"I don’t like oligarchies. I distrust consensus. I hate fudge. I relish contrast, competition and choice. These are saving qualities. I began with a cliché and so will end with one. The call for consensus in politics is a siren voice. "

So Wishy-Washy Cameron' is the man for you then.

Never underestimate luck, with a little bit of ability it will get you to the top.

Also Brown would love to be underestimated as it would make life so much easier dealing with the "Smarms" of the"Cameron and Osbourne persuasion".

David Gillespie, Glasgow,

Matthew is undoubtably right. Big tent politics may be good for a circus but I am looking forward to the sharpening of Knives after Blairs departure. From trident to the environment
civil liberties to Iraq it would be refreshing for the political Parties to embrace a new public mood for serious debate. Cameroonies misjudge the mood music with their West London Media friends hoping to ape Blair. Lets hope within all the Parties comes a refreshing emphasis on cutting edge ideas. Well done Matthew, When are you coming back up to Ipswich to discuss the real issues?

craig Macartney, Ipswich, Britain

'A political party is a kind of forcing-house for the growth of new ideas and spirits'???

A political party, of either colour, is a means of maintaining the power of the same old people with the same old ideas. Honest MPs - Parris himself, or Portillo - are speedily sabotaged by the establishment, and ejected as the foreign matter they are.

Root-and-branch revision of our culture is essential. Why not try democracy?

Noel Falconer, COUIZA, France

Brown & Sarkozy are very similar in their methods it seems.
The Sarko sneakily removing the clause on free trade , [ aided & abetted by the Germans ] is the same as our Gordon proclaiming he is the benefactor of all good things in his budget , but then we find all the sneaky things in the small print. " The devil is in the detail "
I t will be interesting to watch the two leaders encircling each other with deep suspicion
in future negotiations.
My bet is that Brown will be no match for Sarkozy, who does have a healthy mandate which gives him enormous confidence, unlike Mr Brown.

Maggie Millington, Brittany, France

Could anyone called Clegg actually become Prime Minister? Nick is probably as good a choice as any, but in the spirit of personalised number plates, isn't a (temporary) name-change warranted here? Look at past names of our leaders: Churchill, Attlee, Macmillan, Blair all have a certain echo to them. The plan falls down when we come to Wilson, Callaghan or Major, and Thatcher sounds too vocational to be taken seriously. But Clegg? Prime Minister Clegg? First Lord of the Treasury Clegg? A lead ballon has more resonance. Hasn't Nick got a favourite uncle blessed with a different name? Or could he not ameliorate the name a bit, like Cleggheaton, for example, or Clegg-Prosser, or Harvey-Clegg. Any of those would lend a certain kind of feng shui to any door with his name on, a door, perhaps, that might one day also have 10 written on it.

Mike Mitchell, Spalding, England

I also don't like oligarchies & prefer competition. However our current electoral system doesn't provide it. I don't know that there is much truth to Matthew's claim that the prospect of forming part of a coalition inhibits putting forward new ideas - the need to be part of a big tent party certainly inhibits them, ask Howard Flight.

The electoral system entrenches the big parties in power - taking it is turn to act as government or to act as the escape valve for the public's dienchantment with the current government - while trying to prove that they are still close enough to whatever is the alleged middle ground to take over next time.

If Brown is, accidentally or otherwise, going to shake up that consensus by bringing in people outside the political consensus, or even LibDems, then it is difficult to see that as other than an improvement, even from a low base.

neil craig, glasgow, scotland

A correct point of view and one which has been verified by studies on the way groups work. A terrible problem arises in groups where consensus is believed to be more important than telling the truth. The problem even has a name, "groupthink". Everyone goes with the group, even if privately they think the group has the wrong idea. The net result is that ideas aren't given proper discussion and often turn out to be dangerously wrong. Dingdong politics is an effective way of avoiding groupthink.

John Small, Faversham, UK

I cannot figure out how Ashdown or any other politician with political views different from NuLab could have served in a NuLab government? It's surely bizarre.

Doug, Manchester, England

This is the first of many "brown blunders" he will try too hard to show he has changed his spots and fail dismaly and if Cameron plays pmqs correctly he will revert to type and thats him finished.

mitch, wolverhampton, england

I don't like oligarchies and consensus either.

Let's get out of the Fourth Reich (EU) now! While we still can!

Daniel, Milton Keynes, UK

You are pretty much out of luck then.

We are in a period of dingy slush for the political weather forecast. No bracing rain storms, no brilliant sunny days.

Parties tend to mean less and less. Individual views among politicians tend to mean less and less, organizational views and values tending to dominate.

It is precisely the same in the United States. I suspect the British situation derives from social shifts towards American values.

Few words the leading Democrats say in their campaigns couldn't have been said by Republicans.

If you will, it is poltical correcness writ large. Or a world of marketing and advertising, of store aisles filled by two big companies' brands.

A pleasant or interesting face plus a pleasant or interesting voice - these are the contemporary political requirements.

The ability to avoid directly answering a question, while seeming to, is crucial.

Politics is becoming acting which is why more actors are becoming politicians.

John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada

Damn right, Matthew Parris.

John Peters, Swansea,

I think it's all much simpler. The Lib dems are essentially a Scottish tribe in origin, having their ancestral home up north. Since the Scottish Nationalists are firmly ensconced as the great rival to the Labour Party, the only way left to GB of keeping a toe-hold, if not a foot-hold, in his homeland is by wooing those Caledonians who still believe in the UK. Thus he can a present a joint British-Scottish front.

Francis Tuttle, London,

"We have a Prime Minister without people-handling skills, combined with a lack of appreciation of his own limitations. Disaster beckons.

Henry Curteis, LONDON sw15, UK"

I hope so!!!!!

Mike Thomas, Rotherham,

Parris has already laid more punches on Gordon in two weeks than he managed with TB in ten years. I feel like saying to those Labour mps, "You short sighted idiots!"

kevin molloy, liverpool,

The way I see it , Brown pretended to intervene bcause he wants to avoid a referendum too,.to promote the appearance that we stll have a choice.
German ministers will openly tell us that we don't need a referendum because Blair signed the constitution in 2004.

This whole eu absorption has been built on such lies and deception, I cannot understand anyone who is not suspicious of the end 'vision'.

KACEY, Plymouth, England

I agree that coalition stifles essential debate when it comes to issues such as the provision of health services, education, foreign policy, etc. However, the policy debates that we need to have in these areas are not also required when it comes to Northern Ireland, which is the role Mr. Brown apparently had in mind for Lord Ashdown. The aim of ensuring lasting peace in Northern Ireland is best met by appointing someone, like Lord Ashdown, who has already proven his skills elsewhere.

Tim Barrow, London, UK

Our 'nominated' Prime Minister is credited with many achievements during his time at Number 11. But I struggle to see any lasting positive effects from any of them ! Independence for the Bank of England meant dumping responsibility on somebody else and the tax credit system is loathed - even by the poor stressed out staff at the Revenue ! He is , of course. a dabhand at taking part in press calls dishing out taxpayers money as if it came from his own personal bank account.!

So I can not wait for him to take over this week. What big announcement will we rejoice at ? What great big idea will he trumpet from his new doorstep ? What brilliant minds will he promote to his cabinet ? What self righteous moralising pseudo religious pap will he spout when taking the short walk from number 11 to number 10 ?

And importantly, what will be his cunning plan ? Less government (or less Brown) ? More choice ? Extra bank holidays?

Cunning plan ? Or one of Baldrick's turnips!

D Latham, Marlborough, Wiltsthire

The two words which came out of your article and describe Gordon to a tee are"clunking fist".He tries to have full control of everything,just look at the economy,just look at the rules on taxation,in fact just look at the last ten years.
Whatever has been done always has had Gordon and the treasury in the background controlling the finance.
You are right we have to have clear boundries between the parties to know what we are voting for.Cameron is to like Blair for any meaningful difference for the voters.The Lib-Dems are too like NuLabour.The parties have to stand up and actually state their core values,which at the present seem to be to much alike and media orientated.

Nigel Wheatcroft, Wimbledon, uk

Matthew is quite right, theoretically we have adversarial politics which examines proposals in detail before they are adopted. In practice (apart from the 80s) we've had one party state Butskellist politics since WW2. Everyone being in the same tent is no guarantee it's the right tent, generally the contrary

John Ledbury, Kings Lynn, England

Gordon Brown's offer to Lib Dems was either incredibly devious, or incredibly badly considered. How could the Lib Dems possibly have accepted, when their policies differ from Labour's so fundamentally in certain respects? A PR system tends to produce coalition governments, but in that sort of situation each party retains its own identity, and the parties have to compromise to get their policies adopted. That is not such a bad thing. However, I tend to agree with you, Matthew, that an adversarial system, whereby policies are rigorously opposed and criticised in public, would probably produce a better result.

Cathy , Bristol, UK

Brown did this because he is desperate to look different, innovative, positive, forward thinking and inclusive. He did it for the same reason he made his phantom tax cut earlier this year - for the headlines thinking we would be blind to the realities of it.

Yet his attempts to make himself look more cuddly and likeable are working to a certain extent. People are showing that they are prepared to give him a chance. I would admit to being impressed with some things I've heard even if the suspicion remains that it will just be a headline with no follow through.

Brown has the chance this week to make an immediate impact on issues such as Iraq and Europe with bold and innovative measures that are more than mere headline grabbers. Now that he has the big job can he make the big bold moves or do we have another prime minister like Wilson, with a great intellect deployed mostly on damage limitation, political chicanery and glossy but ultimately empty promises?

Paul Owen, Birmingham, UK

Well said! When we forsake competition for cooperation we fail to realise it is a short step to collusion. And before we know it we're on the road to tyranny.

James , Canberra, Australia.

It's a good article, saying that Brown's trying to avoid election, competition and debate - excpet that when debate inevitably occurs it is in a spirit of fury and rage. Every possible theory is examined by Parris in case it can explain what is going on with Brown, barring any which might be seen as too rude to an incoming Prime Minister.

Brown has a simplistic mentality, and continually finds it puzzling that the world does not conform with the simplicity that he sees.

We have a Prime Minister without people-handling skills, combined with a lack of appreciation of his own limitations. Disaster beckons.

Henry Curteis, LONDON sw15, UK

Well said Mr Parris

Trevor Holcroft, oxford, OXON