Isabel Hardman

Yesterday marked the first reasonably good day that agitators for HS2 have had in a while. Northern business leaders started the day with a call to David Cameron to hold firm on the project, followed by Labour leader of Birmingham City Council Sir Albert Bore warning Labour of 'protracted public conflict' in the run-up to the general election if it continued to 'put out such a negative message on HS2'. This morning's Guardian story that Labour will support HS2 provided the project's chairman Sir David Higgins is given the power to bring down its costs appears to be damage limitation. But party sources are today rowing back from that line, which means Labour's support or otherwise is no clearer than it was yesterday.

Why did the Prime Minister give a statement in the Commons on the outcome of last week's European Council summit? Though he is expected to report back to MPs each time one of these jamborees takes place, David Cameron didn't really have a great deal to tell them other than the tantalising suggestion that the leaders had made progress on cutting red tape and the declaration that 'the EU is changing'. It was hardly one of those statements where Cameron can wave a budget cut or some other great policy victory at MPs.

David Cameron insists that a project like high-speed rail needs cross-party support. That may well be sensible, but his desire for Labour to retain its support for the new line is founded more on the necessity of getting the legislation through Parliament, rather than a great belief in parties working together on the big things. The fact is that Cameron needs Labour votes because yet again he cannot rely on his own party, the party of government, to push the bills through. Labour obviously scents blood, not just because there's sport to be had in making a Prime Minister squirm and plead for the Opposition's votes, but also because dropping support for HS2 would lend the party some useful credibility.

In the days before Ed Miliband went all Marxist/brave on energy (delete as tribally appropriate), the debate around energy was more about fracking than it was about freezes. Shale gas has taken a back seat while ministers wonder what on earth they can do about bills to take the wind out of the Labour leader's sails. But the political problems haven't gone away. The debate is still about whether the incentives on offer are enough for local communities to accept fracking pads in their area. MPs whose constituencies sit atop the Bowland Shale don't think the government is offering enough, and have continued to tell the Prime Minister that. He recently held a meeting with MPs interested in fracking, but those who attended complain that they got little out of it.

The Lib Dems are cross this afternoon about David Cameron's PMQs announcements on cutting back on green taxes in energy bills. They are mainly cross because they were only given 30 minutes' notice of the new policy before MPs crowded into the Chamber for the session, and are insisting that 'nothing concrete has been agreed'. A source close to Nick Clegg told Coffee House; 'Generally you would hope that an announcement of government policy would not be handled in this way. There was a quad discussion about this but nothing detailed was put forward and nothing concrete has been agreed.

Much of the coverage of today's Immigration Bill has centred around those controversial 'go home' vans, now ditched because they only sent one person home. Theresa May told the Commons this afternoon that 'we won't be rolling out the vans, they were too much of a blunt instrument'. In response to a question from Keith Vaz, she said: 'What I said to the right honourable gentleman is I didn't have a flash of blinding light one day and walk into the Home Office and say, I know, why don't we do this?' What I have done is looked at the interim evaluation in relation to the vans.