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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

All three parties are playing down their prospects at the May 1 local elections. Even the Tories, who seem most likely to come out with more council seats.

But Labour and the Conservatives are both claiming to be fielding more candidates - according to press releases that came out this afternoon.

Eh?

The difference, apparently, is that Labour is counting England and Wales and the Tories - bizarrely - are ignoring the Welsh.  

It seems odd given what has happened since.

But a bill* published last year gave new powers to building societies to borrow more from the wholesale markets. That is, the ones which enabled Northern Rock to grow like topsy and then implode. The bill has increased the maximum wholesale borrowing level from 50 per cent to 75 per cent.  

Luckily, the timing means few if any building societies will have taken advantage of this new freedom. Even if they wanted to - unlikely given the Rock disaster - the credit markets have been frozen.

The purpose of the change was to place building societies on a level playing field with banks. In theory this could help create more long-term (25-year) fixed mortgages, something which Gordon Brown is keen on.

Lord Davies of Oldham, deputy chief whip in the Lords, told a debate in October that “in the light of recent events in wider financial markets, we will want to consider carefully whether such a power should be used.”

Later he added:

“The concentration of funding will also pose risks that need to be effectively managed by firms. The recent case of Northern Rock is a clear example of the importance of risk management in this regard.”

Just when the government should have been worried about the growing credit bubble they were taking steps to encourage building societies - Britain’s most prudent lenders - to loosen up. Bizarre in retrospect.  

   * Building societies [funding] and Mutual Societies (Transfers) Bill