Why We Get the Wrong Politicians Summary

Why does Britain persist in electing leaders who fail to meet its expectations? The answer lies not in individual failings, but in a flawed political system that undermines greatness and promotes mediocrity.

1. The flawed MP selection process blocks diverse and capable candidates

Britain’s MP selection process is far from democratic, and this limits the diversity and capability of political candidates. Party selection panels—consisting of local party councilors—hold enormous sway over who gets to run for office. These panels often reflect narrow demographics, made up overwhelmingly of older, white, and male individuals. This lack of diversity means many promising candidates don't even get a chance to run.

Even for those selected, running for office is prohibitively expensive. Campaigning demands excessive personal investment, with candidates covering costs for travel, community donations, and party-related events. This financial burden shuts out talented individuals from less privileged backgrounds. As a result, MPs often come from similar wealthy and elite groups, which alienates them from the wider population they’re supposed to represent.

The result? A political landscape dominated by candidates who may not fully understand or connect with the struggles of ordinary citizens. This lack of diversity impacts legislation, as MPs’ lived experiences rarely align with the challenges faced by underrepresented groups.

Examples

• Selection panels are typically small—often fewer than 250 people—and unrepresentative; in 2013, 96% were white.
• Tory candidates reported spending an average of £34,392 on election campaigns, making it unattainable for many.
• Constituency examples reveal MPs donating to local projects like school renovations, reinforcing a pay-to-play atmosphere.

2. Most MPs begin their roles ill-prepared and unsupported

Once elected, MPs enter Parliament only to find chaos. The lack of a formal induction or training program forces new MPs to figure out their roles by themselves. Parliament is an overwhelming environment—a maze of offices, constant meetings, and unwritten rules. Without guidance, many MPs struggle to adapt, reducing their effectiveness as lawmakers during critical early months.

Beyond logistical confusion, mental health challenges are prevalent among MPs. Parliament’s high-pressure environment, combined with public disdain and online abuse, takes a toll. MPs frequently face personal attacks on social media, which amplifies stress and worsens mental health problems. In many cases, this further impairs their ability to perform effectively.

Despite these challenges, MPs rarely receive sympathy from the public. Many people see politicians through a cynical lens, dismissing their struggles as undeserved. However, ignoring their difficulties risks creating an environment that deters talented individuals from entering politics.

Examples

• MP Stella Creasy received rape threats for supporting Jane Austen’s image on a £10 note, highlighting the severity of online abuse.
• Charles Walker, a Conservative MP, revealed a 30-year struggle with OCD worsened by Parliament’s stresses.
• Westminster’s labyrinthine layout and absence of structured onboarding leave MPs feeling lost for weeks.

3. Constituency work consumes MPs' time, overshadowing national legislation

Although MPs are primarily tasked with creating and scrutinizing laws, constituents’ concerns dominate their schedules. Holding local surgeries—where MPs meet residents to discuss problems—takes up nearly half their working week. While this direct engagement benefits many individuals, it diverts MPs' attention from their foremost responsibility: shaping laws that impact all citizens.

MPs often handle cases caused by systemic failings, such as housing shortages or healthcare bureaucracy. These issues could be better addressed through improved legislation, yet time spent solving individual crises limits their ability to focus on broader reform. This imbalance leaves the country reliant on overstretched MPs rather than fixing underlying problems.

Many MPs enjoy local work, finding it rewarding to help individuals in distress. However, the time-consuming nature of these duties raises the question: is this the best use of their expertise as lawmakers?

Examples

• Labour MP Karen Buck secured emergency housing for a newly-evicted pregnant woman in Westminster North.
• Research shows MPs spend 49% of their time dealing with constituency concerns, versus 21% on legislation.
• Constituency surgeries act as informal safety nets, often addressing problems caused by flawed policies.

4. Britain’s legislative process discourages scrutiny and expertise

The UK’s system for passing laws is cumbersome and discourages true scrutiny. While MPs theoretically have multiple opportunities to debate bills, the party "whips" enforce compliance, pressuring them to follow party lines instead of prioritizing thoughtful analysis. This creates an environment where meaningful debate is rare.

The committee phase offers a chance for detailed examination of proposed laws, but it’s far from ideal. Whips decide which MPs sit on committees, selecting loyalists over experts. Consequently, many laws pass without the thorough assessment they require, undermining their potential effectiveness and fairness.

This flawed structure diminishes the quality of legislation, leading to unintended consequences that often harm ordinary people. Without independent and informed scrutiny, Parliament reduces itself to a rubber-stamping machine.

Examples

• The parliamentary whipping system forces MPs to vote with their party, even when they disagree with proposals.
• Committee members chosen by party whips often lack relevant expertise to evaluate specialized issues.
• Bills like the 2010 bedroom tax faced minimal scrutiny, resulting in hardship for thousands.

5. Select committees offer a rare bright spot but are limited in reach

Select committees are one of Parliament’s most effective tools, enabling MPs to conduct detailed inquiries and question government ministers. Unlike general debates, these committees foster nonpartisan collaboration and encourage critical thinking on proposed laws. Here, MPs are less constrained by party loyalty, allowing for genuine accountability.

Select committees have achieved significant impact, from investigating controversial policies to shedding light on government mismanagement. However, their influence is limited; they lack the authority to block harmful policies or fully rectify flawed legislation. Instead, their role is largely advisory, leaving the system’s larger issues unresolved.

Despite their successes, committees can’t compensate for the wider problems caused by poor party discipline and weak legislative scrutiny.

Examples

• Committees like Science and Technology scrutinize policies with depth rarely found in general debates.
• Chancellor George Osborne’s 2012 "Omnishambles Budget" faced committee criticism but came too late to prevent public backlash.
• MPs often use committees to grill unprepared ministers, exposing government failings.

6. Toxic political culture rewards personal ambition over public service

British political culture promotes personal ambition at the expense of good governance. MPs are incentivized to seek ministerial roles within the executive branch, as these come with increased pay, prestige, and influence. This promotion-focused culture leads MPs to prioritize career advancement over their core duty: scrutinizing laws.

The stark hierarchy between backbench MPs and ministers worsens the problem. Former ministers often see continuing as MPs as demotion, prompting them to leave politics entirely. This approach devalues legislative work and deprives Parliament of experienced voices.

If this culture persists, Parliament risks discouraging talented individuals from embracing their legislative roles fully, weakening governance further.

Examples

• The 2014 reshuffle under David Cameron prompted skilled ministers like William Hague to resign rather than remain backbenchers.
• MPs receive an extra £33,000 as ministers, incentivizing them to seek executive positions.
• Ex-MPs like George Osborne have pursued lucrative post-political careers, emphasizing the gap between public service and private gain.

7. "Yes-men" erode the quality of British politics

The most damaging product of Parliament’s culture is the rise of "yes-men." These MPs blindly follow their party’s agenda, often without understanding the policies they endorse. This undermines legislative integrity, as many crucial decisions are made based on loyalty rather than informed judgment.

Yes-men culture thrives due to time constraints and the overwhelming number of bills MPs must examine. Instead of seeking clarity or opposing flawed proposals, MPs often default to party recommendations to save time or earn favor. This approach leads to poorly designed laws that harm citizens in avoidable ways.

The 2010 bedroom tax exemplifies this failure. Aimed at solving housing shortages, the law was poorly implemented and caused significant distress, highlighting the damaging effects of blind loyalty to party leadership.

Examples

• Party whips encourage MPs to vote with their party even when they lack full understanding of the bill.
• The notorious bedroom tax failed to account for limited housing options, causing 57,000 tenants to fall into arrears.
• Yes-men culture discourages MPs from raising legitimate questions, stifling thoughtful debate.

8. Poor legislation causes widespread harm due to systemic failures

Parliament’s flawed structure repeatedly produces poorly conceived laws that create unnecessary suffering. When laws pass without adequate scrutiny, they fail to address real-world issues effectively or create unintended consequences. This failure stems from systemic issues, not individual ineptitude.

Whether it's housing policies, tax reforms, or welfare cuts, each poorly implemented law erodes public trust in politics. Furthermore, these legislative errors disproportionately affect vulnerable individuals, worsening social inequalities.

Better systems for scrutinizing, amending, and testing legislation would benefit both lawmakers and citizens, ensuring laws work as intended before affecting lives.

Examples

• Inadequate debate on the bedroom tax led to skyrocketing tenant debt and personal crises.
• Welfare cuts often harm disabled individuals due to insufficient impact assessments.
• Lack of thorough analysis means laws fail to adapt to complex, localized problems.

9. A better political future is achievable through structural and cultural reform

The problems plaguing Britain’s political system are neither inevitable nor insurmountable. Specific reforms could correct many systemic issues, fostering an environment where capable politicians can thrive and better serve the public.

Improving the MP selection process, separating the legislative and executive branches, and holding MPs accountable for their voting decisions are just a few steps. These changes would enhance accountability, transparency, and focus, leading to more effective governance.

Cultural changes are equally important. Encouraging MPs to embrace their legislative roles—and rewarding them appropriately—would help shift the focus from personal ambition to public service.

Examples

• Introducing diversity quotas for MP selection panels ensures broader representation.
• Creating a public payback system holds MPs accountable for their decisions.
• Formal MP training programs enhance legislative skills, enabling stronger scrutiny.

Takeaways

1. Advocate for transparency in your local MP’s selection process to ensure fairness and diversity.
2. Support initiatives that separate legislative and executive branches to reduce conflicts of interest.
3. Demand accountability by engaging in public discussions about MPs’ voting records and legislative decisions.