Maybe parties themselves should be Darwinised out of existence. They don't seem able to support themselves and the argument for funding is based on the mistaken notion that they are a Good Thing. They are a means for a small cabal to seize resources and exert patronage to push through policies that people don't agree with. My representative's loyalty should be to me, not to head office.

John Ledbury, Kings Lynn, England

I find Portillo's writing to come straight from the Islington political chattering classes. A group which seems to assume that the general public are constantly demanding ever more socially liberal policies from their politicians. Then once enacted, a grateful public tenaciously holds onto these political gems and woe betide any opposition political party that refuses to accept the new real politic. The truth is very different. Most of the issues that REALLY matter to people are ignored by the politicians. Access to drugs when ill, care for old and sick relatives. Instead such liberal policies are usually foistered onto the public, driven by politicians own prejudices and powerful pressure groups which have the ear of influential politicians. The public just shrug their shoulders and bear the burden of more political tinkering. If Portillo thinks there is a groundswell of love for many of the liberal policies he espouses. He is more out of touch than I give him credit for.

Dr Kevin Law, Dundee, UK

As a schoolboy in Margaret Thatcher's time, I could name all of the Cabinet and describe their degree of wetness or dryness. Now I can't. Something has radically changed, which is that a responsible politican now has almost no freedom of action. This was symbolised by the handing over of monetary policy to the Bank of England. However a real battle over social policy is shaping up. When we realise that we can't afford the bill for divorce, politics will get interesting again.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

You are perhaps right to suggest that politics has not crystallised in the middle ground. It's more apt to say that it has settled in areas where there is least resistance. The Government may not think in soundbites, but it is assuredly the case that no policy will be adopted that is not capable of being championed with a simple one-liner. This, I believe, is the essence of the Third Way - not to be concerned about the effectiveness of a policy, nor with its intellectual precision, nor that it is internally consistent with whatever else is being done. All that matters is that it can be condensed into a few powerful supportive words that will be sufficient to defeat any intellectual critique, in an era when most of the population regard deliberation as wasteful indulgence.

Increasingly, capitalism seems to be about producing those things for which demand can be most easily manufactured. I really don't think there's much difference in the way political policy is now being decided.

Simon Stephenson, Windermere, UK

I like your point about the policies promoted by one party tending to set the basic mould for the other. It is reassuring, because it would be chaotic if things were constantly reversed. Also, an impression I had acquired from my lay position is that, over a period, certain changes in policy suggest themselves or arise - from the progress of a governing party - that are better or more conveniently dealt with by the other. Otherwise politics is a somewhat baffling business because, as you mentioned, John Reid takes over the Home Office, without as far as I know any particular experience of that department, makes a major revolutionary change against the express advice of his two predecessors, and then leaves. Why then should either personality or qualification matter all that much in these appointments in the face of this type of precedent? There are a lot of very competent people in Parliament.

Henry Percy, London, UK

The English Question will not go away. More and more English people are becoming aware of the unfairness of devolution, and with Brown as PM maybe even the BBC will give the issue coverage. How about a debate between Gordon Brown and a group of English nationalists? Of course it will never happen because Mr Brown knows that he would lose the argument. Well, if he refused to participate why not do it without him? Not in Scotland though, please.

Derek, Southampton, England

In my book Blair was extremely genuine and a true statesman: saying all the right words but delivering next to nothing other than manipulated statistics. His weakness was his lack of leadership, in particular his failure to be tough with his ministers who simply ignored or failed to fund all those initiatives. He carried too many friends (in the worst case, John Prescott) and a cabinet re-shuffle was never more than musical chairs. Far from working with a second rate cabinet, Brown has the opportunity to clear the dross and bring in some fresh blood who might be more concerned with reality and less with statistics provided from within their own departments. For example, a new chancellor who simplified the tax and benefits system (so that the managers and recipients could understand it) and who disposed of all the civil servants (and their pensions) who administer the chaos would be a delight to see!

Peter Hunter, Lincoln,

What an opportunity to clear away all the dross out of the Cabinet. Will he??? We can only hope but we have 2 years to test the metal of this man and he knows he has to really shine, perhaps that will be his incentive

Marian Oakley, Abbeyfeale, Limerick, Republic of Ireland

It is one thing to accept Devolution as a fact and another thing to deal with its consequences. It has to be clear that a Cameron Government would take action to deal with the West Lothian Question and barr MPs from devolved constituencies from voting in Westminster on devolved issues. This is quite simply an issue of fairness for England and having a Scottish PM for the next couple of years is only going to concentrate English minds on this issue.

Richard Marriott, Kidderminster, England

Sir,

I have always thought (and I still think so) that Michael Portillo would have been a better
Prime Minister than Tony Blair.
It's a shame that Portillo decided to leave the Commons in 2005, as if he had remained an M.P., he surely have become sooner or later, in a way or another Prime Minister.
It's really a vaste of talent for him to wrte in the newsppaers instead of doing history himself.
Portillo could have become either Foreign Secretary or Chancellor if the Exchequer under a fellow Conservative, and after some years P.M., as will happen with Brown, and happened earlier to Jim Callaghan in the seventies.
He should be brought back to the Commons and to government in due course. He is also still young.

ROSS HENRY, LONDON,

I am just looking forward to the pre-election boomlet in 2009...where is the money to come from this time?A newly instituted wealth tax perhaps ..exit Rausings,Abramovich,Green et al.

Chris Davies , Stalybridge, UK

If Brown plans to show a new face of Labour, he'd better make clean sweep. Straw is not a 'wise head' - he has always given the impression of a loyal retainer, but no Ivanhoe either.

A new PM can rarely have had such an opportunity to take a bold step away from the last, without risking his reputation or, frankly, the wrath of the electorate. The detractors have already had their day in the sun.

So, for all your perceived weaknesses, Gordon, go the whole hog!

Nev, Rudkøbing, Denmark

Very strange use of the word charismatic to describe Thatcher

r holmes, axbridge England,

If Blair's era is viewed with nostaliga by more than a handful of the electorate then Brown will have failed more disastrously than even his critics fear.

It will have been akin to the old communists viewing the Ceaucescu years as the golden age.

Edwin Thornber, Bucharest, Romania

Talent, Michael, what talent ? Blair's cabinet was already stuffed with the discredited second or even third division intellects (in the loosest sense). It will be quite interesting to find out where Brown is going to find competent people. From what I've seen on TV whenever any 'unknowns' appear they are truly awful and neither I nor you would put them in charge of the proverbial whelk stall. In fact this narrows down to Brown's biggest problem, he is surrounded with nonentities.which after ten years is all that is left. He has better hope (fast) that at least two emerge from the pack but I wish him luck. If they do appear, goodness know where they have been hiding all this time

Victor Cowen, Malaga, Spain