Jon Bright (London, OK): ePolitix makes the hopeful claim this morning that "News that the prime minister and chancellor are set to impose three-year public sector pays deals dominates the political coverage in today's papers" - they are the only one of my (many) news outlets not to have contracted the virulent strain of US election mania that seems to be going around. The Guardian, to be fair, does have an excellent leader on the subject, even if it is buried under a horrible photo of Clinton and lots of moist eyed, excitable coverage about how great and unpredictable democracy is (this is, lest we forget, a race between a man with $50 million dollars and a woman with $90 million):
Three-year pay deals allow Mr Brown to claim he is taking "decisions for the long term", a posture that he feels plays to his strengths and which he will emphasise again this week in the decision on nuclear power. But the potential political advantages pale into insignificance beside the risks of starting a battle and then losing it. As James Callaghan found in the winter of discontent, it is easier to announce eye-wateringly tight pay norms than it is to make sure that they stick. Even before figures are put on the table, public-sector unions were yesterday warning that they would only accept a three-year deal if it was flexible enough to respond to unanticipated rises in living costs. And, as the prime minister well understands, the difficulties of making the case for discipline will only be enhanced tomorrow when a report on MPs' pay is expected to recommend that they receive catch-up increases of up to 10% in a three-year deal of their own.
The long term thing is a good point. There were many disasters last year for Brown, but only a few are going to remain really present in the public consciousness - the row over donations and the election fumble seem the most obvious ones for me. And he and his team won't have forgotten that the reason offered for ducking out of the election was that he wanted to present his "vision" for the country. It should be little surprise, therefore, that we are getting a lot of "vision" announcements - three year public sector deals, commitments to nuclear power, and transformational programmes for the NHS. Any suggestions for what will be next in the long term vision?
