EATAPETA

Well I couldn't persuade the folks that crispy duck was the thing to eat yesterday, but I did steer everyone to Mario's Italian restaurant, Wood Street, Swindon, whereupon we all feasted on the fine fair within. Mother rather let the side down with a vegetarian lasagna, but I think I made up for it by ordering the veal, which also included ham. Father ate copious amounts of shellfish pasta, and the dragon ate about a kg of farmed samon. So I think we did our bit for EATAPETA day.

One of the bloody tyres on our new pushchair appears to be leaking. I wouldn't have noticed, but mother did and the wheel in question is being returned to the shop today. What's the betting that they don't have a replacement and we have to wait about 10 days for a new one?

The dragon is off to the doctor this morning for her weekly baby check. This could be the last one. He was moving around last night. It looked like he was trying to get out. I do hope he doesn't put in an appearance before the wheel for his buggy is fixed.

Yesterday my agency e-mailed me and informed me that my contract was being altered. I replied asking if that was legal and I have received only a stony silence in response. Honestly, what is the point of signing a contract if it can be changed without my consent? It actaully doesn't affect me, but I have a good mind to refuse to sign just on principal.

The ID cards bill has been defeated in the House of Lords for a third time this week and that puts parliament in something of an awkward position. Now that it has been defeated three times, in theory the Parliament act can be used to push the legislation through without Lords consent. The Parliament Act exists to bypass the Lords if it is deemed the Lords shouldn't be voting on something. For instance, if there was proposed legislation to alter the house of Lords in some way, the Lords would have a bias and can't be expected to vote on the issue. The government has already abused this act however to pass the disasterous hunting with dogs legislation. Attempting to use the act a second time for something it really shouldn't be used for would I think be very contraversial indeed.

The sticking point is passports. The government has conceded that ID cards should be voluntary, but they have insisted that anyone renewing their passport would have to register. The Lords quite rightly claim that the scheme is therefore not truely voluntary. Charles Clarke's argument is that passports are voluntary and therefore the cards remain voluntary. The peers are not having that. The government is claiming that they have to continue with the plan since it was a manifesto promise however.

Blair's woes don't stop there. As predicted, yesterday's education reforms bill was voted through comfortably. However, there were a considerable number of Labour rebels and had the Conservatives voted against, or even abstained, the bill wouldn't have got through. Most pundits seem to think that Conservative support will be withdrawn at the next reading anyway, so it's a hollow victory.

On top of all this, there is now a new row about "loans" to the Labour party from people who then expect to receive a peerage. The Labour party treasurer has fanned the flames somewhat by admitting he knew nothing about the "laons" in question. All this goes to further the perception that the current government is indeed the most corrupt in living memory.

And I've just seen news that claims MPs have voted to send the ID cards bill back to the Lords for a fourth time. There are now claims that each ID card will come with a pin to establish identity. This appears to be an admission that either the biometric id feature doesn't work, or more likely, that readers are too expensive. This of course changes the shape of the whole ID card plan. The Lords can either defeat the bill and bat it back to the commons for a fourth time, or they can capitulate and let the bill go through. I hope with every fibre of my living being that they defeat it. If they do, this will continue until one side backs down or the Parliament act is used. I think they would already have used the Parliament act if they were going to however.