I’ve been increasingly intrigued by the saga of MPs’ pay rises. Both Gordon Brown’s insistence that MPs must only get a rise in line with other areas of the public sector and Cameron’s willingness to row in behind him strikes me as wrong. For both men, the paramount concern is image.

Apart from being exemplary of a wider flaw in our system that image still remains more of a pre-occupation than addressing systemic problems, the approach is deeply naïve. There is a consistent whinge that MPs are either incompetent or corrupt; in essence, that we need better people. One only has to look at recent generations of MPs on all sides of the house to question whether or not Parliament is attracting a high enough calibre of person. Perhaps one of the reasons Parliament is becoming irrelevant is because the elected chamber is simply not good enough, either as individuals, or as a collective.

If we want the best people for the job, MPs have to be paid more competitively. Yes, there should be recognition that there is an element of public service, but that can be said of the appropriate comparators. A full time Circuit Judge is paid just short of £100,000. Many GPs now get paid in excess of £100,000, as do civil servants at higher levels.Given we are entrusting MPs to legislate on our behalf, to scrutinise laws, lay down systems of criminal and social acceptability, and reflect our views, we need them to be the best of the best. At the moment many of them are the embodiment of mediocrity, or worse. If the rewards were brought back in to line with appropriate comparators we might be able to address the problem. If MPs don’t have the appetite to address the issue on their own and award themselves the necessary pay rise, then farming the deicion out to an independent body is the only way forward. It’s about time MPs got paid six figures, not to reward the present incumbents, but to attract fresh blood.

We are all concerned about energy security and the future of our planet. Why then, is the Conservative Party so concerned about coming out fully in favour of nuclear? We want and need to reduce dependency on coal and oil if we are going to reduce the impact we are having on our planet. There is also the constant concern of  security of supply. Nucelar offers answers to all these problems, surely we should get behind it?

The current position of backing nuclear power if it is economically viable is simply wet. Nuclear power has such a vast capital outlay to get it up and running that the markets are never likely to back it without goverment support – even if not financial the we need to show that they back nuclear as a source of power.

The government’s decision today was the right one, and we should not be afraid to support them in it. Anything other approach is opportunistic politics of the worst kind, because it denies the reality of our situation, and the advantages that nucelar power offers.

Nuclear provide a signficiant, reliable and clean source of power, it’s time we got behing it.

And so today the European constitution finally becomes a reality. Whilst the signing ceremony puts the cart before the horse in that national parliament’s still need to ratify the treaty before it comes into effect, today is a symbolic step on the way to this document coming into force. More importantly, that the symbols, today also demonstrates that the European Union is fundamentally dislocated from the people it claims to represents.

A union, set up to be an economic institution, no longer recognises the voice of its own people. Having asked if we wanted the provisions contained within this document, whatever it be called, and firmly been told “non” by the people of Europe, the union ploughs on, deaf to the answer.

Instead, the union functionaries and sympathetic national leaders will spin the document in a different way to each country; determined to force it through by whatever means.

We cannot be scared off fighting this one because of “the wrong image”. It is not simply a fight about the constitution or treaty (leaving aside the argument about broken promises on a referendum domestically). It is a fight about making the leaders of Europe listen to and engage with the clearly expressed will of its people.

If Europe is going to become relevant and prove its own worth it must fulfil its duty to listen to the people it claims to represent.

Jacqui Smith’s latest proposals on extending detention without charge make a mockery of our attempts to “fight the war on terror” on the home front. Leaving aside comment on that invidious phrase itself, the question must arise is this anyway to win an argument let alone a war? The government’s approach is shambolic.

We are told that the extension of detention without trial may become necessary in certain circumstances; that it is essential to defending ourselves against the possibility of another 7/7. Fine, let’s for the moment accept the government’s underlying proposition; it still does not get us to the government’s conclusion.

What the government has singularly failed to explain is why 42 days or why 56 or why 90? The government appears to be turning the justice system into a game of bingo. If 90 days is truly what is need the government should not be running from the argument and should make the case. Instead Jacqui Smith appears to be plugging for arbitrary numbers, desperate whilst retreating to salvage some sort increase that can be brandished as a partial victory.

If Lord Goldsmith and Keith Vaz, normally loyal to the point of doormat, can rally themselves to join the ranks of Ken McDonald, Shami Chakrabarti and our own David Davis in saying this case has simply not been proven, surely the government must wake up and realise they have not proven their case. They cannot attack our basic liberty, regardless of whatever sops they throw to their backbenchers until they have demonstrated the absolute necessity of such an attack.

This week has seen yet another demonstration of the dearth of accountability that this government has fostered. Alastair Darling, Ian Blair and now, to add to the horror, Steve McLaren have all failed to fall on their swords and take responsibility for the actions of their department. Ian Blair with the insulting epithet after the MPA failed to act that he was “an honourable man”. He has surely demonstrated he is anything but.

The Chancellor, or the Chief Constable, are not just officials, they are also figureheads. They are responsible not just for policies but also for systems and the ethos within the institutions that they head.

The Blair government gave the signal that the approach to a mistake, error or wrongdoing was to apologise. A quick burst of mea culpa was enough to salve the conscience and a person could stay in post. Brown has sent no signal that this is going to change.

Why? Why is that acceptable? The heads of these organisations and departments have to start taking responsibility. That is not simply a question of saying sorry and clinging on in your post. When your organisation’s systems have failed fundamentally in their duty, be it to protect personal data, or qualify for a major football tournament, it is time for resignations, not meaningless apologies.