The Prime Minister is pursuing a model of industrial relations not seen since Harold Wilson.
ony Blair used to be accused by the former TUC head John Monks of treating the trade unions like “embarrassing elderly relatives”. Keir Starmer prefers to regard them as partners. That much was clear from the Prime Minister’s speech to the TUC Congress in which he used the word “partnership” seven times.
Much recent media coverage of Labour and the unions has been overwrought. The party is invariably either “in bed” with them or “at war” with them (and sometimes both at once). The middle ground in which compromise and negotiation take place – witness Mick Lynch’s measured praise for Starmer – is usually ignored.
However, the relationship between Labour and the trade unions is far more complex than the simplistic narratives often portrayed in the media. While Starmer emphasizes partnership, this does not mean that tensions and disagreements do not exist. The trade unions, as representatives of millions of workers, have their own priorities, which do not always align perfectly with the Labour Party’s political agenda. For instance, while Labour under Starmer has made efforts to appeal to a broader electorate, some union leaders, such as those representing public sector workers, are more focused on immediate economic concerns like pay, job security, and working conditions.
The unions play a dual role: on the one hand, they are a source of vital financial support for Labour, contributing significant sums to the party’s coffers. On the other hand, they also serve as a critical voice, holding Labour accountable to its traditional working-class base. This balancing act creates inevitable friction. Starmer’s desire to modernize the party, making it more electable to centrist voters, can sometimes clash with the unions’ calls for more radical policies aimed at directly improving the lives of workers.
A key flashpoint in this evolving relationship is Labour’s stance on workers’ rights. Starmer has committed to strengthening these rights, promising policies like the introduction of fair pay agreements and a ban on zero-hour contracts. But union leaders, while welcoming these commitments, are eager to push for more immediate action. They argue that Labour’s proposals do not go far enough, fast enough, especially given the challenges workers are facing in the current economic climate.
Another area of potential discord lies in Labour’s approach to public sector pay. Unions representing nurses, teachers, and transport workers have called for significant pay increases to combat the rising cost of living. While Starmer has expressed sympathy for these workers, his cautious approach to public spending, mindful of not alienating middle-class voters, has led to some frustration among union leaders. This tension was evident in the recent strikes, where unions demanded more decisive action from Labour to back their cause.
At the same time, Starmer has been careful not to allow these differences to escalate into open conflict. His measured, pragmatic approach has helped prevent a repeat of the deep divisions that plagued Labour under previous leaders. His decision to work closely with union leaders like Mick Lynch reflects his belief that Labour cannot afford to alienate its core supporters if it hopes to win the next general election.
Ultimately, while Starmer’s partnership with the unions may not be without its challenges, it represents a more stable and cooperative relationship than some media narratives suggest. Both sides understand the importance of unity as they face a shared goal: to oust the Conservatives from power and create a fairer, more equitable society for workers. But whether this partnership can hold firm in the face of growing economic and political pressures remains to be seen. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether Starmer’s careful balancing act will pay off.
