It was Sian Berry, the Green candidate for London mayor, who told me - a while back - that people care less about the environment during difficult economic times.

“In about the mid-1980s, environmental issues started to appear spontaneously, and it kept rising up to 1989,” says Ms Berry. “At the top of the economic cycle it was considered more important than health and immigration. During the recession it dropped like a stone.”

There is even a word for it: Maslow’s theory (look it up on Google).

Hilary Benn, environment secretary, will tackle the theme in a speech tomorrow in Washington.

“Some will say that these pressures mean that we must put our economic interests first - that we must choose economic stability over environmental stability. We need both. So I believe that this is a false choice….” he will say.

“We must resist temptation to put off dealing with climate change for another day, when the world economy is stronger.”

But there is growing evidence that green issues are sliding down the policy priority list; the lukewarm path to bin taxes and road taxes…the possible cancellation of autumn’s fuel duty rise…

Nor are the Tories banging the green drum any more. There was little or no mention of the environment in David Cameron’s big policy speech last week.

Labour’s national executive committee are meeting again this week to revive the search for a new general secretary to replace Peter Watt - who quit last year after the David Abrahams proxy donations controversy.

On Friday the party slipped out the news that David Pitt-Watson, the City fund manager who was poised to take the job, had walked. The founder and chairman of Hermes Equity Ownership Services was concerned about potential liabilities from taking up the job at a time when Labour is about £20m in the red.  

There is speculation that Mike Griffiths of Unite - who was pipped to the post by Pitt-Watson - could stand again.

But my understanding is that the unions are trying to secure a more consensual figure and have Keith Sonnet, deputy general secretary of Unison (now part of super-union Unite), lined up. If you want to know more about him here is a link.

Another frontrunner is likely to be Ray Collins, a senior figure in the Transport and General Workers Union (also part of Unite).

Paddy Power, the bookmakers, are paying out on a Boris victory. Even though the final result is still seven hours away.

The loss of London would be the final nail in a devastating day for Labour. Soon we will find out for sure. 

There won’t be much coverage tomorrow of the energy debate on Thursday morning: alas.

But 33 Labour MPs rebelled this afternoon to back an amendment to the Energy Bill which would have encouraged homes and companies to install renewable energy systems such as solar panels or wind turbines.

They joined the Tories and Lib Dems to back an amendment by Alan Simpson, a Labour backbencher, calling for “feed-in tariffs” - which would set a fixed longterm energy price for people who installed green energy systems.

The government is still looking at the viability of the tariffs, a key part of the Tories’ energy policy.

But Mr Simpson, talking in the Commons today, made a vivid and depressing contrast between Germany (where these exist) and the UK.

We are far, far behind on almost every measure of sustainable energy.
 
 .

Gordon’s tea with Thatcher last summer seems like an eternity ago.

At the time, their only common ground seemed to be that Gordo - like the Baroness - was “not for turning”.

It is hard to remember a single example of the prime minister admitting to getting anything wrong.

This morning that changed when he conceded, on the Today Programme, that he made “two mistakes” in the way he abolished the 10p income tax rate.

The PM said the policy was right but the measures did not “cover as well as we should have” the issue of low-income workers and 60-something pensioners.  

It is not hard to sense the invisible hand of an adviser, if not several, urging Brown to become more touchy-feely.

The pitfalls are obvious.

This is the man who built his political reputation on steely, stern, principled, unyielding solidity. People found his personality peculiar but liked his firm hand. That will change with each successive U-Turn.

Unlike Tony Blair, the Scotsman doesn’t do “human” too well - as Nick Robinson describes over on the Beeb blog.

The Kate Hoey rebuttal has just come out.

Boris Johnson’s campaign had claimed this morning that Hoey (Labour MP for Vauxhall) would be the first member of his new administration if he becomes mayor at the end of this week.

Within minutes rumours started circulating that the whips were about to move in on the sometimes obstreperous MP. And yes there was a meeting with Geoff Hoon, chief whip, later this morning.

Hoey (pictured left) has just issued her reply:

Yes she would advise Boris on sport on a “non-partisan basis”…in a non-executive role.

But

“The key part of the Boris Johnson statement – ie that I will be the first member of his administration – is wrong.  I have simply agreed to act in a similar position, for example to Conservative MPs John Bercow and Patrick Mercer – in that I have said that I will advise on a non-partisan basis in respect of my lifetime commitment to bringing sport to the people of London.

This is not an endorsement of Boris Johnson for Mayor. I will be voting for my party and Labour candidates on Thursday.

I am a Labour MP and I am standing for Labour at the next election.. I support the Labour Government. I have and shall continue actively to campaign for Labour in these elections, not least for Val Shawcross, my local GLA member. “ 

In the end it took a face-to-face meeting between Gordon Brown and Frank Field last night to end the 10p revolt.

But if the government thinks it’s out of the woods, it should think again. Backbenchers are ready to use their newfound clout over other issues: the next big one being 42 days terror suspect detention without trial.

Not that the more left-wing Labour backbenchers are wholly convinced by today’s concessions:

Paul Flynn, MP for Newport West, tells me: “We’re saying we want to see issues that are recognisable as traditional Labour issues, we are now seeing the strength of the backbenchers, muscles have been flexed.” 

Dai Havard, MP for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (pictured below), says Frank Field had capitulated too quickly without cast-iron guarantees: “My opinion is if we’d squeezed his balls we’d have had £1bn in writing by Monday,” he tells the FT.

The U-turn is already happening. Apparently Gordon Brown will - in Prime Ministers’ Questions at noon - announce compensation (backdated!) to those affected by the removal of the 10p tax rate.

Good news for poor workers.

Bad news for the government’s reputation: it’s the Treasury’s third U-turn in as many months.  

Expect David Cameron to have a field day in a few minutes’ time in the Commons.

Frank Field has now gathered 45 Labour names for his amendment to the finance bill - which would provide compensation to those hammered by the abolition of the 10p rate.

At this rate the rebel former minister looks increasingly likely to defeat the government.

This morning we wrongly wrote that - having claimed 39 names yesterday morning - the list was down to 31.

Simple explanation: Frank’s spokesman left a message on my phone last night with the wrong number. Today he apologised for confusing 31 (rebellion losing steam) with 41 (rebellion gathering steam). Ahem. We’ve all been there.

Gordon Brown is now under pressure to pull a more convincing rabbit out of his hat this week.

These are the MPs who joined the revolt overnight.

Kelvin Hopkins
Jim Hood
David Chaytor
Bob Marshall-Andrews
Rosemary McKenna
Hugh Bayley

Mark Durkan (SDLP)

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.