I know from my days working on education reform in government that it's almost impossible to exaggerate how little those who work on education policy think about 'how to improve learning.'

Despite the centrality of communication to politics it is remarkable how little attention Insiders pay to what works - never mind the question 'what could work much better?'

Most security failings happen because of human actions that are not envisaged when designing systems.

The biggest problem for governments with new technologies is that the limiting factor on applying new technologies is not the technology but management and operational ideas which are extremely hard to change fast.

Billionaires who want to influence politics could get better 'returns on investment' than from early stage Amazon.

Speed and adaptability are crucial to success in conflict and can be helped by new technologies.

In many areas, the E.U. regulates to help the worst sort of giant corporate looters defending their position against entrepreneurs. Post-Brexit Britain will be outside this jurisdiction and able to make faster and better decisions about regulating technology like genomics, AI and robotics.

I think the right way to deal with terrorism is to carry on with normal life, like Britain used to when it was a more serious country.

People in politics tend to spend far too much time on higher profile issues affecting few people and too little time on such basic processes that affect thousands or millions and which we know how to do much better.

In history books, luck is always underplayed and the talent of individuals is usually overplayed.

In the political world, big established failing systems control the rules, suck in more and more resources rather than go bust, make it almost impossible for startups to contribute and so on.

In healthcare like in government generally, people are incentivised to engage in wasteful/dangerous signalling to a terrifying degree - not rigorous thinking and not solving problems.

Brexit cannot be done with the traditional Westminster/Whitehall system as Vote Leave warned repeatedly before 23 June 2016.

Fundamental to real expertise is 1: whether the informational structure of the environment is sufficiently regular that it's possible to make good predictions and 2: does it allow high quality feedback and therefore error-correction.

Music is similar to sport. There is very fast feedback, learning, and a clear hierarchy of expertise.

Discussion of politics and government almost totally ignores the concept of training people to update their opinions in response to new evidence - i.e adapt to feedback.

Almost all analysis of politics and government considers relatively surface phenomena.

Judea Pearl is one of the most important scholars in the field of causal reasoning. His book 'Causality' is the leading textbook in the field.

In January 2014 I left the Department for Education and spent the next 18 months away from politics.

In physics we have developed models that are extremely accurate across vastly different scales from the sub-atomic to the visible universe. In politics we have bumbled along making the same sort of errors repeatedly.

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.