Labour’s Cosy Relationship with Big Business: A Betrayal of Workers’ Interests

740 words, 4 minutes read time.

The Labour Party’s recent embrace of big business leaders has raised eyebrows and elicited criticism from various quarters. With Keir Starmer and shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves pledging to lead “the most pro-business Treasury” in British history, the party’s shift towards corporate interests marks a significant departure from its traditional working-class roots. This move is not just a pragmatic strategy to secure electoral victory; it represents a deeper alignment with monopoly capitalism that could undermine the party’s commitment to workers’ rights and social justice.

The Calculated Embrace of Corporate Leaders

The support from 120 business leaders in a recent letter to The Times newspaper, including figures from major corporations like Heathrow Airport, Aston Martin, JD Sports, and JP Morgan, underscores Labour’s strategic repositioning. This backing is not purely ideological but also opportunistic. Corporate leaders, anticipating a Labour victory, seek to ingratiate themselves with the incoming government to ensure favourable treatment and access. Their public endorsements are calculated moves to secure political leverage and safeguard their interests.

However, this alliance goes beyond mere political pragmatism. Starmer and Reeves have actively courted business leaders, pledging fiscal discipline and stability, while promising not to raise corporation taxes or introduce a wealth tax. These concessions reveal a broader commitment to neoliberal economic principles that prioritize corporate profitability over social equity.

The Hollow Promise of Being “Pro-Worker and Pro-Business”

Starmer’s and Reeves’ rhetoric of being both “pro-worker and pro-business” attempts to reconcile inherently conflicting interests. This dual allegiance is fundamentally problematic, as it glosses over the reality that business interests often run counter to those of workers. By diluting commitments on workers’ rights, such as the ambiguous stance on zero-hours contracts and fire-and-rehire practices, Labour signals a willingness to compromise workers’ protections to appease business leaders.

Unite’s Sharon Graham aptly described Labour’s New Deal for Working People as having “more holes than a Swiss cheese,” highlighting the inadequacy of the party’s promises in addressing workers’ concerns. This criticism points to a broader issue: Labour’s current trajectory seems more focused on maintaining corporate confidence than advancing a robust pro-worker agenda.

The Illusion of Economic Growth and Stability

Labour’s economic strategy, stripped of substantial tax reforms or ambitious public ownership plans, hinges on a nebulous promise of growth through relaxed planning regulations. This approach is unlikely to stimulate the transformative economic growth necessary to fund public services and reduce inequality. Instead, it reflects a cautious, conservative approach aimed at reassuring the business community rather than challenging the status quo.

The abandonment of the £28 billion-a-year green investment plan further exemplifies Labour’s retreat from bold, progressive policies. Without significant investment in sustainable infrastructure and public services, Labour’s vision of “economic stability” mirrors the Conservative government’s incrementalism rather than offering a radical alternative.

Corporate Influence and the Erosion of Labour’s Identity

The letter from the 120 business leaders, while a boon for Labour’s campaign optics, is a stark warning of the party’s increasing susceptibility to corporate influence. The involvement of figures like John Holland-Kaye, whose tenure at Heathrow was marked by controversial fire-and-rehire practices, raises questions about the ethical implications of Labour’s newfound corporate friendships.

This shift risks alienating the party’s traditional base and undermining its identity as a champion of the working class. Labour’s left wing, represented by groups like Momentum, criticizes the party’s circular logic of business-friendly pledges that fail to address systemic inequalities. By prioritizing the voices of corporate leaders over those of ordinary workers, Labour risks perpetuating the very economic disparities it claims to seek to mitigate.

Conclusion: The Need for a Reassessment

Labour’s current trajectory under Starmer and Reeves, characterized by a pronounced tilt towards corporate interests, necessitates a critical reassessment. While electoral pragmatism may justify some degree of business engagement, the extent of Labour’s concessions to corporate power threatens to erode its foundational commitments to social justice and workers’ rights.

For Labour to truly lead Britain into a just and equitable future, it must balance its economic strategies with a firm commitment to the interests of working people. This requires not just rhetorical reassurances but concrete policies that prioritize social equity over corporate profitability. Only then can Labour reclaim its identity as a party of the people, committed to building a fairer, more inclusive society. In the absence of this, is it any wonder that so many are currently considering voting for Independent Left candidates and the Worker’s Party GB at the forthcoming General Election?

By Patrick Harrington