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.

British soldiers must be feeling a little dizzy. Gordon Brown has made some big promises to them about troop numbers in Iraq, which have invariably proved inaccurate. Remember the 1,000 troops home for Christmas? And the halving of British troops serving in Iraq to 2,500 by the Spring? Ministers have either done some creative work on definitions of “home” or blamed changing conditions on the ground. But, from what I have been told, it has as much to do with the prime minister’s penchant for round numbers.

Mr Brown’s role in the “1,000 home for Christmas” has been well reported. The catchy announcement was made without consulting the Ministry of Defence. There was then a scramble to work out how the pledge could be met. In the end, about 500 support troops sent to Kuwait were defined as being out of Iraq and therefore “home”.

Mr Brown’s role in the setting the 2,500 target for the draw down in Iraq is less well known. Again, he delivered a catchy message (this time in the Commons in October): the British presence in Iraq would be halved by the Spring. The number was chosen “after detailed discussions with our military commanders, a meeting of the National Security Committee, [and] discussions with the Iraqi Government and our allies”, according to Mr Brown.

But since then, British officers have concluded there must be at least 2,800 men to be able to protect the base adequately. So even when the withdrawal resumes, we are unlikely to hit the magic 2,500 number. The rounding error had more to do with Downing St than inaccurate military plans, according to one defence insider. Another official suggested to me that the low number risked upsetting officials in the US and losing Britain any benefits, in terms of the special relationship, it has derived from taking part in the war. “They can be rather unforgiving”, the official said.

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.

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.

Angela Smith MP. Never heard of her before. Maybe you have. Anyhow, apparently she is threatening to leave the government over the abolition of the 10p income tax bracket.

Given her relative anonymity* - feel free to disagree - this isn’t a massive blow to Gordon Brown.

It would have been more exciting if it was the other Angela Smith MP, who is Parliamentary private secretary to the prime minister.

Still it isn’t great news given the brewing backbench dissent over the issue.

(*She is/was pps to Yvette Cooper, chief secretary to the Treasury)

 UPDATE:

Smith has just told me: “No comment”. But she has told friends that she could be about to resign. Tomorrow seems likely.

LATEST UPDATE:

She has changed her mind. After a chat with the PM. Not the most impressive of rebellions.

A new row last night over whether Gordon Brown has U-turned in his decision not to attend the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics games.

Channel 4 claimed that the prime minister had failed to make his position clear. The story is all over this morning’s papers.  

Um. I was at the lobby briefing on March 19 - along with 20 other journalists - when Number 10 explicitly said that Brown would attend the closing ceremony but not the opening.

Meanwhile for an amusing take on last weekend’s torch pantomime it’s worth reading the FT’s own Robert Shrimsley this morning.  

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