To me it isn't that much about who is right when it comes to deciding whether to accept the deal that has been presented by the negotiators on LGPS but more about who is conveying the message clearer.
We have two fellow bloggers, Jon of the Rogers and John of the Gray, explaining their views in very different ways. Is it all about style over substance?
Jon of the Rogers uses long and some times convoluted language to convince us that the proposal is a bad one but loses the opportunity to persuade by not keeping it simple. John of the Gray, on the other hand, adopts the 'simple and clear is best' style and puts the argument in easy to retain short paragraphs with the main points highlighted. So as far as style is concerned a member who is busy trying to get her/his children to work in the morning and has 10 minutes to spend reading a blog will, in my opinion, have no problems digesting what JG says.
What I am saying above is what I have said to our Jon many times before which is try to keep your message short and simple and avoid the temptation of showing to people that you are capable of explaining the theory of evolution in a blog which is read primarily by Doris Bayswater and Virginia Sydenham. It won't work and people have better things to do.
On the other hand I would say that on balance the deal that has been 'negotiated' is presented to a confused membership at a time when the whole world and its oysters are in deep trouble. It is not a good offer and it involves major concessions. It is also true that in order to defeat the government and their proposal the unions would need to coordinate action on a national scale more effectively and look more decisive. Taking one day of action every 5.4 months based on walking down central London is also not going to scare off the establishment. My advice would be to preach rejection if we know we are capable of prolonged and sustained industrial action and if not then at least explain what we think to members in a clearer and more concise way.