Words by Laurence Young
Following the recent death of John Prescott, who died of Alzheimer’s complications aged 86, the question of whether we need more traditional working-class representation in parliament is a substantial one. Prescott, who was a large character in mainstream politics, played a pivotal role in the re-branding of New Labour, a process spearheaded by Tony Blair from 1994 onwards, and was also the deputy to Blair from 1997 to 2007 — earning the sizeable accolade of Britain’s longest-serving deputy Prime Minister.
On the face of things, working-class representation in parliament is a good thing. It would make the traditional working-class feel heard and thus, would increase their turnout in elections and make them feel that they have a voice.
A recent survey commissioned by the IPPR, Electoral Reform Society, Unlock Democracy, and Compass found four in five people in Britain say politicians poorly understand their day-to-day lives and are not interested in listening to what ordinary citizens want. Hence, these days it is not about gender and ethnic representation in government, it is about a growing class gap.
Whether we need more working-class representation in government or want it, the question that emerges is, will it really make a difference in Parliament? It could be argued that even if we had 650 MPs of traditional working-class backgrounds in the House of Commons, this would not change the pro-establishment sentiment of the media, the upper echelons of the Civil Service, financiers, and so on.
Whilst it is important for working-class people to feel represented in government, whether this will mean more of an influence in policymaking is down to inter-party priorities and media sway.
In the current situation, money talks, and outsider influencers such as business lobbyists and party donors play a massive part in policy making. A traditional working-class MP is unlikely to know big financiers and lobbyists that will fund local campaigns and sway policy in their direction.
Moreover, business lobbyists and influential entrepreneurs are likely to back the consensus of more wealth for the rich, and this is not likely to be the sentiment of a working-class politician.
Prescott, who was well-known for routinely tearing apart public school and Oxbridge-educated Tory ministers over transport issues, shows that maybe working-class politicians still have that fire in their belly, and can hold their own in Parliament and argue for more working-class values in policy.
On an episode of Question Time aired in early December 1999, historian David Starkey poured derision onto Prescott’s ‘inability’ to form coherent sentences, and claimed Prescott showed the horrors of the working class in Parliament. Whilst this is an establishmentarian sentiment, it is undoubted that this notion is reciprocated by outsider influence and other more middle-class politicians.
On the other hand, the social demographic and composition of parliament has been seen to make a difference in politics. With gender, and the greater representation of women in Parliament than previously, more and more issues and policies have been touched on with regards to equality. Who is to say that it would not work in the same way regarding social representation?
Prescott, a household name, and an undeniable character was maybe the last well-known true working-class figure in Parliament, with regards to much of modern-day British politics, pro-establishment sentiment is rife with insider and outsider influencers in policy making. We do need that push to close the undebatable representation gap as this will firstly make the electorate feel more represented in Parliament and likely lead to higher turnout.
