I reported this morning that the unions are up in arms about an imminent pay freeze announced today. The three unions representing about 1.5m council workers want a 2.5 per cent rise - the employers have offered zero.

But how hard are Unison, the GMB and Unite going to fight this one?

I’ve been passed an internal bulletin from Unison dated November 2009 (no reason to believe it’s not genuine at this point).

The memo claims there is “overwhelming” support for the 2.5 per cent pay claim.

But it includes minutes from a meeting of union leaders, which contains the following:

Some branch comments from the consultation process highlighted member concerns around job security and the level at which the claim is set. We will have a challenging job to persuade members that they deserve a decent pay rise - many seem to have accepted the financial situation as necessitating job cuts and reduction in services without contemplating the political nature of the choices being made. Freezing council tax and reducing jobs and services are part of the Conservative ethos of a reduced state and low taxation and linked to their drive to reduce council tax.

Meanwhile the diligent Rene Lavanchy at Tribune reveals that Heather Wakefield (pictured), who is head of local government for Unison, could soon challenge Dave Prentis for the leadership of the union.

Nick Clegg attracted some mocking laughter from MPs - including Gordon Brown - during PMQs today for daring to question the Cadbury’s takeover. How come the government couldn’t stop RBS, which is state-owned, part-funding the Kraft takeover, he asked?

Last month, Lord Mandelson declared that the government would mount a huge opposition to the Kraft takeover of Cadbury’s, so why does the Royal Bank of Scotland, which is owned by this government, now want to lend vast amounts of our money to Kraft to fund that takeover?

Brown’s reply was scathing:

If the right hon. Gentleman is really suggesting that the government can step in and avoid any takeover that is taking place in this country overnight, and then tell a bank that it has got to deprive a particular company of money by government dictate, his liberal principles seem to have gone to the wall.

Why then was Lord Mandelson free to voice his concerns about the Kraft bid for several weeks in the run-up to the deal being signed?

The business secretary, a former avowed free marketeer, declared in December that there would be “huge opposition” to a foreign company trying to make a “fast buck” from a UK takeover.

“If you think that you can come here and make a fast buck you will find that you face huge opposition from the local population . . . and from the British government,” he said.

As the FT said the next day:

His comments marked a government intervention almost unheard of in Britain in recent years, where ministers have tended to steer clear of becoming involved in take-over bids unless there are serious competition concerns.

On Monday night, as news of the takeover was breaking, Mandelson’s spokesman told me that the issue is was “matter for the shareholders and the company”.

The business secretary’s earlier quotes had been general commentary about how shareholders should take a long-term view, he said.

But - given that Mandelson never had the power to intervene in the issue - weren’t his comments just populist bluster? My colleague Andrew Hill has rightly branded the business secretary’s approach as “non-interventionist intervention”.

In that case, it is not Clegg’s Liberal Democrats who are left looking rather foolish but the government?

***

You can see the same forces at play with the issue of RBS bonuses. Lord Myners has on several occasions railed against the fact that banks are still paying out billions to star bankers this winter - just months after government bailouts of the sector. He has said so in the strongest possible terms.

But earlier this month Myners effectively admitted that the government won’t stop RBS paying out £1bn or so of bonuses, as expected. (Although as one cabinet minister reminds me, the RBS bonus pool still hasn’t been announced yet).

As reported in the FT:

“Lord Myners, the City minister, has signalled that the government will not stand in the way of state-backed banks paying large bonuses to staff as he recognised the need for them to compete in the global market.

Speaking at the Scottish affairs committee yesterday, Lord Myners said it was important that Royal Bank of Scotland was able to recruit and motivate staff. We are going to see major banks paying very high bonuses, and if we want RBS to play in a global world it has to equip itself appropriately,” he said.”

In other words, ministers are spinning around so fast it’s impossible to know which they are facing.

A curious email was sent out this afternoon, purporting to be from Peter Slowe, chair of the Labour Finance and Industry Group. In it, Dr Slowe apparently called for Harriet Harman to quit. Yes, really.

UPDATE: Slowe has said it’s nothing to do with him - instead he says it was a mistaken publicity attempt by his PR advisers.

In truth, it’s not as if Slowe is a business colossus who bestrides international markets - he isn’t the head of the CBI or chief executive of BP or similar. Still, this is Labour’s main link group with the business world; and it’s chief (if the email is genuine) is calling for the deputy leader to step down.

Slowe has form: You may remember that last summer he said that Lord Mandelson should be leader of the party.

Here is the email in full.

LABOUR MUST DITCH HARMAN TO WIN ELECTION SAYS CHAIR OF LABOUR FINANCE AND INDUSTRY GROUP

Dr Peter Slowe says:

“Labour must ditch Harriet Harman and any lurch to the left to win at the general election. Maintaining the centre ground is vital. We were voted in on a Blairite ticket and must maintain our position in the centre, not giving the Tories any dry land to occupy. By Gordon Brown being weak, creating concessions, and allowing the Left wing personal agenda of Harriet Harman in any way shape or form to change election strategy, will spell disaster, or a hung parliament.“

UPDATE

I’ve finally got hold of Dr Slowe, who is in Addis Ababa, capital of Ethiopia (seriously). He says he is terribly embarrassed and the whole thing was dreamed up without his knowledge by the PR company for Projects Abroad - the volunteer service group which he heads.

“It’s ridiculous and embarrassing,” he tells me. “This was an ill-considered idea by my company’s PR company. I have suspended them.”

Truly bizarre.

Senior Labour figures are discounting the idea of a general election in March or April with expectations now increasingly focussed on a May 6 poll.

That means a March Budget before the Easter break, according to Treasury insiders, with campaigning to begin in earnest when MP return from their holiday.

One government whip said that May 6 was now the assumption around which the party was working. This was confirmed by a senior union source, who told me the chances of a March poll were “no chance or even less”. An April election was feasible but still unlikely unless the economic data showed a sudden recovery, he said.

Meanwhile James Kirkup at the Telegraph has the amusing story that Chris Bryant - junior Foreign Office minister - blurted out the May 6 date yesterday while discussing Venezuelan relations at a thinktank event.

Not only do activists dislike campaigning when the evenings are still dark, but they also want to avoid the possibility of fighting an unsuccessful general election and then coming out again for council elections in May.

“Getting people out twice, doing two lots of literature and dealing with two lots of deadlines, the only the whole idea always seemed a bit silly,” said Ann Black, a vice-chair of Labour’s national executive committee.

Another well-placed MP said there had been no tell-tale signs that an earlier election was expected.

“The party is generally prepared for an early election should it happen, but I just don’t get any sense of it at all,” he said. “In May we’ll get out councillors, their families and their friends, to campaign at a local and national level.”

Ken Purchase, MP for Wolverhampton North East, told me he could “barely think of a good reason” why the election should be held in March 25, as suggested in some quarters. “May is the best time, the weather is decent, you can get out and get canvassing done,” he said.

Gordon Brown appeared to hint on the BBC Andrew Marr Show a week ago that there would be a spring Budget, leading many viewers to assume a May election. The last possible date for the poll is June 3.

The timing of the Budget is constrained by the need for a minimum three-month period after the December 9 pre-Budget report.

Alistair Darling also needs to allow time to get a finance bill enacting PBR and Budget measures onto the statute book before Parliament is dissolved ahead of the election.

The chancellor has yet to make a final decision on when to hold what could be the last Budget of the Labour administration. But government insiders are pencilling in March 10 or 17 as the most likely.

One loyalist MP tells me it will be “bloodsport” tonight at the PLP as people vent their spleen against the authors of last week’s ill-fated rebellion.

But I think it’s a fair bet that Geoff Hoon and Pat Hewitt have the sense to stay away from the regular meeting of backbench Labour MPs. Hewitt is going to be at a committee on parliamentary privilege which runs from 5pm to 7pm. I’m sure Hoon will also have other engagements.

The 6pm meeting will drag on because it won’t just be Brown speaking. Lord Mandelson, Harriet Harman and Douglas Alexander will also to speeches - on the coming election - ahead of the usual backbench questions.

It would be a major surprise if the loyalists don’t get more than their fare share of the limelight. Tony Lloyd, chair of the PLP, has shown himself to be a kneejerk Brown supporter.

As such you can expect plenty of comment along the lines of my fuming loyalist, who describes last week’s non-coup as “monumental folly”. “I’ve never seen so much anger in my constituency or within the PLP,” he says. “People are furious with them both.”

It will be an exercise in circling the wagons: “I can already hear the banjos and smell the campfires,” says one Labour source.

Other MPs I talk to say the timing was just bizarre; given Cameron’s stumble last Monday on marriage tax allowances and given Brown’s decent enough showing at PMQs on Wednesday.

One ponders whether Hoon, as a former chief whip, had spent too much time soothing angry rebels - and so had over-estimated their numbers. According to this theory, he had failed to notice the scores of MPs who were quietly getting on with business.

UPDATE

And so it came to pass. Labour’s top brass put on a show of forced bonhomie. The backbenchers sat through it all without complaint (”through gritted teeth”, according to one of them).

For our story this morning with the full details of last night’s PLP read here.

As I pointed out at 3pm on Wednesday, Labour plots struggle to gain traction for a variety of reasons - one of which is the lack of an effective mechanism to retire a leader who is unwilling to quit.

It’s one thing to oust Tony Blair with a handful of lightweight names. People tend to forget that Blair had already done a decade in Downing Street.

Getting rid of the ultra-stubborn Brown after just two years or so? Much harder. One rebellious MP told me yesterday that he and 14 pals had considered going out to get 10 signatures each - to make a petition of 150 names.

Like every other attempt so far, it fizzled out when the proponents realised it just wouldn’t work.

It’s worth having a look at this list of MPs letters criticising Hoon and Hewitt, put together on the loyal Labourlist. There are 20 of them.

What’s interesting is that the names aren’t all slavishly loyal Labour drones. The list includes some genuinely independent minds (eg Martin Salter).

Steve Pound is typically witty:

In my opinion the forming of a circular firing squad is never a good idea. You don’t just shoot yourself in the foot you wound the Party - and,more importantly, those who depend on Labour.

I’ve spent the last few hours trawling Westminster to gauge the reactions to the Hoon-Hewitt rebellions. So far - I emphasise as of 3pm - it appears to be a damp squib.

Why:

1] Rebellion fatigue. We have been through this before so many times that MPs and journalists are wary of getting over-excited. If Brown could survive the multiple resignations of last summer then what will it take to fell him?

2] Cowardice. Many MPs, possibly 100 or more, would put their name to a secret ballot. How many would put their names to a public one?

3] Mechanics. In that case, who would organise a secret ballot that would be credible? Labour won’t do it. Is there any other way of gauging MP support for Hoon and Hewitt? One MP tells me he has written to Nick Brown (chief whip) and Tony Lloyd (chair of the PLP) to say he backs the rebellion. Is this the favoured way forward? If so, would we expect Brown and Lloyd to go public with the size of the revolt? Not necessarily. Meanwhile the formal Labour process for electing new leaders is hugely complicated and would take months.

4] Timing. The general election is only a few months away. The prospect of bloody civil war within the Labour party fills MPs with horror. Remember, their £65,000 salary depends on retaining their seats. That seems less likely if Labour looks as if it is falling apart from the centre.

5] Rebel Leadership. Hewitt is not the most popular of Labour MPs because she is a sworn Blairite, an advocate of free market economics and reform and - let’s face it - a wealthy individual with several directorships. Hoon, meanwhile, may be reasonably liked (one key Brownite was defending him today as a ‘good bloke’) but is known to be unhappy over missing out on the Europe job. It is understood that Hoon took the flak over the Iraq war, then ate dirt as chief whip, and also had to face public anger over the Heathrow expansion. His reward; the back benches. But perceived bitterness may not enhance his coup-dos.

6] Alternative party leader. Who is the saviour who will lead Labour out of the wilderness? If he exists, why can’t Labour agree on who he is? The lack of consensus (should it be David Miliband, Ed Balls, Andy Burnham, Alan Johnson, Harriet Harman etc) is telling.

Of course, everything depends still on what the cabinet does. We’ve had a few senior ministers popping up to defend Gordon (Andy Burnham, Sean Woodward,) but there could still be a surprise or two.

UPDATE

3.14pm Lord Mandelson is putting out a statement saying there has been an over-reaction given that Hoon and Hewitt are no longer ministers. It should be business as usual, he will say. That is clearly a development in Brown’s favour.