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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The concern is not simply that military is under-funded for the tasks we are asking it to perform, but the fact the military feels without voice. Military funding has not had the place in national debate that it deserves. The result is that members of the establishment, who are not being listened to in private, and whose natural inclination is to keep their own counsel, have felt compelled to come forward and fight the military’s corner. This episode is extraordinarily similar to the previous public statements of former Foreign Office officials about Blair’s foreign policy. The government is not listening to its own experts

The left of our party need to follow the lead of men like Julian Brazier and Liam Fox on the armed forces, irrespective of whether it suits their political agenda. We need to vociferously stand up for the needs of our armed forces. Military funding is a matter which Cameron should be taking up and attacking the government on with all vigour. It’s time Cameron put the military back at the centre of our political agenda, before the military loses its political ally and voice.

Couple that with today’s ruling in the Menezes case and the government and police force look like they are slowly having any teeth their policy may have had removed.

What we need is a new process, not tinkering with a system which is neither serving the suspect, police, courts or public as it should be. The Conservatives should be leading a charge on liberty. If we don’t we can rest assured Nick Clegg will steal the rug from under us in a few weeks time.

Straw failed to give any firm commitments on progress with Lords reform, resolution on the tension with the judiciary and seemed to miss the irony of the Prime Minister giving a speech this afternoon on reform of the Human Rights Act outside of Parliament, whilst his Lord Chancellor stood in the chamber telling MPs that Parliament was the place for announcements and that primacy of Parliament must come first. The firm commitments, such as giving the legislature a vote on declaration of war, were either stolen from the Conservatives, or measures that the government has previously driven their members through the lobby to vote against – surely Clare Short’s private members’ bill that was voted down will prove to be identical to Straw’s new bill? The new Justice department appears to be in a mess, not least because it seems to be constantly playing catch up with announcements that Brown has already made or is making elsewhere.

Then why did Nick Herbert score so few hits? He had a whinge about not seeing the statement early enough, and then stumbled through a series of questions, often missing the point, often making no point. Straw was able to swat him away like a fly. One suspected that Dominic Grieve, sat next to him, may have been more able to hold the government to account. The government is making a mess of our constitution and liberties. Straw is an able politician and master of detail; we cannot afford less than a top performer opposite him.

Why then does this government continue to destroy the ideal in an attempt to defend it? Can anyone explain to me the twisted logic that says in order to defend our western principles of civil liberty and freedom, we should curtail those very freedoms? Liberty is a central tenet of the system that would-be terrorists declare they want to destroy, yet isn’t this government doing a pretty good job of it for them?

Only today our Home Secretary (who sometimes seems a little more like a school matron) has announced that detention by terror needs to be extended, albeit the 90 day time period has now been abandoned. But why? The case has simply not been made. Yes, the police are asking for longer periods of detention without trial – but that doesn’t mean they should get them. We have one of the longest periods of detention without trial at the moment. What is it with our police force that means they need so long?

Liberty is a basic Conservative principle. It’s something historically we have been rather better at than any other party. Perhaps if we’re looking for a core message it wouldn’t be a bad place to start.

 Does Clegg’s policy of “earned legalisation” even answer his own question? Surely “earned legalisation” sends a straight forward message – get yourself in to the UKhowsoever you can and you will end up with citizenship. I hope not to be accused of stating the blindingly obvious but is this policy not a huge leg up to people trafficking and black market employment? 

Only the most extreme elements of our political spectrum would try to argue that there aren’t positive benefits to immigration. But it is something that needs to be controlled – “earned legalisation” smacks of removing control, without considering its likely impact on the potential immigrants. It’s an unhappy middle ground. Clegg seems to want an amnesty but is afraid to say so. “Earned legalisation” is a fudge which is not going to help the immigrants who appear to be the policy’s intended beneficiary. If Clegg wants an amnesty he should be bold enough to make the case for it, a case I think he’s bound to lose.