[Editorial note: I am not currently in America]

There's been a huge brouhaha within the Labour Party after its recent election defeat. Strident language is being used, and supporters of Tony Blair's thinking are attempting to use this to stage a comeback (for the ideas, not the leader, thank Heavens). Everyone agrees that the party needs to change, and there are forces pulling in wildly different directions. This seems fundamentally healthy to me—why, in a democracy, would we expect to benefit by suppressing discussions about the future of a democratic political party?

Given my disappointment at the inaccuracy of the pollsters' predictions I have joined the Labour Party, in order that my voice comes from within the organization rather than from outside. I too think it is time for change, but my recipe for change isn't the same as the alternatives being commented upon eternally in the press.

The relationship between the Labour Party and the trades unions has along history. Both emerged from the struggle to achieve fair rewards for work performed. By the nineteenth century almost all trade and commerce was managed purely in terms of money money. Gone was the feudal system, replaced by capitalist companies all seeking to make a profit by manufacture or the provision of services. By the nineteenth century working conditions had become so bad that unions were necessary to defend workers' rights. By the twentieth century the Labour Party was necessary to try and achieve the political power to change the way things worked.

Over a century later it's worth asking whether the party's founding values are relevant any more. I would argue that they are. Len McCluskey, general secretary of the Unite union, has challenged the Labour Party “to demonstrate that they are the voice of ordinary working people, that they are the voice of organised labour,” suggesting that such a voice is still required. But the unions have their own problems, with overall trades union membership in the UK down from a 1979 peak of just over 13,000,000 members to around half that in 2013¹. In fact, I don't believe it's the Labour Party that's out of touch with people, I believe it's the unions.

Younger people have traditionally failed to see the relevance of union membership, and that trend appears to be increasing². It's only among people past the age of 50 who increasingly see the benefit of union membership. This is not a case Labour can make for the unions, and frankly I'd like to see the unions working much harder to make it for themselves. The point is that no matter how much unions increase their membership, the Labour Party must appeal to a broader church. This does not mean that unions should be excluded—their members are, after all (at least those signing up for the political levy, thank you Margaret Thatcher) already aligned with Labour Party values.

Therefore for Labour to succeed in future elections it has to establish a commonality of interest between the ”working” classes and the “middle” classes. The fact of the matter is that with the increasing polarizations of income, even the middle classes have less to say to government nowadays. Government is too busy listening to how it can make things easier for the rich, who apparently aren't getting richer fast enough.

The failure to establish this commonality of interest was brutally punished by the Tories in this election, and rightly so. But the good news is that the voting at the general election implies that the situation is unusually fluid at the moment. I hope that the Party takes advantage of this interregnum to forge a policy that doesn't pit the white collar against the blue collar. Nowadays we are all workers.

1. Trade Union Membership 2013: Statistical Bulletin - Department for Business Innovation and Skills, p21
2. ibid, p12