At the Labour conference I’ve listened to a string of trade union chiefs proclaim that the union movement is still the beating heart of the party. Though that might be true, it’s a pulse that has grown increasingly feeble over the years – which might explain the feeling shared by many in attendance that the party’s best times are already behind us.

The bitter conflict that seems to have engulfed Labour did not begin with Jeremy Corbyn. It’s simply the most visible manifestation of an identity crisis that has been simmering under the surface for several decades. The question that really needs answering is: what is the role of a political party that emerged from the industrial revolution in a post-Fordist economy?

When the Satanic mills have all been converted into luxury loft apartments and even people earning the lowest wages wear a shirt and tie to work, how do you find a substitute for the mass, working-class consciousness that propelled the party to electoral victory in glorious years gone by? When conceptions of identity have become fragmented, individualistic and consumption-driven, what is our common cause?

It’s the workers most vulnerable to casualisation and low-pay who are least likely to have union representation

It’s not that the problems that Labour was founded to address have been solved. Not in any real sense. But they’ve mutated in a way that our movement is struggling to catch up with. What is our response to the rise in poverty-level self-employment? How can we defend the welfare state when many of those who benefit are baying for its destruction, on the basis that others benefit more? How can we effectively challenge the erosion of hard-won employment rights through zero-hours contracts and other forms of labour casualisation?

Admittedly, there has been some progress on that front. If there’s been any uniting theme of the conference it is virulent condemnation of Mike Ashley, who has overseen a regime of exploitation and zero-hours insecurity in his role as Sports Direct proprietor. Speaker after speaker has castigated Ashley’s business practices as inhuman and Dickensian, to guaranteed enthusiastic applause.

It’s not enough, though. For all of the rhetoric, the reality is that trade union membership has long been in decline. Even more troublingly, it’s the workers most vulnerable to casualisation, low-pay and underemployment who are least likely to have union representation. To what extent can the Labour party claim to speak for ordinary working people when the movement it is founded on is failing to convince those people it can help.

I sat on a panel on Monday where a young woman explained that she’d not been able to join a trade union as an apprentice – earning well below the so-called living wage of £7.20 that has been introduced for people over the age of 25 – because the union active in her workplace didn’t offer a reduced rate that took into account her lower earnings. Other women spoke about feeling excluded by a macho culture that infested the labour movement, and about the lack of attention given to parenting and the need for workplace flexibility.

Harking back to past victories reminds us why the Labour party was created, so it’s no surprise that speakers from all factions have made mention of the minimum wage, gender equality legislation and the founding of the NHS. What’s sorely lacking, however, is any sort of coherent vision for the future.

There seem to be two extreme camps dominating – though many members find themselves stuck somewhere in the middle desperately hoping for a resolution. On one side are those who wish to operate as if nothing has really changed since the mid-1970s. Though popular understanding of class, community and the role of the welfare state has altered wildly in recent decades, they’re still using the same language they always have and expecting it to resonate with voters.

Think only low–paid workers get the Sports Direct treatment? You’re wrong | Aditya Chakrabortty Read more

At the opposite end of the spectrum are the self-described “modernisers”. Those who contend that the labour movement is dead in the water and that a viable Labour party has to develop different focuses and priorities. These are the people who argued that it was a mistake for Ed Miliband to criticise zero-hours contracts in the run-up to the last general election, as it gave the impression he was “anti-business”.

The solution, surely, cannot come from either of these camps. If Labour abandons its commitment to improving the circumstances of working people it’s hard to even see why it should survive. At the same time, the political context has changed enormously in recent years, and ignoring that will condemn the party to electoral irrelevance.

We need to find a way to make the union movement, and the party of the union movement, relevant to the 21st century. If Labour has something to offer the majority of ordinary people we need to find a way to communicate that. And until we figure that out, we need to accept that the problem isn’t with voters, it’s with us.