It has taken a year for many Labour MPs to notice that the headline cut in income tax from 22p to 2op came at a cost - the abolition of the 10p band.

That seems pretty embarrassing. Bear in mind that the headlines - the day after the 2007 Budget - focussed on this sleight of hand.

No surprise then that one MP, at Monday night’s meeting of Labour backbenchers (the PLP) got his sums confused. It was wrong, argued the person (Tom Levitt apparently) that MPs would each be £1,000 better off while poor workers suffered. The sum was totally erroneous - being his application of the 2p cut to his entire salary. D’oh.

Meanwhile someone tells me that posters were made a few years back, declaring the greatest achievements of the Labour regime: among them the introduction of the 10p band. Apparently John Prescott still has the posters in his office. But is the 10p one still there?

One wag suggests that supplementing the 1 for a 2 would solve the problem.

Rightly MPs are worried that the issue is going to bite them at next week’s local elections. Apparently the Tories have already drawn up material showing how much worse off different types of workers are going to be.

Hazel Blears, communities secretaries, told a Commons committee this morning that the quality of data on the UK’s migrant population was not as good as it could be.

“We are working with the LGA (Local Government Association) to get better data,” she said.

This could include sharing information from Tesco, other supermarkets, about people who used its stores. “I welcome that kind of information if it can help us get amore accurate view at a local level of what the impact is,” she said.

Apparently this is not quite as Big Brother as it sounds. The Tesco information merely records how footfall has grown at established stores - rather than a breakdown of its customers.

The LGA is also looking at using GP registrations, schools census data and National Insurance numbers to improve population estimates.

A spokesperson for Ms Blears said afterwards that such information was worth considering - but only if it was “robust and sensible”.

It’s one thing for an MP to put his name to an early day motion - a chance to say “I’m on your side, honest” without actually doing anything.

It’s another to put your name to an amendment which undermines your own government’s finance bill.

That’s why it is hugely significant that 39 Labour rebels have put their names forward to back Frank Field’s clause which would promise compensation for those left worse off by the abolition of the 10p tax rate.

In theory this is enough to defeat the government next Monday -  if the small parties and independents join in.

Whips are trying to warn that defeat on this could prompt a vote of no confidence and then - horror of horrors - a general election. But this has a ring of nonsense given that the Labour rebels will only vote against their own side on this one specific issue.

What to watch this week: Will the 39 grow or shrink? Will genuine concessions be offered? What will Alistair Darling say at his 1.30pm meeting today with backbenchers?

We still don’t know how many of the 39 put their names forward before last night’s PLP meeting where Gordon Brown made a rare display of “humanity”* which may sway support his way.

(* Denis McShane, former Europe minister, said it was a “warm, human” speech by the prime minister in contrast to his usual “authoritarian” tones. )

A defeat on Monday would look very bad for the PM. This has only happened twice before:

1977, when Denis Healey was forced to update tax allowances in line with inflation

1994, when John Major failed to extend VAT to fuel 

The leaked list* of Labour MPs who whips feared might rebel over the 42 days terror issue makes great reading.

Not only the for the descriptions of certain backbenchers (eg John Cummings - “usually persuadable”).

But, startlingly, for its list of MPs who think the idea of extending pre-charge detention a flawed idea but are prepared to go along with the government for the sake of unity.

Step forward the following:

Joan Ruddock (”Feels case not proved 42 days plucked from thin air”).

Barry Gardiner (”Will vote with Govt but unhappy”)

and best of all

Andrew Slaughter (”Will support but thinks barmy”)

* Someone has just passed me the list, which was in the Sunday Times this morning. Sadly it’s about three months old but still provides some good insights. As of January the whips reckoned on 50 rebels and another 50-odd waverers.

I’ve cross-checked the list with those who voted against extending detention of terrorists to 90 days during the Blair days. (The idea was rejected in a rare gov defeat and we were left with 28).

Rather a large number of those expected to vote against 42 days did not vote against 90 days

eg

Nick Ainger, Karen Buck, Martin Caton, Colin Challen, Ann Clwyd, Jim Devine, Andrew Dismore, Frank Doran, Bill Etherington, Austin Mitchell, Mohammad Sarwar, Jim Sheridan, Mark Todd, Keith Vaz, Rudi Vis.

There has been some traffic the other way. But - it seems - not so much.  No wonder there’s an all-out attempt to drum up support ahead of the crucial vote in about a month.

Angela Smith MP. Never heard of her before. Maybe you have. Anyhow, apparently she is threatening to leave the government over the abolition of the 10p income tax bracket.

Given her relative anonymity* - feel free to disagree - this isn’t a massive blow to Gordon Brown.

It would have been more exciting if it was the other Angela Smith MP, who is Parliamentary private secretary to the prime minister.

Still it isn’t great news given the brewing backbench dissent over the issue.

(*She is/was pps to Yvette Cooper, chief secretary to the Treasury)

 UPDATE:

Smith has just told me: “No comment”. But she has told friends that she could be about to resign. Tomorrow seems likely.

LATEST UPDATE:

She has changed her mind. After a chat with the PM. Not the most impressive of rebellions.

Boris Johnson told the Sun’s website today that he would like an online referendum in London about giving boroughs the power to bring back smoking in pubs and clubs.

It’s a curious idea. Not least because most of us - even some smokers - have got used to being able to breathe fresh air during a night out.  

It’s the second clear policy idea which seems to diverge from Conservative central office. The other was Boris backing an amnesty for illegal immigrants in the UK capital.

Not that Ken Livingstone ever suffered from distancing himself from some Labour policies in the past. 

 (Boris: “What is the point of having local democracy if we don’t leave decisions like this to a local level? If I had my way, we would have an online referendum in London about whether to give boroughs back the power to give discretion over smoking to pubs and clubs.”)

Update: Boris believes his quotes have been misinterpreted. Not sure I believe him for one.

Entrepreneurs should not start to see risk as a “four-letter word” because they are worried about the credit crunch, John Hutton will say in a speech later today.

The business secretary will tell a CBI audience that business people should not lose their nerve despite the well-publicised difficulties facing lenders and borrowers.

Mr Hutton will concede that fears over liquidity have spread from the stock market to “workplaces and homes” around the world. Tougher lending conditions are already having an impact - in particular on the retail, real estate and leisure sectors - he will say.

But he will emphasise the UK’s strong business growth and the trend for new companies to last longer.

Mr Hutton will tell the CBI Entrepreneurs Conference in London that business people will receive support from the government to keep on taking risks in order to benefit the economy.

The various schemes set up to aid entrepreneurs - such as the small firms loan guarantee, which was recently expanded - will help provide that support, he will add. Banks remain “ready and willing to lend to small and medium businesses”, the minister will maintain.

The fact that he needs to address the issue at all, however, is a tacit acknowledgement that this is a growing worry.

The idea has been raised before - in relation to our foreign policy and our economic reliance on the US.

No wonder then that the 10 Downing Street spokesman said this morning that “we were the fastest growing country in the US last year”…..before correcting himself…..”sorry, the G7″.

At the same time, Gordon Brown watchers are likely to have a field day this week as they watch the prime minister on a crucial trip to New York and Washington. The body language with “Dubya” has not seemed great, as seen in the picture below.

Meanwhile check out The Times on how the visit could be overshadowed by the pope.

A tea-spluttering moment this morning when I read Anatole Kaletsky in The Times. 

Until recently the paper’s economics guru was a bull on the UK economy/housing market (accurately as it turned out).

Today, perhaps inspired by the latest IMF report, he was talking about price falls of up to 30 per cent.

 You might feel sympathetic towards Gordon Brown at this point. Why should he take the political flak for any downturn?

Here are three reasons which come to mind:

1] Changing the Bank of England’s inflation target from RPI to CPI (which does not include house price inflation). This enabled the monetary policy committee to cut interest rates much further in recent years. This allowed people to borrow more. Boom.

2] Shifting planning guidelines for new homes from greenfield to brownfield. Though well-intentioned, this has led to a glut of city centre flats, bought mainly by buy-to-let investors. Fingers will be scorched.

3] Rhetoric. Policies, speeches and initiatives have been laced with the presumption that house prices were a one-way bet. The target for home-ownership was upped to 90 per cent (why have one in the first place?).

Even now, the government is “helping” low-paid public sector workers risk what meagre savings they have getting on the housing ladder……as if this can only be a good thing.

A new row last night over whether Gordon Brown has U-turned in his decision not to attend the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics games.

Channel 4 claimed that the prime minister had failed to make his position clear. The story is all over this morning’s papers.  

Um. I was at the lobby briefing on March 19 - along with 20 other journalists - when Number 10 explicitly said that Brown would attend the closing ceremony but not the opening.

Meanwhile for an amusing take on last weekend’s torch pantomime it’s worth reading the FT’s own Robert Shrimsley this morning.