“A policeman’s lot is not a happy one,” they trill in Gilbert and Sullivan’s comic, and lightly operatic Pirates of Penzance. There is nothing funny, or light, about the mood of policemen and women at present. They are so unhappy that the Police Federation of England & Wales, the quasi-union representing 140,000 of the UK’s 170,000 officers, will meet in emergency session on Wednesday. They are dismayed at the way Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, has handled their pay settlement, and, foolishly, will ballot on pursuing the right to strike. Some militants are weighing, even more foolishly, tactics such as allowing firearms licences to lapse.

Police officers are prevented from striking by law. This is not only right, it is most unlikely to change as a result of a vote at Wednesday’s meeting. In any case, while some in the constabulary might vote to strike, far fewer would contemplate withdrawing their labour. It would be irresponsible for the police, officially or unofficially, to do anything that impedes – even temporarily – effective law enforcement.

That they are angry enough to be considering the options, however, underlines how badly the Government has handled the issue. It is necessary to keep public expenditure on a tight rein, especially now it is absurdly high at 44.1 per cent of national income, and threatening to climb further. Pay, moreover, soaks up about 85 per cent of the £4.4 billion the Government spends on policing each year. Police officers, for their part, might have accepted their 2.5 per cent deal with better grace, considering that most public sector employees are swallowing increases of about 2 per cent. Jan Berry, chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, last month called it “extremely disappointing”.

But by failing to backdate a pay rise to September, when it was due, Ms Smith appears to have reneged on what was widely assumed to be an agreed deal. It saves the Exchequer about £30 million and equates, on average, to £176 per officer. But by applying the pay rise from December, rather than September, the Government is acting in a fashion which is at least insensitive, and is easily seen as underhand. If only the Government had been as rigorous in policing other elements of public spending. If the Government was determined to stick to 2 per cent – as would have been wise – it should have avoided the independent arbitration process that came up with the 2.5 per cent formula. A gritty approach would, almost certainly, have gone down badly in police ranks. But the Government might have earned respect, if not admiration, by adopting a principled stance. By leading police men and women to believe they would receive more money than they are, the Government has added unnecessary insult to the pay packet.

There is a crucial job to be done squeezing more out of the public sector, and police forces cannot be excused being part of the effort. But the chances of improving standards of policing, and making it more cost effective, are done no good at all if employees are subjected to alienating and demotivating behaviour. It is clear that the Government has its public sector favourites who are lavished with taxpayers’ money, but the police, like the military, fall into a category unloved by Old Labour and underappreciated by the present Government.