It’s unusual for an early day motion to attract 30 signatures on its first day. But it happened yesterday to an EDM by Greg Pope, a Labour backbencher which taps the growing discontent among the party.

It says:  

“That this House notes that, despite assurances to the contrary, many people are being made worse off by the abolition of the 10 pence tax rate; notes with concern that this is having a disproportionate impact on people who can ill afford to be made worse off; accepts that this was not the intention of the Government but is dismayed at the response to the plight of those adversely affected; and calls on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring forward measures to correct this damaging change to the taxation system.”

 This is a pretty strong criticism of his own government. Pope today withdrew his EDM (which had 26 Labour signatories) on the grounds that ministers had agreed to have another look at the tax changes. But it would strongly appear that he has been sat on: hard.

 Pope just told me that he didn’t want to “cause problems” for the government or “hold a gun to its head“. He also said he would have expected 100 signatures if the EDM was left to run its course.

Co-sponsor of the motion was Fabian Hamilton, another backbencher who describes himself as a “loyalist”, moved solely by the groundswell of discontent in his Leeds constituency.

“They (Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling) don’t see that some of the most vulnerable individuals are affected by this change, people have been predicting it for ages,” he said.

“If you’re a minister on £80,000, £100,000 a year, £300 is peanuts but if you’re on £16,000 it’s an awful lot of money. We’re so out of touch, all of us, not just Labour, we forget how little money can make such a difference to people on a low income.”

The problem though - I would argue - is that a U-Turn would weigh heavily on the government’s credibility. Not least after non-doms and the capital gains tax rows.

But there’s no mistaking the strength of Hamilton’s (and others’) view on this:

“We’re the party that stands up for the poor and don’t kick the poor in the teeth, that’s the worst possible thing. Labour is supposed to exist for the most vulnerable people in the country.”

Another MP I spoke to this afternoon, Gisela Stuart, said if Labour was really concerned about the poor this was the wrong way to go about it.

For now it’s not obvious who has executed a U-Turn. Pope or the government? Noises from the Treasury suggest that it is the former.

Gerry Sutcliffe, minister for licensing, has given a jaw-dropping interview openly opposing Alistair Darling’s Budget. He wants the chancellor to “change his mind” about the alcohol duty increase. Yes, “change his mind”.

We cannot think of the last time a minister, indeed an experienced minister, so brazenly opposed a central Budget measure. This is an extraordinary breach of discipline. It is bound to lead to a deluge of negative commentary on the state of the Brown government. What was he thinking?

Here are the relevant extracts from the Morning Advertiser, the pub industry’s trade mag:

Asked by the Morning Advertiser if lobbying on duty was now a waste of time….Sutcliffe said: “You say that, but we’ve had examples like the fuel levy where the impact on a sector has been massive — and the decision has been deferred.

“I’m not saying that will happen, but that’s where the trade needs to focus the basis of its argument.”

He added: “I think the industry’s right to be upset. We, and I speak as a champion of the pub trade, want the Chancellor to change his mind.

“The next opportunity will be the pre-Budget report in November. But the industry has seriously got to get its act together in working out what its priorities are.”

Sutcliffe said the trade is letting itself down on lobbying: “The industry’s problem is that it’s not united. My message is: sort yourselves out.

“If all that’s said is, ‘Woe is me, everything’s bad, the rise has made it worse, and we’re all going to die,’ that is not the way to do things.

“What the industry’s got to do is say, ‘That wasn’t helpful, but if we do this and this and become more proactive, and more positive, we’ll get where we need to be.”

UPDATE:  We suspect Mr Sutcliffe, pictured second from the left, may well need his hard-hat today.

It’s a question worth asking of the Treasury spokesman for the Liberal Democrats after his claim yesterday that 3m families could end up in negative equity within a year. (It’s the front page of the Daily Mail today).

The prediction came within an otherwise timely debate yesterday, prompted by the Lib Dems (see yesterday’s blog) about the state of the economy.

Cable’s analysis was based on the very feasible theory that house prices could fall by 10 per cent over the year. But then his logic went haywire.

“There are currently three million families - three million - who have loan-to-value ratios of properties in excess of 90 per cent, the Council for Mortgage Lenders confirms that.

“If the numbers I have been describing, a 10 per cent fall over a year, are to materialise, all of those families, by definition, will find themselves in negative equity within a year, and many are now doing so.”

The problem with Vince’s logis is that many of those 3m households bought years ago and have an equity cushion which could run into the tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds. His logic only applies to those who bought right at the top of the cycle.

Incidentally, the Council of Mortgage Lenders tells me this morning that it disagrees with the 3m figure. It thinks the real figure would be rather lower. The CML also points out that Cable is presuming that home owners have not paid off any of their debt since taking out a mortgage.

After months in which Cable has proven himself as a sharp Parliamentary operator - he excelled over Northern Rock - this seems a big mistake.

I’m looking forward to reading the Spectator cover story on the “unexploded subprime timebomb”, which has been trailed on the Coffee House blog. The full political impact of indebtedness is still unclear, although its importance is sinking in across Westminster. The data on which the Spectator piece is based will add some much needed clarity to the debate — in Fraser Nelson’s words: “if you want to know where the unexploded sub-prime bombs are planted in Britain, this is the list you need”.

But we should be careful, because I’m not sure figures tell us what we really want to know. The breakdown of “subprime exposure” provided by Experian is not a based on the number of subprime borrowers, but rather the potential size of the subprime market for lenders. Basically, it shows the number of people in jobs who have patchy credit rating. This means it includes people who have not borrowed. And it includes people who took a mortgage two years ago to buy a house that may have since doubled in value. It reminds me of the cable tv channels that claim they have a potential audience of 500m, but don’t tell you how many people watch the channel.

That said, the map of credit problems is fascinating. Just don’t expect it to represent what Britain’s true credit problems are. Britain’s borrowing binge is much more complicated — and probably even more consequential than this data suggests.

Gordon Brown seems to think that the British economy is uniquely strong. This has become a new mantra of the prime minister. Last night I loitered outside the weekly meeting of the Labour PLP (Parliamentary Labour Party) where Brown was making a rare appearance.

Apparently he said that the government has led Britain in “98, 2000, 2004″ through difficult economic circumstances and therefore has the policies to get through the current turbulence.

I’m not a skiier, but isn’t that a bit like claiming that the black run holds no fear because we’ve done pretty well on the nursery slopes?

Incidentally, the PM is currently doing his monthly press conference at 10 Downing Street.

Just now he promised yet more help for first time buyers to get on to the housing ladder through government-backed schemes. If and when they find themselves in negative equity will he take the blame?

Just in on Wednesday afternoon…..

 More proof needed, if any were needed, that the government is eerily complacent about the gathering threats to the economy.

This afternoon the Lib Dems introduced a debate about “the economy, repossessions and the housing market” which noted the fissures in the mortgage market and the housing market.

 Vince Cable, the party’s Treasury spokesman, said it was becoming increasingly clear that the downturn in the housing market “is much more than just a blip”.

Britain was in danger of returning to the “woes of the Tory recession”, he said.

The government’s response?

Angela Eagle, exchequer secretary to the Treasury, told the Commons that the Lib Dems warning were ”colourful and lurid fiction” which read like the storybook of Apocalypse Now or Bleak House.

The Lib Dem comments were “hysterical” and “doom-laden” and lacked responsibility, she added.  

Of all the presidential candidates, John McCain certainly has the biggest differences with Gordon Brown over how to handle Basra. Over at the Spectator Coffee House, James Forsyth has picked up some “straight talk” on British efforts to bring order to Iraq’s second biggest city. McCain says the British failed to counter the Iranians as they “moved into Southern Iraq”. “These are the penalties we continue to pay for the very bad mishandling of the war for nearly four years while they became solidly entrenched,” he added.

This reminded me of some of McCain’s more explicit criticisms of the British withdrawal plans. In February, he told reporters that he “did not think it was a good idea” for the British to draw down troops last year.

He softened the blow at the time with some warm remarks about the British commitment. (”I understand the British domestic situation and I very much appreciate the service and sacrifice the British military made in Iraq…Obviously we’d have liked to see them stay longer but the enormous contribution they made in Iraq and Afghanistan I have to just be grateful for.”)

But I expect this would have given little comfort to British officials wary of his ambitions in Iraq should he be elected president.  Would McCain request that the British take part in a Basra “surge”? And would he embarrass Gordon Brown by sending US troops to Basra if the prime minister said no?

I think I’ve spotted my first political April Fools’ day yarn. Take a bow LibDem Voice. They have apparently stumbled on a Labour policy paper left on a Commons photocopier that proposes a “State Second Parent Scheme.” This will divert billions of pounds of benefits payments to hire Polish nannies to help out single mothers. If they are to be believed, Britain’s troubled youth will soon add a taste for Kiełbasa sausages to their taste for hoods and knives.