In the case of the National Health reforms, the Government has been negotiating with both health care professionals and with the public at large. The Government has been deploying arguments based on reason – about the need to use resources more efficiently and take medical decisions away from bureaucrats in hospitals and back towards medics. The Reforms have proposed to abolish NHS Primary Care Trusts and Strategic Health Authorities and transfer their £60-£80 billion of commissioning of health care funds to “clinical commissioning groups” principally run by GP’s, as well as the establishment of “Monitor” as an economic/competition regulator. Primary Care trusts would be amalgamated into “foundation trusts” and NHS hospitals would be allowed to earn much more of their income from private patients – up to 49%.

Lack of Emotional Argument

However the NHS is an emotional subject. It is an emotional subject for GP’s and Health care professionals such as Nurses, most of whom enter the profession on a vocational basis. It is also an emotional subject for the public at large, with the NHS forming an iconic part of Britain’s social welfare heritage. The Conservatives are not trusted with this social welfare agenda precisely because (maybe unfairly) they are perceived historically as addressing it in pounds and pence rather than as an emotionally-based priority. The Government also got off to a bad start in dealing with the subject as the Act’s proposals were not contained in the Conservative-Liberal Democrat
coalition agreement nor were they discussed during the election campaign – if you want to address an emotional issue it’s not a good tactic to avoid it. The “Listening” pause which the Government announced in April 2011 came too late and has not been enough to restore this sense of trust.

The upshot is that the Government may have won the battle on NHS reform but it has lost the negotiation. The Government is perceived by many health care professionals and by the public as riding roughshod over their passionately held views, because unfortunately it has failed to convey any emotional arguments to support its point of view. Although the reforms purport to put “patient care at the centre of the NHS”, this kind of rallying cry has been lost in the welter of emotive argument on issues such as whether the focus on competition for funding decisions from private care providers would improve health care or just undermine and fragment the NHS, and whether NHS patients will suffer if hospitals are allowed to make more money from private patients.

Worse still, the Government’s rational arguments have all been largely sidelined and marginalised because the volume of the emotional outcry has been getting louder as more and more groups line up to oppose the reforms. There has been opposition from the British Medical Association, the Royal college of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of General Practitioners, Unite, and various pressure groups such as “NHS Direct Action” and “Keep our NHS Public”.

Missing Explanation

This means that the media focus has all been about the fact that there is a major argument going on, rather than the reasons or the emotional motivations behind the Government’s reforms. In all the debate and all the media coverage I have not seen one item which puts forward the Government’s case for reform clearly – even on a purely rational basis. Specifically, I have seen no articles clearly explaining:

* Why GP’s making decisions (based on competitive provision of services) rather than Hospital Trusts taking those decisions, might save money or resources
* How much might be saved
* Why there will ultimately be less aggregate bureaucracy associated with clinical commissioning groups in GP practices than there is at Hospital Trusts
* Or (more emotionally) why treatment will be quicker, safer or more effective for patients
* How clinical commissioning groups will integrate with health care providers in practice (especially for conditions requiring different forms of treatment)
* How results could be measured
* How the new NHS Commissioning Board together with local “health and well-being” boards will provide accountability.

‘Lost’ Negotiation

By failing to address these points, the Government has lost the negotiation and will now find it difficult to make a success of the reforms. This happens in any negotiation where the outcome is imposed on the other side without the argument being won. Those who opposed the reforms will want to ensure that they fail. The opposition may be explicit. Or it may be covert. Or it may not even be consciously done. Goodness knows the reforms are complicated enough for anything other than full scale support to cause major implementation problems.

The Government might have been better off if it soft pedalled on the reforms until it had won the emotional argument – even taking implementation in small, incremental stages until it had achieved this. As it is, by pushing its solutions through the Government makes it likely that the debate on the future of the Health service will re-surface once this wave of reforms has failed to do the job which the Government was originally expecting.

Obama has been keen to stress that military action in Syria would be premature and could lead to all out civil war. There is an even more worrying concern that this could turn into a conflict which destabilises the whole region with evidence that the Sunni rebels are backed by their co-religionists in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Equally, Iran’s support for the Syrian regime has been well publicised and this could extend to active military support should the West intervene.

So what are the alternatives to military action? Unfortunately, it is impractical to consider negotiation at the moment. As a rule, when only one side wants to negotiate, it’s hard to conduct any meaningful discussions and this seems to be such a situation. In his own mind, maybe Assad still believes (as Gaddafi did before him) that he can win by sheer application of power alone. Or maybe the stern example of his father who ruthlessly held power before him inhibits him from contemplating genuine negotiations. Or maybe he just can’t see a negotiated way out of the current crisis, since any negotiation would involve a diminishment or removal of his powers which would leave him and his allies highly vulnerable.

What then are the options available to the West which might bring Assad to the table and/or force a regime change?

1. Encourage Russia and China to stop blocking UN action

These two permanent members of the Security Council have been preventing the passing of resolutions calling for Assad to step down. Russia has been a long term ally of Syria which currently represents its only bastion of influence in the Middle East. Recent pronouncements from President Putin suggest that this support may be dwindling as the regime in Syria continues its relentless killing of its own people. However this has not so far resulted in a change in its stance at the UN. China’s position is harder to fathom. It has said it supports Arab League efforts to resolve the crisis but is opposed to the UN “complicating” things by getting involved. So, there seems no immediate prospect of a UN resolution as a way of forcing either negotiations or a regime change.

2. Help the Arab League to continue to put pressure on Assad

The League has already suspended Syria and last week called for an “international neutral investigation” into potential war crimes. In theory Arab League criticism would be expected to carry more weight with the Assad regime than criticism from outside the region, yet so far the regime has shown itself oblivious to such pressures.

Kofi Annan, UN-Arab League special envoy, has been quoted as saying in this past week that he believes that ‘the door of dialogue is still open’ with the Syrian authorities. This follows his recent discussions with Assad, Syrian foreign ministers and the opposition Syrian National Council, although there has since been no clear response from Assad to Annan’s proposals for ‘ceasefire, dialogue and humanitarian aid’. Privately, Western diplomats are said to believe that Annan has very little chance of breakthrough success here, and he himself agreed that the response from the Syrian government had been ‘disappointing’.

3. Sanctions

The European Union have just imposed its twelfth round of sanctions on Syria and the US have already imposed their own severe sanctions. The Arab League also imposed wide ranging economic sanctions last November, which Turkey has agreed to abide by. However, Russia and China have not backed such sanctions, and history shows that sanctions take a long time to make a difference.

4. Help the rebels by supplying them with arms

Though this could probably be done covertly through intermediaries, President Obama has openly said that the US will not be arming the rebels, as this action is also likely to nudge the situation into Civil War. The UK government has taken a similar view publicly. However, it must be likely that arms for the rebels will increasingly find their way into the country from outside sympathisers and Western Governments can be expected to turn a blind eye to that. This tactic involves a long and bloody campaign though, and many more innocent people will die before it could hope to be successful.

5. Find some elements of the Syrian regime who are more critical of the violence and more amenable to dialogue and negotiation

Can this kind of ‘divide and rule’ tactic work? Perhaps, if there are strains within the other side…

Last week the Syrian Deputy Oil Minister resigned by posting a very public video on You Tube – the first real sign that this kind of tactic may have some possibilities. There is also a squad of Alawites in the Free Syrian Army who have defected from the ruling Alawite sect. In addition, the Alawites of President Assad only account for some 12 percent of the Syrian population, and they depend on alliances with local business Christian groupings who form another 10 percent of the population. There may well be scope for disrupting this alliance and marginalising Assad still further, but this is a process that will take time.

We are not yet in the same place as we were UN Libya, where defections away from the ruling party became routine. However, it may provide the best hope of a breakthrough. Either Assad’s allies may be persuaded to desert him or maybe even his own Alawite sect could be persuaded to do so if given assurances about their own role and protection in any new regime. There will be many in Assad’s regime or connected to it who fear that they have no future at all unless the regime survives.

From a negotiating point of view, giving these people a sense that there may be a way out would address their “survival” needs and may in time be enough to tip them against the regime. Let’s hope so. As Kofi Annan said, “The situation is so bad and so dangerous that all of us cannot afford to fail.”

Iran and the West seem to be swapping moves calculated to put pressure on the other. Pressure tactics are fine in a negotiation as long as they are used constructively and selectively. When pressure tactics are the only tactic deployed then the negotiation becomes quite attritional, and getting an edge over the other side becomes more important than finding a solution that suits all parties. On any analysis the situation in Iran requires a negotiation in which the parties focus on the needs and interests of each other. The most effective negotiators “fuse” the interests of the parties to create currency for both parties. However exclusive use of pressure tactics by “users” tends to result in both parties ending up as “losers”.

Here are some of the pressures that have been applied over the last few months;

Sep 04 – Iran announces that their first nuclear power plant is ‘online’ , sparking increased UN concern.
Sep 28 – Iran claims they will be sending ships near U.S. waters.
Oct 11 – US says it has broken up a ‘terror plot’ by agents linked to Iran to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington using explosives.
Nov 21 – Iran is hit by fresh sanctions by the West (US, UK and Canada) over concerns about their nuclear programme, backed by a UN report. Hillary Clinton speaks of a “significant ratcheting-up of pressure” on Iran.
Nov 24 – Iran arrests 12 people for ‘CIA spying’.
Nov 29 – Iranian students storm the UK embassy, throwing around papers and replacing the British flag with an Iranian one.
Nov 30 – UK retaliates by warning Iran and expelling all Iranian diplomats.
Dec 04 – Iran shoots down a US drone in eastern Iran.
Dec 08 – Iranian TV airs image of alleged US drone.
Dec 27 – Iran threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz oil-trade route if the West impose more sanctions. Admiral Habibollah Sayyari says “it would be easier than drinking a glass of water”.
Dec 31 – New tighter sanctions against Iran are signed into US law by President Obama.
Jan 03 – General Ataollah Salehi, commander of Iran’s armed forces threatens to respond with “full force” if any US carrier ventures into Iranian waters. “We don’t have the intention of repeating our warning, and warn only once”. This is followed by Iranian military manoeuvres in the Strait.
Jan 22 – The US, France and Britain send 6 warships through the Strait of Hormuz.
Jan 23 – European Ministers agree an embargo on Iranian oil exports and are likely to partially freeze assets held by the Iranian Central bank in the EU. William Hague warns Iran that any attempt by them to block the Strait of Hormuz would be ‘illegal’ and ‘unsuccessful’.

It may not be palatable to consider Iran’s negotiating needs in all of this, but whichever negotiating theory you choose, the answer would seem to be to engage in dialogue rather than ceaseless pressure tactics. Iran’s negotiating needs would appear to be based on a desire for ‘respect’ and also for ‘belonging’ – that is belonging to that club of major nations with access to nuclear weapons. The West has a need for ‘reassurance’ that Iran’s ambitions are not going to destabilise the region militarily or interrupt oil supplies. Is it not possible to construct a dialogue in which Iran’s needs and the West’s concerns are met without Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability? Currently the parties are stuck defending their interest-based positions, but it is normally possible to move people away from interest-based positions by finding other greater interests that they have in common, or by increasing the size of the negotiating pie, or by creating face-saving options enabling one party to step away from its stated position.

Some commentators say that it is not possible to negotiate with Iran on the basis that the religious fundamentalism which underpins its state apparatus hampers rational negotiation. Yet despite a perceived profound difference of cultural values between Islam and the West, and without minimalising those differences, there are also many commonalities. Islam remains one of the 3 great monotheistic faiths, and like Christianity and Judaism celebrates a holy book which prescribes important religious rituals and a way of leading a better life. Abraham features in all 3 religions – with the Prophet Muhammad described as descended from Abraham’s son, Ishmael. In any event it is crass to believe that all Iranians are the same – even in government. It is not plausible that there are no Iranians who would prefer dialogue as opposed to provoking or participating in a perceived holy conflict which could result in annihilation for many people. It would be like saying that it is not possible to have a constructive dialogue with the West just because there are some points of view which are hawkish and hostile to Iran (for example, in the US).

However, if pressure tactics continue to be relied on to the exclusion of constructive dialogue then a conflict edges ever closer – and that could only result in a losing outcome for all concerned.

From a negotiating point of view a political leader is in a constant state of negotiation for positive attention and good will, with both his own party and its members (and of course the electorate). In any negotiation it’s crucial to have sufficient bargaining power at your disposal – enough “aces” in your hand. If you don’t then, consciously or otherwise, you will not feel confident in that negotiation and the other side will pick up that sense of vulnerability and instinctively start to push you around. From Ed Miliband’s point of view he is a bit short of bargaining power at the moment…

Stuck in the Middle

The Tories and Lib Dems have pitched their coalition tent in the centre ground of British politics. This makes it difficult for Miliiband. If he agrees with the Coalition (as on Public sector pay) he sounds weak. But how can he differentiate his policies without sounding extreme? This lack of clear, attractive policy alternatives deprives Miliband of “market power” and, therefore, popularity.

Authority Void

In addition, from the start he has lacked “authority” bargaining power. Many in his party felt that the leadership election ended up backing the wrong Miliband to lead the party, and it was only because of Union bloc votes that Ed won. This has been a drain on his “authority power” from day one. The attacks from Union leaders only intensify this inadequacy. His perceived lack of leadership experience and ministerial experience also undermines his authority power and denies him “expert” status (expertise being another source of bargaining power).

Negotiating Deficiencies

Perhaps the most worrying lack of aces concerns his “personal power” as a negotiator. We all have our personal skills and expertise as a negotiator to call on whatever other aces are ranged against us. However, Ed Miliband seems to fall short in this area at the moment. One noticeable example of this concerns his difficulties in effectively modelling “push” behaviour. “Push” is one of four core behavioural possibilities to choose from as a negotiator. It is particularly useful when you are making a bid or an offer. It can involve stating expectations, using incentives and pressures, testing and probing the other side’s position, and making proposals with reasons. You can see why these would be important behaviours in negotiations with your own party and the electorate to support your policies.

When you “push” it’s important not just that you use the right words, but also that your “music” and “dance” support those words. The “music” is the way you use your voice – its pitch, tone, rhythm, and loudness. The “dance” is the way you use your face and body – facial expressions, posture, eye contact, fidgeting. When you “push” and use assertive language, your voice and body must be assertive as well. If they are not, then the words alone will not be impactful. This seems to be an area of challenge for Ed Miliband; he uses strong language in Parliament and in interviews, but his voice is not strong and his body language is often weak and unconvincing. This gap between words and the way they are expressed means he is not successful in ‘pushing’ either his own party or the electorate towards his point of view.

This is not the only weakness. Ed Miliband seems to experience difficulties with other negotiating behaviours too – including “joining behaviour” (such as visualising inspiring outcomes from working together) and “pull behaviour” (e.g. disclosing feelings impactfully).

Vulnerable to attack

When you are perceived to lack enough bargaining power to protect yourself, then those involved on the other side of the negotiating table will pick this up and start pushing you around. Cue all sorts of criticism from his own party, the electorate, and various pundits – including me! It’s hard not to feel sorry for the man, who seems genuine and clever. However, he needs more “bargaining power” to turn this state of affairs around.

Miliband should seek some clear, differentiating policies to give him “market power”. He should bring in new high profile colleagues and sponsors to give himself “authority power” (and the power of some “expertise” – where is Lord Mandelson when he’s needed?). And above all he should improve his negotiating skills so as to enhance his “personal power” as a negotiator…there is no excuse for missing that Ace in your hand.

It’s not just in the public sector that strikes over reforms to pension plans are taking place. Unilever is facing a rolling wave of strikes as Unions mobilise against reforms of its final salary pension scheme.

Unions such as Unite, the GMB and Usdaw have said the stoppages will hit production of a number of leading brands and products including Marmite, Flora, Hellmann’s mayonnaise, and PG Tips.

The strike action commences in the same week that strikes have been announced at tax offices and the National Gallery. The strikes at tax offices – timed to disrupt the January 31st self-assessment tax deadline – are directed at alleged privatisation of work at call centres and Inquiry offices. The strikes at the National Gallery are all about staff cuts.

From a negotiating point of view, strikes are a pressure tactic. This is a form of “push” behaviour – all about “my” agenda rather than “yours” in the negotiation.

There is nothing wrong with using “push” behaviour as long as it is used at the right time, and in the right way, when it can be most effective. Here’s some pointers on how to best implement ‘Push’ behaviour:

1. Don’t use pressures too early in a negotiation, or the other side won’t feel pressurised. If they are used near the end of a negotiation when the other side feels it has something to lose if the deal isn’t done, then pressures are far more likely to be effective. These strike actions feel like they may be coming too early in the respective disputes.

2. If pressure tactics like strikes are applied too early in the process then not only do they fail to yield a result but they will be perceived as just a power play which can be highly disruptive to the negotiation climate and make a positive outcome harder to achieve. The strikes at Unilever have been stridently condemned by Management as have the strikes at HMRC – a spokeswoman tartly remarking that “the project is not about outsourcing or replacing HMRC jobs. It is ultimately about finding ways to improve the service we provide to our customer”. If the tactic is instead applied nearer the end of a negotiation – e.g. close to a deadline – then the focus of the other side is more likely to be on how to save the deal.

3. Finally, pressure tactics like strikes are much more useful as a threat than they are once implemented. Once the threat is carried out, employers find work-arounds and often the impact of the strikes is less severe than Unions had anticipated or hoped. This then emboldens the employer side and makes it harder for the strikers to get what they wanted.

So, Unions would be better to keep their powder dry and threaten to strike rather than carrying out the strikes. Once the strikes have happened, they rather lose their power to demonise.

Who should succeed the Queen? Will it be the current rightful heir, Prince Charles, or will the Crown skip a generation and pass to his own son, Prince William?

The subject may be too delicate to raise around the dining table at Buckingham Palace, but a tacit negotiation must surely be going on. However selfless the Queen is, securing a smooth succession will be her priority – just as it has been for any Regent since the Middle Ages and earlier. For this reason she may want to delay the decision for as long as possible, feeling that if she steps down then this will inevitably provoke a debate about the nature of the monarchy itself, and whether it is still a relevant concept for a modern age. That said, there must also be a time coming when she feels she can no longer carry the burden herself – particularly if Prince Phillip were to be too unwell to support her anymore, or, worse still, if he was to die.

So, who would she choose to succeed her when the time comes? Both Charles and William may feel strongly that they should be chosen. Prince Charles sometimes seems to yearn for a purpose beyond the many good causes that his charitable work supports. He has been waiting a long time and from a negotiating point of view you would say that for him, as for any Prince, there must be a strong “belonging” need to belong to that club of Princes who have gone on to become a King. William must share that aspiration, though it remains to be seen whether the difficult times endured by his mother as a member of the royal family temper that desire or make him hungrier to achieve the status of King – does her fate make him feel like he has unfinished business to attend to?

From the Queen’s point of view, Charles has the advantage of formally being the next in line. This means he has “rules and regulations” on his side, which is always an important source of bargaining power. It is hard to think of any recent instance within the Royal family where the rightful heir has willingly abandoned the throne to a younger relative. Moreover think of the constitutional crisis which was caused the last time this happened (when Edward the Eighth abdicated). The Queen will certainly remember that with a shudder as it was her own Father who reluctantly became King, and she will not want to precipitate a similar crisis. Charles also has the advantage of age and Maturity (if not experience) on his side which give him some “authority” – another important source of bargaining power. On the other hand Charles is already nearly a pensioner and it is not a certainty that the nation would take either him or Camilla to their hearts should he become King.

William doesn’t have the age or maturity of his father and is equally inexperienced. He is also not the natural heir and is himself only half royal. Furthermore, Kate is a “commoner” – so their child and the next King after William would technically be only one quarter “royal”. These factors all mean that William lacks the “authority” bargaining power of his father in any negotiation for the role of future King. However, William (and Kate) have certain other sources of bargaining power, which make him a very strong candidate. They are young in an era which celebrates youth; they are handsome in an age which celebrates looks; they are hugely popular in an age which celebrates the X Factor. These attributes give William “marketing” bargaining power in relation to the royal brand. They also give him “network” bargaining power through his and Kate’s ability to reach the hearts and minds of the British people. These are both important sources of bargaining power.

It’s going to be a fascinating negotiation. A private negotiation where we will probably never have the inside track, but a negotiation of which we will all be fascinated to learn the outcome.

Mitt Romney’s campaign to become the Republican candidate looks to be right on track following his recent win in New Hampshire. He managed to pull off a commanding victory in the New Hampshire primary, winning 39% of the overall vote and his strong message, to shake the country out of its economic doldrums, seems to be striking a chord with the public.

Over the past few weeks, we have seen various Republican candidates representing the more ‘extreme’ side of the party come to the fore in several of the State votes, only to fall away again just as quickly. With Rick Perry and Herman Cain having already fallen by the wayside due to well-publicised ‘blunders’, the most recent challengers to Romney’s position as leading candidate havebeen Rick Santorum (who surprisingly polled second Iowa), Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul (second in the New Hampshire vote).

The problem seems to be that aside from Romney, the other candidates are campaigning for policies that seemingly alienate large portions of US society. Rick Santorum, along with Newt Gingrich openly opposes same-sex marriage and Ron Paul strongly opposes abortion, even in the case of rape. Following his surge into second place in Iowa, Santorum proceeded to shoot himself in the foot by stating that marijuana, even for medicinal purposes, was a ‘hazard to society’ – later backtracking by saying that he didn’t know medical marijuana laws very well. Hardly a confidence-inspiring admission, especially considering that surveys show 70% of Americans are in favour of legalising marijuana to reduce pain and suffering.

Romney’s opposition will no doubt rally against him again during the next phase of campaigning in South Carolina, where it is reported that he holds a much narrower lead. However, if he can hold them off here, history suggests that his selection as the Republican candidate is very likely – South Carolina has chosen the eventual Republican nominee in every primary vote since 1980.

It matters not that his own party does not “love” Romney in the way that it holds affection for some of his rivals who have more colourful views. If Romney is to pull off this victory, he should ignore the criticism from the more right-wing element of his Party and carry on down exactly the same path he has been treading. Newt Gingrich may well have branded Romney as a “Massachusetts moderate”, but it is exactly Romney’s profile as the most moderate and ‘normal’ of the candidates that would ultimately make him the best positioned of all the candidates to give the US electorate the ‘reassurance’ they need in these difficult times.

The caveat to this is that if the US economy picks up over the coming months, then Obama’s “reassurance” capability will rise and his position will no doubt strengthen, potentially derailing the Republican campaign. Speaking after his New Hampshire victory, Romney described Obama as a ‘failed president’ who hadn’t lived up to the lofty promises made during in his own election campaign four years ago. However, figures released last week show that the US unemployment rate has dropped to just 8.5% – the lowest it has been for nearly three years. With Obama’s re-election chances so heavily reliant on an improved economy, this is just the kind of news he will need more of if he is to convince the US voters that it is actually he who is still the most ‘reassuring’ prospect in the negotiation for the hearts and minds of the US electorate.

“Push” behaviour is all about your own agenda and not about the other side’s agenda. It involves behaviours such as stating expectations, using pressures (and incentives) to get your own way, proposing with reasons, and testing and probing the other side’s position.

David Cameron does not seem to be a natural “pusher” as a negotiator, but he does seem to be driven by big ideas for which he will push. The saving of the historic Union between England and Scotland is a big idea for a man with an achievement drive. The move to “push” the Scots towards an early and decisive referendum on independence is an example of a “push” pressure tactic.

Alex Salmond is a much more natural “push” negotiator – in fact, it is probably his default behaviour. In asserting Scottish independence he constantly “states expectations” as to the Scots’ entitlement, which is a classic push tactic. Like many Nationalist movements, the SNP (and indeed Salmond himself) seem motivated by a desire for recognition, and are prepared to push for this agenda.

So, what happens when two pushers meet?

1. We can expect Salmond and the SNP to push back – as indeed has already happened. The Scottish Government has already announced that it wants the referendum to be held in 2014 – later than the UK Government has proposed. And he and other SNP colleagues have criticised David Cameron for trying to “impose” terms and “interfere” in a purely Scottish matter.

2. Two pushers find it hard to get deals done, as they are too busy working off their own agenda to meet the other side’s needs. Their mutual pushing sometimes leads to the side with the greater bargaining power prevailing (but at the expense of leaving the other side with a grudge). In this case it would seem that final legal authority (a big source of bargaining power) over the outcome of a referendum rests with Westminster. But one can only imagine what the impact on the result of a referendum would be if the Scots felt that they were being dictated to legally by England.

3. Alternatively two pushers create a hostile climate which leads to an on-going, unresolved and ultimately futile dispute, with each side constantly looking to exert increased pressure on the other.

You can see what David Cameron is trying to do here. He knows Salmond is canny enough to orchestrate the referendum so that it contains not just “yes” and “no” options – but a third way – a “devo max” solution where Scotland gets more political powers but stays part of the UK and therefore entitled to continue to spend UK public funds. This is obviously not an attractive outcome for Westminster.

Maybe in the circumstances, “Joining” behaviour would be a better tactic for the Unionist side in this debate. Creating a shared vision of what can be achieved in a negotiation is often a more productive way of encouraging people on two sides of a debate to stick together.

In the meantime, stand by for further “pushey” behaviour on both sides…

It was an independent regulatory commission that found Suarez guilty having investigated Patrice Evra’s complaints of racist comments made against him. The Commission’s findings were pretty clear – suggesting that Suarez called Evra “negro” on no fewer than 7 occasions, and dismissing Suarez’s evidence as unreliable and inconsistent. However, there has been a strident reaction from Liverpool, claiming that “the FA and the Panel it selected constructed a highly subjective case against Luis Suarez based on an accusation that was ultimately unsubstantiated …” And that the FA “chose to completely dismiss the testimony that countered their suppositions”.

This kind of peevish response may be the result of a genuine sense of grievance, but it comes across as rather graceless, and inappropriate when dealing with an issue as sensitive as racism in football. It also makes the club seem strangely reluctant to condemn racism. It’s very hard to believe that anyone in the Liverpool hierarchy is actually racist but the grudging acceptance of the findings create the impression that the club will allow racism rather than criticise their own player. This in turn puts the spotlight on the attitude of the club and its supporters to this issue. The furore around racist remarks alleged to have been made by a Liverpool supporter to Oldham defender Tom Adeyemi in Friday’s match has been exacerbated by the fact that Liverpool have struck such a defiant note over the Suarez affair.

From a negotiating point of view the debate with the FA was lost when it pronounced its verdict. Protesting (without appealing) just creates a poor climate for negotiations on anything else. Better to retire from that negotiation and live to fight another day. There will be other future opportunities for Liverpool to negotiate with the FA over this and many other matters…

Some Unions, commencing with NHS Unions (including Unison), appear to have signed or be close to signing heads of agreement which allegedly provide that there will be no further strike action whilst the Unions consider the Government’s latest proposals. Other Unions appear to have joined the nascent consensus, including the GMB. Various teaching Unions have yet to sign up, though the Government is confident about their participation, and Mark Serwotka’s PCS is sitting outside the process altogether, with its leader calling for fresh industrial action and the Union consequently barred from the talks.

The initial optimism around these developments was immediately dampened by a spat caused by a rogue letter from Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles which appeared to impose fresh conditions, but this letter was hastily withdrawn by Danny Alexander and apparently will be replaced by a fresh letter.

So, let us assume some progress is being made. What can we say about the negotiation process?

1. The climate seems to have improved. Initially the Government seemed to have decided on the outcome of the issue on pension reform before engaging in a negotiation process. One of the consequences of this was that the climate was very hostile with Unions and their members feeling excluded from the outcome even though they are key stakeholders. In the wake of the strikes there does seem to have been a concerted effort to improve the climate so that at least it is now a “cool” climate – very objective and data driven. Brendan Barber, TUC General Secretary, talked of a more constructive “new atmosphere” in the talks.

2. It has been easier for the Government to pick off less militant Unions as a result of the Union side seemingly not being united in its desired outcomes. The Unions have straddled a range of views from tactical adjustment of the pensions deal through to outright opposition to the Government’s programme of debt reduction generally. When one side is not united in a negotiation then the other side will always gravitate to the weakest link, and that link will often be the least committed member of the other side. This may have helped the government to get agreement initially from Unison, and then build out consensus from there.

3. However, the projected solutions being mooted merely seem to tinker with the existing “content” issues which have dogged the dispute. The Government is apparently open to revisiting the basis of the accrual rates on which pensions accrue. It is also prepared to provide relief in 2012 to lower paid workers whose contributions would otherwise have increased.

None of this really reframes the issue in a more positive way – for example, it would be much easier for both sides to sit on the same side of the table if the issue was framed as “How can we address funding of pensions so that future public services and jobs are best protected”.

This kind of tinkering with the surface issues also does not address the underlying emotional needs of Union members. From a negotiating point of view there is a pronounced need for public sector workers to feel some sense of “reassurance” that things could be ok in the end. A deal which provided for increased contributions but, say, a fund for extra pension credits if workers come up with schemes to improve resource allocation or innovate might help provide this kind of negotiation reassurance. These kinds of measures do not seem to be on the table – instead the debate seems resolutely focused on cost reduction only.

The Government may end up prevailing in this dispute with its current proposals – though there is a difference between Unions suspending strike action, and accepting the proposals. However, if that acceptance is grudging and resented, because Unions feel they don’t really have any choice, then the consequences of that need to be borne in mind. Nobody likes losing in a negotiation and resentment tends to linger and find an outlet. Unions may seek covertly to undermine the operation of the deal, or refuse to co-operate with Government in relation to other areas. Their members may carry their resentment through to the ballot box in relation to local and national elections.

No doubt the government will be justly pleased at the progress it has made this week, but prevailing in the dispute without winning the hearts and minds of Union members is not necessarily the same as winning…