Evelyn Waugh said, `It was a typical triumph of modern science to find the only part of Randolph (Churchill) that was not malignant and remove it.'
I'm not sure which is worse, to misattribute the quotation to Noel Coward, or to mangle it completely, while enclosing the mess in inverted commas, giving the impression it is verbatim.
I do not expect newspaper columnists to know such things, but I would have hoped the Times employed a literate sub-editor or two.

Bill Boot, London, U.K.

I thought it was deply significant that Blair took part in a Catherine Tate sketch or drove up to X Factor auditions demanding to know if he had the X Factor - it trivialises the whole post of PM and one does think 'Haven't you got a day job already?'

carole, London, UK

Could Gladstone and Disraeli not have been described in the same "substance v fluff" terms? Don't they still hold the records for the longest and shortest budget speeches?

Nick, London,

Don't stop with politics. Shred the whole culture of celebrity and all of its spin offs. Shred the culture that makes young women view themselves as barbie dolls, young men into lightweights carying ipods and crying themselves to sleep when it gets tough, shred the me, me, me (or, in political terms, the 'my rights', 'my rights', 'my rights') view of society which makes people treat each other with contempt . Shred the culture in the city which produces the 'if it makes money its right' view of law and professional integrity. And last but not least can we kill off the 'its not my fault - why doesn't spomebody else do something' view of the world.

I cannot bring myself to vote for Labour as with their parternalism they are part of the problem - but can I bring myself to vote for the Tories and a leader who thinks that the British people yearn for Tony Blair MkII?

Hugh, London,

From a personal perspective, I agree entirely with the conclusions of the article, that it is substance that matters more than style. It will be interesting to see over the next couple of years whether the electorate as a whole feels similar and treats running the country as a serious business, or whether they will continue to be beguiled by the cult of personality and presentation

Ian Blanchard, St Albans, UK

IC - I agree that the 'third reason' was expressed somewhat infelicitously, but I think his point is sufficiently clear, and what's more, a very good one. The inexorable rise of David Cameron on the strength of a blog, a famly and no policies is a terribly worrying sign for British politics, and if Gordan Brown can effectuate a change in climate towards a more serious political debate the country will be much the better for it.

Luke, London,

"they would prefer that those who serve them spent their spare time thinking about the economy or public services than in pathetic populist posturing"

Quite right Tim. Plaudits all round to Mr Brown and his team of substances for Mr Brown's voluntary interrogation by the incisive politcal analyst Anthony Minghella; celebrity politics well shredded there, I think. Hang on...

Bruce, UK, Malvern,

"Thirdly, that may be because, deep down, people know that politics is too important than Pop Idol"

Say what???

IC, Liverpool,

If I have properly sussed your conclusion, I hope so too. On the other hand, if substance is the new fluff then fluff is the new substance and in that respect you look like being right. I can’t see fluff disappearing because neither the politicians nor the media will allow it. Firstly, it is easier to expand but, more to the point, it is frequently the vehicle for disguising substance. How else do you explain PM’s questions? Substance is specific and limited, fluff is non-specific and illimitable. Ideal political and media fodder. Surely what you mean is that we need less of both. You can no longer hold an in-depth discussion in this country because it would broach the unspoken parameters of business and society. Hence tabloid Britain; but at least we could have less repetitive material and more diversity. More coverage of other people - especially other than the small clique of PC politicians - of other subjects, of Europe, and more widely. Try it.

Henry Percy, London, UK

Escapism and voyeurism seem to paint only a fraction of a problem that could also be called apathy. An apathy that reflects Britain's loss of her Empire its societies reaction to it. The term 'Englishman' evokes a weaker image today than it would have pre WW2.

With voter turnout at some lowly 60%, why is our country sleeping perfectly well at night while Africa rots despite rhetoric painting a feel good picture about efforts. Iraq? I dont even need to talk about the public reaction to that. Weak at best. Britain is directly responsible for the complete turmoil in the Middle East., and yet the news item on the masses mind is the fate of a poor little rich kid and her naivety.

While he was FM Jack Straw in a unprecedented statement acknowledged that many of the worlds conflicts today are the result of our history. Why wont the "englishman" stand up an be counted?

Dont worry Britain, go back to your sofas and watch Big Brother, those government chaps will take care of it all.

Varun Mahan, London, UK

Great sentiment, Mr Hames, but you are catastrophically wrong if you think that politicians are going to make a stand on this. There's too much for them to lose. The Third Way of Clinton and New Labour is based entirely on adopting policy in response to raw popular emotion, and in gaining power it has been spectacularly effective - just as a man carrying lollipops would be on entering a class of 8 year olds.

Your assertion that deep down the public know that politics is [more] important than Pop Idol is, regrettably, wishful thinking. Most consider that politics is only of any relevance to them when their self-interest is at stake, and that the only basis on which they should become involved is as a warrior for that self-interest. That adult citizenship comes with a social requirement to focus contribution outside the boundaries of self-interest is a concept of which most are totally unaware.

The first step must be to de-infantilise large sections of the population.

Simon Stephenson, Windermere, UK

it was Evelyn Waugh who said that about Randolph Churchill, not Coward

george, london,

The problem here could be that once a taste is acquired for what is thought to be a fad, ongoing satisfaction may be required if there is staying power.

A good example may be the growing numbers of people now committed to ever larger clothing sizes after giving fast food, crisped potato and sugar water drinks a try.

It may be that the electorate has become more permanently partial, like some of those it elected in the past, to a bit of fluff.

dr venables preller, Warminster, UK

Evelyn Waugh plagiarised Noël Coward's remark on Randolph Churchill: "A typical triumph of modern science to find the only part of Randolph that was not malignant and remove it".

Andrew Quest, London,