Public Sector pensions are big news. Left unchanged they will cost the UK billions, or if they are changed leave millions of public sector workers poorer during their retirement.
The broadsheets, as you would expect, are neatly divided down the routine political lines. As the strikes loom the Telegraph’s headline: “Public sector pensions strike threatens holiday chaos” reads rather differently from the Guardian’s version of the day of action from Britain’s UK Border Agency staff: “Public sector strikes: Air passengers warned of disruption”
On 30 June after the strikes:
“Public sector strikers clean up after giving dressing down to government” – Guardian
“Union leaders admit doubts over prospect of autumn general strike” – Times
Same story, very different outcomes.
It’s fair to say that both sides of the camp have PR teams trying to control the coverage to support their paymasters’ perspectives. Each will have developed key messages, statistical evidence and a host of well trained spokespeople on hand to speak to camera to justify their stance.
The challenge they face is whether their efforts will actually achieve that much. The print papers have quite clearly defined political leanings and so will interpret news to suit the views of their owners, editor and readers. The assumption is that with the time pressure that journalists are under to be first to get their news online there isn’t time to research the story properly therefore the default interpretation becomes inevitable.
So, a few days later and the comment writers have had time to analyse the position and provide more insightful opinion.
Philip Inman Economics Correspondent for The Guardian took 1100 words in his July 3 comment “Sacrificing children for our pensions” to point out that :
1. The UK is in good shape since it only pays around 12% of GDP on state pensions and means tested benefits to pensioners, less than Germany and France
2.That George Osborne and David Cameron are independently wealthy so don’t care and;
3. The future tax bill is theoretical.
Just the day before Liam Halligan writing in The Telegraph took 1200 words (“The real danger of gold-plated public sector pensions is finally hitting home”) to point out that:
1. The current system is indefensible
2. The actual bill for outstanding public sector pension liabilities is 53% of national income
3. The future tax bill is unsustainable as there is no pension fund to pay for pensions – money is paid out as it comes in and the liability will go up. .
No change there then either, but where does this leave the PR strategy if whatever you say makes no difference to half the media you’re talking to? It comes down to audiences and decision makers and scoring points where you can. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas and public sector workers aren’t going to vote Tory. Similarly, the disgusted of Tunbridge Wells don’t like the Trotskyites of Labour. Therefore the PRs’ target paper isn’t the broadsheets it’s The Metro – it’s free very has massive readership figures and is very careful not to be political because it cannot take the risk of annoying its readers (or advertisers) with perceived political bias.
And how did The Metro treat the news of 30 June?
“Biggest strike in five years hits UK – and there may be more to come”
It then went on to quote the Unions, the Government and the Labour party giving equal credence to each, straight down the line and where the real PR battle is taking place.
';