An Argument We Can't Win?

Those of  you on Twitter will probably have read tweets and blogs from @NathanConstable, GMP Federation are pleased to announce that he will an independent guest writer for us and over the next few months we will be publishing some of his articles.  It goes without saying that the views expressed are entirely his but he has some good to say.

Below is the first of many articles I hope, can I express my gratitude to @nathanConstable for taking the time out to write this article for us.  I hope you enjoy the article.



It cannot have escaped your notice that we are soon to be asked a very important question. This question is of such significance that the Police Federation has declared without exaggeration that the outcome could affect the landscape of policing for years to come.

After some two years of uncertainty, and after having taken a hammering in relation to our pay, pensions and conditions of service, we are about to be asked whether we want to try to obtain full industrial rights.

I want to present a number of considerations to you but let me start by telling you about myself.

I am a serving Inspector in another part of England. I tweet, I blog and my involvement with your force began with #standwithGMP following last September’s tragedy.

I am neither a Fed Rep nor employed by the Fed. Like most of us, I pay my subs but I am not in the pocket of the Fed and I am honoured to have been asked to pen my thoughts for GMP. I have no agenda other than my own thoughts and observations.

Throughout the current period of “police reform” I have been a fierce critic of the Government, of the Opposition, of think-tanks and, at times, of the Federation itself.

In May last year, a Motion to Conference from the Metropolitan to ballot the membership on whether to seek full industrial rights was accepted as policy by the JCC.

The mood back then was tense, as was demonstrated by the reception given to the Home Secretary. At the time, however, it still appeared as though continued pressure and resistance might cause the Government to sit up and take notice.

Earlier that same month 35,000 of us had taken to the streets of London in a blazing display of solidarity. We hoped this would have an effect. It didn't.

Standing on the Embankment, I witnessed very clearly the likely outcome of the “reform” process. As we neared Conservative Party HQ, the prominent MP Dr Liam Fox walked past the many thousands of us there assembled. When I say "walked past" I mean he literally walked past us, ignoring us completely. That lack of acknowledgement spoke volumes.

Outside the Home Office, things were no different. As we marched slowly past, the occupants were treated to a half-hour chorus of the politest booing ever heard. In return, we received nothing but smug looks. It felt as if even the building was ignoring us.

The march made the news: those of us there felt we had done "something" but no changes were forthcoming.

Tom Winsor's first review had been completed in 2011 and appeared to be an unstoppable force. It went to the Police Arbitration Tribunal (PAT) and, with some very minor modifications, the Home Secretary accepted the outcome.

After the Jacqui Smith debacle, the Fed had called on Home Secretaries to accept PAT findings in full. Mrs May did exactly that and reminded us of it. Hoist by our own petard.

Winsor was swiftly followed by the pensions review. This also went badly for us, which is hardly surprising given that the Fed had absolutely no negotiating powers in this matter. Indeed, the Fed’s presence at the table seems to have been tolerated rather than embraced.

Ian Rennie managed to win a significant concession. Against all the odds he convinced the Government to allow officers to claim full pension at 60 instead of at the Government’s preferred age of 67, which would have entailed officers leaving the service at 60 but being unable to make a claim for 7 years.

At your Federation AGM, where I was a guest, your Fed Chair Ian Hanson summed up the situation in the best terms I have heard.

Explaining the nature of the original offer, he said that the Fed had managed to salvage something which turned that offer from "horrendous to just crap".

The anger at the AGM was palpable. Many members were unhappy, furious even, not only at the reforms and their effects but also at the Federation for "not fighting hard enough" for their members.

This anger is misdirected and to understand why you need to look at the true nature and role of the Federation.

Whatever the Daily Mail might say, the Federation is not a trade union and has only ever been able to negotiate. The Police have had no right to strike since the beginning of the last century. There is no "ultimate sanction" of withdrawal of labour in the event of disagreement. There is no nuclear option.

Previous Governments have either feared the police or have admired them ardently. Either way, they have courted police support. Tony Blair is famously quoted as saying that the police are the last people you want off-side prior to an election.

So, until now, the relationship between Government and the Federation has been akin to a "gentlemen's agreement": leave us alone and we will get on with the business of policing without causing a fuss.

Because of this agreement, the Federation has never needed the powers they don't have. However, in this Government the Fed has come up against a very determined opponent and found that it lacks the moves and tools to deal with it.

The first hint of trouble came in 1993 with the Sheehy Report. Police took to the streets then too and the Government wavered. This wavering upset one David Cameron who had been instrumental in the preparation of the report but who, at that time, was too politically lowly to have any real influence.

Fast forward a few years, however, and Mr Cameron is our Prime Minister. He has as much political influence as it is possible to have.

Meanwhile, the similarities between Mr Cameron’s 2006 speech on policing and the findings of the “independent “ Winsor reviews are, to say the least, striking.

Winsor 2 brought recommendations for further reform including the option of compulsory severance. After pension reform this is by far the most contentious reform issue.

I found it concerning in the extreme that CRTP reappeared in Winsor 2 despite having been preserved by the first round of PAT. On its second appearance, the abolition of CRTP was approved. Whatever changed minds in so short a time?

Once the Winsor report was published, Mrs May swiftly made Mr Winsor Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, the first civilian to hold the post. Not only an incendiary decision but also a clear signal of intent. Who better to see through the implementation of something as dramatic as police reform than the very author of that reform?

And finally, the political masterstroke. The Home Office announced that the issue of compulsory severance was to be left in abeyance until July to allow the two sides more time to negotiate. Conveniently this means that the issue won't be decided until AFTER the Federation has conducted its ballot.

This situation is a massive bear trap and we are walking straight into it. When the decision was announced I pleaded with the Fed to delay the vote and blogged fully on the issue. Delay the vote until the Government has made its own decision.

The reasons are as follows:

If police vote FOR the option to seek industrial rights it is likely that the Government will say "Well - if you want industrial rights then compulsory severance is part of that - so have it."

If police vote AGAINST the option to seek industrial rights the Government can say "Well no-one seems particularly bothered about compulsory severance - so have it."

Either way we INFORM political decisions rather than REACT to them. However, if the vote were delayed until after the decision on compulsory severance, the outcome of the ballot would then be a RESPONSE to Government policy.

To my mind, the Fed’s decision to ask two questions based on a "what if" scenario does not deal adequately with the issue particularly since the answers will be published before the Government announces its decision.

So let us look at the real purpose of the ballot. Do not believe that the outcome will lead us directly to having industrial rights and the right to strike. Far from it. A “yes” vote could at best begin a journey through the European Courts where we attempt to obtain industrial rights, possibly including the right to strike.

The outcome of such a journey is inevitable. You only need look at previous European Court decisions and at discussions on this very subject to see that the tide is against us. Most countries don’t allow their police to strike and the EU has expressed concern about those who do.

The catch-22 is that police right to strike can be prevented because of the attendant risk to social order. If you believe that the police are the guardians of public safety, you cannot argue against that reasoning.

The Home Secretary has said that she will not entertain the idea of police right to strike and the Shadow Home Secretary has said the same. There is no political support for this move, regardless of which party is in power.

More importantly, there would be little public support. Whilst the vast majority of the public support the police (albeit silently) and whilst we could reasonably accuse the press of masterminding a smear campaign, a number of events have served to undermine our standing in the public eye.

Hillsborough, Tomlinson, Plebgate, phone hacking, "second jobs": barely a day goes by when the media haven't got something negative to say about "the police." Whilst we know that these issues only affect a very small number of people in a very small number of forces, the public just sees “the police”.

It is clear that the police have been left until last on the reform agenda for a reason. As unfair as everything appears, when we call out for support we discover that everyone else in the public sector has been through it before us.

Fire-fighters tried to take their argument to the Government over a decade ago. They went on strike and forced the army to cover using World War 2 fire engines. The army did as good a job as the fire-fighters. It completely undermined the FBU case and the public spurned them.

Sympathy is therefore in short supply. Despite the inherent dangers of our job and its unique nature the "special case" argument is not gaining traction.
Just as the fire-fighters discovered, we cannot portray ourselves as hard-done-by national treasures who deserve better.

We DO deserve better but so do all those in the public and private sectors who have already had their pensions and terms and conditions altered. The rest of the country is hurting, they have already lost their cases and the sympathy for the police is simply not there.

Some argue that our pensions are protected by the Police Pensions Act and, as it is written, they are. But a change in the law will do away with this. Changing the law is not unlawful. It is a premise of a democracy that no Government can bind the hands of its successor so the Government merely has to propose and promote legislation for such a change to lake place (or not.) Parliamentary arithmetic tells you that such a measure will not fail.

As far as wider debate is concerned, 100,000 people signed the e-petition to allow our pension reform to be debated in Parliament. As the campaign for signatures grew via Twitter there was an overwhelming, if naive, view that this would "force the issue." That it would stop the Government in their tracks.

There is no compulsion on Governments to discuss e-petitions but Keith Vaz MP picked up the baton and called for a debate.

Except it wasn't exactly a debate. About 20 MP's bothered to turn up and despite Mr Vaz's best efforts he was countered by the Policing Minister who effectively read out the Home Office statements again. The debate achieved nothing and passed in the blink of an eye.

So if the vote is going ahead - which it evidently is - we have three options.

1. Vote FOR and try to obtain industrial rights. This will take years, put us at loggerheads with this Government and the next, cost a fortune, become a distraction and is unlikely to succeed. With the right to strike comes compulsory severance. Having industrial rights means accepting the good AND the bad.

The Government has ploughed ahead with reform regardless and maybe it is time to "get serious." Such a vote could show the Government that we aren't happy. It could show them we mean to fight.

However, a "yes" vote will not have public support, something which is essential in order to confront any Government and unfortunately, such opposition has so far failed to make even a dent in the reform programme.
This Government has already demonstrated its resolve and lack of fear on this issue.

2. Vote AGAINST. Some say this looks like surrender. But surrender from what - from an argument we cannot win? Perhaps it will feel better to take a stand and give the Government the trouble of fighting a court case. Do we take the moral high ground by voting against, accepting our fate through gritted teeth but with dignity? Will we never forgive ourselves if we don't fight this? Will we regret it if we do? Can we honestly do anything else?

3. ABSTAIN - don't enter into it. Don’t register, don’t vote. The Federation are pleading with members to make their voice heard.

But if those opposed to the proposal don't vote who will be heard? Will it only be the more militant?

Where do we stand if there is a low turnout? We ridiculed the Government after the low number of votes cast for their flagship PCC elections. We claimed they had no mandate. What if the ballot achieves the same level of turnout?

All I can do is put the options and considerations to you. To try and present them to you as a colleague without any form of spin. You have to make your own mind up. This is what has been going through mine.

I have made my decision - I can only ask you now to consider yours.

You can follow Nathan on Twitter @NathanConstable

or visit his blog site at

nathanconstable.wordpress.com