.

There is no need for such grand but obscure eloquence, we are not discussing the voting patterns of lexicographers but the hopes and aspirations of people who read the Sun.

There is a case that such policy initiative has to convince the educated first, for them to disseminate the message. But when the nub of the matter is a 'paradigm' we will inevitably start to look at translations of Letwin leading to interpretations that could wilfully destroy the ideas; what is wrong with theory it's a good word.

Malcolm Turner, Alsager, England

Nice try to to explain that the Consevatives have not just been following focus group ideas to rebrand their party. Not sure your typical conservative will understand it though.
For me its simply a complex and possibly a better explanation of Milliband,s " I can" approach ie decentralise decisions as far as possible and empower people as much as possible.
The truth is that both parties are now occupying the same ground and the future winner will depend on which party will be able to convince the electorate who can manage prosperity and empowerment the better.

JAMES GALLAGHER, London, UK