Plans being laid for call at Liberal Democrat spring conference for bill to be scrapped

The government's beleaguered health bill has run into fresh trouble after it emerged that plans are being laid for a call for it to be scrapped at the Liberal Democrat spring conference.

It is also expected that the influential Conservative Home website, seen as the voice of the party grassroots, will publish an editorial on Friday calling for the bill to be dropped altogether. It is understood that Conservative Home has been urged to make the call by three cabinet members who believe David Cameron is not listening on the issue. One source said: "We have almost been instructed to write this." It is extraordinary that cabinet members feel so frustrated at the political deadlock that they have resorted to urging Conservative Home to raise the flag of rebellion.

It has been widely canvassed within the government that non-contentious parts of the bill covering public health, social care and GP commissioning could be retained, while controversial parts dealing with an extension of the private sector could be abandoned altogether, something that would be a humiliation for the health secretary, Andrew Lansley.

Stephen Dorrell, Conservative chairman of the health select committee, has been one of many Tory MPs pointing out that many of the changes could have been implemented without the need for legislation or such controversy.

The shadow health secretary, Andy Burnham, has offered to strike a deal to bring in wider GP commissioning. Labour tabled a vote on Thursday to force the government to publish a report assessing the threats posed by proposed changes to NHS finances and patient care.

Senior Lib Dems have acknowledged that they are in a terrible place over the bill, but in discussions at the beginning of the week with Cameron, Nick Clegg agreed to let the bill continue in the Lords.

There is frustration in Downing Street that the support of health professionals has been lost after they were laboriously courted and consulted during the pause last year, agreed after the Lib Dems' spring conference voted to oppose large tracts of the bill. The current move is being organised by the same group of party activists.

The Lib Dem leadership managed to keep a second health rebellion off the agenda of the autumn conference, but will face intense grassroots pressure if it tries to prevent debate again.

An emergency motion can be kept off the floor of the conference if it is not deemed an emergency by the federal conference committee, or it is not selected for debate in a ballot of delegates.

It is being argued by diehards in the cabinet that the struggle to get the legislation on the statute book will last only a few more months and after that it will be shown that the warnings of the protesters were ridiculously overblown. Cameron is trying to resell the package as a way of reducing bureaucracy in the NHS.

In an effort to keep up the pressure, the shadow cabinet agreed to hold an opposition day debate later this month on making the risk assessment public, in what Burnham said would be a defining moment in the campaign to get the bill axed.

Critics believe the risk register, which Lansley has repeatedly refused to publish, contains damning warnings about rising costs and confusion. Concern has been heightened after it emerged on Wednesday that a risk assessment by the London NHS warned some organisations could fail financially and care, including maternity and children's services and public health, could suffer. Such is the anger about the register that nine Liberal Democrats are already among 50 MPs who have signed an early day motion also calling for it to be published ? and Labour believes more Lib Dems will support its move.

To put further pressure on the coalition, Burnham will urge Labour MPs to visit hospitals and surgeries during next week's half-term break, so they can recount their stories from the NHS front-line in the debate on 22 February. "The defining question in this debate now is, by pressing on and not listening, to what extent are they putting patient safety and quality of services at risk, and that's why the risk register becomes absolutely central to this," said Burnham.

Labour's move follows another torrid week for the government over the bill, with former supporters of the plans coming out against the current version ? which has had more than 1,000 amendments ? and the coalition's first defeat on the bill in the House of Lords on Wednesday.

Reflecting growing frustration inside the government at Lansley's handling of the bill, a Downing Street insider was quoted earlier this week saying the health secretary should be "taken out and shot". In response, the prime minister's spokesman said the Tory minister had David Cameron's "full support".

Lansley will face fresh embarrassment on Friday when a report by the right-of-centre thinktank Reform says the government's entire reform of public services is being undermined by the Department of Health's management of NHS changes.

The Scorecard report on 10 government departments with responsibility for different areas of public sector reform also singles out the prime minister for criticism for personally intervening with detailed promises on issues such as waiting times and nurses visiting patients' beds every hour. The criticisms by Reform will be particularly damaging because they accuse the health bill of causing exactly the opposite of what it is intended to achieve ? holding back reform of the NHS and damaging services for patients.

Burnham has offered the government a compromise, that in return for dropping the bill Labour would enter talks about how to introduce GP-led commissioning of healthcare, without the wider reform of the NHS structure proposed by the bill.

David Cameron and King Abdullah want 'effective solution' after deportation of radical Islamist cleric blocked by European court

David Cameron and King Abdullah of Jordan have agreed on the importance of finding an effective resolution to the Abu Qatada case, Downing Street has said.

The prime minister told King Abdullah on Thursday of the "frustrating and difficult" position Britain was in with its efforts to deport the Islamist radical to Jordan.

The UK is unable to return Qatada to Jordan because of a ruling by the European court of human rights (ECHR) that he must not be sent back if it could lead to him being tried with evidence obtained under torture.

An immigration judge ruled this week that Qatada ? once described as "Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe" by a Spanish judge ? should be released on bail after more than six years in custody fighting deportation.

With Home Office minister James Brokenshire due to visit the Jordanian capital, Amman, next week, Cameron spoke to King Abdullah by telephone during a visit to Sweden.

A Downing Street spokesman said: "They discussed the ECHR ruling on Abu Qatada and the prime minister explained the frustrating and difficult position that the ruling had created for the UK.

"The prime minister complimented the king on the close and effective collaboration between Britain and Jordan on this case over a number of years, and noted that the court had endorsed the UK-Jordanian MoU [memorandum of understanding] on deportation with assurances.

"They both welcomed close and detailed co-operation since the ruling between the Jordanian government, and the UK Home Office and the Foreign Office.

"They agreed on the importance of finding an effective solution to this case, in the interests of both Britain and Jordan."

Qatada, also known as Omar Othman, 51, was convicted in his absence in Jordan of involvement with terror attacks in 1998 and has featured in hate sermons found on videos in the flat of one of the September 11 bombers.

Since 2001 he has challenged, and ultimately thwarted, every attempt by the government to detain and deport him.

The ECHR ruled last month that sending Qatada back to face terror charges without assurances about the conduct of a trial would be a "flagrant denial of justice".

The ruling was the first time the Strasbourg-based court has found an extradition would be in violation of article six of the European convention on human rights, the right to a fair trial, which is enshrined in UK law under the Human Rights Act.

Swedish perk allows half of cost to be deducted, but No 10 insists no overnight change in policy

David Cameron is examining the idea of tax breaks for people who hire cleaning or other household services, as a way of generating extra jobs and freeing more women so they can join the workforce.

Speaking at a Nordic summit in Sweden, he said he was interested in its government's tax break that has been praised for reducing the black economy in cheap domestic labour.

The break, however, has proved hugely controversial in Sweden, leading to claims that it is regressive and class bound.

The Swedish government allows people to deduct from their tax bill half the cost of household services such as cleaning, cooking, lawn-mowing, snow-shovelling and babysitting. The concession is said to have created more than 5,000 jobs.

But social democrats have claimed that a relatively small group of wealthy Swedes, earning more than 50,000 kronor (£4,700) a month, are far more likely to make use of the subsidised services than lower paid households. And mainly immigrant labour has benefited, they say.

Of the nine countries at the summit, seven were outside the eurozone. Speaking after the meeting with Nordic leaders, Cameron said he had been inspired by the measures in those countries designed to boost women's participation in the labour force. "I think the importance of the flexible parental leave that many of the countries here already have, and we are looking to introduce, is absolutely vital. That point was made by a number of participants."

He also said he did not rule out introducing quotas for women in boardrooms as a last resort, but his preference was to see indicative targets. He said there was overwhelming evidence that companies were better run if men and women worked alongside each other.

"So the real nub of the issue is how do we accelerate, how do we fast-forward to having at least 30% of boards made up by women? That's where you get down to quotas, which I don't think you should ever rule out," he said. "If you can't get there in other ways, then maybe you have to have quotas." But he later clarified that he wanted to "go as far as we can on this agenda without taking that step".

Fredrik Reinfeldt, the Swedish prime minister, claimed at the summit that a male atmosphere created more risk and a greater chance of corruption. "To say the least, more women in the financial sector would be very good in bringing down the risk level."

His remarks took him close to the view of some feminists who claim the financial crash would never have happened had Lehman Brothers been Lehman Sisters.

Britain is working to implement the recommendations of a February 2011 report by Mervyn Davies concerned with increasing the number of women on company boards.

Women now account for 15% of directors of companies in the FTSE-100 index, up from 12.5% last year; and all-male boards in the FTSE, have dropped from 21 last year to 10 at present.

Cameron also discussed the need for workers to stay in the labour force for longer. He said: "I don't think anyone is saying you must work until you are 75. I think what we are all saying is that we need to have greater flexibility."

He said he was interested in a scheme in Norway where the state pension age rose automatically as people lived longer, and allows for a more flexible retirement.

Norwegians are free to choose the age at which they start to claim their pension, with higher payments to those who choose to wait the longest, up to 75.

But a Downing Street spokesman insisted Cameron was only exchanging policy ideas, and said nothing was going to be rushed into hard policy overnight.

Reinfeldt said the fact that the average global life expectancy has risen from around 46 years in 1950, to nearly 70 today ? and 80 in the EU ? has changed the premise for pension systems.

He singled out Iceland as a country that has managed to keep people in the work force longer. Prime minister Johanna Sigurdardottir is still working at 69, and the nation's average retirement age is 67.

Ministry's 'culture of over optimism' to blame for underestimating cost of 15 projects as well as delays, says committee of MPs

Britain's 15 biggest defence projects are expected to cost £6bn more than first estimated and will be delayed by a combined total of 26 years, a parliamentary watchdog reports today.

Too often the taxpayer has had to pick up the bill for the Ministry of Defence underestimating the risks involved in procuring complex weapons systems, the Commons public accounts committee (PAC) says.

The committee identifies three large projects bedevilled by long delays and huge overspend. These include the repeatedly delayed Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft, upon which £3.4bn was spent before it was scrapped, to save an estimated £1.9bn in running costs over the next 10 years.

The MoD will incur further costs from cancelling contracts and substituting alternative capabilities. The committee has asked the National Audit Office to investigate the decision to scrap Nimrod aircraft as well as all of Britain's Harrier jump-jets.

It also wants investigation of the delays surrounding the nuclear-powered Astute submarine fleet, which led to an extra £1.9bn in costs, and of the expenditure on two large aircraft carriers, the cost of which has so far risen by £2.8bn over the £3.5bn estimated when first approved in 2008. The PAC believes the carriers could end up costing as much as £12bn.

The report says that hurried attempts to save money have created problems for the future. "Decisions to save cash in the short term ? deferring spending and reducing equipment numbers ? have added significant long-term costs to the defence programme, and so represent poor value for money," it says.

It adds that last year's strategic defence and security review had to address the £42bn gap between the defence budget and forecast expenditure, including spending on the equipment programme. Since then there have been two more reviews, which have made further cuts in that programme in attempt to save further money.

Despite three reviews, Friday's report says, the MoD can say only that the defence budget is "broadly in balance".

The MPs comment: "It is unacceptable that the department still cannot identify the extent of the current gap between resources and expenditure."

They add that a culture of over-optimism continues at the ministry when it comes to costing projects. They point out that the financial burden incurred by underestimating project costs has fallen mainly on taxpayers, who have had to underwrite them.

The forecast for completion of the 15 largest defence projects increased by £466m last year alone.

Since the projects were first approved their estimated costs have risen by £6.1bn, bringing the combined total to about £60bn. Together, the projects are expected to be completed 322 months later than planned.

The PAC says the MoD's performance has improved, and that recent projects have had lower cost increases and fewer technical problems than earlier ones.

Today's report also points out that cutting equipment numbers after contracts have been signed usually represents poor value for money, as it invariably increases unit costs.

The MoD has recently decided to reduce the number of Puma and Chinook helicopters by four and 10 respectively, and it is buying three fewer European A400M transport aircraft. This reportedly has contributed to a 46% increase in the cost of each A400M plane.

Margaret Hodge MP, the Labour chair of the PAC, said: "Decisions to delay or cut programmes to save money in the short term continue to lead to increased costs in the longer term and do not represent good value for money."

She added: "We welcome the fact that there are signs of improvement. Projects approved since 2002 have shown significantly lower cost increases."

However, she said, the committee was concerned that the MoD was still unable to set out openly the extent of the gap between its income and expenditure, and how and by when it would balance this year's budget. "The department must publish that information urgently."

The MPs say that in light of current economic conditions it would be unrealistic for the MoD to plan spending on the assumption it will get a 1% increase in its equipment budget after 2015? a factor defence chiefs had been demanding.

Bank of England pumps £50bn more into UK economy

Ed and a £6,000 hamper from the Sultan of Brunei. It's the thought that counts

? Ed Miliband casually dismissed the idea that Dave's millionaire cabinet could fight a "class war" against the super-rich. But it seems Ed is on nodding terms with great wealth himself. According to the latest register of MPs' interests, Labour Ed received a "Harrods Christmas hamper valued at over £660" from the Sultan of Brunei. The Sultan, once the world's richest man, thanks to running the oil-rich nation, has slipped a little in the league tables of the super wealthy. But he is still the world's richest royal, with a fleet of thousands of Ferraris, Rolls-Royces and Mercedes. The people of Brunei get something from the oil wealth, with subsidised housing, education and health. But they don't get democracy: the Sultan has absolute power. Of a kind one cements by sending out lavish hampers.

? Happy days indeed for Harry Redknapp, freed from the prospect of a chilly cell to the promise of the England manager's job, and all within 24 hours. A jury of his peers made this possible by dismissing any suggestion that he didn't pay his tax. But then so many people provided support through this, his most difficult time. "The Wigan game was the most moving I have ever felt ? with fans singing my name throughout the game. I'll never forget that," said the man of the moment. Fans who were actually there heard them sing more than his name. "He pays what he wants, he pays what he wants, Harry Redknapp, he pays what he wants," was the chant from one section. Turned out not to be the case in terms of his taxation arrangement, and he walks away without a stain. But in terms of football, what he wants is probably what he will get.

? And with more ugly stuff emerging from the Leveson inquiry, the stock of journalism sinks low. But it has never hit rock bottom. Thank God for the bankers. Nobody wants to be associated with them. Once, before the PM's "big society" idea was laughed into irrelevance, there was the allied concept of a big society bank. Alas, no longer. "What progress has been made on the implementation of the big society bank?" asked Tory MP Michael Ellis of Cabinet Office minister Nick Hurd. "We are making excellent progress in establishing big society capital group (formerly referred to as the big society bank)," was the minister's written reply. Magic. One minute the "bank" was there; gone the next.

? More news about Brian Coleman, the head of London's fire authority, whose taxi expenses are discussed with a tone usually reserved for bankers' bonuses. He spent £3,500 on cabs in 2010, which constituted belt-tightening. The figure was £8,000 in 2008. And one can see why he does it, for more recently, when the ebullient Conservative drove himself to a function, pesky union members took photos of what does seem to be him, behind the wheel, apparently using his mobile. They have sent the snaps away for closer scrutiny by the Metropolitan police.

? Week one for Ed Davey as energy secretary, meanwhile, following the unfortunate redeployment to the law courts of Chris Huhne. And while it wouldn't be fair to say the department ? or indeed the government ? has run out of ideas, it does seem as if mandarins are looking for inspiration. On Tuesday, when Labour's climate change and energy person Caroline Flint gave a speech on the green economy, the guest list showed no fewer than 18 government civil servants in attendance; five from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, four from Defra, two from the business department, two from Dfid, two more from the Foreign Office, two from the environment agency and one lone wolf from the Treasury. Seems strange in the age of austerity. "Couldn't they just send one and ask them to take notes," asked one observer. Anyone would think they just wanted an agreeable day away from the office.

? Finally, what a night there was in prospect. An event involving Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, who has, thus far, steered the government's health reforms so masterfully. The venue, The Old Brewery in central London. Lansley played no part in its organisation.

twitter/@hugh_muir

Ministry of Justice plans to take 80,000 cases a year out of court with 'cheaper, quicker' settlements; lawyers are opposed

More neighbourhood disputes and rows over debt will be diverted into mediation over the phone to speed up small claims cases and avoid the expense of going to court.

Around 80,000 cases a year will be taken out of county court hearings, according to the Ministry of Justice's programme to reform the civil courts and introduce "cheaper, quicker" and more accessible settlements.

All small claims will automatically be referred to a telephone-based service, although mediation will not be mandatory and unsettled cases may eventually proceed to trial.

The government plan unveiled today are in response to a public consultation on improving the way civil courts in England and Wales process the 1.5m disputes they receive each year.

Although almost 80% of respondents were in favour of offering telephone mediation, many of those opposed were from the legal profession, including judges.

The official ministry response noted that: "Six out of the seven judicial responses were firmly against the proposals, with most of their comments focusing on the use of telephone hearings.

"The biggest concern amongst the judiciary was that telephone hearings would significantly reduce the judge's ability to control and observe the parties/witnesses properly during the hearing."

Recommending the changes, the justice secretary, Ken Clarke, said: "Without effective civil justice, businesses couldn't trade, individuals couldn't enforce their rights, and government couldn't fulfil its duties.

"But individuals and businesses tell me that the civil justice system at the moment can sometimes be intimidating and that they don't know if using the system will be worth the time, expense and hassle of going to court.

"I want people to be able to resolve their disputes cheaply and simply through the courts' very successful mediation service, and I want judges freed up to make quick and effective judgments based on the facts of a case, without unnecessary legal complication."

The mediation service has an accredited mediator speaking to both parties, usually by telephone, in an effort to settle the case. Mediaition can take five and six weeks to arrange, compared with 13 to 14 weeks for a court hearing, the ministry said, with satisfaction rates for exisiting mediation services at 95%.

Other changes will raise the small claims limit from £5,000 to £10,000, with a possible further increase to £15,000 following a fresh consultation.

Non-personal injury claims for between £25,000 and £100,000 will no longer be heard in the high court, which will be reserved for "necessarily complex cases".

Equity cases will only be referred there if the value exceeds £350,000, rather than £30,000 as at present, to reflect the rise in house prices since the level was last set in 1981, the ministry said.

There will be an extension of the online scheme to control legal costs for personal injury cases following road accidents worth compensation of up to £10,000 by pre-setting them "in a way which encourages early settlement". It will widen to cover all road accident cases up to £25,000, as well as employer and public liability personal injury cases.

Civil claims lawyers expressed concern about some aspects of the reform package. The Law Society, which represents solicitors, said: "The initiative is a step in the right direction, but it should be allowed to bed in and ensure that it can manage the workloads. There [is] a question mark over whether a telephone portal is suited to handle claims as high as the new limit, which is a significant amount to consumers and small businesses."

Michael Frisby, partner in the dispute resolution department of Stevens & Bolton LLP, said: "The increase in the threshhold for issuing non-personal injury claims will mean that all commercial claims up to £100,000 will now proceed in the county court. The increase will bring more cases within the county court system, and with it, potential problems for business users.

"This means that few parties to these claims will have solicitors acting, as costs are not recoverable, and so dramatically increase the burden on the judiciary and court staff of dealing with more litigants in person."

David Bott, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (Apil), said: "Policymakers need to be aware that extending the current system for road traffic accident cases, when that system still has serious technical and administrative flaws, will inevitably mean a further tilting of the playing field away from genuinely injured individuals in favour of big businesses and insurance companies, who are, actually, quite capable of looking after themselves."

These are some real reasons to be cheerful. But the glass is still only just half full

There are moments, as Jim Callaghan so famously observed before Labour was evicted from power in 1979, when the times change. In one important way, it is beginning to feel that Britain is at a watershed now. The terms of the debate about the role of women seem to have made a critical shift, so that the question is not so much why, as how to pursue the fight for equality. It is a fight that is a long way from victory, and one that is brutally exposing the significance of class and race as well as gender in perpetuating inequality. But when the Church of England rejects a compromise that would have left women as second class bishops, as Synod did on Wednesday, and a Conservative prime minister talks of quotas for women in boardrooms, as David Cameron did yesterday, then something important is happening to a long-familiar argument; something much more fundamental than trying to appeal to women voters.

Of course, such an epic change does not just happen. It has taken 50 years to get this far, two generations of women prepared to put up with derision and discouragement, and to make the hard compromises with family life to keep the flame alight. Neither Tories nor Lib Dems have taken much part, but, like the repentant sinner, at least they're here now, and that makes sustainable progress a real likelihood. Curiously, just as the Winter of Discontent allowed the Tories to frame their argument in a way that voters recognised in 1979, so economic crisis and the failure of the old model of corporate behaviour has made space for the argument ? advanced in such unexpected quarters as Master of Nothing, written by the Tory backbenchers Matthew Hancock and Nadim Zadhawi last year ? that macho behaviour is more cause than cure. If only, as the IMF boss Christine Lagarde observed, it had been Lehmann Sisters, there wouldn't have been a crisis at all.

In the past year, nearly a third of all board appointees have been women, edging their share of power in FTSE 100 companies up to 13.9%. That may also owe something to the joint determination of the European parliament and the EU's fundamental rights commissioner Viviane Reding to impose a 40% minimum of women in the boardroom by 2020. But there are other straws in the wind. For the first time ever the full-time pay gap between men and women has fallen below 10% and, at least at the junior management level, there is pay parity.

These are some real reasons to be cheerful. But the glass is still only just half full. At Davos (fewer than one in five women delegates) Facebook's chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg challenged women to have the courage to be as ambitious as men, but she did not explain why she is the only woman at the top of an organisation otherwise dominated by white men. Or take pay equality: only another round of figures will show if last year's parity is a solid gain, or a miserable chimera created by the disappearance of many low-paid women from the job market. Above all, when it comes to workplace equality, motherhood remains the defining barrier: from City high flyer to the school dinner lady, having children knocks a hole in women's earning capacity that is irrecoverable, as research from the Resolution Foundation published this week confirms, yet again ? and of course it is a much bigger a hole for women in the low- to middle-income sector than for higher-income women. And, Mr Cameron might note in the afterglow of his visit to Sweden, international comparisons are revealing. If women in the UK were employed at the rate they are in the Nordic countries, another million would be in work. Why, economic circumstances permitting, aren't they? Maybe it is because British childcare is the second most expensive in the OECD countries. Meanwhile, nearly half a million equal pay cases remain outstanding: thousands more claims are never pursued, and the introduction of charges will, by design, make going to a tribunal an even bigger hurdle. More women at the top is cause for celebration. But more women off the very bottom would be even better.

Lord Forsyth, who used to be in the Tory cabinet, thinks David Cameron has cooked up a plot to discredit the Lords

The House of Lords discussed one of its favourite subjects: itself. The peers sometimes remind me of Miss Piggy. "That's enough of me talking about MOI! Now, it's your turn to tell me what you think about MOI!"

The topic was the quantity of peers. David Cameron is cutting the number of MPs. Naturally MPs oppose this, since they fear they might be among the one in 13 who will lose their jobs.

But lords are against the increase in the number of peers, not least because it will leave less speaking time, and make it harder to reach the bar when it's busy. They are not nimbys but nit-picquers ? "Not in the places I can quaff."

Lord Dubs, a Labour peer, asked whether the government intended to increase the number of peers while waiting for its long-term reform plans to come into effect. (Not that they ever will, if most peers have anything to do with it.)

Lord Strathclyde, the leader of the house, said the government wanted a house that reflected the proportion of votes at the last general election.

Lord Dubs came back with a trick answer: "Oh." After the chortling died down, he pointed out that the leader of the house had said before that the government had no plans to pack it with at least 60 government supporters. That, he'd said, would look absurd. He asked the government to think again about this "stupid" idea.

Lord Strathclyde looked regretful. Sadly, he said, since the last election there had been a number of deaths.

(As I looked down it struck me that perhaps not all of them had been cleared away.)

Lord Kakkar, a surgeon and cross-bencher, asked who the house thought had a more mature understanding of the Lords: the president of the Lib Dems, Tim Farron, who had (bizarrely) likened it to the tyrannical Syrian regime, or Nick Clegg, his party leader, "who has described your lordships as 'an affront to liberal democracy'."

This drew delighted laughter. Any attack on the Lib Dems draws delighted laughter, even from some Lib Dems.

Lord Strathclyde pointed out that it was Tony Blair who had first called the peers "an affront to democracy". He suggested that Farron should come up the corridor from the Commons to the Lords, where he would see the "real world".

No, surely even the peers don't think they live in the real world! It turns out they don't. A check of my recorder tells me he said "the real work", which is a very different thing. After all, there was plenty of work in Narnia.

Lord Forsyth, who used to be in the Tory cabinet, thought it was all a plot by David Cameron to discredit the Lords so he could get his reforms through. You have to know that there are some Tory rightwingers who believe that Cameron is a dangerous lefty.

Lord Strathclyde thought that the peers were "really good value", which made them sound like multipacks of toilet paper at Tesco.

The cynics may include the leader of the house. Lord Maclennan asked what No 10 was planning. "I do know," said Lord Strathclyde gravely, "that the prime minister isn't telling anybody anything." He sounded almost plaintive, like Kermit addressing Miss Piggy.

Simon Hoggart will be appearing at Guardian Open Weekend, held on 24 and 25 March. Festival passes are now on sale at guardian.co.uk/open-weekend. Buy your pass before 1 March to ensure the best chance of booking reservations for individual sessions.

Three ministers from Karnataka resign after footage emerged purporting to show them watching pornography on a mobile phone during a meeting