Don't strike, or you will lose the right to strike

Because the army get paid whether or not they're killing, not to have them at war is bad economics

Now that they're obviously making it up as they go along, it can't be long before a link between al-Qa'ida and the Fires Brigades Union is revealed. Blair will announce that he's found a strike leaflet that begins: "Allah, the Almighty, the Merciful, commands that no ladders shall be extended nor water spurted during the mother of all 48-hour stoppages. Pickets will be rewarded in heaven with one virgin each per eight-hour shift." For reasons of security it won't be possible to give all the details, but it'll be hinted that the Swindon district regional treasurer has been taking orders from that bloke with one eye and a claw.

This would be no less logical than Prescott's latest move, which is to announce that unless the union agrees in its negotiations to the Government's demands, it will lose the right to negotiate. And unless it agrees never to strike, it could also lose the right to strike. It makes sense in the same way that Saddam allows his people to vote as long as they don't abuse the privilege by voting for someone other than Saddam, which suggests a possible link between Saddam and New Labour.

What seems to irritate the Government is that firefighters are paid for the times when there isn't a fire, which cuts across the free-market ethos they're committed to. Maybe this explains Blair's enthusiasm for war. Because the army get paid whether or not they're killing people, not to have them at war is simply bad economics. Even when they are at war, armies always spend long periods lying in trenches or hanging about in camps, so surely it's time they were modernised as well.

Modernisation in the fire service seems relatively simple, you only have to cut the number of stations and firefighters and carry out measures such as merging fire and ambulance control rooms. Eventually, if it weren't for union intransigence, we could modernise the service all the way back to the 1890s. It's the same in every industry. If we would only allow ourselves to shed the outdated notions that restrict productivity, we could shove kids up chimneys and make people weave things for 18 hours a day, to provide the modern thriving economy that this country deserves

Closing fire stations could be especially modern because, as a report in The Times put it, fire stations, such as the one in the King's Road, offer a "plum site for residential conversion". The possibilities must make them drool – a spacious split-level residence with charming pole feature and ample parking for up to 10 four-wheel drives. Or they could be turned into museums called "the asphyxiation experience", where visitors pay to walk past snooker-playing actors in uniform.

Luddites that they are, the Fire Brigades Union is opposed to this process. Prescott berates the union for not calling off the latest strike, but it has called off four strikes already, and each time the government line has hardened. Conversely, the union has been trying to address the issue of pay for years, but the Government did not take any notice at all until the union threatened a strike.

To be fair, you can see why Prescott doesn't follow this, as his union is so good at negotiating that he's on £124,979 a year, having just been awarded a 40 per cent increase, and he didn't have to carry out so much as a work to rule. But this is clearly because politicians carry out a far more essential service than firefighters. If they were on strike for as much as a morning, the public would be cowering under the stairs, anxious about how long we could last without anyone dribbling "Hear hear" or looking awkward as they presented an award to schoolkids on regional news.

One of the differences between the privileged firefighters and the rest of us, say the Government, is that their shifts allow many of them to do second jobs. And you can see why politicians must be particularly angered by this, as their workload is such that none could even imagine fitting in a moment's newspaper column-writing or company directing on the side.

But there could be a coded message in Prescott's latest outburst, because one of his complaints against the FBU is that its most recent strike lasted 48 hours, to "cause minimum pain for FBU members and maximum disruption for everyone else". So he thinks the strike would be fairer if it went on for longer, does he? Like everything else he and his boss say, as soon as you try to decipher it, it makes no sense at all. It's like the justification for higher student top-up fees. "to bring in more students from poorer backgrounds".

How does this work then? I suppose working-class people will feel more at home knowing that they'll be in piles of debt. To encourage them even more, they'll be able to get their courses on HP or out of a catalogue, or off a bloke who comes round for his weekly payment in the pub every Sunday night. They make it up as they go along.