Michael Leahy declared he was ‘old New Labour’ and reminded the assembled crowd of the place of the unions in Labour’s origins. Hinting at statements made by other unions he remarked that Community would never do anything to throw this relationship into question, even when they disagreed with the Labour government. He commented that in 13 years of government Labour didn’t truly get to grips with the world of work. Work Foundations and Unions21 pursued this agenda, but it never really took hold. Lots remains to be done, such as looking at the state of British manufacturing. He concluded that the answer to the question was that the labour movement is in Labour.

Cathy Warwick of the Royal College of Midwives began by saying she became a trade union leader in the dying days of the Labour government. Althought not an affiliated union, the RCM had good accces then, and still does to Labour shadow ministers. She noted that the same openness could not be said of the government. Labour also didn’t just talk about doctors and the BMA, she said, but about midwives, nurses, ancillary workers and more – all of whom are very important to the functioning of the NHS.

She warned the tribalism of parties can be offputting so Labour should not make the coming years a macho battle as the party will lose as much as it may gain; women especially may be turned off.

Non-affiliated unions have a role to play here. They ‘bubble over with policy ideas’ – Labour should grab these, she commented.

Phil Woolas MP opened by characterising the party-union relationship as a parent-child one where the child is happy to take the pocket money and lifts home from the pub, but would rather the parent parked around the corner so their friends couldn’t see. He pointed out the uniqueness of the union relationship in Europe and argued that, legislation-wise, Labour created one of the most favourable environments for trade unions to meet their goals. On new ways of reforming services, he said that the days of individualism are over and that cooperativism and mutualism would be ways forward for the future. There should be no clear dividing line between users and providers, teachers and pupils – isn’t what is good for one good for the other? He asked and mused that part way through the last decade Labour forgot the mutual benefits such an approach could provide.

Nita Clarke of the IPA outlined the organisation’s goal: to achieve sanity at the heart of industrial relations, and that the ‘fairness not favours’ guide should remain, and echoed that in the future Labour should put workplace relations at the centre of Labour’s agenda. ‘People want to know we’re on their side at work’, she said, ‘and we must enable them to be the best they can be at work’. Acknowledging that there’s a long way to go on this agenda, she added that unions can play a big role in this, especially drawing the debate away from the formalistic and dry discussion grounded in European directives. Such an approach may be healthy for both sides – there’s no point spending four years telling your members how rubbish the Labour government is and then four weeks asking them to vote Labour!