Members of the RMT union are currently on strike because of a dispute with the government over pay and conditions.
The demands of the union are justified and reasonable. The union refuses to accept pay cuts and wants job security guarantees to retain the railway expertise required to maintain safety on the network.
CPI inflation is currently at 9.1% and is projected to reach 11%. The union is asking for a 7% increase in pay, a real-terms pay cut, while the government is offering just 3%.
This is all happening within the context of a cost of living crisis in the UK. Most people who are aware of the details of the dispute would probably agree that in this particular instance the union is being more reasonable than the government.
Which raises the following question: why isn’t the government settling the dispute? Asking for wages to keep up with prices during a cost of living crisis is not an outrageous demand. Of course the union's demands should be met, so why is the government refusing to come to terms? What is its rationale for prolonging the strike and inconveniencing millions of railway passengers?
I am afraid there is no eloquent or impressive answer to that question. The answer is instead a rather squalid and grubby affair. The Tories are prolonging the dispute because it gives them an opportunity to endlessly talk about strikes held in the 20th century to whip up their anti-union Tory base in advance of a general election.
The Tories are refusing to settle the dispute with the RMT union because they believe it serves the Tory party's electoral interests. There is no concern for economics or ideology or national security to be found here.
As always, the Tory party’s only concern is the Tory party.