Prescott knew what it took to keep Labour in power
The Labour Party is fond of balance.
When smooth, middle class barrister Tony Blair became its leader in 1994, plain-speaking, pugnacious, working class John Prescott was the perfect man to balance the ticket.
Similarly, when it became apparent that Left-wing puritan Jeremy Corbyn would be the sure-fire winner of the 2015 contest, members voted for cynical centrist Tom Watson as his deputy.
The analogy starts to break down somewhat when we come to the Keir Starmer/Angela Rayner double act, however. Starmer won the leadership with a solemn pledge – ten of them, in fact – to carry on Corbyn’s sterling work on nationalisation and taxation, promising only to change the décor of socialism’s New Jerusalem rather than the destination itself. If Rayner was chosen for the same reason Prescott became deputy in 1994 – to create a balanced ticket between Right and Left – it could only have been because the party never quite believed Starmer’s conversion to Corbynism. But they voted for him anyway.
In the wake of Prescott’s death, much will be added to what has already been written about the similarities between him and Rayner. Both were authentic working class MPs, meaning that they had both actually worked in traditional blue-collar jobs, he as a steward and waiter in the Merchant Navy, she as a care worker. Both had strong links to the trade union movement as members and activists, in contrast to the more common modern practice where ambitious graduates join a union in order to gain political preferment and a leg up the career ladder towards parliament.
Like Prescott before her, Rayner is already proving one of the more effective ministers, unafraid to make bold decisions without worrying too much about the optics, in contrast to some of her more cautious and ambitious colleagues.
Prescott rose to prominence in a different era. He would most likely have sunk from public view had he not nursed a fierce ambition for advancement, coupled with a devil-may-care courage that is all but extinct in today’s political generation.
In 1988, Neil Kinnock and his deputy, Roy Hattersley, were challenged for the Labour leadership by a “nightmare ticket” of Tony Benn and Eric Heffer, two fading tribunes of the Left who mounted one last, desperate bid to prevent Kinnock’s reforms of the party aimed at making it more electable. Once a deputy contest was underway, Prescott decided he might as well throw his hat into the ring against Hattersley too – a move that made defeat for Hattersley a genuine prospect and which prompted Kinnock to warn that he would not remain as leader without him by his side.
Still, Prescott ploughed on, making the case for a campaigning deputy leader in a new mould. Prescott, unlike others who had gone before him, wanted the deputy’s job for its own sake. On that occasion he failed, but he marked himself out as a serious and entertaining character, albeit one with the permanent reputation as “thorn in the side” of whoever happened to be leader.
He stood again for the post in 1992, following yet another general election defeat, this time losing the contest to Margaret Beckett who went on to serve as deputy to John Smith. But it was Prescott, not Beckett, who risked his own political career and took a stand at Labour conference in 1993 when it looked like Smith’s internal party reforms might be defeated by an alliance of unions and constituency delegates.
It was the sort of drama that had not been seen at conference since Kinnock’s famous anti-Militant speech in Bournemouth eight years earlier. Prescott rose to the occasion, mangling some of his words but delivering an electrifying defence of his leader and his programme. His rhetoric won the day, secured Smith’s reforms and his leadership, and established Prescott as a “big beast” of the party and the movement.
Less than a year later, in the wake of Smith’s unexpected death and Beckett’s decision to vacate the deputy’s role, Prescott was elected deputy to the young Tony Blair.
When the norm for most political careers since then has been to take no chances, try to offend no one and stick to the party line, Prescott presented a maverick example to those who would follow him.
Rayner has not had to plough a similar course and has been called upon to perform any similar act of political courage. She was being talked of as a future deputy leader from the early days of her election as an MP in 2015, and succeeded to that post less than five years later.
But whereas Blair’s principles and ambitions were reasonably clear and honest, Starmer’s are much less so. Beyond wanting to be prime minister, it’s difficult to perceive what his core values are, and against that, how can Rayner define herself? Guiding the government on a more Leftwards course is easier now; Prescott faced a determined leader who knew what he wanted and why. Rayner could, if she wanted, take advantage of Starmer’s lack of vision and determination to guide the ship of state further to the Left.
Prescott proved by example that there is no limitation to be placed on working class aspiration. His shadow will continue to loom over today’s party and the current holder of his former position.