The Prescott punch: what a 2001 brawl between a deputy prime minister and a voter tells us about the changing nature of British politics
The warm tributes paid to John Prescott, the former deputy prime minister who has died aged 86, reflect a memorable politician of a seemingly bygone era. While his achievements over a long career were vast, the enduring image for most people is of Prescott punching a voter during the 2001 general election campaign.
On a visit to Rhyl in north Wales, Prescott was hit by an egg thrown by a local man and responded with a left hook. The altercation descended in to a full-blown brawl in the street, all caught on camera. Prescott later joked that he told Tony Blair he had been “connecting with the public” that day.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.
New Labour election campaigns were tightly choreographed affairs. The media was managed assiduously and politicians were ruthlessly kept on-message. You’d have thought that thumping a voter in the face on live television might have derailed the campaign, but Blair was able to brush it off the next day with a simple, “Well, John is John”. Prescott faced no criminal or political repercussions. He didn’t even come close to losing his job.
Funny as it seems now, the levity with which the incident was treated at the time is incredible. The idea that say, former deputy prime minister Oliver Dowden could have knocked a member of the public to the floor during July’s election campaign is unimaginable. And even if you can imagine it, the idea that it could have happened without political or legal consequence is incredulous.
Politics has of course changed in the past two decades. Blair promoted a “big tent” approach after the division of the 1980s. Where Margaret Thatcher’s attitude was to categorise those even in her own party as “one of us” (or not)– Blair’s pitch was more “if you’re not against us, you’re for us”. This approach delivered an unbeatable voter coalition in 1997 and 2001 (and into 2005).
Today, politics is much more polarised, especially given the electoral cleavage formed in the wake of Brexit, which pitted remainers against leavers and spawned a period of populist politics in which easy answers are offered to address complex problems. That means a divisiveness quite different from the ideological nature of the 1980s. It’s much nastier and can be dangerous for politicians that step out of line. Just consider the column inches and Westminster discourse devoted to prime minister Keir Starmer’s spectacles, given to him by a party donor.
So this teaches us that politics is a different place and that today Prescott wouldn’t get away with that left hook, right?
Well, no. The fact is that there has never been a time when a national politician could expect to smack a voter during an election campaign without consequence. Prescott got away with it in 2001 partly because of his authenticity – he was the “Heineken” figure who could reach parts of the electorate Blair could not. He was a working-class traditionalist whose background and attitudes reflected the lives of voters much more resonantly than his polished boss.
But there was another reason. Most people watching the incident thought, well, the guy deserved it. After all, he assaulted Prescott, unprovoked, as he went about his day. Ordinary people reflected that their own reaction would be much the same.
Ronald Reagan once remarked of politics: “if you’re explaining, you’re losing”. Starmer found himself explaining far too much about just where he acquired his new glasses, but not only because of the changing political climate. Perhaps Prescott didn’t need to explain because, like him or not, there was a very relatable, unreconstructed human on show. And that is why he is being remembered fondly on his death.
So, far from a bygone age when candidates could act with impunity, perhaps there are opportunities today for politicians to more cynically take advantage.
As prime minister, Boris Johnson’s behaviour was in a different league to Prescott’s. He got away (for a time) with breaking his own laws, repeatedly lying to Parliament, treating the constitution and public life as his plaything and dishing out dozens of lucrative public contracts to supporters – among many other sins. He was able to do this because he constructed a distinctive “authentic” image that marked him out as different from his contemporaries. But he also exploited the populism and divisiveness of today’s politics, using it as a shield against criticism.
Prescott, like Johnson, represented a kind of authenticity that meant his actions could be brushed aside – they each got away with things other politicians never could. But while Prescott will always be associated with that punch, Johnson left a legacy that history won’t treat kindly. And so, it remains to be seen, when Boris Johnson eventually dies, whether his behaviour and persona is remembered quite so fondly.
Stephen Barber does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.