In a rare rebuke to Blairism, Keir Starmer recently admonished “times in the recent past where Labour was afraid to speak the language of class at all”. Labour was, after all, founded 123 years ago as the political wing of the working class. But is its leader’s mea culpa a rhetorical flourish or rooted in substance? A key test is its “new deal for working people”, a set of proposals to deal with the low pay, insecurity and disempowerment baked into the working lives of millions, not least by strengthening trade union rights and introducing basic rights for all workers from day one – and all in the first 100 days of a Labour government. After Starmer’s abandonment of so many of his key pledges, this stands as the party’s last transformative offering. What we’ve seen so far is not promising. No longer is the party committed to “create a single status of ‘worker’ for all but the genuinely self-employed”, which would address the misclassification of gig workers. Rather, a consultation will be held to “simplify” the workers’ rights framework. The question of whether millions of workers will qualify is left unanswered. What’s worse, this retreat from existing policy was briefed in the Financial Times as evidence of the party’s growing deference to big business. Invited to comment further, a party official gloated that businesses are “running towards us – whether that’s donating money or sitting down with us to write our plans for growth”. This doesn’t generate much confidence that the party of Labour will side with workers. The original plan for workers was put together two years ago in coordination with Labour’s affiliated unions by the Middlesbrough MP Andy McDonald – then shadow secretary of state for employment rights and protections – before he resigned in protest at Starmer’s new political direction. The leaders’ office signed it off, and the new custodian became the deputy leader, Angela Rayner, a former union rep and a passionate champion of the deal, who has fiercely denied claims of backsliding. There are two key problems. One, it is likely that Starmer’s allies have no desire to hand Rayner a substantial role in government. Two, her position as shadow secretary of state for the future of work doesn’t mirror any existing government department, and there are perpetual rumours such responsibilities will be stripped in a coming reshuffle. Press briefings, some fear, are an attempt to humiliate the deputy leader. A good-faith interpretation of a consultation on single-status workers goes like this: separating the genuinely self-employed from workers classed as self-employed will deny them rights. But champions of Labour’s original new deal disagree. It’s simply to distinguish between workers with their own client base and those without. Further consultation shouldn’t be needed. “There’s nothing to be really consulted about,” one told me. Even among unions that voted for the diluted package in July – and all did, except for Unite – there is anxiety that a consultation is merely an excuse to leave the policy to rot. Some union officials fear an internal contradiction: of the party committing to good policies – such as expanding access to parental leave – without dealing with structural issues that lock workers into insecurity. Blame is directed particularly at the office of the shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, for seeking to weaken the offer in an effort to woo big business in what she has described as a “scrambled eggs and smoked salmon offensive”. Another key union aspiration is sectoral bargaining, where a collective agreement covers all workers in each sector of the economy, as is the norm in Denmark and Sweden. But Labour is only committed to its introduction in social care, with a review of its performance before being extended elsewhere. In a sector defined by precarity and a higher turnover of staff, this could prove hard to pull off. And the fear, again, is that it will go no further. Most unions voted for the package for two reasons. One, they believe they got most of what they came for – and union sources say Starmer has written to union general secretaries to promise all the new deal’s principles will remain. And two, they fear losing influence within the next government. The unions are adamant the political costs of reneging on these promises are too high for Labour. (Unite stands alone in opposition.) But the fear is that a multi-pronged attack by the Tories and big business could undermine the last transformative policy package standing. Witness how Starmer criticised the ultra-low emission zone at the first sign of trouble, throwing London’s Labour mayor, Sadiq Khan, under the bus. Will he do the same when the new deal is the target of rightwing hysteria? You can see how the leadership will crumble in advance of the “clause V” process, which designs the final manifesto. The original package states that UK law on industrial action “complies in every respect with the international obligations ratified by the UK, including those of the International Labour Organization”. That promise would allow secondary action – sympathy or solidarity strikes – in some circumstances: will Starmer really defend that under fire? It is said Labour’s policy team privately frets that the new deal will cost the party the election. This is preposterous, but you can see how the death warrant for these commitments will be signed. Others fear that – as in the Blair era – the Labour leadership will issue a watered-down manifesto as a fait accompli; or retreat after the election when both civil servants and business put up a fight. Some union officials privately claim that abandonment of the new deal will lead them to disaffiliate. So if Starmer’s grandstanding on class proves just that, his final U-turn will be the bitterest, leaving the British workforce trapped by stagnating living standards and the misery of insecurity. Owen Jones is a Guardian columnist