To mix metaphors, one U-turn does not make a summer. But the Government would be wise to ensure that its U-turn on a European referendum is smartly followed by a number of U-turns on pensions. The build-up to the referendum U-turn, and how events are beginning to pan out on the pensions front, are very similar.

The case I and other colleagues were making on the referendum centred on how this issue would play not so much in the European elections this June, but in the crucial political fight during the next general election. I did not believe the Government could successfully box off in an election campaign the unpopularity associated with the European constitution by merely reciting that voters were making a judgement over a whole range of issues for a new parliament.

That argument seemed to be one of those which registered with the Prime Minister. But no sooner does he try and close down an unpopular debate in one area it is likely that the voters’ disquiet will resurface on the pensions front.

Adair Turner and his Pension Commission will report on the state of pensions in September. The Government’s aim is for the Commission to then spend a further year’s work advising on what its long-term pensions policy might be in the light of the Commission’s findings on pensions savings.

Just as with the European issue I cannot see the Government being successful in boxing the argument in along these lines. Nobody is party to the Commission’s findings on pensions savings but it would be an extraordinary turn up for the books if, given all we know, the Commission paints a rosy picture. My guess is that, once it has completed piecing together existing data, and combining these findings with the results of his own commissioned work, the results prove pretty grim reading.

The Government hopes to hold out in making any major changes before the election by reciting that it is waiting for Adair Turner’s second report. My guess is that it wont be able to hold this line.

However tactically the Commission reports its clear message will be that the state retirement pension is inadequate to provide the first essential building block to an adequate pension for everybody. The next election will be the first when, on existing trends, fifty percent or fewer of voters turn out to vote. But of that minority of the electorate, the majority will be pensioners.

This single fact will make the next election different from any previous election and politicians have yet to begin thinking about what this means. One consequence will be that the Government will find it impossible to knock pensions reform into the long grass. Or, if it tries, the electoral consequences might prove more than embarrassing.

Of course, major pension reform cannot come into effect before the next election. But the Government could have on the stature book what its favoured long-term option is, even if the operating date starts after the next general election.

So the first U-turn would be to ask Adair Turner’s group to report within a month on their longer-term reforms. It is inconceivable that the Commission has not already come to a view on what this reform package should be. All their work over the last year points in that direction.

And whilst spring is a good time for U-turns, the Government could similarly use its newly acquired reverse gear to deliver a compensation package to those occupational pensioners who have lost all or part of their pension entitlement due to their company prematurely winding-up their scheme. As with the referendum, if the Government does not concede this reform, it looks likely as through parliament will insist on a compensation package.

How much better to make the U-turn now and claim the credit for the reform. The alternative is for the Government to be dragged kicking and screaming to a decision which will not only strike voters as proper and fair, but will do more than any other single move to restore confidence in pension savings.