Labour’s re-election in June owed much to the government’s avoidance of some of the mistakes of past Labour administrations. The images of the ‘winter of discontent’, so skilfully deployed by the Tories during their eighteen years in power, have been erased not just by the passage of time, but by the fact that there has been no repeat of such a scenario under Tony Blair. Gordon Brown’s management of the economy has helped to wipe from the public consciousness the association between Labour and economic crisis. Few can picture this Chancellor asking the IMF for a loan.
But the government has not achieved this alone. The Labour Party itself has displayed a discipline and unity – despite the misgivings of some members over certain aspects of the government’s record – which was simply unheard of under the Wilson-Callaghan governments. Where dissent and argument has taken place – often, probably, to the long-term benefit of the government – it is has been largely conducted without rancour and cries of betrayal.
Then there is the record of the wider Labour movement over the past four years. Tony Blair, and before him Neil Kinnock, was right to insist that if Labour was ever to become a credible party of government once again it needed to adopt a policy of ‘fairness not favours’ towards the unions. By and large this was a position which the unions came to understand and accept prior to Labour’s first election victory.
However, the role of the unions in ensuring the success of Labour’s first term has gone largely unnoticed. And we are not simply referring to the financial and organisational support which played a critical part of our second landslide victory. No, the unions’ role in this government’s success began on 2 May 1997 and continued until election day 2001. The unions have argued the case for their positions – on everything from the level of the minimum wage and the state pension, to the euro and the issue of asylum vouchers – with passion and skill. Indeed, the government may have done well to listen sooner to the unions’ case on some of these issues. And there has been no return to, or even the threat of a return to, the kind of militancy which did such damage to both the unions and the Labour Party during the 1960s and 1970s.
It is with this background in mind that we have to consider the government’s plans for the greater use of the private sector in delivering public services. The trade unions do not have a right to veto government policy, but, for two reasons, they do have a right to insist that their case be heard by the government. First, the government has to remember that their plans affect not simply the public who are counting on them to deliver better public services, but also those who work in the public sector. Public sector workers, like those in the private sector, have to be flexible and ready and willing to adapt to change. But they do have the right to expect that a Labour government will protect their basic working conditions and pay.
Second, if Partnership in Power is to mean anything the trade unions – along with party members – must have a right to shape government policy in this essential area. Indeed, had this policy innovation been fed through the policy forum process – which it appears not to have been – some of the damage of the last three months might have been avoided. Not only would the unions and party members have felt consulted, but the government would have been able to address their concerns in a calmer atmosphere. Instead, party and unions have been forced to conduct a shouting match through the media, rather than a debate.
Ministers are right to be proud of their first term record. However, they must not forget that the wider Labour movement – including the unions – played a critical role in achieving it. By including them now in the debate about the future of Britain’s public services, the government will show that it recognises this fact.