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.

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.

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.

Michael Hayden, the CIA director, gave a characteristically candid assessment of Basra on Sunday that is bound to make British ministers and officials wince. The remarks blow a Basra size hole through any pretence that Britain handed over a city that Iraqi authorities were in any position to run.

He said 70 per cent of Basra is “controlled by militia, armed gangs, criminal elements”, adding that it was “a real stew down there”. In his view the reduction in violence — which underpinned Gordon Brown’s justification for the handover — was little more than a temporary stand-off between the armed factions. He finished his answer with this scathing quote: “I don’t think anyone could think that that equilibrium was an acceptable long-term solution.”

It gets worse. Later in the interview with NBC, Mr Hayden says the military campaign in Basra was “inevitable”.  “This had to be resolved,” he said. “You just can’t have the second major city in the country…beyond the control of the government.” Ouch.

One Downing Street official expressed surprise to me the other day that the Stalin nickname had stuck to Gordon Brown more than Macavity, T.S Elliot’s mystery cat.  Both names, of course, were pinned on the prime minister by Lord Turnbull in his infamous interview with my colleague Nick Timmins.

The thought of Macavity disappearing from the scene of any crime reminded me of an answer given by Mr Brown in his last Downing Street press conference.  One journalist had the gall to suggest that as chancellor Mr Brown should have spent more time watching the problems in the credit markets and less time preparing to take over from Tony Blair.

“Maybe your right,” Mr Brown sneered. “Maybe I should have spent the first half of last year looking at the subprime crisis in America and looking in intricate detail at what was going to come out of it.”

A couple of journalists couldn’t see the joke and shouted “yes, yes”. Mr Brown pressed on: “No-one could have anticipated what was going to happen out of the subprime market”.

It is a refrain that is becoming more and more common, and indeed emerged as one of the main strands of the Budget.  The prime minister is betting that the public will see any downturn in the economy as triggered by “global” forces out of the government’s control. Britain is more prepared than any other economy to withstand the troubles, he says.

This is a bold claim, particularly as it is likely that the worst of the downturn is yet to come. With Labour’s polling numbers for economic competence slipping, one has to wonder whether it is convincing the public. Perhaps Mr Brown is losing his Macavity touch.

I wish I could find a screen shot of Michael Martin, the Commons speaker, slapping down an David Winnick for questioning his decision to appeal the release of MPs expenses. What he said was remarkable. But the colour he turned was quite spectacular. As he said the words “media” and “expenses”, his face turned a shade of scarlet that could have set off the fire alarms in the Commons.

For those who missed Mr Martin’s outburst, here is Jim Pickard’s rough transcript of what he said:

“For the House of Commons the rules are quite clear. It is before the courts and it is sub judice and I can’t discuss it. But ….the gentleman is asking…he can go to the court and find out the grounds for appeal. There is nothing to stop him doing that.”

From memory, I think he also suggested that while the media could discuss the case, such debate was not allowed in the Commons because of “subjudicy”.

This is a fascinating and unorthodox point of view that overturns everything I thought I knew about law. As far as I’m aware, MPs can talk about whatever they like in the Commons. They have the legal priviledge to do so. Even if the High Court case was under way, I’d be surprised if the judge would have the power to stop MPs discussing the case outside trial, which is the very definition of subjudicy.

The big question is, who are the lawyers advising Mr Martin? They certainly have a interesting take on law, both in terms of the appeal and in terms of parliamentary privilege. I wonder how much they will cost the taxpayer?

UPDATE: Well, it appears there are sub judice conventions that parliament abides by. The practices are detailed here. I’m not sure whether it applies to the appeal against the ruling by the freedom of information tribunal. But it explains the speakers argument. Can you tell that I am turning a bit red?

Nancy Pelosi’s visit to London tomorrow is a good excuse to look at how our British speaker compares on the expenses front. With all the fuss made over Michael Martin’s air miles and taxis, you would be forgiven for thinking his office is more spendthrift. The truth is that he is downright cheap.

Ms Pelosi spent about $3m in the first nine months of last year as US Speaker. This included about $16,000 on flowers — a nine-month floral bonanza that cost about double the sum Mr Martin’s wife spent on taxis over almost four years.

Another highlights from Ms Pelosi’s office records is a $2,400 bill for a makeup artist to prepare the speaker for her swearing in ceremony. (She later agreed to pay for this out of her own money.)

Now there’s bound to be some argument over what is included in the US expenses total (I don’t think Ms Pelosi lives in a grace and favour residence, for example). And the sums are of course irrelevant if any of the claims prove to be improper. But it is clear that Ms Pelosi’s costs are a different order of magnitude.

Indeed this holds for all US elected representatives. The US “representational allowance” averages about $1.4m, compared to an average of £135,000 claimed by MPs.

Yet, in spite of this gap, there is much less fuss about US congressional expenses. Some MPs will argue it is all down to aggressive British hacks. More shrewd observers will note that the American politicians declare almost everything they spend (in what is nicknamed the “bitch book” because it allows congressional staffers to compare their salaries). Perhaps openness is the answer?

Political gamblers appear to be unimpressed with Gordon Brown. They believe the likelihood of the prime minister winning the most seats at the next election has never been lower — in spite of improved Labour polls, a makeover at Downing Street, a budget and an apparent conversion to Blairite reform.

Take a look at this graph showing the odds on Labour winning the most seats at the next general election. The data is from Betfair, the online betting exchange (think of a stock market rather than a bookie offering odds), covering a period of about three years in a market worth about £600,000.

Here is a quick run through of the Labour peaks and troughs since 2005. After the 2005 election victory, the betting market settled on there being a 65 per cent chance they would win the most seats at the next election.

This fell to under 40 per cent at the height of Tony Blair’s unpopularity.

Labour’s prospects steadily improved after he announced he would leave in a year, rising to 60 per cent as Mr Brown became prime minister. His honeymoon and the snap-election speculation pushed his chances of winning the most seats to a remarkable 75 per cent.

This plummeted back towards 40 per cent after the non-election, the data loss and the donations scandal.

What is interesting is that this has stayed about the same since the end of last year. The great relaunch has apparently had no effect on the opinions of those gambling on his prospects.

So what are the punters telling us?

First, that Mr Brown is caught in a rut. He has more chance of beating David Cameron than Tony Blair at his most unpopular. But not much more.

Second, that the Tories have hit a ceiling (see the graph on the left showing the Tory chances of winning the most seats). There is about a 55 per cent chance that the Tories will win the most seats. But they had a better chance of beating Tony Blair.

In sum, we have hit a political impasse. Very little seems to move the odds. Tracking how punters are wagering their money is a good alternative to watching political polls, as it offers a longer term perspective, rather than a snapshot of opinion.

The lesson is that while the polls are moving towards Labour, the betting man still thinks the Tories will prevail.

Here is are some snippets from the budget documents. I’ll start with the bad news.

- Falling share prices will hit capital gains receipts in 2009 by an undisclosed amount. Inheritance tax receipts are also likely to be “adversely effected”

- Stamp duties are expected to be £800m below forecast because of weakness in the housing sector. In 2008-09, receipts are expected to fall by 6 per cent as the country goes through a period of “sluggish or flat house price growth”

- They expect a further “near-term” decline in commercial property prices (which have already fallen by more than 10 per cent in the last year)

- Investment in homebuilding is expected to be flat in 2008

- The Treasury are able to write an entire box on Financial Sector Performance without once mentioning Northern Rock

And here’s the good news (if you believe the Treasury)

- The budget forecasts are based on the assumption that the credit squeeze will ease in the second half of this year and “normalise” by the middle of 2009

- Don’t panic, there is a rebound coming: “With the economy picking up in 2009 as financial markets normalise, a rebound in residential transactions and an upturn in commercial property is projected.”

- And who said falling property prices would hit consumption? “Strong recent labour market performance means that conditions are in place for house prices to slow without a significant negative impact on consumption.”