The FreeThink blog appears to have two kinds of readers: those attracted by party political comment; and those attracted by policy debate.  This weekend's papers has plenty on offer for both.

On the party political track, we have the fevered speculation about the health or otherwise of the Tory party - with columnists such as Andrew Rawnsley ('Could Cameron turn out to be the Tories' Kinnock?') and Janet Daley ('Tories must stop their modernisation mania') seemingly conspiring with the denizens of Conservative Home - and a fair share of opposition bloggers - to stoke a crisis in the Cameron project. In a similar vein but with very different conclusions, William Rees-Mogg in The Times makes a fairly bizarre case that the Ealing Southall and Sedgefield results represent a disaster for Brown - without so much as a nod to the fact that the government vote almost always gets squeezed at by-elections, especially in previously safe seats ('Why Brown should be reeling over Ealing').

Those who foam at the mouth for policy have an even meatier menu to choose from:

• Lynsey Hanley, author of the recently acclaimed book Estates, uses an article in The Guardian to make a strong case for the limitations of family elder-care. Certainly, it is well-known that it's not always possible for older people to live with family members, but Hanley's argument that extended family living arrangements may offer a less-than-ideal solution to the problems of care in old age even when they are possible perhaps represents a salutary corrective to the idealized picture of family responsibility painted by many on the right. ('Don't assume family care is always best for our elderly'.) No one wants to leave welfare in the hands of an impersonal state, but the social care system has no more of a monopoly on neglect and abuse than blood relatives have on the social commodities of trust and companionship.

• Writing in the FT ahead of today's housing green paper, Mark Clare of Barratt Developments calls for further reforms to the planning system to facilitate an expansion in housing supply.  Echoing Tim Leunig's paper for CentreForum, 'In my back yard', he advocates "giving local authorities a greater incentive to promote and escure development for the benefit of the communities for which they are responsible". Clare also argues that publicly-funded housebuilding deserves more consideration, and that housebuilders face a challenge of keeping costs down whilst improving environmental standards in the years ahead. ('Release land to build the homes Britain needs'.)
• The vocational training debate rumbles on with the revelation in The Guardian that a school in Sunderland has fitted out a classroom especially to train pupils for jobs in a call-centre. The school claims that the scheme is preparing pupils for work; the NUT argues that the scheme is depressing pupils' aspirations. ('School with call centre training site in classroom criticized'.)
• Finally, an IFS study has found that the new university grant system will benefit only those with household incomes over £17,500, since the poorest students already receive full grants and fee remission. ('New university grants "are no help to poorest"'.) I thought that was the point, though. After all, families with annual incomes in the region of £20-£30,000 are hardly well off, and may - with good reason - be just as averse to incurring debt to pay for education as those with lower incomes. Moreover, raising the threshold helps reduce the disincentive effect on earnings which all means-tested systems create in some form or another. Or must all policies be measured exclusively by their impact on the very poorest?