................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 29.9.96
................................................................................
HUMPHRYS: John Prescott, you see from that film
that clearly there are people in the party who were worried because on so many
issues you are becoming, they feel, indistinguishable from the Tories. They're
right to be worried aren't they?
JOHN PRESCOTT: Well, they're worried about the pace of
change, and I think every one of us will say, how many elections we've lost?
Four elections. What we've got to do is to be reaching out to an awful lot
more people than we've done before. That's what the argument of New Labour is
about, reaching to people who felt Labour was no longer associated with them.
And it's also in a process of change against an economy which this government
will leave us in a real mess on public finances, and Grodon Brown has to look
to the reality of that and temper our promises with the reality of the
resources that are there. Years ago we called that the language of
priorities. That's what Bevin called it and that's precisely the priorities
we're trying to deal with in the nineteen-nineties, that is causing some
concern, but I must tell you I go round all the country John, quite a lot,
talking to a lot of people. Some express these concerns, some express and are
happy that Labour now look to be ready and on the threshold of winning. It's
about securing power to deal with the problems that we've heard on the
television in your film this morning.
HUMPHRYS: But it's more than just the pace of
change isn't it? We heard Barbara Castle saying we're becoming
indistinguishable, there is this danger - indistinguishable from the Tories.
PRESCOTT: Well, I don't think that's true at all.
Of course even the Tories certainly don't believe that. They used to say
twelve months ago Labour had no polices. Now they're attacking us heavily on
all fronts, whether it's in regard to relationships with Trade Unions,
minimum wage, social wage, whether it's our proposals on education, on Europe -
all these areas the Tories are clearly showing very distinctive differences
between us. Now, of course those policies have changed. They have reflected
the traditional values which many of the people are concerned about there, and
placed them in the modern setting with the stringency of understanding, the
public expenditures are not promising too much. We will only promise what we
can deliver and that's what the programme is really about. I'd like to be
able to promise an awful lot more. I'd like to be able to have not the
arguments of the conferences at the present time, but basically we have to work
in that reality.
HUMPHRYS: Well it's a reality that is causing
great concern isn't it? David Hinchcliffe, former member of your front bench
team, who said there: it is reaching a stage where some traditional core voters
- these aren't people who are Johnny-come-latelys are increasingly asking what
is the point of voting Labour at the next election. Aren't you a bit worried
when you hear that sort of thing?
PRESCOTT: Yes, I am worried that we don't get the
case across properly ...
HUMPHRYS: And this is one of your own MPs after
all.
PRESCOTT: David, I know very well - I've a
great deal of respect for David and of course that's what the whole programme
now - which Tony Blair's brought forward, the Road to Manifesto, the New
Labour, New Britain, New Life for Britain, is about trying to deal with a
programme that we can put over in months instead of weeks.
HUMPHRYS: Oh, but Mr Hinchcliffe must know
what you're talking about surely. He must understand your programme.
PRESCOTT: But John please, I mean I won't want to
waste the time and I'll try and answer your questions directly on this. What
I wanted to say - it's like our pledge card that we have - you know this
business of saying "Here we're going to say that we'll reduce the size
classes". Now what are we saying there? We're actually saying and we don't
explain it enough, not only that we're reducing class sizes because we believe
that there is a connection between the quality of education and the size of the
class, but we're also saying that where priority is, we'll take the resources
from the Assisted Places Scheme and pay for it that way. Now that's
re-emphasised by education principle, of our comprehensive education principle,
of public education principle, and the great difficulty in the Labour Party is
we only argue about the difficulties and we don't talk about what we've agreed,
and what we've got to do is reassure our people that those traditional
principles are still relevant in Education, in the Health Service, in providing
jobs for a quarter of a million people. That's what a Labour government did
fifty years ago, a great reforming Labour government, and we have to reflect
that in the new Blair government.
HUMPHRYS: But David Hinchcliffe is worried about
precisely those things that you have agreed, and he thinks you've got it
wrong, because you're going to drive away your core voters because it is too
like what the Tories are preaching and have done for so long.
PRESCOTT: Yes. Well, I mean, it doesn't fit in
with facts. I mean the quarter of a million jobs we're talking about, the
Tories say leave it to the market. They're doing nothing about it. We want a
Health Service that meets the needs of the people and not the needs of the
market, so we employ more nurses rather than accountants. That reiterates
basic principle of Labour that brought in a Health Service which is a basic
Socialist Health Service, was based upon your need and not your ability to pay
or insurance policies. Now we must get on to people that we're not living in
the past, we're looking to the future, and we're reiterating those traditions
and placing them in a modern setting.
HUMPHRYS: Ah well now, it depends what you mean by
placing them in a modern setting?
PRESCOTT: Well, the Nineteen-nineties.
HUMPHRYS: Well, okay, but I mean it's one of those
phrases that can mean anything you like, or it can mean nothing at all. Let's
look then at the defining issues, the really defining issues. Redistribution
of wealth. Now, there are clear signs are there not, that the Party which once
spoke for the redistribution of wealth - and by that I mean the very obvious
thing, from the rich to the poor, or the richest to the poorest if you prefer -
is no longer interested in that, and that's a defining issue?
PRESCOTT: Well, it's a defining issue in the sense
that the people, the poorer part of this community, those less able to pay are
paying a greater burden of their income in Taxation whether it's direct or
indirect. Right at the top end of the scale there are millionaires, as Gordon
reminds us, that are not paying any tax, because they've got very fancy
accountants to actually avoid it. Now what he's announced is the fair
principles of Taxation - that's different from the Tories. We believe there
has to be an element of social justice in Taxation. You can call it
redistribution whatever, it's called a progressive Tax system. Those fair
principles that have been laid out by Gordon are the ones that reflect fair
burden by all concerned, and being carried by all concerned. Now, in those
circumstances what we've got to do of course, is that when we inherit the
Government with the trust of the people, if we win the next Election, we will
want to look at the books and say what the Taxation policy will be. Now that's
quite normal. Gordon clearly states that time and time again, and no other
Party's been any different in that respect.
HUMPHRYS: Well, I don't know. Everything I hear
tells me people like Gordon Brown, and Tony Blair himself said it again
yesterday, on the Daily Express yesterday, nobody's going to pay any more Tax!
PRESCOTT: Well, I don't think - I know it's a
cliche to say, don't believe everything you read in the press, but I think-
HUMPHRYS: Well, perhaps you don't believe
everything your leader says? I mean it's a direct quotation.
PRESCOTT: Well, I didn't say that at all. I
mean if I was to read the Sunday Times this morning, front page about Robin
Cook, and say exactly that Robin Cook's supposed to have attacked Tony Blair -
absolutely untrue, and now the transcript has been given has shown that it's
untrue. You know, one of the great problems, and I see you've written about it
in one of the papers today - about whether you can get pressures from all sorts
of people about what's said on these programmes. I've given you no pressure,
it's not my style, as you well know, John.
HUMPHRYS: Absolutely not, absolutely not.
PRESCOTT: But the real difficulty is that when you
want to have a decent debate in this country, and when change is about that,
you take one line from a particular speech and then exploit that particular
line and make the ......
HUMPHRYS: No, well-
PRESCOTT: Well, Nick Jones did it with me in a
speech this week. Yesterday on your BBC they were showing lines that I say
they'll run into the buffer. If you've read the eight thousand words, it
wasn't an attack on Tony Blair, but one of the real-
HUMPHRYS: He didn't say it was, in fact he didn't
say it was.
PRESCOTT: I know, but what he did - he left
everybody the impression Prescott warns Blair. That wasn't the case at all,
and the real point I want to make about change, and this is one of the
uncertainties and difficulties we have, is that when you try to present an
argument in this country much of the media - I exempt you from it - will take
one line from it and exploit it. We have a hostile media as far as the Labour
Party is concerned, and I think that makes for great difficulties about having a
proper debate about the pace of change-
HUMPHRYS: Alright.
PRESCOTT: - and assuring those people on the
programme that Labour hasn't fundamentally changed in the sense of its
traditional values, but yes it has changed in the sense that nearly everybody
in the Labour Party is in a new Labour Party looking to the future-
HUMPHRYS: Right.
PRESCOTT: - not living in the past, but looking to
the future and shaping the future. John, I'll tell you this, Labour has
always been more successful when it looks as if it's acting for all the
country. In 1945 we rebuilt the industrial base, with the welfare and a social
justice. Harold Wilson in 1964 captured the imagination of technology and
social justice. The tragedy for us is that since then people have left Labour,
we've never been able to reach out to others - we've cut ourselves off from
them, and what Tony Blair's trying to say here, I can tell you it'll be part of
his speech, how do you unlock that real potential of our people in this country
so that Britain could do more?
HUMPHRYS: Okay, I accept all that. Right.
PRESCOTT: But, Tony Blair believes that Britain is
not doing anything like as well as it could do, should do, and he wants to make
a change.
HUMPHRYS: If you want to tell me that we've all
got it wrong over these past months when we heard Tony Blair talking about tax,
we've all got it wrong, and he does regard the tax system as a redistributive
mechanism which means that some people will be paying more, so that others can
get a little more, at the bottom end of it - that's fine - but he hasn't said
that. That's the point, he hasn't said that, that's why your supporters are so
concerned about it.
PRESCOTT: Well I think that's a very good example.
If the argument is simply on that narrow level..
HUMPHRYS: Part of it, we've got other bits to
broadcast, but that's part of it, an important part.
PRESCOTT: I want to direct myself to that specific
point. It's an important one. What Tony Blair is saying is that we haven't
grown in the way that we could have grown, we're not using the potential of our
people as much..
HUMPHRYS: That's not what I'm talking about..
PRESCOTT: If you just listen a second, you will
listen to what I'm trying to say is that the tax base can be increased. We
waste so much money keeping people on the dole and in welfare of twenty billion
pounds, perhaps we could use some of this wasted money to get people back
to work, like the quarter of a million that we promise in our card. They'll be
paying tax, the tax base will have increased, we'll have more resources coming
into the community, the fair taxation principle will apply. Now that's not a
contradiction, it's a confirmation of the role of tax in a progressive system.
HUMPHRYS: But it is a contradiction of
redistribution. You heard those people from Gloucester and I'm not talking now
about the politicians, I'm talking about ordinary Labour supporters who've made
it clear that they regard the party as a party of redistribution. They're not
saying we're quite happy to wait until the cake has got that much bigger, so
perhaps then we'll have a slightly bigger slice of it because it's a bigger
cake, naturally. They are talking about taking a bit more from people who are
rich and giving a bit of it to them who are poor. That's what I'm talking
about.
PRESCOTT: A fair taxation system is about being
fair, right. That people carry a fair burden of taxation. Gordon Brown has
laid out the principles of that but what we're trying to get people to put
their attention to is that the massive kind of waste that goes on at the money.
Money is redistributed now in a way, wasted into quangoes, wasted into a
bureaucracy..
HUMPHRYS: You're not dealing with the issue here.
PRESCOTT: You're dealing with a different priority
in the orders of expenditure by Government and if you change those priorities
you can make a fundamental difference to the existence of people in work, for
their health service, for their education and that is about a better standard
of life of which taxation may be a small part but that the proportions of
expenditure by Government in different priorities can alter the very quality of
the life of our people and release its full potential.
HUMPHRYS: So there is no need then to take any
more money from the sort of people whom those voters regarded as rich?
PRESCOTT: You're talking about the possible..
HUMPHRYS: That's not what I'm talking about.
PRESCOTT: I'm sorry, I must say you are talking to
me about how the taxation system will apply and the principles that will apply
to it. That's precisely what you're talking about..
HUMPHRYS: We're talking about redistribution which
you concede is an absolutely seminal matter.
PRESCOTT: I mean the whole argument of Gordon for
example, of the 10p is in fact to slacken the burden of the lower end of that.
But most people are trapped into situations at the present time where they are
paying a greater share of that burden and we have made clear it needs to be a
fairer share.
HUMPHRYS: But look the poorest do not pay income
tax at all as you very well know, that's what we're talking about.
PRESCOTT: But many of them get trapped into
welfare situations where the effect is that their benefit is denied. They do
lose their benefit and it's a kind of academic argument whether you call it tax
and you know as well as I do that that proverty trap means a very real
difference to those people.
HUMPHRYS: And those people are saying - because
we're in that proverty trap and because we see very rich people, apparently,
correct me if I'm wrong, apparently not going to pay any more under a Labour
Government. What on earth do they mean....
PRESCOTT: Some of them not paying any.
HUMPHRYS: Well alright, but that's because of
weaknesses in the system which you tell me you'll close, okay, but you know I'm
not talking that. I'm talking about the principle of redistribution.
PRESCOTT: But don't forget a lot of that came from
the ....tax rates where most people found it very advantageous to employ the
accountants to do it.
HUMPHRYS: That is another matter.
PRESCOTT: No, no, no.
HUMPHRYS: That is another matter.
PRESCOTT: It's an issue to take into account about
the levels of taxation.
HUMPHRYS: It's taken into account. But what I'm
talking about is the hundred thousand pounds a year people. Let's take those.
The hundred thousand pounds a year people who most people regard as rich. I
mean do you regard them as rich?
PRESCOTT: Well they're certainly richer than me,
you can certainly put that.
HUMPHRYS: That's not what I asked you.
PRESCOTT: That's not about what is rich. I mean
this is typical in British politics. What is rich is what is poor. You can
have all sorts of arguments about that. I see Mr Lilley telling us if you've
got a tape recorder in your front room you're not poor, that goes on it's a
relative argument. What you're asking me is what is a proper, fair, taxation
rate for a Labour Government, right, in the future, with the Labour Government.
And I tell you that the principles are laid down by Gordon. We haven't expelled
exactly what those rates are, what levels they will apply, even though there's
speculation about the hundred thousand you're talking about there's not a
statement that has been made by the Labour Party at all, it's just speculation.
HUMPHRYS: Well can I clear it..
PRESCOTT: We saw it in the last Election,
particularly with John Smith and we saw just exactly, an honest statement on
taxation at that time led to a massive attack of a double whammy from a
government that in fact then went on to impose the biggest tax burden and then
lie about it.
HUMPHRYS: Exactly and that's why you're backing
away from it now isn't because you're afraid of the middle classes.
PRESCOTT: No, it's not that at all because at the
end of the day we'll have to make a judgement. We are proposing a programme to
win for two elections. You know the programme, we are not planning that
programme just to say, to win the next election. If you really want to make
fundamental changes for the real damage that has been done to the economy and
the very society in Britain by the Tories you have to win two Elections. That
means we have to be careful about what we promise and we will be judged on it
at the period of the second Election.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, let's just...
PRESCOTT: We do want two terms, I'll let you into
a secret and indeed Tony Blair...
HUMPHRYS: Shock horror.
PRESCOTT: Tony Blair's speech is very much about
how do you unlock the potential of our people. Wealth creation, the Labour
Party is as increased in wealth creation as it is about wealth distribution.
It's about fairness, it's about justice, it's about business, it's about
partnership and that's the excitement of the big idea, the potential of our
own people.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, let's clear up one little thing
then, since you say you have talked about, the hundred thousand pounds a year
people, we are told that the last Labour cabinet, Gordon Brown said fifty pence
tax rate for hundred thousand pounds a year plus. Is that right, is that what
he suggested?
PRESCOTT: I wasn't there.
HUMPHRYS: Somebody...kept you in touch.
PRESCOTT: I was dealing with security matters at
this conference which caused more controversy...
HUMPHRYS: I dare say they would have told you if
that were the case.
PRESCOTT: But it is not a proposal, let me tell
you. Gordon has said it,.....
HUMPHRYS: I note that you're not denying that he
suggested it.
PRESCOTT: Others have said it, it's just not true.
Now this is a good example. I say no it's not a proposal of the Labour Party,
you should then say 'thank you very much Mr Prescott I'm glad that matter is
settled up" and you go to somewhere else. But no you just want to keep on
something that is not a proposal. I mean it's a fair point about it...
HUMPHRYS: I asked you a specific question which
you didn't address. I said was that a suggestion from Gordon Brown at the
Shadow Cabinet?
PRESCOTT: I wasn't there when he did it.
HUMPHRYS: But you'd know wouldn't you?
PRESCOTT: And it's not a proposal, I can tell you
it's not a proposal of the Labour Party. We will make - and I heard Gordon
Brown on the Frost Programme this morning making exactly the same point again.
We will make our statement about taxation at the appropriate time and we have
given the principles that will apply. Now, I keep on saying that. That is the
position, it's written down in our documentation. Now can we just agree at the
moment you can accept that.
HUMPHRYS: Okay, so the folks in Gloucester who are
worried can rest assured as a result of this, if they're earning a hundred
thousand plus they needn't worry.
PRESCOTT: Well I suspect. You know our document -
this is one of the real problems for the Labour Party - we have got ourselves
painted into positions sometimes that we've not argued our case. We've been far
too defensive about it. We have produced a document. I don't know whether the
colleagues in Gloucester have read it, about those fair principles laid down,
it's all probably a good bet that they haven't, that is why we're launching our
programme which is going to the vote after this conference, once it's voted
upon here, to actually, for people to understand precisely what Labour is
offering, the proper balance of social justice, the proper priorities within
public expenditure that Labour will have available to it, but reflecting the
traditional values in a modern setting. That's where these concepts of a Labour
Party in its newness presents itself to the electorate.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, let's broaden it out a bit
and look at the other aspect of redistribution, one obviously is taking money
from people, the other is giving money to people and the people who are so
worried at the moment are the pensioners. You had a policy, once upon a time,
which was to link pensions with earnings, you scrapped that policy, you've
dumped it, they believe they have been let down. Aren't they right to believe
that?
PRESCOTT: Well let's just go back to the history
again. It was Labour and Barbara Castle was very much to the fore. We believe
in the basic pension, the SERPS, earnings related brought in by Barbara Castle
- it was a Labour Government that made the connection either to prices or
earnings, it was the Tories who began to dismantle this public pensions system.
And yes we promised that the break with the earnings at the last election that
we would make that connection. That's what some of the controversy is about at
the moment because we haven't given a commitment in our policies to do that.
Again, we have to face the reality of resources here, about what money is
available. You heard the billions of pounds that float across these arguments
but the executive today has just come to an agreement with the pensioner
groups, particularly very much reflected in the Pensions Convention and Jack
Jones, that they will now, we reaffirm our belief in the pensions, we reaffirm
our commitment to maintain the pensions at the prices which is the present. It
isn't - John, I'm giving what that position is - the earnings statement by
pensioners will be reviewed with the Government, a Labour Government.
HUMPHRYS: No commitment.
PRESCOTT: Well I'm telling you what we've agreed
to put to the conference.
HUMPHRYS: Barbara Castle's not happy with it, for
a start.
PRESCOTT: Well, Barbara might not be and Barbara
has, you know, a tremendous history in this area. The argument will take place
on the floor against all these priorities that we put to the Electorate. We
are within months of the Election and we have to balance what we'll promise
against what we'll be able to find from those public finances. And also at the
same time, not open ourselves up to the dishonest and lying attacks that we get
from Tories about levels of Public Expenditure and Taxation. This is a real
problem in British politics that we have to take into account and we have to
balance what we promise against that.
HUMPHRYS: But you see you yourself were
desperately worried about severing that link. I remember you saying, when you
were running for the Leadership, Tory tax cuts are offensive because much of
them are financed by cutting the Pension connection, the connection with
earnings.
PRESCOTT: I think, that's what they did. That's a
very fair point.
HUMPHRYS: But I mean you're sitting here, today, a
couple of years later saying: Well..
PRESCOTT: I'm not. I wouldn't like to leave you
with that impression. I think I made the charge, at the time and I still think
it's quite valid now - that when you cut back the link and you save billions of
pounds and you gave a tax cut, you redistributed from those who are the poorer
in the quarter to those who are better off. That was my judgment at the time.
I think, it was a fair one and it's borne out by the facts. What I'm trying to
say to you, at the moment, is not that I don't think the principle are
connected to earnings, that pensioners should have a right to be sharing in the
prosperity of the country. What I'm saying is that our priority is to make
sure the prosperity of the country can now increase.
The public finances are in a bad order
and that we will have to promise, like everything - whether it's in the
welfare, whether it's against the pension - against the levels of public
expenditure that we have with us, at this present time, and the existing
taxation structure, or whatever proposals we make about tax at the appropriate
time. It's a balance in those things. What we're not going to do: we're not
going to promise more than we could deliver.
HUMPHRYS: Alright.
PRESCOTT: That's painful, that's difficult but we
have to show the people in this country: Trust us. Our record's fine on
pensioners. We were the ones that did it. We didn't dismantle it and we will
argue the case at the appropriate time.
HUMPHRYS: So you will be fighting to restore that
link with earnings.
PRESCOTT: Well, we're, actually-
HUMPHRYS: I'm asking you personally, now.
PRESCOTT: Yes, I mean, I can do it because it's
the NEC policy, actually.
HUMPHRYS: What?
PRESCOTT: We have in the context that we've agreed
this morning now and to recommend to the Conference that the whole matter to
examine the proposals of the National Pensioners' Convention - which shows the
connection to earnings in the real - will be considered within the reforms of
the Welfare State.
HUMPHRYS: What - will be considered. Can't see
Barbara Castle, twenty years ago, on the back of a lorry saying: We will fight
to consider, set up a committee. This isn't old fighting talk!
PRESCOTT: Wait a minute, when Barbara did that she
was in Government. She knew what the finances were, she knew what the costs
were, she argued the case in the Cabinet - wait a minute - where the money was
coming from. I don't know the state of public finances. They seem to be
worse. We've got the IMF now warning the Government about tax cuts and saying:
Don't take it to that. And what does Kenneth Clark coming along now saying?
Don't worry, I could still give tax cuts and cut Public Expenditure.
HUMPHRYS: Alright. Let's-
PRESCOTT: We're making clear we have a different
order of balance between those things but we'll be realistic. We need to earn
the trust and it's easier to promise something to do and then have to explain
why we didn't do it. We are not going to make that mistake again because it
contributed to the loss in four Elections. We'll only promise what we can
deliver.
HUMPHRYS: Alright.
PRESCOTT: The Electorate expect that and that's
the contribution of Tony Blair to the realities of the 1990s.
HUMPHRYS: Let's look at another reality of the
1990s then and that is the connection with the Trade Unions. There is a deep
suspicion that you are intent, one way or another, that the grand design is to
sever the link with the Trade Unions. Are they right to buy that?
PRESCOTT: Well, they're not right and it isn't the
intention at all and indeed, Tony Blair has said it - everybody else has said
it. I can't see anybody that's actually maintained that position except one
individual who, apparently, was involved in a discussion with a journalist and
he's denied it as well.
HUMPHRYS: Alright.
PRESCOTT: There is no plans for that.
HUMPHRYS: So, Bill Morris says: It is essential to
maintain the link, to keep it. The link with the dispossessed, as he puts it.
And he says that he will die to maintain that link. Will you die to maintain
that link.
PRESCOTT: I don't think Bill has to die for it.
HUMPHRYS: Well, it is an indication of how serious
he was.
PRESCOTT: Well, I don't think he actually meant he
would die for it. But, he feels very strong about it and so do I. Indeed,
that link is maintained within the constitution of the Labour Party. It is a
uniqueness. The Labour Party grew out of the Trade Unions but that doesn't
mean it stayed the same. There's tremendous changes that have been taking
place. Some of them proposed by Bill. You know, reducing the proportion of
votes that you should have in the actual conference decision; they're involved
in the election of the leaders. They've come through with proposals themselves
- Trade Unions. Going back to George Woodcock, if you like, we have to talk to
Tories if they're in power...
HUMPHRYS: Right. But he's now saying it's gone
about as far as it ought to go, isn't he?
PRESCOTT: Well, that's an argument.
HUMPHRYS: Ah! Well, do you agree with him? Are
you prepared to use-
PRESCOTT: I don't think it's a static situation.
It isn't in concrete. Bill would tell you himself. There were certain other
things he would like to change in there. I think - and I'm very comfortable
with the relationship with the Trade Unions - but I think we've made one
mistake, actually, and I say that as a Trade Union official. In my life as
a Trade Union official, I used to negotiate with employers constantly and I had
an interest in the prosperity of the companies who I was involved in. But,
we've tended to give the impression of something. We're the Labour Party but
not the business Party. The Tories were the business Party. I'm bound to say
they've not done a good deal with all the bankruptcies.
What we've got to do is, perhaps, reach
out a bit more and say: we're as interested in the partnership of Trade Unions
and indeed the business for the creation of wealth. Unfortunately, when it's
expressed - not fears not? What is it? 'No favours'?
HUMPHRYS: Fears....I've forgotten.
PRESCOTT: No favours - or whatever it is. That's
expresses it as if it's a break with the Trade Unions. What it's trying to say
is a more balanced position, that Labour in the 1990s needs to convince an
awful lot more that we are concerned with our electors' aspirations.
Labour seems to be and calls itself a
working class Party. I have a discussion with you about whether I live a middle
class style. It creates ructions in Britain whether I'm middle class or
working class. It seems as if Labour wanted an industry to represent those
people up to the kind of foreman class and after that we'd have nothing to do
with them. Pity the working class.
HUMPRHYS: Alright.
PRESCOTT: Only fifty per cent of them voted for
us. It would be very nice if we got the hundred per cent. I want to make
this important point. Labour has to be about the aspirations of people, to be
concerned about their future, whether they want to own a home, whether they
actually want to belong to a Trade Union, whether it's social justice and
security at the workplace. We have to seek to represent the many and not the
few and sometimes, by emphasising that we're as relevant to those people who've
left us since 1964 to their aspirations, their concerns about the future of
Britain. That's what Tony Blair's speech has been about - our potential, our
justice, our rights.
HUMPHRYS: But one of the worries is that this
pace of change - you conceded it yourself, in a sense - is just too fast. And
the problem is that it's Tony Blair in the driving seat and you, John Prescott
in the back seat....
PRESCOTT: I am the Deputy Leader. I am the Deputy
Leader and I'm there-
HUMPHRYS: He's going too fast for you, you say?
PRESCOTT: No, well. When you say going too fast.
We've got membership growth going faster than has ever occurred in the Labour
Party, right - just remember that. You know a hundred and fifty thousand more
since Tony and I became the Leadership. We've won more by-elections than any
Party has done. We're winning them and continuing to do so. In the polls
we're fifty per cent. Now, I tell you what, if I'm in the back seat - and,
indeed, I am - and Tony's driving it, sometimes I've expressed a view that
perhaps: is he going too fast? I've said that over Clause Four. But this man
had vision, he had commitment, he had courage to have his sight on...thinking
what had to be done, seeing what had to be done. That's what you want in a
driver. It's called 'leadership' and when people like me, like on Clause Four
say: Hang on! I'm a bit of a Doubting Thomas here, I'm concerned about it, he
was right on that. I think, you've got to have the courage and conviction that
say change is ongoing, change is Labour Party, change is about new Labour.
HUMPHRYS: In other words, Kim Howells is right.
If they don't grasp it, if the rest of the Labour Party doesn't grasp it,
you're going to rub their faces in it?
PRESCOTT: No, he's not right. I mean, I don't
agree with what Kim says there. I don't believe somehow that we disown
Democratic Socialism. I think, social justice, within a kind of prosperous
economy, two things can be brought together. I believe that's what Democratic
Socialism is about. Some countries call is Social Democratic, right? Whether
it's in Germany or whether it's in Sweden.
But, it's a judgment about we as a Party
stand for all in the community. We're not the few, we're for the many. We
believe social justice has to be along to have an economy, to sustain its
growth, to sustain its prosperity and have a country you can be proud in.
I've just come back from America, where
I've been talking to people there who dominate the media in New York - British
people, brilliant people and yet somehow, they don't feel Britain is about
them and there they ask me: is Labour about that? Of course Labour's about
aspirations and future and that's as much concern to me as it is to Tony Blair.
HUMPHRYS: John Prescott, thank you very much,
indeed.
|