Militant unions are in for a shock if they think we’ll tolerate 1970s chaos

An era of affluence and choice has formed expectations that the unions, for all their slick messaging, will not be able to overcome

It has been obvious for some time that this was no coincidence. If a whole gamut of public sector unions decide to hold strikes in the run up to Christmas, when travel, postal deliveries and healthcare are likely to be most critical to national life, it has to be a coordinated effort.

But Mark Serwotka made it quasiofficial last week. In a statement to assembled media, he made the intention perfectly clear. Yes, the Public and Commercial Services Union, which he leads, was indeed ready to contemplate the orchestration of a general strike which would effectively shut down all economic activity and services in the country.

At that moment, this ceased to be a call for strike action which is simply the withdrawal of labour by a particular workforce. It was now a political declaration. The trade unions were issuing an ultimatum, not just to individual employers like Network Rail or Royal Mail on behalf of their own staff, but to the Government. In the language which I am sure Mr Serwotka would prefer to use, this should be understood as the unified voice of the organised working class. It isn’t just about pay or conditions anymore: it’s about power.

Even if you are generally inclined to dislike this kind of threat by sectarian groups, you may be sympathetic to the case made by some of the unions involved. Increasing the pay of nurses is clearly desirable, not only from the point of view of social justice but because it would help the NHS to recruit more of them. The broadcast media have chosen nurses and ambulance crew as the stars of this show for good reason. They are obviously deserving of a better deal – although their militant trade union leadership is doing them no favours by demanding pay increases which are patently unaffordable.

But in the best cynical tradition of Marxist class solidarity, the most sympathetic workers are being used as totems in what is nothing less than a political power struggle. This is provoking much comment to the effect that history is repeating itself. Here we are, back in the 1970s with rampaging trade unionism once again making government look hopeless. The battle that Ted Heath lost and that Harold Wilson only forestalled by inviting the union “barons” (as they were universally known) into Downing Street for a carve-up of national authority, is being revisited.

This is presumably what Mr Serwotka and Mick Lynch, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers leader, dream of – only this time their side will play it differently. The demands and the warnings will come couched in the modern language of social fairness and concern for the country’s future. No more shouting in the car park to a menacing army of brothers-in-arms. These are not rabble rousers. They are politicians with a sophisticated grasp of a new message: we are not just fighting for our members. We are defending the public services which are essential to the well-being of the population.

It takes serious consideration – probably more than most people have time for – to unpick the argument. What it amounts to generally is an insistence that the public service in question can only be “saved” if it is unreformed. The principal issue in many of the current disputes is not pay but what the unions regard as unacceptable terms and conditions – which is to say, plans to modernise their industry and thus make it more economically viable (by, for example, eliminating guards on trains).

A surprisingly frank admission of this came last Friday when Dave Ward, general secretary of the Communications Workers’ Union, announced flatly that his members would turn down a 50 per cent pay increase if Royal Mail insisted on maintaining the “terms and conditions” that were part of any offer. (You have to wonder if this is true. Has he asked them?) Union leaders are now effectively demanding the right to prevent the kinds of modernisation which might reduce their membership numbers and hence their own strength.

Automation which eliminates the need for categories of employment was a huge obstacle in the great industrial wars of the 1970s too. The newspaper business was nearly destroyed by the demands of the old print unions, who fought a bloody, unrelenting battle against technological progress.

So if this is a political challenge from organised labour to whatever elected government might be in power, how is it going? There is a self-evident risk to Labour because their funding comes from precisely those large public sector unions which are likely to be causing huge disruption – possibly including loss of life at a season of the year which would guarantee the worst possible coverage for any tragic consequences.

At the time of writing, Sir Keir Starmer has personally taken no clearly identifiable position on the ongoing actions, let alone the prospect of Mr Serwotka’s all-out class war. Presumably he is waiting to see how far public opinion is prepared to accept the arguments of union leaders that their members are entitled to pay increases in line with inflation. But if the country gets fed up with what it must know are unrealistic demands, who will Mr Starmer stand with?

Maybe that dilemma is what Rishi Sunak is counting on to rescue him from his apparent failure to get a grip. But this is not the 1970s. Back then, there was public anger with union militancy but it was overshadowed by resignation and despair. We were, it was said, a declining country with no hope of regaining economic vitality. Now, decades of growing affluence and consumer choice have produced a very different set of normal expectations. Daily life has been transformed by an explosion of technical and social possibilities.

Embracing change – finding new ways to do things – is seen as an opportunity, not a threat. The union bosses may discover they are fighting the last war.

Now, embracing change – finding new ways to do things – is seen as an opportunity, not a threat