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?
  

The 'Heirs to Blair' theme of current Conservative thinking is further reinforced today.  Former News of the World editor, Andy Coulson is going to try to do for the Conservatives what Alastair Campbell did for New Labour.

Michael Howard is well known to be angry at Cameron's grammar schools policy.  What will he think therefore of this move? In case you didn't catch it, the Newsnight confrontation between Howard and Alastair Campbell is still available for viewing on the BBC2 website (click forward 57 minutes for the good stuff).

The most interesting take on all this in today's papers comes from former Number 10 Spin Doctor, Lance Price in The Telegraph ('Cameron needs a media strategy')  In it Price explains that Cameron is doing well on the presentation front already, but the vision and strategy are lacking.

He isn't wholly persuasive in his arguments.  He claims New Labour prior to 1997 put forward coherent messages about what they were for, not just what they were against.

By doing that, New Labour kept all but a tiny minority of their traditional supporters on board and built a coalition of support that proved unstoppable.

My recollection of 1997 probably differs from Lance Prices in a number of ways.  But I seem to recall New Labour doing a very good job at bashing John Major's government and not such a great job at proposing an alternative vision any greater than the 5 pledges on the back of a credit card.

Also in today's news

There was considerable interest in the movements of the British housing market earlier this week with the Daily Express and Daily Mail leading with diametrically opposing front pages ('House prices still soaring' in the Express and 'Is the house price boom over' in the Mail) For an authoritative view have a look at The Economist ('Fighting over their castles')  Nothing particularly new, but a typically robust overview that you would expect from that magazine.

There are two big policy debates raging at the moment in the newspapers: Grammar Schools and Housing.  By rights the former shouldn't be commanding the headlines it has as it is a re-statement of existing policy.  Margaret Hodge brings a genuinely new angle to the second with her remarks about "indigenous" people in her constituency who can't get a house.

The commentators are queuing up to guide you through the arguments.  You can read the main protagonists.  David Cameron in today's Times sets out his argument ("This sterile fixation with grammar schools is a dead end")  Janet Daley is so angry in her counterblast ("When did wanting the best for your children become a crime?") that it becomes rather entertaining.

Steve Richards, in The Independent, does a much better job at shedding light on the subject in "Cameron must learn the lessons of this pointless furore over grammar schools".  It seems that the newspaper's sub editor has done Richards a disservice by titling it so, as Richards actually concludes that Cameron has acted perfectly properly and that its the right wing press that are keeping the Conservative Party from achieving its greatest potential.

On the issue of housing there is "Ignore myths, stick to the facts" from Michael White in The Guardian and "Shame on you, Margaret Hodge" in the Telegraph (which is worth reading for the comments alone).

However, the best article of the day is in The Times, penned by David Aaronovitch.  "Come paddle with me in the soupy Middle Sea" draws the grammar schools and Housing strands together in a hymn of praise for the centreground in politics today. 

"[Parties moving to the centre] is only a difficulty if you think that, say, climate change is either not a threat or quite fun, or that Britain should become a very high-tax or very low-tax economy. If you don’t think those things it is positively capricious to blame politicians for not conjuring up imaginary storms just to keep you entertained.

Outrageous policy pronouncements like those by Margaret Hodge and Janet Daley sell more newspapers than prosaic arguments of the centreground.  However, that doesn't make grammar schools right. It just means that politicians of the centre need to work harder on presentation.