Introduction
In the world of British politics, politicians are often viewed with skepticism and distrust. They're seen as self-serving, corrupt, and out of touch with the needs of ordinary citizens. But is this perception entirely fair? Isabel Hardman's book, "Why We Get the Wrong Politicians," offers a nuanced exploration of the UK's political system, revealing that the problem may lie more with the structure and culture of Parliament than with the individuals who serve in it.
This book takes readers on a journey through the inner workings of British politics, from the process of selecting MP candidates to the day-to-day life of a politician in Westminster. It sheds light on the challenges faced by MPs, the flaws in the legislative process, and the toxic culture that often prevails in Parliament. More importantly, it offers insights into how these systemic issues contribute to the selection and behavior of politicians, ultimately affecting the quality of governance in the UK.
As we delve into the key ideas presented in this book, we'll gain a deeper understanding of why British politics often falls short of expectations and what can be done to improve the system. Let's embark on this enlightening journey through the corridors of power in Westminster.
The Undemocratic and Expensive Path to Becoming an MP
One of the most surprising revelations in Hardman's book is how undemocratic and financially burdensome the process of becoming a Member of Parliament (MP) really is. This journey begins long before a candidate's name appears on a ballot paper, and it's a process that many citizens are unaware of.
The Undemocratic Selection Process
In the UK, each political party nominates an MP candidate for each constituency. However, the way these candidates are selected is far from democratic. Take the Conservative Party, for example. If someone wants to become the Tory MP candidate for a particular area, they must first convince a selection panel made up of local Conservative Party councilors. These panels are typically small, often comprising no more than 250 people.
What's particularly concerning is how unrepresentative these panels tend to be. A 2013 study by the Local Government Association found that 67% of local councilors were male, 96% were ethnically white, and their average age was 60. This means that a small group of people, who don't reflect the diversity of the UK population, are essentially deciding who gets to run for office.
This lack of diversity in the selection panels can have far-reaching consequences. It can lead to a pool of MP candidates who are similarly unrepresentative of the broader population, perpetuating a cycle of political leadership that doesn't reflect the experiences and perspectives of many UK citizens.
The Financial Burden of Running for Election
Even if a candidate manages to get selected by their party, they then face another significant hurdle: the cost of running for election. This financial burden is so substantial that it effectively prices many talented individuals out of politics.
Selected candidates often need to scale back their careers to focus on campaigning. This means trudging through rainy streets, knocking on doors, and attending numerous local events. Many feel obligated to donate to local projects or causes to gain community support. They rack up huge travel expenses crisscrossing their constituency and spend money on accommodations to attend national party conferences.
None of these expenses are subsidized by the political parties. A survey conducted by the website ConservativeHome revealed that the average cost for a Tory party candidate to run for election was a staggering £34,392. This is an enormous sum that many people simply cannot afford to spend on what is essentially a job application with no guarantee of success.
The high cost of running for office creates a significant barrier to entry for many potential candidates. It means that those who can afford to run are often already financially well-off, leading to a political class that is disproportionately wealthy compared to the general population. This financial obstacle prevents many talented individuals from less affluent backgrounds from entering politics, potentially depriving the country of diverse perspectives and experiences in its leadership.
The Impact on Political Representation
The combination of an undemocratic selection process and the high cost of running for office has a profound impact on who ends up representing the British public in Parliament. It creates a system that favors those who are well-connected within party structures and those who have significant financial resources at their disposal.
This system makes it difficult for individuals from working-class backgrounds, ethnic minorities, or those without substantial personal wealth to become MPs. As a result, the makeup of Parliament often fails to reflect the diversity of the UK population, leading to a disconnect between the experiences and priorities of MPs and those of many of their constituents.
Moreover, this process can discourage many talented individuals from even considering a career in politics. The prospect of navigating an opaque selection process and potentially spending tens of thousands of pounds with no guarantee of success is likely to deter many people who might otherwise make excellent public servants.
In essence, the current system for selecting and electing MPs in the UK is creating a political class that is often unrepresentative of the population it serves. This lack of diversity in backgrounds and experiences among MPs can lead to policies that don't adequately address the needs and concerns of large segments of the population.
The Realities of Life as an MP
While public perception of politicians is often negative, Hardman's book reveals that the reality of life as an MP is far more complex and challenging than many people realize. Most MPs are dedicated individuals working in a difficult job, facing unique pressures and challenges that are rarely acknowledged by the public.
The Overwhelming Start
For newly elected MPs, the start of their parliamentary career can be overwhelming. The Palace of Westminster, where Parliament is located, is a labyrinthine complex of offices, corridors, conference rooms, restaurants, and bars. Many new MPs report feeling lost and confused for weeks after entering office, struggling to navigate both the physical space and the complex procedures and traditions of Parliament.
What's particularly striking is the lack of formal support for new MPs. There's no comprehensive training or induction process to help them understand their roles and responsibilities. New MPs are essentially left to figure things out on their own, from how to divide their time between various duties to understanding the intricacies of parliamentary procedures.
On any given day, an MP might need to listen to debates, table parliamentary questions, meet with campaign groups or ministers, speak with journalists, and attend to constituency matters. With no official guidance on how to prioritize these tasks or measure their performance, MPs are left to develop their own strategies for managing their workload and responsibilities.
Mental Health Challenges
The pressures of parliamentary life can take a significant toll on MPs' mental health. The stress of the job, combined with long hours, public scrutiny, and the need to balance constituency work with parliamentary duties, can exacerbate existing mental health issues or trigger new ones.
The issue is so prevalent that Westminster's medical staff now have dedicated funding for psychiatric treatments. Conservative MP Charles Walker, who bravely shared his 30-year struggle with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, believes that the stresses of Parliament can deepen mental illness and accelerate failing marriages.
In the age of social media, MPs also face the additional burden of online abuse. The case of Labour MP Stella Creasy illustrates this problem. In 2014, Creasy supported a campaign to feature Jane Austen on the £10 bank note. This seemingly innocuous act led to a barrage of online abuse, including rape threats, from a troll who was eventually jailed for his actions.
These mental health challenges not only affect the well-being of individual MPs but can also impact their ability to perform their duties effectively. A politician struggling with mental health issues may find it difficult to focus on complex legislation or to provide the level of support their constituents need.
The Importance of Constituency Work
One of the most time-consuming aspects of an MP's job is constituency work, which often goes unnoticed by the media and the general public. The Hansard Society found that MPs spend about 49% of their time on constituency-related activities, compared to just 21% on passing and debating new laws.
A significant part of this constituency work involves holding surgeries, where local voters can meet one-on-one with their MP to discuss issues or seek assistance. While this work is often overlooked by the media and may not be seen as career-advancing by ambitious politicians, it's considered crucial by voters and can have a profound impact on individuals' lives.
For example, Labour MP Karen Buck once helped a pregnant woman who was facing eviction find temporary accommodation with just one phone call to the local council. Such interventions can be life-changing for constituents and demonstrate the real-world impact MPs can have beyond their legislative duties.
However, the heavy focus on constituency work raises questions about whether this is the best use of MPs' time and skills. As some of the most talented individuals in the country, tasked with making and scrutinizing laws, should they be spending so much time on local casework? Moreover, the need for MPs to intervene in personal crises highlights potential weaknesses in the country's social safety net.
The Balancing Act
Being an MP requires a constant balancing act between various responsibilities. They must divide their time between constituency work, parliamentary debates, committee meetings, party obligations, and personal life. This juggling act can be exhausting and often leaves MPs feeling that they're not doing justice to any aspect of their role.
Moreover, MPs must navigate the expectations of various stakeholders - their constituents, their party leadership, interest groups, and the media. Balancing these often conflicting demands requires diplomatic skills and can lead to difficult decisions about priorities.
The financial compensation for this demanding job is another point of contention. While an MP's salary of £79,468 per year may seem high to many, it's important to consider the responsibilities and pressures that come with the role. Moreover, this salary can be a significant pay cut for MPs who come from successful careers in other fields, potentially deterring talented individuals from entering politics.
The Impact on Personal Life
The demands of being an MP can have a significant impact on personal and family life. Long hours, frequent travel between Westminster and their constituency, and the public nature of the role can strain relationships and make it difficult to maintain a healthy work-life balance.
MPs often face criticism for any time spent away from their duties, even for important personal or family events. This constant scrutiny and the expectation of round-the-clock availability can lead to burnout and affect the mental health and well-being of MPs and their families.
The Flaws in the Legislative Process
One of the most critical aspects of an MP's job is to make, debate, and scrutinize laws. However, Hardman's book reveals that the UK's legislative process is far from perfect, with several structural issues that hinder effective lawmaking.
The Complex and Time-Consuming Process
The process of creating and passing laws in the UK is complicated and time-consuming. A bill typically goes through several stages:
- First Reading: A formality where the bill is introduced.
- Second Reading: MPs debate the principles of the bill.
- Committee Stage: A small group of MPs examine the bill in detail and propose amendments.
- Report Stage: The bill returns to the Commons where any MP can propose amendments.
- Third Reading: A final debate and vote in the Commons.
- House of Lords: The bill then goes through similar stages in the upper house.
While this process seems thorough on paper, providing multiple opportunities for scrutiny and debate, the reality is often quite different.
The Whipping System
One of the main obstacles to effective scrutiny of legislation is the parliamentary whipping system. Each party has whips whose job is to ensure that MPs vote according to the party line. Whips can use various tactics to keep MPs in line, including threats to block career advancement for those who rebel.
This system doesn't just affect voting; it also influences the scrutiny process. Whips often decide which MPs will analyze a bill during its committee stage, typically choosing party loyalists rather than those with relevant expertise. This turns what should be a process of objective analysis into a party loyalty contest.
Lack of Time and Expertise
The sheer volume of bills that pass through Parliament makes it impossible for MPs to stay fully informed on all of them. Many bills are debated and voted upon on any given day, and even the most dedicated legislators struggle to keep up.
This time pressure, combined with the influence of the whipping system, often leads to MPs voting on bills they haven't fully understood or scrutinized. Instead of abstaining from votes on issues they're not well-informed about, many MPs simply follow their party whip, supporting the principle of a bill without examining its details.
The 'Yes-Man' Culture
The eagerness of politicians to climb their party's ladder has created what Hardman calls a 'yes-man' culture. Ambitious MPs, dreaming of ministerial positions, often abandon their duty as legislators. They may vote through bills they're uninformed about or fail to scrutinize legislation properly, either to curry favor with party leadership or simply because they haven't put in the necessary time and effort.
This culture was exemplified in the passage of the 2010 "bedroom tax," a poorly thought-out attempt to address the UK's social housing problem. During the bill's committee phase, only two backbench MPs spoke up, and even then, they merely interrupted opposition questions to blindly support the proposed legislation. The result was a law that caused significant hardship for many vulnerable people, with over 57,000 families falling into rent arrears in just one year.
Lack of Accountability
In the current system, politicians are rarely held accountable for the legislation they pass or create. There's no formal mechanism for MPs to justify their voting choices or answer for the consequences of laws they've supported. This lack of accountability can lead to careless voting and a disconnect between MPs' actions and their impact on constituents' lives.
The Executive-Legislative Overlap
Another significant issue in the UK political system is the overlap between the legislative and executive branches of government. MPs are elected as legislators to scrutinize and pass bills, but they can simultaneously be promoted to executive ministerial positions within their party.
This dual role creates conflicts of interest and leaves politicians permanently distracted by dreams of promotion. The prospect of becoming a minister, with its additional salary and increased influence, can overshadow an MP's primary duty as a legislator.
The Prestige Gap
There's a significant gap in recognition and prestige between being a backbench MP and a minister. This disparity is so great that many politicians struggle to return to the backbenches after holding ministerial positions. For example, following a 2014 reshuffle by then-Prime Minister David Cameron, several high-profile ministers who lost their positions ended up resigning from Parliament entirely before the next general election.
This loss of experienced parliamentarians is detrimental to the legislative process. Their expertise and authority, which could have been valuable in scrutinizing legislation, are lost when they leave Parliament altogether.
Short-Term Political Careers
Increasingly, MPs don't view serving in Parliament as a lifelong career. Many, including former Prime Ministers and Chancellors, have found life outside of politics to be more satisfying and lucrative. This shift in perspective can lead to a focus on short-term gains rather than long-term governance, potentially compromising the quality of legislation and policy-making.
The Impact of an Out-of-Touch Political Class
One of the most significant issues highlighted in Hardman's book is the disconnect between many politicians and the people they're meant to serve. This disconnect often leads to policies that are out of touch with the needs and realities of ordinary citizens.
The 'Omnishambles Budget' of 2012
A prime example of this disconnect was the 2012 budget presented by then-Chancellor George Osborne, which became known as the "Omnishambles Budget." This budget included several measures that disproportionately affected working-class citizens, such as a 20% tax on hot takeaway foods and caravans, and limitations on tax relief for charitable giving.
The backlash was so severe that Osborne had to quickly backtrack on many of these policies, causing significant embarrassment for the government. This debacle highlighted how out of touch Osborne and his advisors were with the lives of ordinary people.
The Echo Chamber Effect
Part of the problem is that many high-ranking politicians surround themselves with people from similar backgrounds - often wealthy, well-educated, and from a narrow demographic. This creates an echo chamber where alternative perspectives are rarely heard or considered.
In Osborne's case, his Oxford education and aristocratic background, combined with a circle of advisors from similar backgrounds, meant that he lacked insight into how his policies would impact people from different socioeconomic backgrounds.
Lack of Diverse Perspectives
The financial barriers to becoming an MP, as discussed earlier, contribute to this problem by limiting the diversity of backgrounds represented in Parliament. When the majority of politicians come from privileged backgrounds, it's harder for the concerns and experiences of working-class and marginalized communities to be adequately represented in policy-making.
Failure to Consult
Another issue is the failure of many politicians to step outside their insular circles and consult with ordinary citizens. Engaging with a diverse range of people and actively seeking out different perspectives could help politicians create more balanced and effective policies.
The Consequences of Out-of-Touch Policies
When politicians are out of touch with the realities of their constituents' lives, the consequences can be severe. Policies that look good on paper or appeal to a narrow demographic can have unintended negative impacts on large segments of the population.
For example, the earlier mentioned "bedroom tax" was intended to solve a problem in social housing but ended up causing financial hardship for many vulnerable people. This policy failure can be attributed, at least in part, to a lack of understanding of the lived experiences of those in social housing.
The Need for Reform
Given the numerous issues plaguing the UK political system, Hardman's book makes a compelling case for reform. She suggests several specific steps that could help improve the quality of politicians and the effectiveness of governance in Britain.
Democratizing the MP Selection Process
One of the first areas in need of reform is the process by which MP candidates are selected. Hardman suggests making local selection panels more diverse to ensure they better represent the wider population. This could help bring a broader range of perspectives into the candidate selection process.
Additionally, providing financial support for struggling candidates, such as a living wage or stipend during the campaign period, could help level the playing field. This would ensure that talented individuals aren't excluded from running for office simply because of their financial situation.
Separating the Legislative and Executive Branches
To address the conflicts of interest and distractions caused by the current system, Hardman proposes a clearer separation between the legislative and executive branches of government. This could involve preventing MPs from simultaneously holding ministerial positions.
Such a separation would allow MPs to focus fully on their role as legislators without being distracted by ambitions for executive positions. It could also allow the Prime Minister to select ministers from a wider pool of talent, potentially including opposition politicians or industry leaders with relevant expertise.
Increasing Accountability
Hardman suggests introducing a system of public payback, where MPs are called before a panel to explain their actions and voting choices. This could include experts in relevant fields and members of the public affected by the legislation in question.
For instance, a public payback panel on the "bedroom tax" could have included housing policy experts and tenants affected by the law. This would provide a strong motivation for MPs to scrutinize legislation more carefully rather than simply following party lines.
Changing Parliamentary Culture
Reform isn't just about changing structures; it's also about shifting the culture within Parliament. Hardman argues for encouraging MPs to take pride in their role as legislators, rather than seeing it as a stepping stone to ministerial positions.
This could involve rewarding MPs who dedicate themselves to legislative work, either through higher salaries or increased media exposure. It could also include providing formal training for all new MPs on how to effectively scrutinize legislation, addressing the current lack of induction and support for new parliamentarians.
Enhancing Legislative Scrutiny
To improve the quality of legislation, Hardman suggests allocating more time and resources for thorough scrutiny of bills. This could involve reducing the overall number of bills introduced, allowing more time for detailed examination of each one.
Additionally, the role of select committees could be strengthened, giving them more power to challenge poorly drafted legislation and hold ministers to account.
Improving Diversity in Parliament
To address the issue of an out-of-touch political class, efforts should be made to increase diversity in Parliament. This could involve measures to encourage and support candidates from a wider range of backgrounds, including working-class communities, ethnic minorities, and other underrepresented groups.
Political parties could set targets for diverse candidate selection and provide additional support and mentoring for candidates from non-traditional backgrounds.
Reforming the Whipping System
While party discipline is important for effective governance, the current whipping system often stifles independent thought and proper scrutiny. Hardman suggests reforms to allow MPs more freedom to vote according to their conscience and expertise, particularly on issues not central to the government's main policy agenda.
Addressing Mental Health Support
Given the high stress levels and mental health challenges faced by MPs, Hardman argues for better support systems within Parliament. This could include more comprehensive mental health services, better work-life balance policies, and efforts to change the culture of overwork and constant availability.
Rebalancing Constituency and Legislative Work
While constituency work is important, Hardman suggests a rebalancing to allow MPs more time for their legislative duties. This could involve providing more support staff for constituency work or finding alternative ways to address constituents' needs without always requiring direct MP intervention.
Conclusion
Isabel Hardman's "Why We Get the Wrong Politicians" offers a comprehensive and nuanced look at the challenges facing the UK political system. It reveals that the problems in British politics run much deeper than the perceived failings of individual politicians. Instead, they are rooted in systemic issues within the structure and culture of Parliament itself.
The book highlights how the undemocratic and expensive process of becoming an MP creates barriers that prevent many talented individuals from entering politics. It exposes the overwhelming nature of the job, the mental health challenges faced by politicians, and the constant juggling act between constituency work and legislative duties.
Moreover, Hardman's analysis reveals significant flaws in the legislative process, including the problematic whipping system, the lack of time and expertise for proper scrutiny, and the 'yes-man' culture that often prioritizes party loyalty over effective lawmaking. The book also sheds light on how an out-of-touch political class can lead to policies that fail to address the needs of ordinary citizens.
However, Hardman doesn't just critique the system; she also offers a range of potential solutions. From democratizing the MP selection process and separating the legislative and executive branches to increasing accountability and changing parliamentary culture, her suggestions provide a roadmap for meaningful reform.
The key message of the book is that while politicians aren't inherently terrible people, the system they operate within often brings out the worst in them and discourages the best from joining their ranks. By addressing these systemic issues, the UK could create a political environment that attracts and nurtures talented, dedicated public servants who are truly representative of the population they serve.
Ultimately, "Why We Get the Wrong Politicians" is a call to action. It challenges readers to look beyond simplistic criticisms of individual politicians and instead consider how we can reform the system to get the right politicians - those who are skilled, diverse, accountable, and truly committed to serving the public interest. Only through such comprehensive reform can the UK hope to build a political system that effectively addresses the complex challenges of the 21st century and restores public faith in the democratic process.