The various parties seem to be limbering up enthusistically ahead of the 30th November day of inaction ordained on behalf of public sector workers by some unions ,- the usual suspects including Unison,Unite, NUT enthusiastically to the fore.
"We just want the government to negotiate" is a frequent cry from the leaders (who will not themselevs be on strike so will not be forfeiting a day's pay) and from some of the less well informed people with the placards. The fact is folks,- they have. They've also made a pretty good offer which still leaves the public sector way ahead of their private sector,- who they are asking to help pay for it) colleagues. Times have changed. People, are living longer and generally in much better health. That means that the old actuarial tables on the cost of pensions have gone out of the window. The maths no longer hold good and something has to give. The amount is much the same by whichever combination of gives is selected. They can be extensions of the retirement age, lower inflation proofing,use of career average rather than (sometimes manipulated) final salary, higher contributions. What the government is proposing is a palatable cocktail of all of these so that none is too painful. Some scope for rejigging could remain but the underlying maths will be the same.It's just a matter of in what configuration people would like the changes served. There are also safeguards for those close to retirement and substantial ring fencing of benefits earned to date to date.
Despite their current head shakings, the previous Labour government recognised the problem and started off to deal with it and all looked set for a resolution until Alan Johnson,- who now supports the strikes,- suddenly got cold feet and backed off at the eleventh hour. That meant that the problem remained and had to be tackled with even more urgency when Labour left office in May 2010 saying famously, even if in jest, "Sorry, there's no money left".
The coalition has therefore had to do the simple maths and come up with the least painful recipe they can find to deliver the figures. the lomnger the procrastination in dealing with the problem the harder the solution becomes. They have taken the bull by the horns and produced a good solution, even if it comes out more expensive to its beneficiaries than the current largely unfunded arrangements. The unions, rather than engage in useful discussions about the future, have as usual simply dug in to defend the past , thereby confirming their general irrelevance in attempts to constructively reshape anything. They don't want to help the coalition to a success . That's not surprising as their party,-the one in whose funding they have an 86% share- is the other one , namely New old Labour. The coalition can never have expected their gratitude and cooperation so will not be surprised by this recalcitrance. The unions are not about the interests of their members per se. They are about their own power, and along the way their ability to control at least the working lives of their members. The strikes will hugely inconvenience and annoy the large number of their members who work in the private sector and see no reason why they should subsidise public service pensions.
Historically a disparity in pension arrangements was accepted as a fair tradeoff as public sector pay was, from top to bottom, generally well below private sector levels. That though has changed radically in recent years. The public sector is now better paid than the private. At the middle and top end one very generously so including now bonuses for just broadly just doing one's job well. As result a new divide is fast opening up between the two sectors. This threatens to distort the future labour market just supersalaries and astronomical bonuses have drawn talent disproportionately to the banking sector and away from other productive businesses and industry.
Who then are the big contestants in all this and where do they stand right now and how are they doing in the public relations and hearts and minds stakes?
First there are the unions. They are the most established long term players and wizzened, battle hardened veterans of years of confrontations, many of which they have manufactured. They have a long history of destroying many of the industries and businesses they have claimed to protect by immersing heads in the sand and putting rear ends in the air and saying "No changes to terms and conditions" and "over our dead body". They have not been greatly helpful in times of national crisis , including two world wars. Althought there are signs that Brendan Barber in particular sees a need to change to working more with than against managements, the embedded DNA with its love of "action" and glorification of battles past is still strong in the union psyche. Politicians come and go but union leaders and their pyramids of people from shop floor representatives upwards tend to stay in position for a lot longer so become much more skilful players in the industrial relations game. They know how to handle new politicians and managements, many of whom at least initiallly tend to approach them almost in a sense of trembling and anxiety. The unions also know the time honoured emotive phrases to trot out. For years we used to hear "It's taking the bread and butter out of our mouths and updated versions of that still appear. Then there wonderful accusations of management bullying which is rich from organisations many of whose represnetatives are highly adept at advising waverers that going along with a strike vote might be in the best interests of their health. They are also masters of misrepresentation and the messages around this dispute show plenty of that. Many members have little clue about the pros and cons of the governement proposals and just accept the union line and convert it into "We've been robbed" sorts of emotion.
Amongst the public sector workers the unions are winning the game. A minority even bothered to vote. Those who did not or voted "No" are subject to the usual pressures, inuendo about being thrown out of the union so that their insurances are no longer valid and so on. They also fear subsequent years of angry silences between stikers and non strikers, so rather than risk their working lives turning sour feel they have no option but to go out on 30th November whether they like it or not.
Amongst private sector workers the unions are being less successful and the question is whether, having tasted the inconvenience of the strikes, private sector workers will become angry with and dismissive of them or whether they will wearily say the government should give up the battle and let them have whatever they want regardless of the cost. That is the battle to come over the next few days, weeks and probably months. Again, their years of battle experience give the unions a good chaNCE of winning that hearts and minds tussle.
And what about The Labour Party? Despite their own previous recognition of the pension problem and the need to tackle it, there is no doubt which side they stand emotionally or opportunistically. Conscious of the risk of a public relations backlash ,their real problem is how not to make this too conspicuous. Some, like Alan Johnson have already broken cover but Ed will continue to wring his hands, feel everybody's pain ,tut tut a lot and try to gain some benefit from whatever the eventual outcome is. On the way, he has already said on Channel 4 News this week "I don't believe we did spend too much". No wonder he is still walking and talking increasingly tediously in the wilderness.
Lastly there is the coalition, trying hard to tack down one piece of the public overspending jelly. Logically, with their leader's history one would have expected them to be doing a first rate job in selling all "the cuts" as essential actions all part of a coherent political philosophy which the electorate can understand, embrace and follow enthusiastically. One fundamental problem is of course that , being a coalition, they can not enunciate a single philosophy. What they have is a sort of mish mash of at least two. The Conservatives are also unsure of what theirs really is anyway. Notwithstanding this and despite all the advice and expertise to hand, the coalition seems to have an almost total lack of understanding of political PR. As result they have dangerously totally to get across a simple message that all their moves are part of this total package designed to take the UK to a financially sustainable future.
Pensions reform means savings now and for evermore. This bridging of all timescales makes its economic resolution even more essential. It should be a very easy-to-communicate message. Instead the government is making a meal of it-and failing. They are babes in the wood compared to the hoary old union veterans. Hence they are making heavy weather of shouting the simple sums across across the heads of the unions and direct to the people involved in a form they can understand. A byproduct of that is more people than one would expect also mouthing words such as "They will be putting in more than they get out" and similar misconceptions. Again whether support for the government will increase or decrease once people feel the pain of being messed about by strikes and even having to give up a day's pay themselves to look after children is unclear, but being saddled with an image of being gung ho for "cuts" for tehir own sake isn't hoing to help Messrs Cameron and Clegg.
For all three contestants in this beauty contest, the challenge for however long the dispute and disruption lasts is knowing when to speak and at what volume and in what tone and when to shut up and let the street fighters run past. Here depth of wisdom and understanding of mass psychology is required. It isn't the territory for emotionally unintelligent people. On the basis of their past experience in these public relations battles the unions should do best. New Old Labour riding on their more savvy and streetwise paymasters' coat tails should come in next and Dave & Co last but not understanding quite why. The positions in the battle itself though could be entirely the reverse. The victory is the coalitions's to lose. If Cameron can keep his nerve (record so far unconvincing) and LibDem and any wavering Tory knees kept from knocking or opportunistic anti- leadership frolics of their own, the pensions deal should be done and dusted, by imposition if necessary, by next Spring. Closing the debate and saying "That's it" is the government's ultimate weapon. They should not fear to use it at the right moment. Howls of protest and further "action" would follow but they would fade as the message inevitably sunk in:"Game's over".
"Dave's got Balls" should be the postscript the Conservatives at least are looking for. It could win him 2015. If he fails............
