You could be forgiven for wondering what element of nuclear policy has changed as of today’s Commons statement and white paper on energy.

Power companies can now go ahead and build power stations to their hearts’ content. But then they already could.

As Vincent Cable of the Lib Dems points out: "What I find a bit mystifying about the government statement was that they seem to be saying: ‘The big step forward is that we’re not trying to stop it’."

"But they were never trying to stop it. The problem was that nuclear power companies didn’t want to invest."

Ministers would say that things have changed. Most importantly, they will be able to offer greater political certainty and a smoother planning process. John Hutton, business minister, said there had been a genuine option of saying "yes" or "no" to nuclear and a positive decision had been made.

"People (in the future) will scratch their heads in amazement that we used carbon for power," he said this afternoon.

However, you don’t have to be cynical to wonder whether this big exercise could be summarised in one sentence: Gordon Brown wants to demonstrate that he - like his predecessor - is pro-nuclear.

Nick Clegg got through probably the most nerve-wracking two minutes of his political career intact after a low-key but thoroughly telegenic debut at prime minister’s questions.

He avoided jokes - you end up looking desparate if nobody laughs. He didn’t try to be too clever. Instead he got away two questions on the government’s response to rising energy prices and fuel poverty. On the telly he looked serious and concerned. And he left the chamber unscathed.

That is about as good as he could have expected. The main thing was he did not stumble and bumble his way through his debut, as did Ming Campbell, his predecessor. Having survived he can try to be more ambitious, aggressive and funny next time.

But I was more interested at the apparently genuine attempts at flattery of Mr Clegg by David Cameron and Gordon Brown. Mr Brown spoke about their "private meetings" and how he wanted to work with him on common projects where they agreed.

Both know they may have to turn to Mr Clegg’s Liberal Democrats if - as seems possible - the next election produces a hung parliament. While Ming Campbell was a close friend of Mr Brown, the prime minister cannot rely on the support of the more right-leaning Clegg to keep him in power.

Would the Lib Dem leader do a deal with the Tories? I doubt if his activists would let him. But that does not mean he would necessarily prop up a defeated Labour government. He could do deals on an issue-by-issue basis with the biggest party.

In any case when he utters the magic Liberal Democrat word "equidistance", I reckon he intends to put more distance between his party and Labour than would ever have been imagined by either Sir Ming or - going further back - Paddy Ashdown.

Gordon Brown thinks you can knock inflation on the head by giving hairshirt pay awards to millions of public sector workers. You can already see the proof of this over the last year or two, he claimed at yesterday’s monthly press conference.

Not everyone agrees. Including Andrew Oswald, the economics professor from Warwick University, who penned a waspish letter to the FT this morning. "An undergraduate who wrote in an essay that inflation was caused by public sector wage rises would receive a ‘fail’," he said. "Inflation is caused by the economy running too hot." The point being that most people work in the private sector, where wages are rising north of 4 per cent a year.

Union leaders failed to toe the party line yesterday when Brown insisted that more workers should sign up to three-year pay deals at today’s low inflation rate - around 2 per cent. Unsurprisingly they argued that that it would be foolish to give up future bargaining power without a "premium".

Things are likely to hot up later this year as unions articulate their unhappiness in a string of interesting pay demands. Among them is Unison, which wants a 6 per cent rise this year for its 840,000 local government workers. And then there is the GMB - with 250,000 local government workers - which is poised to demand up to 7 per cent as well as an extra two days’ annual leave, improvements to car mileage payments, an increase in the night shift allowance, an increase in the "sleep-allowance"…..and an unlimited curry and beer allowance for all members.

I’m joking about the last one. But you get the point.

These demands are surely set to be crushed. Yet the clash between the unions and the government over pay could shape up into a major theme of 2008 with the likelihood of several strikes. Unison’s local government workers came within inches of industrial action last autumn - voting in favour by 52 per cent - before backing down. This time they may not buckle so easily.

The results are still not in, but there is little doubt about who the punters think will win the Democratic primary in New Hampshire. Take a look at this graph from Betfair, the online betting exchange, showing the odds on Hillary Clinton winning. Yes, it’s about 30 to 1.

To put it into a British context, the betting world believes Gordon Brown being ousted from Downing Street in the next two months (around 10 to 1) is three times more likely than Hillary winning this evening. This is in a state that she was odds-on to win less than a week ago. It is a remarkable turnaround. Let’s see if the punters are right.

(As an aside, the graph shows an extraordinary spike late this evening to about 70 to 1. I think this coincided with the first reports of a big turnout in New Hampshire, which is likely to help Barack Obama. It also shows what a volatile business betting on politics can be.)

UPDATE

Well, here is the same chart five hours later. The first results are trickling in and the money is moving back towards Hillary with a vengance. Within a matter of an hour Hillary’s odds to win New Hampshire swung from 250 to 1 back to 3 to 1. Quite extraordinary.

Steve Morgan, who ran Peter Hain’s deputy leadership campaign, spoke today on BBC Radio Wales of arriving half way through and discovering scenes of "absolute chaos".

This tallies. After all, Mr Hain is still trying to work out who gave money to his campaign - and how much - almost six months after he was legally obliged to do so.

His office is being coy about the scale of his under-declaration of donations to the campaign, which are required under electoral law.

Few in Westminster believe Mr Hain is guilty of anything more than chaotic organisation. But the episode is worrying, not least because he is in charge of by far the biggest budget of any Whitehall department.

Some Labour MPs are asking whether a minister who is so cavalier about accounting for his own campaign finances be expected to be taking a keen interest in rooting out wrongdoing in the massive benefits budget?

Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling have made an impressive start to 2008 - at least judged by the shambolic standards of the weeks running up to Christmas.

Mr Darling flew back to the Treasury from Edinburgh for a day to give an interview to the FT which set the tone for how he will deal with the fallout of the Northern Rock crisis. Rather than waiting for the Treasury select committee to tell him what to do, this gave the impression he was in control.

Then Gordon Brown gave a series of quietly impressive television and radio interviews. Even my schoolyard friend - who normally drops off his daughter and then bends my ear about Mr Brown’s utter uselessness - said he was impressed by the PM’s appearance on the Today programme this morning.

Fair enough. But before we get too carried away, I think the real reason why Mr Brown’s administration seems a bit more stable as we enter 2008 has nothing to do with these two heavyweights "hitting the ground running".

It is more the fact that over Christmas, the government has been closed down for several weeks. No government initiatives, no disasters either. Suddenly the Conservative lead over Labour has shrunk from ten points to five.

When will politicians learn that what the voters want most is not endless action but a bit of peace and quiet. Look at Belgium: they haven’t had a government there since June, and - as far as I could judge on my last visit - the country seems to be getting on perfectly OK without the politicians.

If I were Mr Brown I’d keep my head down for a few weeks. Let memories fade of his grim 2008 and wait for the press to get bored. We might even start focusing on inconsistencies and tensions on the Tory side as David Cameron starts to roll out his programme for government.

By Jim Pickard

The National Gallery, Hadrian’s Wall and the whole of Bath will be free from bombardment from opposition forces - up to a point - under proposals to give heritage buildings special protection in the event of a war.

This unlikely proposition was in a draft bill published on Monday by the culture department. It marks the belated signing up by the UK to the Hague Convention of 1954, which aimed to prevent a repeat of the widespread cultural devastation - think Dresden - which took part in the second world war.

One successful prosecution has already taken place under the convention when a Yugoslav commander attacked Dubrovnik’s Old Town in Croatia during its 1991 siege. Meanwhile the UK will not be allowed to store any military hardware among the crypts and chambers of its favourite heritage sites.

(more…)