Treasury officials are NOT working on potential plans for a windfall tax. That’s what I’m being briefed.

Of course that doesn’t mean that Gordon Brown may not bow to pressure in the autumn and put it in the pre-budget report. It could be a vote-winner. Plenty of siren voices are urging such a move (unions, backbenchers, junior ministers, maybe even some cabinet ministers).

But the prime minister is sophisticated enough to know about the downsides. Energy companies can simply put up their prices to compensate for the charge - which would cause even more public anger.

Plus there is the investment issue. Peter Luff, chair of the business select committee, published a report last week which included a call for a (small) tax on profits made through the European emissions trading scheme.

Yesterday he warned that a bigger tax on “excessive profits” would be a disaster, preventing energy companies from putting in new infrastructure investment and storing up a much, much bigger problem 10 years down the line.

Here’s a typical response from business today to newspaper reports that the prime minister is (still) considering a levy:

“Imposing a windfall tax on energy company profits won’t bring down the price of energy bills, so consumers and business will lose out. The tax would be a knee-jerk reaction that risks the UK’s ability to attract essential investment needed to secure and upgrade our future power supplies. Failure to gain this investment will mean consumers are even less likely to see any reduction in their bills as the country would remain in a precarious position over supply.” (Chris Hannant, head of policy at the British Chambers of Commerce)

*

Oil companies already pay high taxes. Maurice Fitzpatrick, head of tax at Grant Thornton, says the North Sea oil tax works out at about 50-70 per cent (it’s paid as petroleum revenue tax AND corporation tax).

The estimated £15bn of tax from North Sea oil this year is about a quarter of the entire UK corporation tax-take - despite energy accounting for only about 3 per cent of GDP.

I had a chat with Denis MacShane the other day. He argues that Gordon Brown’s unpopularity is not out of the ordinary right now.

The Blairite former Europe minister points out a number of countries whose leaders are in the doldrums: All thanks to the economic downturn and rising commodity costs.

Sarkozy (France), currently at about 3o per cent in the polls; the Swedish PM, at 20 per cent; Austria, where the government has just collapsed, Merkel (Germany), “very very unpopular”, the Japanese government, “at the point of meltdown”. And then there’s George W. Bush, of course (pictured below).

I’m no foreign affairs expert but this analysis seems reasonably valid. It’s an interesting point to bear in mind.

“If Obama is as popular after an election as he is now I will pay you my entire ACA (additional cost allowance),” says Macshane. 

One Labour source has just pointed out the problem with the so-called “dream ticket” of David Miliband with Alan Johnson as a running mate - in the event (still not certain) of a leadership contest.

The job of deputy leader woult not be up for grabs. So even if Miliband secured Johnson’s backing, what could he promise him?

The rumour is that it could be the job of deputy prime minister. How that would square with Harriet Harman remaining deputy leader of the party is very far from clear.

I spoke to one of Miliband’s friends yesterday and he said it would be ludicrous to write that he was “helping the campaign”.

So does that mean that there is a leadership campaign? Or was it a slip of the tongue? 

Here is a picture of the foreign secretary as a student at Oxford - with a different friend.

The Treasurers’ report* in Labour’s annual accounts says there has been a “dramatic improvement” in Labour’s pension fund. It has swung from a £6.3m liability in 2005 to a surplus of £1.9m at the end of last year.

Sounds good, for sure. But much of the difference is down to the way in which actuaries use a discount rate for the scheme’s liabilities. In 2005 the rate was 4.7 per cent, in 2007 it was 5.8 per cent.

In simple terms this change means that future liabilities are presumed to be smaller (they have shrunk in the accounts from £42.9m to £38.1m).

That simple fact alone explains £4.8m of the good news.

Nothing fishy in this, I hasten to add. I spoke to a pensions expert yesterday who said that discount rates in general have risen in the last two years. But the point is that the situation has been improved by what is simply an ”actuarial gain”.

Another point to make is that the scheme has £23m of its £40m of assets in the stock market…..which has nosedived since Christmas. For that reason alone, the current state of play in the pension fund - if it was marked to market - is probably not so rosy.

 * Incidentally guys (Treasurers Jack Dromey and Chris Lennie), you signed it on 27 June 2008, not “2007″. I’m told this is a ‘typo’.

Those outside the Westminster village may be bemused that an op-ed (today’s Guardian) on Labour’s future could be seen as a statement of leadership intent.

David Miliband’s language is carefully coded.

No such doubts exist here though. There are the omissions (no mention of Gordon Brown), the timing (he could have kept his head low) and the criticisms (he says Labour could have done more to improve the NHS).

The rumour is that Number 10 feels betrayed. The word “traitor” has cropped up in conversation.

My colleague Sue Cameron, whose Whitehall contacts are unmatched, writes in this morning’s FT that Miliband should wait instead of risking “doing a Hague”.  

The 43-year old looked defensive this afternoon, saying: “I think that my article today was a challenge to David Cameron and not a challenge to Gordon Brown.”

Plenty of reports around last week that there could be a ban on MPs taking extra jobs outside the House of Commons.

Supposedly, Gordon Brown is looking at either a total ban, a limit on outside remuneration or a restriction to only media work.  

Two-thirds of Tories, 37 per cent of Lib Dems and 19 per cent of Labour MPs top up their £61k salaries with other jobs. This can be controversial, particularly when former ministers go on to well-remunerated directorships.

But is the reported crackdown going to happen? Last week’s flurry of interest came after it emerged that Helen Goodman, deputy leader of the Commons, had written a confidential paper looking at these options.

Alas, my understanding is that the prime minister has totally ruled out any action on the report, which is now….three months old.  

What did the deputy Labour leader say while she watched footage of the Glasgow East defeat?

Yesterday The Times reported that she said “This is my moment” - a claim which she subsequently denied. Today the paper is reporting a slightly different phrase: “This is my time”.

Both are feasible given Harman’s well-known ambition.

Memories may be frayed given Labour’s tired and emotional state last Friday. In the unlikely event that we ever know the truth, here are some alternative interpretations:

“This is a (big) moment” 

“This is momentously bad” 

“This is David Miliband’s time”

“This is (insert name of realistic world leader)’s time” 

“This is my timepiece”

 ”This is my thyme”

“This is my time…to get the drinks in”

“This is my time…to go to bed”

A string of stories in The Times have floated the idea of Harriet Harman as successor-in-waiting to replace Gordon Brown. Today the paper’s website predicts that the party’s deputy leader is preparing the ground for a contest.  

I can’t help sharing the views of Philip Stephens, the FT’s esteemed commentator, who doesn’t rate the idea of Harriet Harman as prime minister.

She’s just put out a statement* saying she’s not laying any groundwork for a contest. That should make it harder for her to wield the knife in September - if not stand in a contest provoked by someone else.

*

Here is the statement, which hardly professes undying loyalty:

“I am not preparing the ground for a leadership election. In respect of Labour’s defeat in the Glasgow East by-election, I did not tell aides – or any one else – that “this is my moment”. I was bitterly disappointed by the Glasgow East by-election result in which I campaigned in support of Margaret Curran – a woman who I admire greatly. My “public protestations of loyalty” to Gordon Brown are no different to what I have expressed in private. 

I do not accept “it is over”.

The need to put fairness and equality at the centre of a Labour government was a key part of my campaign to be Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and has remained at the centre of my work as Party Chair and Minister for Women and Equality.

I have not been “quietly working on the unions”, I have been openly working with the unions including on equality issues and building support for the Labour party. “

As early as May we were reporting some of the big demands from unions such as Unite and GMB from the Labour national policy forum - which ended yesterday.

How many did they actually get? Hardly anything, despite the OTT headlines this morning.

Sieve through the promises and most are either vague (greater commitment to in-house hospital cleaners) or reheated (extending parental leave). The one relatively concrete change, a lowering of the adult minimum wage from 22 to 21, has been suggested before by the Low Pay Commission and - even now - is not definite. Nor will it cost business a fortune to implement.

Here are some of the things that unions didn’t win:

* A change in the ballot process to make industrial action less prone to end up in the courts

* A windfall tax on fuel companies

* A change in the law to make secondary action easier

* A rise in the National Insurance ceiling

* An end to the privatisation of the welfare state

* Free meals in primary schools (councils have been ‘invited’ to look at a pilot in Hull)

Last week the Tories claimed that the unions had bought influence over Labour through their massive donations to the party. Unless there are secret deals still to emerge, that doesn’t look the case.

UPDATE:

I’ve just read through the whole detailed 25-page agreement. Some of the language won’t go down well with the comrades…

eg…”we will continue to use voluntary and community organisations, social enterprises and the independent sector in providing (public) services”….”allowing real choice means that patients, and the NHS, can act on these preferences. So we will take choice further…in other areas of healthcare including maternity services and general practice.”