Mark Stuart: The beer and sandwiches have gone forever, but there is still time to talk

Instead of negotiating reasonably, both sides in this dispute have ratcheted up the tension unnecessarily. Dave Prentis, the militant-minded head of Unison, didn’t exactly help matters by claiming that planned industrial action would be the biggest since the General Strike of 1926. To compare then with now is plainly ridiculous, not least because more than 160 million working days were lost to strike action in that year, compared to an annual figure of a less than a million now.

But nor should the employers’ body, the CBI, have further raised the political temperature by calling for tighter rules for strike ballots. Under their plans, industrial action could only take place if 40 per cent of the total workforce supported it, not just a simple majority of those voting.

It seems that the only political figure to have talked any political sense is York-born Vince Cable. Rather unfairly, the Business Secretary was booed during a measured speech to the GMB union’s conference.

I couldn’t agree more with his assessment that “cool heads will be required all round” in the coming negotiations, and that “the case for changing strike law is not compelling”. Cable was only speaking the truth when he claimed that sustained strike action could lead to pressure on the coalition to change trade union law.

Cable isn’t the first British politician to come under fire over their handling of industrial disputes. It is especially hard for his former friends in the Labour party, where there has always been a fundamental tension between protecting the vital interests of the nation and pandering to the needs of their paymasters in the trade union movement.

In 1966, Harold Wilson’s inflammatory tone during the Seamen’s Strike – dubbing the ring-leaders as a group of “tightly-knit, politically motivated individuals” – split the Labour movement between Left and Right.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, are still scarred by Edward Heath’s decision to cave into the miners in February 1972. A young Douglas Hurd, then working for Heath, wrote in his diary: “The Government now wandering vainly over the battlefield looking for someone to surrender to – and being massacred all the time.”

For all the vitriol poured upon him, Tony Blair’s record on industrial relations was excellent. On his watch, the number of working days lost to strikes rarely crept above one million, less than a tenth of the average of the Thatcher years.

Typically, Blair summed it up in a slogan, “Fairness not favours”, but in reality plenty of favours were both sought and got on the union side, culminating in the Warwick Agreement of 2004. Peace was declared between the Government and the unions after a series of deals on the future of public services, manufacturing and notably pensions.

The present crop of hard line union leaders therefore feels that the Warwick Agreement is being unpicked by the former Labour minister, John Hutton’s recent report into public sector pensions, but in reality no government should be bound by the policies of its predecessors.

Besides, Hutton talks a lot of sense. Public sector employees are going to have to contribute more and work for longer if the present pensions deficit is to be brought down to more manageable levels. In that sense, the Prime Minister was right to insist that the current pension system is no longer affordable.

The stakes for the coalition couldn’t be higher. Get their tactics right, and they will successfully tar the Labour party with the brush of being too close to the unions in the same fashion as Mrs Thatcher was able to embarrass Neil Kinnock during the long-running Miners’ Strike of 1984-85. Get it wrong, and the political narrative will turn against the Government.

Should the summer of strikes escalate into something bigger akin to the current events in Greece, forcing yet another retreat, then the abiding impression of this Government will be that it is directionless and prone to U-turns. In short, Cameron will be portrayed as Thatcher, but without the political nerve.

But perhaps we are missing the point of this dispute? While it is right for Government to curb public sector pensions, such a fundamental policy shift requires transitional arrangements so that people, especially in their 50s who have dutifully paid into schemes for most of their working lives are not adversely affected by these changes. Surely, this issue lies at the heart of the negotiations, and there is bound to be wriggle room for both sides to be able to obtain a face-saving settlement.

So, while I may be a little old-fashioned in thinking that “beer and sandwiches” are still suitable fare for modern industrial negotiations at Number 10, I urge David Cameron to bring out whatever he deems appropriate – perhaps Champagne and twiglets – so that this dispute can be resolved without the kind of industrial unrest which would damage us all.