The Tory right - now with the former defence secretary, Liam Fox, leading the way - are calling on the chancellor to cut business taxes.

The Lib Dems are demanding both privately and publicly that he cuts income tax for lower and middle earners.

Labour say a temporary VAT cut is needed to stimulate growth.

The popular press is calling for fuel duty to be frozen again.

The chancellor's aides reply simply that there isn't any money. Besides, they have their own concerns - how to lessen the impact of a spending cut already announced but yet to be implemented.

The scrapping of child benefit for those on upper rate income tax looks certain to be very unpopular with those far from rich but just well paid enough to pay higher rate tax - particularly single earner - households.

In times of plenty a little cash might be found for all.

In times of austerity, and with ministers determined not to change their economic course, George Osborne will have to choose.

The more taxes he wants to cut or freeze... the more he'll first have to raise in higher taxes from the better off which is why higher council tax bands, stamp duty loopholes and pension tax relief for the wealthy are all being examined.

What wounded the PM this week were his own words quoted back at him:

"Change - if it is to endure, if it is to really work - should have the support of people who work in our NHS. We have to take our nurses and doctors with us... we want to work with them, not against them."

This week, the Labour leader quipped - in a reference to Monday's very selective health summit - the PM hadn't even been prepared to be in the same room as the representatives of not just doctors and nurses but midwives, physios and many others who work in the NHS.

The next threat to the NHS Bill will come not in this afternoon's Opposition Day vote and not from within the Conservative Party but from grass-roots Lib Dems.

There is now a move to secure an emergency motion at the party's spring conference to kill the bill and an activists' petition as well.

Most telling of all, though, is the fact that Nick Clegg has told allies that he is losing more activists from the party on this issue than he did on tuition fees.

They believe that a small, unrepresentative protest group is trying to make big companies lose their nerve and withdraw from a scheme which allows people up to eight weeks' work experience without losing their benefits (in the past only two weeks was allowed).

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg told me: "I think it is ridiculous when people condemn a programme of work experience which is helping hundreds, if not thousands, of young people to get into work. I think anyone who wants to condemn a scheme that helps people into work at a time of high unemployment really needs to think hard about their priorities. It is not slave labour. It is not compulsory. It is entirely voluntary."

He added: "It is very simple. We say to employers, 'Please take on these young people. We will pay them, through benefits, but could you please keep them on for a few weeks because it increases their chance of finding work?' Fifty per-cent of youngsters on the work experience scheme so far have found permanent work. That is something that I celebrate. Other people might choose to condemn it. I don't."

Asked if he had any concerns about young people being asked to work for example a night-shift stacking shelves in a supermarket for free, Mr Clegg said: "I have absolutely no qualms at all about the idea that rather than have a young person sitting at home, feeling cut off, lonely and getting depressed because they don't know what to do with their lives.

"It is better to give them the opportunity for a few weeks to actually work, and of course retain their payment through their benefits".

The anti-cuts pressure group Right to Work occupied a Tesco branch in Westminster at the weekend and bombarded its HQ and that of other big high street names with demands that work be paid the minimum rate.

Today Tesco said it would offer young unemployed people four weeks' paid work or the opportunity to take part in the existing scheme. A no-brainer you might think.

But ministers believe that many will prefer the certainty of staying on benefits to the uncertainty of coming off it without knowing they're going to get a job at the end.

What may unnerve ministers most is that Tesco has come out against the government's welfare rule which states that benefits can be cut for people whose work experience placements do not proceed well.

Right to Work spokesman Mark Dunk welcomed the move by Tesco but warned that the group might now target other high street names.

One minister told me that he believed that the protesters were the "usual suspects" who'd got hold of and used other people's e-mails to write protests.

One of those who appeared to have written to Tesco was a government minister.

The home secretary is about to unveil the official report into the relaxing of border controls last summer.

Ministers have had the report by the chief inspector of the UK Border Agency, John Vine, for some time. I am told that they are relaxed about what it says about them but shocked about what it says about how often and for how long officials relaxed border controls.

The row that led to the inquiry also led, you may recall, to the UK Border Force chief Brodie Clark being suspended and later quitting. He confirmed that some controls had been relaxed without ministerial approval but insisted that he was "no rogue" and is suing the Home Office.

Last month the House of Commons home affairs committee produced a report saying it was "shocked" at the number of times checks had been waived when ports and airports became too busy.

The question that may be most interesting to focus on today is this: If Brodie Clark was "no rogue" who else did know what was going on and for how long and what are ministers now going to do about it?

Economically, that means Britain could face not just low growth and rising unemployment but, if the credit ratings agencies do eventually downgrade Britain, higher interest rates too.

Politically, it is another sign - following the revelation last year that the government is way off course to meet its borrowing targets - that George Osborne is currently failing in his own terms - ie: in his efforts to cut the debt and the deficit ahead of all other economic goals.

Yet this morning - as I listened from afar on a half-term break - I couldn't help noticing that this latest news simply led both Messrs Osborne and Balls to say "I told you so".

The chancellor says "I told you how serious our debt problem was" whilst the shadow chancellor tells you "I told you the government was making things worse".

It will be Mr Balls, though, who will feel with some confidence that the arguments are moving his way.

Update 1.20pm: The detail of what Moody's are saying is only just reaching me in the middle of nowhere on my half term break.

What Moody's point out, and the chancellor's people have seized upon, is that a downgrade could follow any "reduced political commitment to fiscal consolidation, including discretionary fiscal loosening".

That, says the chancellor, is why Ed Balls' mantra - spend more now to premote growth - isn't borne out by today's report. Mr Osborne's message remains clear - steady as she goes.

That is the cry coming from a very curious coalition.

Out front are opponents of the government's NHS plans - led by the Labour Party but followed by a growing number of groups representing doctors, nurses and midwives. Behind them, muttering rather than shouting, are some supporters of the very same reforms.

They argue that ministers could have brought about most of the changes they want without new legislation.

They fear that necessary reforms will now be blamed for anything that goes wrong in the health service, even when shortage of money may be the real problem.

They believe that Andrew Lansley's presentation of the changes has been little short of calamitous.

That deep frustration is what was probably behind the colourful remark quoted in The Times this week. An anonymous but exasperated prime ministerial aide was reported to have said: "Andrew Lansley should be taken out and shot".

Yet David Cameron has twice recently passed up the chance to fire his health secretary when first Liam Fox's and then Chris Huhne's resignations forced cabinet changes on him.

And today he backed both the man and his bill.

Why?

In part because some one-time critics - like Shirley Williams - have now been won over.

In part, perhaps, because he will not want to throw a lifeline to Ed Miliband by making a humiliating U-turn.

And in part because some changes have begun and some argue that the law now needs to catch up with them.

In other words, could Syria's President Bashar al-Assad be about to follow the example of his father President, Hafez al-Assad, who massacred not just hundreds but thousands and, perhaps, tens of thousands of people 30 years ago in order to quell a revolt against his regime? *

That was the fear discussed at a meeting of the National Security Council chaired by David Cameron. It examined the consequences of Russia and China's veto of a United Nations resolution condemning the Assad regime.

Ministers believe there are only two possibilities now - either Russia changes its mind and decides to turn on the Syrian regime, or some of those who wanted a UN resolution will arm the Syrian rebels.

Ministers are concerned that the Syrian opposition are not as organised or co-ordinated as the Libyan forces who assembled in Benghazi. They are keen to do all they can to help whilst trying to avoid the appearance of a rebellion led or organised by the West.

The next key move will be made by the Arab League when it meets this Saturday but the British government has discussed the possibility of staging an international conference on the future of Syria in London to bring together opponents of President Assad.

Many of those interested in the future of Syria are due to be in the UK anyway in a little over a fortnight's time for the London Somalia Conference. That event on 23 February will see senior representatives from more than 40 governments gathering in the capital, along with the UN, AU, EU, World Bank, the Inter-Governmental Authority for Development, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and the League of Arab States.

The aim of any conference would be to encourage greater co-ordination between different Syrian factions and open discussions between them and their potential supporters in North Africa, the Gulf States and some Arab states.

Some will draw parallels with the Libya Conference in London last year, which was the precursor to military action. Ministers are clear that there is no chance of that, though once again it is the Qataris who are taking the lead in the region and it is they who are expected to arm the rebels.

* The Hama massacre in February 1982 effectively ended a campaign by Sunni Muslims, including the Muslim Brotherhood, against Assad's regime. Reports of the number killed range from 1,000 killed to 40,000. Witnesses to the attack recall it on this BBC World Service programme.

The acrimonious break-up of Chris Huhne's marriage led to allegations about who did what, when.

This being the marriage of a cabinet minister, it became material for newspaper headlines which, in turn, became the basis of allegations of criminal behaviour.

That has divided a family, friends and now led to his resignation.

As a result the coalition's most outspoken Lib Dem, most prominent advocate of policies to combat climate change and the man best placed to challenge Nick Clegg has gone.

Twice the prime minister has found himself angrily confronted at the cabinet table by Mr Huhne - first for sanctioning aggressive anti-Clegg propaganda in the referendum on changing Britain's voting system and then for his pre-Christmas European veto.

He has battled to stop the Treasury downgrading green policies which some businesses complain are driving up prices and making them uncompetitive.

The Tories won't miss that aggression but many did regard him as a competent and efficient minister.

Chris Huhne has always professed his innocence and will continue to do so.

If he does win his case he could pose a political threat to the coalition and his leader from the backbenches.

If he loses there could be a by-election in a Conservative/Lib Dem marginal which the Tories would expect to win.

Either way the former secretary of state's potential to cause political trouble is far from at an end.

Just before 1000 GMT his solicitor will be informed by the Crown Prosecution Service of the decision they have reached about whether to prosecute him and his former wife, Vicky Pryce, over allegations that he persuaded her to take speeding points on his behalf and, thereby, avoid a driving ban.

That decision will then be broadcast and explained on camera.

I understand that the prime minister and the deputy prime minister have already consulted the cabinet secretary about what to do in the event that charges are brought. They have concluded that Mr Huhne could not continue as a member of the government.

Of course, if no charges are brought Chris Huhne will continue in his job.

He has always denied any wrongdoing and he and his legal team have always been confident that he will avoid prosecution.

Some think that the fact that a news conference has been called suggests that charges will be brought. I disagree.

Whatever its decision the CPS will want to be very clear in public about why they have acted in the way they have, just as they were at the end of the cash for honours investigation into Tony Blair's government.

* If Huhne is forced out of the Cabinet I expect Ed Davey to replace him and Norman Lamb to take Davey's place in the Business Department

Update: I've just been checking the precedents for the CPS announcing in advance that they are making an on-camera statement and for the DPP himself delivering it. The Crown Prosecution Service did make an on camera statement when they decided not to bring prosecutions in the cash for honours. It was, though, not the Director of Public Prosecutions himself who made the announcement. The news emerged the day before - I reported the fact that there would not be prosecutions the day before on the BBC News at Ten and on my blog. The last time the DPP made an on-camera statement was when manslaughter charges were brought against a police officer over the death of Ian Tomlinson last May. He also made the announcements on the decisions relating to the MPs' expenses scandal.

Update 16:31 Thursday: Nick Clegg signalled his approach to Chris Huhne in his interview with the Andrew Marr Show on 22nd January 2012. "Obviously the Cabinet Secretary as the sort of arbiter of these things can provide advice, and the prime minister and myself and others would need to take a view. But we as a government want the highest standards of probity to be in place in everything that is done by cabinet members"

The Labour leader began by putting the prime minister on the back foot in the House of Commons today - on why he wouldn't legislate to publish all bankers' salaries over £1m and put an employee representative on remuneration committees.

He then attacked David Cameron and his "Cabinet of millionaires" for being unable to lead what Mr Miliband called "the class war" on bankers.

Ed has had a very good week but he may come to regret that reference to a class war.

FYI: Full quote was as follows - Ed Miliband: "I think we've now heard it all. Because he says that the class war against the bankers is going to be led by him and his cabinet of millionaires. I don't think it's going to wash."

The man who sank a bank - the former chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland - has been stripped of his knighthood.

It was - formally at least - the Queen who honoured Fred Goodwin in 2004 for services to banking and it was Her Majesty who today decided to dis-honour him.

She, as ever, was acting on the advice of her prime minister who was acting on the recommendation of a shadowy Whitehall committee - the so-called Forfeiture Committee - chaired by the Head of the Civil Service.

The decisions - first to give him a knighthood and then to remove it - were, primarily, political decisions

Robert Peston: Knighthood shredded

The man who sank a bank - the former chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland - has been stripped of his knighthood.

It was - formally at least - the Queen who honoured Fred Goodwin in 2004 for services to banking and it was Her Majesty who today decided to dis-honour him.

She, as ever, was acting on the advice of her prime minister who was acting on the recommendation of a shadowy Whitehall committee - the so-called forfeiture committee - chaired by the Head of the Civil Service.

The decisions first to give him a knighthood and then to remove it were, primarily, political decisions.

Tony Blair honoured a man who had built the Royal Bank of Scotland into one of the world's largest banks - with a balance sheet bigger even than the British economy. When RBS crashed, it cost tens of billions of taxpayers' money to stop it collapsing altogether.

David Cameron has been desperate for a symbol that the bankers have paid a price for the economic havoc they have wreaked.

Few are likely to publicly sympathise with Mr Fred Goodwin. They may note though that, unlike others who have had their honours removed, Fred Goodwin has neither been convicted nor charged with any crime.

Some may wonder why the man who was the chief executive of RBS cannot remain a knight when the man who was chairman of RBS or the chairman of HBOS can.

They will surely notice that this announcement comes in the middle of a predictable row about what those still in banking still earn.

What bankers will surely notice and some other senior businessmen too is that politicians who queued up to be their friends have now turned on them with the press and the public cheering them on.

David Cameron's answer is simple - he vetoed a new EU-wide treaty or, as he put it last night: "We're not in this Treaty, we are not part of it, we're not bound by it, we don't have to ratify it, don't have to take it to the British parliament - that is what the veto secures you."

What he did not veto was the creation of a new Fiscal Union (or F.U. as his critics delight in calling it) or the use of EU institutions to support it or the ambition of Germany to incorporate this into existing EU treaties within 5 years.

In other words, David Cameron decided to opt out of a new European Treaty rather than block it or, as the sceptics wanted, extract a price for his acquiescence.

That is why Labour call it a phantom veto and why some sceptics are beginning to mutter that he has turned out to be more John Major than Margaret Thatcher.

UPDATE: As Ed Miliband mocked David Cameron for his Euro negotiating stance and Eurosceptics complain that the PM is more Major than Thatcher it's interesting to note that on last week's Decision Time David Miliband praised John Major's negotiating skills if not his objectives. You can listen to the programme here

PS: Tomorrow it's Decision Time on Ed's favourite subject the "Squeezed Middle" - with Alistair Darling

The prime minister knows that it was not his public exhortation or the Treasury's private nudges or winks or even arm-twisting which stopped Stephen Hester's bonus.

It was instead a parliamentary motion tabled by the Labour Party. Mr Cameron called that "the luxury of opposition" and "headline grabbing" and paid Ed Miliband the ultimate compliment on naming him more than once in his news conference.

The PM insists that he is sticking to the rules drawn up by the last Labour government which properly keep ministers at arms length from the running of RBS.

He fears that undue interference could lead the bank's executives or even its whole board to walk away.

The problem is that Mr Hester is just one bonus amongst many yet to come. Some in the coalition - in both parties - are growing impatient at their apparent impotence in the face of the bankers' bonuses.

Politicians led by Ed Miliband have tasted bankers' blood - a taste they may get used to.

What the case of Stephen Hester showed is that the public's anger with the banks can't be assuaged by cutting one bonus to less than a symbolic £1m or by insisting that the man running RBS is simply being rewarded for doing what he was hired to do or saying that his pay is "a matter for the board" or hoping that he won't take the money he's offered.

David Cameron has tried each of those tacks in recent days and has been left looking pretty lame and pretty isolated.

Ed Miliband has had his first victory since his stand against Rupert Murdoch on hacking and, after a dreadful start to the year, is unlikely to let go now.

Nick Clegg wants to define his role in the Coalition as "fairer than thou" and so won't be far behind. Even Boris Johnson, the man who prided himself on standing up for the City of London, couldn't bring himself to defend Hester's bonus in this mayoral election year.

The question now is why stop at this bonus? What about Hester's long term incentive payments? Or his pay? Or the bonuses and pay of all those in RBS's investment arm? Why shouldn't Labour threaten to engineer votes on them?

Some may see this as the beginning of a process which brings global capitalism under the control of democratic politicians.

It will take a very brave politician indeed to argue that the City of London will not survive for long if bankers' pay appears to be being set by opinion poll.

It would, say its backers, stimulate growth and silence the noise of Heathrow. Nonsense say the critics. The idea of a brand new airport to the east of London is a vanity project which has been looked at in the 1940s and 70s and rejected. Others argue that the environmental costs of expanding air travel at all are simply too high.

I'll examine how any government would decide whether to take on the huge challenge of building a new airport with the head of BA, a green campaigner who got himself arrested to stop Heathrow being expanded, the former head of civil aviation policy in Whitehall, a former transport minister and a former climate change adviser at Number 10.

That's Decision Time on BBC Radio 4 at 8pm tonight, or you can listen afterwards here.

The prime minister will, no doubt, point to troubles imported from the eurozone. To which Labour replies that it is the shrinkage of domestic demand that caused the slowing of growth until the end of last year.

The debate about the recent past feels wearisomely familiar. Not so, though, that about the future.

The IMF's chief economist Olivier Blanchard has called on the UK to consider slowing the speed of cuts in the short term to avoid strangling the recovery:

Blanchard: If the economy is doing worse, let the automatic stabilisers work for example, which is the case in the UK, which is partly the case in Germany as well. You can even go further than that, if growth is really dismal then you may decide that you're going to go a bit more slowly about the discretionary part of the budget and for the UK there's some indication that this happened with respect to the revision in potential output, yes to the extent that these countries are not under the gun from the markets, have plausible medium term plans, they can slow down and it would help.

BBC: So we don't need to cut as deep as we were?

Blanchard: You have some room to do something if needed, yes if growth were to be even worse than we have forecast.

BBC: So more flexibility than we thought?

Blanchard: Yes you have, again, there's another issue which is if you have announced the plan and you deviate from the plan you may lose credibility. So given that the UK has announced the plan moving from it is a bit more difficult than it might be for another country.

The organisation's boss, Christine Lagarde, is more diplomatic, perhaps because her demand for more resources for the Fund relies on maintaining good relations with the chancellor and other Treasury ministers.

Inside government there will now be much soul-searching about how to stimulate growth. The much-vaunted package of infrastructure investment, government-backed business loans and a stimulus to the housing market will be examined to see if they are actually delivering.

There is one other intriguing possibility - tax cuts. The coalition is committed to steadily increasing income tax allowances to take poorer people out of tax altogether. At a time when ministers want to prove that they are committed to fairness, an accelerated increase might look rather tempting.

They would also be following the advice of Gus - now Lord - O'Donnell, the recently departed Cabinet Secretary, who included tax cuts on his list of things to do if the economy flatlined. The other things he recommended have, by the way, already been announced.

The minister, Lord Freud, argued for a cap not to save money but to turn around lives because it was not moral, he argued, to consign children to a life in which work was not the norm - or to give more in benefits to families than the average family could earn in work.

His opponents, led by the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, argued that it was immoral to punish families simply because they had more children. Losing a job was bad enough but then losing your home was unacceptable.

The effect of the bishops amendment would be - the government claims - to drive the cap up to the equivalent of earning £47,000 for large families with several children.

Their opponents point to the fact that, on their own figures, many of those affected by the cap are not able to work straight away even though the disabled are excluded.

The government's impact assessment chart shows that only 39% of households affected are on JSA - jobseekers allowance - whereas 22% are on ESA - employment and support allowance (or what used to be called incapacity benefit or "the sick") - and 38% are on income support suggesting they are, for example, caring for children and not expected to be in work by the system.

Or

It's arbitrary. It takes no account of the differences in rents and standards of living in different parts of the country. It's immoral to force vulnerable families out of their homes.

That, in summary, is the debate about the benefits cap taking place in the Lords.

Cuts that are already affecting hundreds of thousands of people and saving billions of pounds have been agreed with scarcely any debate and yet today a proposal which saves relatively little - £290m a year out of a total work and pensions budget of £192bn - and affects around 1% of claimants - approx 67,000 families - has become the focus of the welfare debate.

Labour have just signalled that they are ready to vote with the bishops and some Lib Dems who are trying to limit the impact of the benefits cap by excluding child benefit and, therefore, removing the penalty/disincentive (depending on your point of view) to have large families whilst on benefit.

The Tories are delighted - win or lose today they will claim that Ed Miliband is soft on welfare and opposes cuts just days after saying he recognised the economic realities.

Labour will reply that his party are not against a cap but are simply not prepared to vote for one which increases homelessness.

Ministers hint that they will bring in transition arrangements to avoid penalising the poorest but refuse to spell out what they are.

It is all too clear that this debate is as much about politics as it is about benefits.

I was speaking to Iain Duncan Smith as he limbers up for another fight in the House of Lords next week.

The Lords have already defeated the government several times on welfare recently. On Monday they debate plans for a benefits cap.

The Lords will debate proposals to exclude child benefit from the new cap, reducing its impact on large families.

The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds is leading the opposition. He says that: "There's a very real risk that reforms will cause suffering to the most vulnerable.

"We are trying to lessen the suffering for children in families where parents are unemployed."

IDS says that would undermine the whole point of the benefits cap and insists that he'll simply get MPs to reverse the decision if he loses.

"(The Lords) need to recognise that we are determined as a government to get these reforms through, and if they have to come back to the Commons and if we have to take them back to the Lords I will do just that, because British taxpayers paying their money must believe that the system is fair to those who need it and to them who pay the money".

I put it to Duncan Smith that the row about the cap was a distraction from the suffering of many others who have already seen their benefits cut . "They're not suffering" he replied.

Here's a transcript from the interview:

IDS: "Welfare is about changing your life. It's about taking you from dependency and moving you to independence and if that means saying too there is a limit to what the state is prepared to pay, I think taxpayers on marginal and low incomes, they want to know there's a limit because they don't mind giving to people who need it. What they want to know is, actually, someone living in Kensington who can't afford that house normally and couldn't [if they were] in work, I don't think I should pay for that".

Nick Robinson: "But, forgive me, isn't that the point? Politically it appeals to taxpayers.

"What they don't like hearing about is the many, many thousands of people now who - because of cuts to disability benefit and cuts to employment and support allowance and cuts to housing benefit - are now really suffering. It's a way of distracting people."

IDS: "But they're not suffering. The point about this is that what makes you suffer is the state that plunges you into dependency on the state. It does two things, it means bigger bills for taxpayers and it means your life and your children's lives will be blighted by being dependent on me, the secretary of state, to give you the money to live".