The row about Reg
Patrick Cosgrave
The Prentice affair has managed to sustain news interest — and interest at Westminster, for that matter — long after the meeting of the Newham General Management Committee, and its repercussions will clearly affect British politics for some time to come. There are probably three main reasons for this. First, the various Galahads of the last few years who have defied their local Labour Party machine have all done extremely well, for a short time; and so the prospect of Mr Reg Prentice taking on the local Labour Party has been an exciting one. Second, Mr Prentice, unlike Mr Taverne or Mr Davies or Mr Milne, is a Cabinet Minister, and one whose behaviour in general and speeches in particular have won him a wide prominence. Third, the air remains thick with talk of coalition, and the belief that Mr Prentice is at heart a coalitionist — and certainly a moderate who should be defended against left-wing extremists — is widespread, as is symbolised by the local Tories who have suggested that the Conservative Party should not oppose him if he stands as an independent candidate at the next general election. There are sections of the Conservative Party, of course, who are set on an eventual coalition government and may well prefer it to a definably Conservative government.
Nevertheless, in discussing Mr Prentice's problems, there has been a distinct tendency to rely on Burke's dictum about the Member of Parliament and his status as representative rather than on the merits and demerits of the Newham case. And, especially for Conservatives a-whoring after coalition, instinctively rather than logically, the-general argument about the Member's rights has perhaps been taken too far. Of course it is desirable that a Member of Parliament should be a representative rather than a delegate, and retain a good deal of freedom from constituency pressure, especially when he is defying (as Mr Prentice was not and as Mr Taverne was) his masters in the House of Commons. It is impossible to lay down a general rule that would be as applicable as a law of iron in every case, but the general sense of British practice — and a healthy practice it is, too — is that, while the Member should not cease to labour to make himself cognisant of and responsive to the wishes of his constituents, he should also be free, on most matters, to obey his conscience. And if he plans regularly to defy his party he should take very special care of his power base indeed: the continual success of Mr Enoch Powell, until he abandoned Wolverhampton South-West, demonstrates the desirability of that.
Mr Prentice's record as Member for Newham is not an easy one to describe. It is clear that he has been, according to his lights, a responsible MP; but it is equally clear that he has not been a remarkably assiduous one. What a member can do about strengthening his party organisation at local level is often limited, but Mr Prentice has been under threat for some time now. And he has been either notably careless or notably unsuccessful in organising the forces loyal to him. If he has been careless then he has neglected Clausewitz's first principle — make your base secure. If he has tried, but been unsuccessful, then he must be in some substantial measure to blame for his inability to organise a counter-attack on Mr Tony Kelly and his allies.
What 1 find most remarkable, however, is the inability ofany critic so far to find any fundamental, or even deep, difference over any
matter of party or political policy between Mr Prentice and his critics. The critics have insisted —perhaps honestly, perhaps not — that they stand by Labour's last two manifestoes, and that their member does not; and Mr Prentice has certainly been highly successful in creating the impression that he disapproves of his party's promises and intentions. But, when taxed by various interviewers with the proposition that he was less than fully loyal to Labour's highly socialist programme, Mr Prentice was able easily and robustly to defend himself against the accusation, and point to an impeccable record since February of last year. At the same time, even the most intensive investigative efforts on the part of newspapers failed to uncover anything remarkably extremist (in the sense of being further to the left than the Labour Party itself) about Mr Prentice's critics. ,True, Mr Tony Kelly was found to have the sort of personal record which, let us say, would, if it was known, be unlikely to gain him rapid promotion in a Conservative constituency party, and he and some of his friends had not been exactly very long-lived as members of Newham CLP, but as to serious differences on policy there were none detectable.
It was quite different in the case of Mr Milne and Mr Taverne. Mr Milne made no secret of his belief that the Labour Party in the North-East was corrupt through and through and, with great and even suicidal courage, campaigned for an investigation into its affairs. Either because they bitterly resented his false accusations, or because they feared an element of truth in them, his constituency'party dismissed him. Between Mr Taverne and his constituents there were undoubtedly many differences of style — and Mr Taverne is certainly not the most lovable of men, nor the most tolerant — but there was above all a major difference of policy (over the EEC) and Mr Taverne was determined to carry the battle for the policy he favoured right into the heart of the constituency. Mr Prentice was once an anti-Marke teer: as his relations with Mr Roy Jenkins became closer he changed sides, but there is not a great deal of evidence that resentment persisted in such strength as to have been a major factor in his overthrow.
Now, there are two very different conciu:;ions one can draw from this proposition — assuming it to be correct — that there is no major, detectable policy difference between Mr Prentice and his enemies in his constituency.
One can conclude either that Mr Kelly and his friends are not at all extreme, and that they wanted to get rid of Mr Prentice because he was neglectful of his duties, tiresome to have around, insufficiently careful of their interests, or was balding. Alternatively, one can conclude that Mr Prentice's enemies are as extreme as anything you can get in the Labour Party, and that he is, too. To my mind this second is the unavoidable conclusion; and of its truth Conservatives should be beware.
The only serious ministerial track record on which Mr Prentice can be judged is that of his tenure at the Department of Education. Not only was he quite exceptionally extremist in his attitudes and in the energy with which he pursued the Labour Party's manifesto policies, but he was boorish and philistine to boot, as witness especially his suggestion that universities should dispose of their art trea sures and other valuables to make ends meet.
Further, Mr Prentice having made yet another of his moderates must all pull together in these times of crisis speeches, and Sir Geoffrey Howe having responded with a remarkably moderate open letter suggesting things that the Labour Party might be willing to give up in return for Conservative support, Mr Prentice sharply replied to the effect that anything definably Tory could not, by definition, be moderate. And this is the man to whom some poor boobies of the Newham Conservative Party want to give a free run in the next election.
I would not like to call arguments on the rule of law peripheral to central questions of policy, and Mr Prentice was certainly vigorous in declining to meet a deputation concerned to gain his support for the Shrewsbury thugs. But he sat in a Cabinet which passed retrospective legislation lifting burdens fairly and legally imposed on the Clay Cross councillors, who had far more systematically and determinedly defied the law; and there was no cheep from him, as there was none from Mr Jenkins, or Mrs Williams, or any other of those Labour moderates whom some members of the Conservative Party seem now so anxious to cuddle up to. Indeed, the departures from this Government after arguments of principle have all been departures of men of the left; and all threatened resignations are likewise of left-wingers. Conservatives who deplore what they call the extremism of this Government, and especially deplore in it the influence of Mr Benn should note that the occasional fair words of the like of Mr Prentice — thrown before the electorate as casually as a bone before a dog — have not once been followed by fair deeds. Indeed, now that the EEC issue is closed, there is no indication of any major difference on central matters of policy between members of the Cabinet: only differences of style.
Of course, there are a number of Conservatives who see nothing for themselves in any triumph by Mrs Thatcher; and they are frequently Conservatives who, in the course of the EEC campaign, found the style of some Labour allies most agreeable. They are people who seek office rather than power; and people who either care not a jot for the things that have inspired the Conservative Party, or who have become so defeatist after the Heath experience that they see no future but the sharing of office with such Labour politicians as have a style that is — in Mr Jenkins's favourite word — agreeable.
Previous page
