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?
  

Some of the grandest fromages of the political blogging world are about to launch their new vehicle in order to opine to the world.

Doughty TV is the rather odd name for a new internet video chanel that promised 4 hours of original programming a night.

The blogging world will no doubt take an active interest.  Can they produce the same magic that worked so well for Conservative Home and YouGov?

Unlike Conservative Home - which was expressly linked to one political philosophy and one political party – Doughty TV's (stated) political purpose is much grander.  Even their name is as politically neutral as it be.  Named after nothing more than the address from which much of the output will be filmed. 

Their main enemy is the Media Establishment itself. Like the shock jocks of the USA, they want to change the tone of political debate.

Its an interesting proposition - and you can see why it is so attractive to the right wingers who are behind it.

Their main bug bears can be seen from their chosen graphic (above) which, in the words of Tim Montgomerie "More than anything else, it summarises - for me - what 18DoughtyStreet Talk TV stands for."

As you can see - the plucky hero, at home in a green and pleasant land, takes aim at the Iron Men (the UN/EU, The BBC and Consensus Politics) that threaten to crush him, with the aid of some pretty nifty satellite technology.

However, my Iron men would have different labels on the front.  The 27 minute slot; soundbite culture, Ya-Boo politics and Westminster centric outlook are all equally establishment and equally pernicious, if not more so.

Whilst tilting at their particular windmills I wonder how long they will be able to carry frustrated politicos of other political persuasions with them.  By framing the Media Establishment’s ills so narrowly, how long will they keep the liberals and left-wingers watching?

For a few alternative views - check out Dave Hill and Doughty TV itself.