Until the 20th century, medicine was more like politics than physics. Its forecasts were often bogus and its record grim. In the 1920s, statisticians invaded medicine and devised randomised controlled trials. Doctors, hating the challenge to their prestige, resisted but lost. Evidence-based medicine became routine and saved millions of lives.

I make judgments about people and ideas individually - for me, parties are just a vehicle of convenience.

Markets and science show that some fields of human endeavour work much better than political decision-making. I think we could do much much better if we will face our problems honestly.

I want people to understand the barriers to serious government in order that more people take action.

The fundamental problem the Conservative Party has had since 1997 at least is that it is seen as 'the party of the rich, they don't care about public services.' This is supported by all serious market research. Another problem that all parties have is that their promises are not believed.

Political analysis is full of chess metaphors, reflecting an old tradition of seeing games as models of physical and social reality.

One of the things I wanted to do in the Department for Education was open up the policy making process and run things like wikis in open formats in order to a: start off with better ideas and then b: adapt to errors much faster than is possible with normal Whitehall systems.

Science advances by turning new ideas into standard ideas so each generation builds on the last.

TV news dominates politics and is extremely low-bandwidth: it contains a few hundred words and rarely uses graphics properly.

After 23 June 2016, the U.K. has to reorient national policy on many dimensions.

All the best companies quickly go downhill after the departure of people like Bill Gates - even when such very able people have tried very very hard to avoid exactly this problem.

A Brexit with a poor outcome will damage our country and lead to years of further division.

Surveillance legislation passed in good faith has been stretched well beyond its original purpose.

As attorney general I see my role as defender both of press freedom and of the fair administration of justice.

A careful examination of the information available, from previous counter-terrorism investigations, demonstrates that police have never come close to having to release any dangerous terrorist suspects as a result of time constraints.

There is a certain belief that so long as something is published in cyberspace there is no need to respect the laws of contempt or libel. This is mistaken.

Our personal data belongs to us. Government holds it on trust.

Paralysis in decision-making breeds frustration and contempt from the electorate, and provides the perfect seedbed for demagogues who fill the vacuum with populist simplicities, hatred of opposition and lies.

It is in nobody's interest that groups should find themselves excluded from society.

Our best hope in meeting the many challenges that Brexit brings for us is being willing to be open-minded about the options we may choose to pursue.

In a deeply divided country we must either work together to get the best deal we can - and this needs compromise - or accept that Brexit cannot be implemented and think again about what we are doing.

No one is going to thank us afterwards for a Brexit that reduces people's quality of life.

There are, of course, some who demand a no-deal Brexit and threaten to vote for any party that will deliver it.

A no deal Brexit is a proposal so damaging to our future that it cannot be accepted.

As a strong believer that Brexit is a very damaging mistake that becomes more obvious every day, I see sound democratic reasons for asking the electorate to confirm what it wants to do.

Contrary to the myth that the U.K. respects decisions of the Strasbourg court but many other adherent states do not, the convention and Strasbourg court judgements have proved a highly effective tool in protecting and developing human rights in countries with no tradition of the rule of law.

In a mature democracy any proposed policy should be subjected to a close analysis of its likely benefits and costs.

Hostility to the Human Rights Act has been present in sections of the Conservative Party since its enactment, and this has grown more strident with the passage of time, encouraged by some sections of the press.

In the past there has been debate as to whether or not traditional rights such as that to trial by jury might be protected or if a Bill of Rights should extend into areas of social and economic policy.

As a practising Anglican I go to church on a Sunday.

We need to work together to either achieve a form of Brexit that does not threaten our future or ensure that the decision to complete departure is the electorate's informed choice.

Ties of loyalty play an understandably important part in how most MPs interact with their own party and the supporters who have elected and sustained them in their careers. As I know personally it is the strain put on those ties which constitutes the most unpleasant aspect of being at variance with one's own party line.

I believe that MPs from all parties must work together to prevent a damaging hard exit.

Very few MPs disagree with the need for a withdrawal bill to enable us to disentangle our 50-year relationship with the legal structures of the European Union and to enable us to function effectively outside of it.

Having campaigned to remain in the E.U., I voted to trigger Article 50, in response to the clearly expressed wish of the electorate. It must now be my duty as an MP to try to ensure that Brexit is as smooth as possible and that there is a sound legislative framework in place to bring this about. A chaotic departure is in no-one's interest.

Once E.U. law ceases to be supreme it is unclear how this vast body of law, which will then be incorporated into our own domestic law, will be interpreted by our own courts.

The Government has correctly recognised that this E.U. law cannot all be changed into domestic law at once.

Henry VIII Clauses allowing the Government to change almost any law of the land by statutory instrument, if needed, to implement Brexit must be properly restricted.

We then need to consider carefully how the E.U. law that is going to be imported into our own law will operate. Its processes and interpretation have always been different from our own domestic law.

Some in favour of Brexit are so fixated on leaving the E.U., they keep arguing that any attempt to change it is some form of sabotage.

Putting the Withdrawal Bill in order is an essential step to stability and achieving a reasonable outcome to Brexit.

Whatever long-term advantages are claimed for Brexit it is overwhelmingly clear that in the short to medium term it carries risks to our economy and security.

Much as criticism can and has been made as to how E.U. law has been created, there is much in it that affects our daily lives for the better and is welcomed by many without them being necessarily aware of where it comes from.

Notice of leaving the E.U. under Article 50, for which most of us voted, provides a mechanism for extending the negotiating period by agreement if this is necessary. It is not to undermine Brexit to insist it is carried out correctly.

No politician can expect to escape criticism for a controversial decision and we have to be robust in justifying what we do.

No amount of extra civil servants recruited to deliver Brexit will make up for a lack of rational debate or for political judgments distorted by a desire to sound tough in order to appeal to narrow sectional interests.

The purpose of the E.U. Withdrawal Bill is in any event not to decide the terms of Brexit but to ensure that it can take place smoothly and that legal continuity, which is essential for businesses, is maintained. There is not a single MP who does not agree that getting the bill on the statute book is essential for us all.

Whatever may have been suggested by some Leavers during the referendum it must be clear now that the Brexit process is immensely complicated.

Trade wars in which countries are then obliged to retaliate by raising their own tariffs against the initiator undermine growth and hurt consumers. Far from being expressions of strength they highlight the failure of the initiating country's economic sector to compete in the global market place.

Most states, for all their rhetoric in favour of free trade, are adept at trying to manipulate markets to protect and advantage their own producers.