What do you think?
Rate this book
Why We Get the Wrong Politicians
A newer edition of this book can be found here.
Politicians are consistently voted the least trusted professional group by the UK public. They've recently become embroiled in scandals concerning sexual harassment and expenses. Every year, they introduce new legislation that doesn't do what it sets out to achieve - often with terrible financial and human costs. But, with some notable exceptions, they are decent, hard-working people, doing a hugely difficult and demanding job.
Politicians are consistently voted the least trusted professional group by the UK public. They've recently become embroiled in scandals concerning sexual harassment and expenses. Every year, they introduce new legislation that doesn't do what it sets out to achieve - often with terrible financial and human costs. But, with some notable exceptions, they are decent, hard-working people, doing a hugely difficult and demanding job.
In this searching examination of our political class, award-winning journalist Isabel Hardman tries to square this circle. She lifts the lid on the strange world of Westminster and asks why we end up with representatives with whom we are so unhappy. Filled with forensic analysis and revealing reportage, this landmark and accessible book is a must read for anyone who wants to see a future with better government.
Winner at the 2018 Parliamentary Book Awards
Shortlisted for the
2018
Waterstones Book of the Year
Daily Telegraph's Best Books of the Year, 2018
Guardian's Best Books of the Year, 2018
Evening Standard's Best Books of the Year, 2018
Daily Mail's Best Books of the Year, 2018
BBC's Biggest Books, 2018
Prospect's Best Books of the Year, 2018
352 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 6, 2018
About the author
Isabel Hardman
14 books49 followersIsabel Hardman is a political journalist and the assistant editor of The Spectator. In 2015, she was named Journalist of the Year at the Political Studies Association's annual awards.
She is the daughter of Michael Hardman, the first chairman and one of the four founders of the Campaign for Real Ale. She attended St Catherine's School, Bramley, and Godalming College, before graduating from the University of Exeter with a first class degree in English Literature in 2007. While at university, Hardman worked as a freelance journalist for The Observer. She completed a National Council for the Training of Journalists course at Highbury College in 2009.
Hardman began her career in journalism as a senior reporter for Inside Housing magazine. She then became assistant news editor at PoliticsHome. In September 2014, GQ magazine named her as one of their 100 most connected women in Britain, and in December 2015, she was named "Journalist of the Year" at the Political Studies Association's annual awards. She is currently the assistant editor of The Spectator, and writes a weekly column for The Daily Telegraph.
She appears on television programmes such as Question Time, This Week, The Andrew Marr Show and Have I Got News for You, and is a presenter of the BBC Radio 4 programme Week in Westminster.
She hosts The Spectator Podcast.
She is the daughter of Michael Hardman, the first chairman and one of the four founders of the Campaign for Real Ale. She attended St Catherine's School, Bramley, and Godalming College, before graduating from the University of Exeter with a first class degree in English Literature in 2007. While at university, Hardman worked as a freelance journalist for The Observer. She completed a National Council for the Training of Journalists course at Highbury College in 2009.
Hardman began her career in journalism as a senior reporter for Inside Housing magazine. She then became assistant news editor at PoliticsHome. In September 2014, GQ magazine named her as one of their 100 most connected women in Britain, and in December 2015, she was named "Journalist of the Year" at the Political Studies Association's annual awards. She is currently the assistant editor of The Spectator, and writes a weekly column for The Daily Telegraph.
She appears on television programmes such as Question Time, This Week, The Andrew Marr Show and Have I Got News for You, and is a presenter of the BBC Radio 4 programme Week in Westminster.
She hosts The Spectator Podcast.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 300 reviews
December 17, 2018
December 2018 : Britain is stuck fast in the most absurd political quicksand. As the date for leaving the EU looms nearer (29 March 2019) these damned politicians literally don’t know what to do. Theresa May, the massively incompetent prime minister who almost lost the last election when it should have been a stroll in the park for the Conservatives, has spent two years in eye-bugging migraine-inducing negotiations with the EU and has hammered out a detailed (585 page long!) agreement that to her horror the British Parliament will not vote for – even her own party. So obvious was it that everyone hated her deal that she would not even put it forward to the House of Commons for approval, as she has to do.
What to do? Go back to the EU and ask for a few tweaks here and there? They have said a firm no to any real changes. Then bring the deal back & get defeated in the House of Commons? Then what?
If there is no deal agreed by next March the UK will leave the EU without one & this, says everyone apart from a small gang of rightwing headbangers, will be very bad. It will be a little local apocalypse - better stockpile your medications and cancel your holidays if that happens! Better start keeping edible pets! That nuclear bunker you had installed in 1987 doesn’t look so stupid now!
Theresa May’s own MPs tabled a motion of no confidence in Theresa May last week. She won it though, two thirds of her party supported her. (I wonder if Donald Trump would win a vote of no confidence amongst Republican senators?)
Siren voices are calling for a second referendum – the first asked the question “do you want to leave the EU?” – it was a yes/no thing, and was won by the leavers 52% to 48%. It did not ask HOW you want to leave, & that has been the big problem. There are many ways to leave, it turns out! But other people say – are you crazy? That would only postpose our terminal confusion!
The Labour Party, meanwhile, is calling for a general election. They won’t get it as you have to have a two thirds majority in the Commons to have a snap election & the Conservatives will not be voting for it as turkeys would also not be voting for the upcoming Christmas should they have been enfranchised. If they did get it then the problem would be theirs, and they don’t know what to do either.
There is no solution to this! But there must be! But there isn’t!
This book by a wellknown political journo is a jeremiad about British politics & lands at the exact right time. No one can dispute the main arguments here, that the gruesome culture of Westminster & the House of Commons smothers any outbreaks of competence like a fire blanket. Isabel Hardman anatomises all the ‘orrible things about members of parliament –
They are mostly posh, mostly male, mostly white, mostly middleaged
Becoming a parliamentary candidate is really very ‘orrible and can drive you mad
Should you succeed, being an MP is quite likely to destroy your family life & your marriage. So to avoid that you can employ your spouse as your office manager and are then accused of nepotism.
It’s a lonely life with too many very late nights, much freeflowing booze and too many plumptious eager young researchers and too many rabid journalists aching to catch you at it, like the one mp who was inveigled into sending a photo of his genitalia on Snapchat to a delectable young lady who was really a male reporter taking a screenshot
The mps are just voting fodder shepherded around by the evil whips. (The term comes from hunting – the whipper-in was a guy who whipped stray dogs to make them go back into the hunting pack.)
The mps all suck up their numerous humiliations because they want to become ministers and start being important
The House of Commons is like Gormenghast, with a thousand rooms and ten thousand arcane rules and no rule book (words you may not use in a Commons debate : hooligan, git, rat, stoolpigeon and Pecksniffian. You can’t infer any fellow mp is a liar or a hypocrite even though you know they are both.)
The public think you’re in it for the money, however many shelters for the homeless or donkey sanctuaries you have established
Like any junkie you hate your drug (politics!) and you love it, hate it, love it, round and round
No one rewards anybody for proper scrutiny of proposed legislation so mostly that doesn’t happen and we wind up with shambolic laws like the bedroom tax
All of this is delivered in a swift merrily gurgling stream of suppressed horror by Isabel Hardman but her book has two problems –
1 – is this how politics is done everywhere or do some countries do it better? If so, who? And do not say SWEDEN or I will bite you. There are no comparisons so for all the reader knows Britain is doing politics much better than anywhere! It might be rubbish but you should see the others!
2 – how should this sorry state be fixed? Isabel has a rather rushed 20 pages right at the end and it is not convincing.
But, a pretty good read for political addicts like myself.
What to do? Go back to the EU and ask for a few tweaks here and there? They have said a firm no to any real changes. Then bring the deal back & get defeated in the House of Commons? Then what?
If there is no deal agreed by next March the UK will leave the EU without one & this, says everyone apart from a small gang of rightwing headbangers, will be very bad. It will be a little local apocalypse - better stockpile your medications and cancel your holidays if that happens! Better start keeping edible pets! That nuclear bunker you had installed in 1987 doesn’t look so stupid now!
Theresa May’s own MPs tabled a motion of no confidence in Theresa May last week. She won it though, two thirds of her party supported her. (I wonder if Donald Trump would win a vote of no confidence amongst Republican senators?)
Siren voices are calling for a second referendum – the first asked the question “do you want to leave the EU?” – it was a yes/no thing, and was won by the leavers 52% to 48%. It did not ask HOW you want to leave, & that has been the big problem. There are many ways to leave, it turns out! But other people say – are you crazy? That would only postpose our terminal confusion!
The Labour Party, meanwhile, is calling for a general election. They won’t get it as you have to have a two thirds majority in the Commons to have a snap election & the Conservatives will not be voting for it as turkeys would also not be voting for the upcoming Christmas should they have been enfranchised. If they did get it then the problem would be theirs, and they don’t know what to do either.
There is no solution to this! But there must be! But there isn’t!
This book by a wellknown political journo is a jeremiad about British politics & lands at the exact right time. No one can dispute the main arguments here, that the gruesome culture of Westminster & the House of Commons smothers any outbreaks of competence like a fire blanket. Isabel Hardman anatomises all the ‘orrible things about members of parliament –
They are mostly posh, mostly male, mostly white, mostly middleaged
Becoming a parliamentary candidate is really very ‘orrible and can drive you mad
Should you succeed, being an MP is quite likely to destroy your family life & your marriage. So to avoid that you can employ your spouse as your office manager and are then accused of nepotism.
It’s a lonely life with too many very late nights, much freeflowing booze and too many plumptious eager young researchers and too many rabid journalists aching to catch you at it, like the one mp who was inveigled into sending a photo of his genitalia on Snapchat to a delectable young lady who was really a male reporter taking a screenshot
The mps are just voting fodder shepherded around by the evil whips. (The term comes from hunting – the whipper-in was a guy who whipped stray dogs to make them go back into the hunting pack.)
The mps all suck up their numerous humiliations because they want to become ministers and start being important
The House of Commons is like Gormenghast, with a thousand rooms and ten thousand arcane rules and no rule book (words you may not use in a Commons debate : hooligan, git, rat, stoolpigeon and Pecksniffian. You can’t infer any fellow mp is a liar or a hypocrite even though you know they are both.)
The public think you’re in it for the money, however many shelters for the homeless or donkey sanctuaries you have established
Like any junkie you hate your drug (politics!) and you love it, hate it, love it, round and round
No one rewards anybody for proper scrutiny of proposed legislation so mostly that doesn’t happen and we wind up with shambolic laws like the bedroom tax
All of this is delivered in a swift merrily gurgling stream of suppressed horror by Isabel Hardman but her book has two problems –
1 – is this how politics is done everywhere or do some countries do it better? If so, who? And do not say SWEDEN or I will bite you. There are no comparisons so for all the reader knows Britain is doing politics much better than anywhere! It might be rubbish but you should see the others!
2 – how should this sorry state be fixed? Isabel has a rather rushed 20 pages right at the end and it is not convincing.
But, a pretty good read for political addicts like myself.
June 6, 2019
The title of this borderline fraudulent book makes two statements and associated inferences:
1. That our current tranche of politicians, of whatever party, are “wrong” (inference: politicians are a bad lot in general);
2. That the author knows why this is (inference: some potentially fraudulent transactional relationship between politicians and the public, hence the “we” in the title).
Apart from a first chapter that sets out the financial demands on a would-be MP, a fiscal grudge match that effectively rules out candidates from working class or underprivileged backgrounds, Hardman makes no attempt to drill down into either aspect. In fact, a better title would be ‘Why Parliament is a Bit Outmoded as an Institution’. Or ‘Stuff I Learned While Doing the Day Job’. Or, arguably most accurately, ‘I Got This Book Deal Because I Work for the New Statesman and the BBC’ (it says something that the back cover trumpets an endorsement from BBC maven Laura Kuennsberg).
Given that Hardman sympathises with MPs, plays devil’s advocate for them ad nauseum and indulges in rampant swathes of whataboutery in order to offset their glaringly evident failings and odious self-interest, it’s clear that the book was written less to interrogate the present political system as curry favour with those inimical to it who might serve to advance her own career ambitions.
A particularly risible moment comes in a chapter on the parliamentarian predisposition to addictive behaviours; Hardman quotes Sarah Wollaston’s comment on her colleagues’ drinking habits (“Who would go to see a surgeon who had just drunk a bottle of wine at lunchtime?”) and then refutes it with the staggeringly anodyne statement “MPs do not need the complex motor skills of a surgeon”, completely missing the point that, in any other form of employment, a staff member putting away a bottle of plonk over lunch and then staggering back to work would find themselves on the receiving end of disciplinary procedures, if not sacked outright.
Hardman then goes on to hand-wring for politicians driven to drink, without giving any consideration to the fact that many of these selfsame MPs have drafted, or helped vote into law, legislation that has driven many vulnerable people to suicide. In one of the latter chapters, Hardman even has the temerity to state that suicides triggered by government policies shouldn’t be indicative of the failure of said policies because “it is irresponsible to suggest that suicide has one clear cause”. A statement as ill-informed as it is heartless..
But then again, Hardman evinces sympathy for such odious individuals as Andrew Lansley, Margaret Hodge, Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless, so it’s probably unrealistic to expect her to have a finely calibrated moral compass, or cheerlead for civilised behaviours.
Isabel Hardman has a fixation on, and groupie-like reverence for, politicians, despite her book’s title (which I strongly suspect was either foisted on it by the publisher or served purely as a pitch just to tie down the publishing deal). Ultimately, ‘Why We Get the Wrong Politicians’ is a shallow and sanitised piece of hack work: the literary equivalent of click bait.
1. That our current tranche of politicians, of whatever party, are “wrong” (inference: politicians are a bad lot in general);
2. That the author knows why this is (inference: some potentially fraudulent transactional relationship between politicians and the public, hence the “we” in the title).
Apart from a first chapter that sets out the financial demands on a would-be MP, a fiscal grudge match that effectively rules out candidates from working class or underprivileged backgrounds, Hardman makes no attempt to drill down into either aspect. In fact, a better title would be ‘Why Parliament is a Bit Outmoded as an Institution’. Or ‘Stuff I Learned While Doing the Day Job’. Or, arguably most accurately, ‘I Got This Book Deal Because I Work for the New Statesman and the BBC’ (it says something that the back cover trumpets an endorsement from BBC maven Laura Kuennsberg).
Given that Hardman sympathises with MPs, plays devil’s advocate for them ad nauseum and indulges in rampant swathes of whataboutery in order to offset their glaringly evident failings and odious self-interest, it’s clear that the book was written less to interrogate the present political system as curry favour with those inimical to it who might serve to advance her own career ambitions.
A particularly risible moment comes in a chapter on the parliamentarian predisposition to addictive behaviours; Hardman quotes Sarah Wollaston’s comment on her colleagues’ drinking habits (“Who would go to see a surgeon who had just drunk a bottle of wine at lunchtime?”) and then refutes it with the staggeringly anodyne statement “MPs do not need the complex motor skills of a surgeon”, completely missing the point that, in any other form of employment, a staff member putting away a bottle of plonk over lunch and then staggering back to work would find themselves on the receiving end of disciplinary procedures, if not sacked outright.
Hardman then goes on to hand-wring for politicians driven to drink, without giving any consideration to the fact that many of these selfsame MPs have drafted, or helped vote into law, legislation that has driven many vulnerable people to suicide. In one of the latter chapters, Hardman even has the temerity to state that suicides triggered by government policies shouldn’t be indicative of the failure of said policies because “it is irresponsible to suggest that suicide has one clear cause”. A statement as ill-informed as it is heartless..
But then again, Hardman evinces sympathy for such odious individuals as Andrew Lansley, Margaret Hodge, Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless, so it’s probably unrealistic to expect her to have a finely calibrated moral compass, or cheerlead for civilised behaviours.
Isabel Hardman has a fixation on, and groupie-like reverence for, politicians, despite her book’s title (which I strongly suspect was either foisted on it by the publisher or served purely as a pitch just to tie down the publishing deal). Ultimately, ‘Why We Get the Wrong Politicians’ is a shallow and sanitised piece of hack work: the literary equivalent of click bait.
December 14, 2018
I feel much more knowledgable about how Parliament works, and the problems that frustrate good laws being made after finishing this book.
Really interesting for anyone interested in how our country is run, especially for people like me with ambitions to become a parliamentary candidate. This book has strengthened my belief that I have the right intentions.
Really interesting for anyone interested in how our country is run, especially for people like me with ambitions to become a parliamentary candidate. This book has strengthened my belief that I have the right intentions.
February 15, 2019
I thought this was really good. It's a well-considered, non-judgemental examination of flaws in the way our parliament scrutinises legislation. It raised a lot of things that I'd not considered before, in particular:
- the ridiculous cost & time investment of becoming an MP (obviously limiting the pool of those that can & will apply)
- the enormous size of our executive branch (over 100 MPs are on the government payroll, essentially binding them to vote with the government and preventing them from exercising any kind of legislative scrutiny)
- the extent to which casework takes up large amounts of an MP's time, hence reducing the time they can spend actually doing their main job of passing & scrutinising legislation
- how despite the fact the House of Lords are unelected, they actually do a surprisingly good job of scrutinising legislation, and much better than the House of Commons in most cases (makes you think - would abolishing the Lords be more ideological than pragmatic?)
Hardman spends most of the book analysing the flaws in our system. However, as well as illuminating my perspective on the range of issues above (and more), she also posed a more direct challenge to the way I normally think about politics. I tend to think of political problems as requiring structural solutions: that a Proportional Representation electoral system rather than our adversarial First Past the Post would fix a lot of things, or that more Deliberative Democracy would help these issues, etc. But in her concluding chapter of recommended changes, she makes a very clear argument: "It is more important to change the culture rather than the overarching structures of our political system". Typically I think cultural change requires structural change, but she makes a strong case for this not to be so.
For example, she says the 2 main parties should pay bursaries to low-income candidates, as it would be "much more effective than setting up a new party that doesn't get anyone elected, as the well-funded Women's Equality Party has done". She also says we should raise the prestige of Committee Chairs in parliament, and pay them a higher salary to compete with Ministerial pay, hence reducing the incentive to climb up the Executive Branch and instead create a career path for legislation-oriented MPs outside of government. Neither of these suggestions are especially eye-catching or politically motivating (paying MPs more, anyone?), but there's a hard-headed pragmatism about them that I like. Realistically, the political system we have now is likely to more-or-less be the one we have in 50 years: things tend to stay roughly the same. So we might as well spend our time making the most of the one we've got, because these things only change in crises anyway (although on the other hand, a crisis might be on the horizon).
The only downside was that she was a bit rude about civil servants, while portraying everyone from Lords to MPs to journalists in much more sympathetic lights. But ah well, I'll try not to take it personally.
- the ridiculous cost & time investment of becoming an MP (obviously limiting the pool of those that can & will apply)
- the enormous size of our executive branch (over 100 MPs are on the government payroll, essentially binding them to vote with the government and preventing them from exercising any kind of legislative scrutiny)
- the extent to which casework takes up large amounts of an MP's time, hence reducing the time they can spend actually doing their main job of passing & scrutinising legislation
- how despite the fact the House of Lords are unelected, they actually do a surprisingly good job of scrutinising legislation, and much better than the House of Commons in most cases (makes you think - would abolishing the Lords be more ideological than pragmatic?)
Hardman spends most of the book analysing the flaws in our system. However, as well as illuminating my perspective on the range of issues above (and more), she also posed a more direct challenge to the way I normally think about politics. I tend to think of political problems as requiring structural solutions: that a Proportional Representation electoral system rather than our adversarial First Past the Post would fix a lot of things, or that more Deliberative Democracy would help these issues, etc. But in her concluding chapter of recommended changes, she makes a very clear argument: "It is more important to change the culture rather than the overarching structures of our political system". Typically I think cultural change requires structural change, but she makes a strong case for this not to be so.
For example, she says the 2 main parties should pay bursaries to low-income candidates, as it would be "much more effective than setting up a new party that doesn't get anyone elected, as the well-funded Women's Equality Party has done". She also says we should raise the prestige of Committee Chairs in parliament, and pay them a higher salary to compete with Ministerial pay, hence reducing the incentive to climb up the Executive Branch and instead create a career path for legislation-oriented MPs outside of government. Neither of these suggestions are especially eye-catching or politically motivating (paying MPs more, anyone?), but there's a hard-headed pragmatism about them that I like. Realistically, the political system we have now is likely to more-or-less be the one we have in 50 years: things tend to stay roughly the same. So we might as well spend our time making the most of the one we've got, because these things only change in crises anyway (although on the other hand, a crisis might be on the horizon).
The only downside was that she was a bit rude about civil servants, while portraying everyone from Lords to MPs to journalists in much more sympathetic lights. But ah well, I'll try not to take it personally.
November 4, 2018
Excellent look at parliamentary life from the inside. It's such a massive thing to change but so desperately in need of reform to make it fit for purpose for current times. Very frustrating reading about the various legislations that have been passed without proper scrutiny and no real measures in place to improve the situation. There must be other political structures around the world that work better that we could emulate. Did I have more sympathy for MPs after reading the book? I can't say I have really. It can only be changed from the inside and there aren't enough MPs looking to change it. Bit depressing really.
August 4, 2020
What a nice surprise! I started reading this book simply hoping to learn about British politics, but I feel like it did so much more than just that. Firstly, it dwelled deeply into the problems with constituent democracies, secondly, it touched open the issues that arise if there is not a complete separation of powers and thirdly, it also described the culture that is so prevalent in the British legislature.
This book was also so well researched and written by someone who definitely has an authority to speak on this subject: a parliamentary correspondent who has witnessed it all first hand.
To anyone interested in politics, I can only highly recommend.
This book was also so well researched and written by someone who definitely has an authority to speak on this subject: a parliamentary correspondent who has witnessed it all first hand.
To anyone interested in politics, I can only highly recommend.
December 9, 2019
This book looks at what it is like to be an MP. It focuses on their experiences, and costs of the job and the downsides. The culture of Parliament is looked at.
At times, this book feels like a gossip column about Westminster.
But there is very little on lobbying or where politicians get their funding from, and so it doesn’t actually explain what the title says it will.
At times, this book feels like a gossip column about Westminster.
But there is very little on lobbying or where politicians get their funding from, and so it doesn’t actually explain what the title says it will.
June 17, 2021
This was just simply boring. Yes, I learnt a lot, and yes, it was very well-structured, but I don't think that compensates for how difficult it was to get through.
July 11, 2019
“I have been surprised since coming in here at how unproductive it is. I have had weeks where I just feel so demotivated because you’re just doing nothing but talking pointlessly. I don’t find the Chamber very useful.”
This is a direct quote from a Tory politician who was elected in 2015. And you wonder why Brexit is such an unmitigated disaster. Some of the quotes, insights and complaints in here from MPs are genuinely shocking and serve only to confirm so many of the depressing stereotypes that Parliament has worked so hard to earn over the centuries.
Hardman not only works for a well-known political publication, but she also happens to be in a relationship with a politician herself, so she is certainly closer than most to the political world and is in a great position to hoover up lots of verified information and real-life experiences too.
Westminster is the perfect embodiment of the dark side of the British class system. It is an environment ruled primarily by privately educated, white men to enforce the ideas and interests of privately educated, white men. Eton, one of the most elite and expensive schools in the world, has been the alma mater for no less than 19 prime ministers. As the two latest privately educated Tories battle it out for the leadership. The favourite clown is also an old Etonian which will make that figure a round 20. This in itself is a truly astonishing yet depressing statistic.
We hear about the main barriers to entry in becoming an MP. Time and money, but mostly the latter. The problem is that politics is more about money than the ballot box. As the author reflects, “But today, would-be politicians are still having to buy their way to a seat. No wonder Parliament doesn’t look very much like the rest of the UK” Elsewhere Hardman insists that, “What is striking about politicians is how many of them have had dysfunctional upbringings.” of the 2015 intake of MPs who spoke about their upbringing a staggering 39 grew up without their fathers. Michael Gove was adopted at 4 months old and 8 MPs were raised by a single parent dad.
She really makes so many great points, like being suspicious of those who can easily shrug off online trolling are not necessarily the people you want in politics as being so thick skinned can also indicate a strong lack of empathy. She adds, “Do we really want people going into politics who don’t mind risking their personal life in order to win?”
At one stage she talks about the likes of Boris Johnson making an effort to get out of the Westminster bubble and going into the real world by going on TV. This is hardly venturing into the real world. In actuality all he is doing is swapping one bubble for another for self-promotion purposes. The Media bubble is notoriously awash with its own metropolitan elite, and can hardly be regarded as ‘the real world’ any more than Westminster.
“Filibustering is, in many senses, an impressive art.” The author says at one point. Considering all of the petty nonsense which is banned from Parliament, I remain puzzled as to why filibustering is still permitted within any respectable government in the world. It is the political equivalent of a childish tantrum and wastes everyone’s time and therefore tax payer’s money.
A lot of emphasis is placed on how long and hard MPs work, yet I could find no mention whatsoever of the holidays they get. As well as the six straight weeks away from Westminster they get every summer. According to the BBC “During the last complete parliamentary session, 2016-17, the House of Commons sat on 142 days.” As well as that, little attention was given to the fact that the many bars and restaurants within the Parliament are subsidised by the public. For instance it was revealed back in 2014 that during the previous year, the public subsidised these establishments to the tune of almost £6 million. It is bad enough that pubs and bars are seen as essential within the political work place, but then to subsidise to such an extent is breath taking.
We see that too often when policies or decisions are blatantly wrong or damaging to millions of people. Instead of being rational and mature about it and maybe holding up their hands in admission, the party line is upheld as self-interest, precious ego and career strategies are treated far more important than the impact on millions of the electorate. They still do this in the full knowledge that these dreadful policies have been running for years inflicting misery on millions, as shown in the case of the bedroom tax.
Compassion, humility and sensitivity should be essential skills for the job as should the ability to be able to relate to most of your electorate in a meaningful and realistic way. Many MPs will have these skills, but I can’t think of a single Prime Minister in my life time who would come close to meeting any one of these criteria. But of course what we really get is self-interest, greed, self-delusion and desire for power. Yes there are decent, hard-working politicians out there who genuinely try to do good, but they are far outnumbered and over powered by those with ulterior motives.
We learn that the Tories have organised squads of hecklers called, “departmental support groups” It turns your stomach to read about. You are not allowed to call a fellow politician a liar or a hypocrite in parliament and you have to address him as a right honourable gentleman, regardless of how awful they may be. This out dated nonsense dressed as tradition only feeds into the myth and ego of some truly unsavoury cretins. Because of course as long as you wear the right tie, employ the right euphemisms and have the right tone of plummy accent you can get away with almost anything, just smile and say something polite and mundane (it doesn't even have to be true), no matter if you have just sold arms to a murdering regime which you know kills innocent men, women and children.
Where is the performance review?...What about the quality control?...Who are they accountable to?...The format seems to be increase the scale of corruption and/or wrongdoing in order to diminish and minimise the consequences and it works beautifully well, think the illegal invasion of Iraq and the slaughter and displacement of millions, the expenses scandal, and of course the countless undercover stings, backroom deals and behind closed doors meetings, which is why so many people in senior office find themselves in rather well-remunerated sinecures when they get thrown out or retire from politics.
This is a reasoned, insightful and incredibly enjoyable foray into the world of British politics (not something you can say about many political books). It is also really depressing and it will make you angry. The lies, greed, cheating, cronyism and corruption don’t make for easy reading. If most people were aware of the facts revealed in here, their disdain and contempt for the political classes would be immeasurable.
Hardman’s logic is undeniable and her insights are refreshingly transparent, frank and honest. I’d love for this book to help trigger an overhaul of the system but unfortunately the system which has been in place for centuries was built specifically to behave in the way that it does. This book shows us in the clearest possible terms what Westminster is really about and who it is really for, privately educated white men, who more often than not have a toxic combination of monstrous ego and a phenomenal sense of entitlement. It is a nauseating system that never tires of rewarding itself. Talent, ability and intelligence will always play second fiddle to these facts. And as these are the very same elite who make the rules, it is difficult to see how or why they would wish to change that any time soon.
April 4, 2024
https://fromtheheartofeurope.eu/why-we-get-the-wrong-politicians-by-isabel-hardman/
An interesting and gloomy reflection on the deficiencies of the British political system by a close observer.
I knew a fair amount of this, having hung around with politicians for most of my career, but there were some things I had not really thought of before – the sheer economic cost of running for parliament, putting your life on hold for a desperate contest that you may not win, and the toll that serving as an MP puts on your family life and mental and physical health, are really extreme. The path to Westnminster is a grim and terrible winnowing process which rules out many people who are not young-to-middle-aged men with a particular set of personality neuroses.
The interlinkage of executive and legislature then works to actively discourage good policy-making. Opposition MPs have no power at all, obviously; but most government MPs are struggling to get on the greasy pole of preferment, and therefore have no incentive to criticise, even constructively. There are a few exceptions – well known mavericks, and the chairs of Select Committees – but essentially, to make your mark in the House of Commons you need to abandon your political ambitions.
Hardman has some modest thoughts on how to improve things. She (rightly) discounts electoral reform, which was lost for at least a generation by the botched 2011 referendum. But reduction of the government payroll, and enhancement of the scrutiny powers of the Commons, could both serve to rebalance the system in a healthier way. She also discounts the complete division of the legislature and the executive, pointing at the deficiencies of the U.S. system of government; but the American way is not the only way, and Belgium, for instance, makes ministers leave parliament while remaining accountable to it.
None of this is going to happen, of course. The surgery that is needed requires either a fresh mandate from an energised reforming new government, or a carefully developed cross-party consensus that Something Must Be Done. The incoming Labour government will have many other fish to fry than constitutional tinkering; and MPs and peers at present can’t even agree on the basics of how to fix the crumbling physical infrastructure of the Palace of Westminster, let alone how to improve the way it makes laws. But if you want to get better informed, you can get the book.
An interesting and gloomy reflection on the deficiencies of the British political system by a close observer.
I knew a fair amount of this, having hung around with politicians for most of my career, but there were some things I had not really thought of before – the sheer economic cost of running for parliament, putting your life on hold for a desperate contest that you may not win, and the toll that serving as an MP puts on your family life and mental and physical health, are really extreme. The path to Westnminster is a grim and terrible winnowing process which rules out many people who are not young-to-middle-aged men with a particular set of personality neuroses.
The interlinkage of executive and legislature then works to actively discourage good policy-making. Opposition MPs have no power at all, obviously; but most government MPs are struggling to get on the greasy pole of preferment, and therefore have no incentive to criticise, even constructively. There are a few exceptions – well known mavericks, and the chairs of Select Committees – but essentially, to make your mark in the House of Commons you need to abandon your political ambitions.
Hardman has some modest thoughts on how to improve things. She (rightly) discounts electoral reform, which was lost for at least a generation by the botched 2011 referendum. But reduction of the government payroll, and enhancement of the scrutiny powers of the Commons, could both serve to rebalance the system in a healthier way. She also discounts the complete division of the legislature and the executive, pointing at the deficiencies of the U.S. system of government; but the American way is not the only way, and Belgium, for instance, makes ministers leave parliament while remaining accountable to it.
None of this is going to happen, of course. The surgery that is needed requires either a fresh mandate from an energised reforming new government, or a carefully developed cross-party consensus that Something Must Be Done. The incoming Labour government will have many other fish to fry than constitutional tinkering; and MPs and peers at present can’t even agree on the basics of how to fix the crumbling physical infrastructure of the Palace of Westminster, let alone how to improve the way it makes laws. But if you want to get better informed, you can get the book.
December 16, 2019
Even handed and very digestible, this an engrossing and enlightening study of the fundamental problems with the British political system. Isabel Hardman clearly knows her stuff and the book is packed with fascinating anecdotes as well as in depth analysis. There probably aren't any easy answers to the dysfunctional nature of our parliament (although she does suggest a few improvements). but having a better understanding of why the problems exist feels like a step in the right direction.
July 2, 2020
This book is not satire or designed to slag off politicians. It is looking at the reasons for why we get the same kind of people as our politicians and a lack of social diversity and people from more working class backgrounds that more voters can relate to. It looks at why hard working candidates may not get elected due to party or leader unpopularity ie May in 2017 and Corbyn in 2019. It looks at how knowing the right people is vital to get selected as a candidate, leading to so many older white men being selected over young or female candidates without the old boys network. It looks at the staggering costs associated with being a candidate and how there is no party help until you win the seat. The cost of travel, accomodation, canvassing etc all comes out of your own pocket which explains why people with money have the best chance of staying the course. Add in attending the convention and being asked to campaign for other candidates and buy a house in your chosen constituency and it becomes clear why there is not a better mix of MPs.
It then goes into the confusing Parliament buildings and lack of help to settle new MPs in, the long wait to get an office and staff, a lack of guidance on what is expected of you. It examines the balance of constituency work with ministerial duties and Parliament business, the difficult of getting bills or amendments through when the system is set up to favour the party in power, the frustrations of bad bills being blindly voted through and sexual harrassment. There is also a section on what party help an MP gets when they lose their seat after an election. There was detail following certain MPs in their duties and where it went wrong on major bills like the Poll Tax and the Iraq War. Overall this was a fascinating look behind the scenes from being a candidate until you lose the seat, and in depth study of the problems that must be sorted if we are to get a better range of MPs and better bills being passed.
It then goes into the confusing Parliament buildings and lack of help to settle new MPs in, the long wait to get an office and staff, a lack of guidance on what is expected of you. It examines the balance of constituency work with ministerial duties and Parliament business, the difficult of getting bills or amendments through when the system is set up to favour the party in power, the frustrations of bad bills being blindly voted through and sexual harrassment. There is also a section on what party help an MP gets when they lose their seat after an election. There was detail following certain MPs in their duties and where it went wrong on major bills like the Poll Tax and the Iraq War. Overall this was a fascinating look behind the scenes from being a candidate until you lose the seat, and in depth study of the problems that must be sorted if we are to get a better range of MPs and better bills being passed.
July 31, 2019
I had 3 problems with this book.
1. It is 3 books in one cover
2. It fails to answer the question in the title.
3. It is written from within "The Bubble" as Hardman calls it, and suffers from that narrow view.
With these criticisms in mind, it is well written, easy to read and contains many useful insights.
1. It is 3 books under one cover.
The first 188 pages "Part 1: How we get the wrong politicians" Is an apologetic written probably for its target audience - MPs. It is rightly sympathetic to the lot of a politician, divorce, suicide, alcoholism and the slow realisation that they can actually achieve very little even though they are expected to spend a great deal of time working the way that the system requires. Then, after spending a considerable amount of time and money getting elected (or not), along comes an election and they are suddenly out of a job that was all consuming, and they are a bit lost back in the real world. Hello! That, actually, happens in many other walks of life. However, the insights and her personal knowledge of individual MPs, makes book 1 a good read as long as you are aware of its limitations.
Her insider's valuable analysis of the way legislation is processed using The Health and Social Care Act 2012, The Iraq War, Libya, Grenfell, Brexit and the bedroom tax, as examples show very clearly how parliament is just not fit for purpose but not why we get the wrong politicians. It is a system and structural failure that leads to such poor legislation. She does make the case well that politicians shy away from major legislation, because they know that they will get it wrong and that will affect their re-election chances. This explains a lot about our 'toothless' government.
The final chapter, The Conclusion, of only 16 pages, would make the basis of an excellent book about government, parliament and its politicians. I don't agree with some of what is said, because it is written from this within "The Bubble" viewpoint, but these 16 pages are the conclusion of the book that I was expecting to read, and almost worth buying the book for these pages alone.
2. It fails to answer the question in the title.
As Hardman makes clear, the political system is broken. As she writes: "So do we really get the wrong politicians, or the wrong culture in parliament?" Her premise is that the very nature of parliament means that we draw MPs from a narrow sub-set of the population, getting the "Wrong Politicians". I didn't feel that the case was made, but, nonetheless, this part was still well written and informative.
Near the end, on page 266, she writes:
"Here's a confession. I've led you on rather in this book, suggesting with its title about the 'wrong politicians' that we do indeed have a bunch of self-serving toffs in the House of Commons. Of course, you will have realised by now that I think of them rather more charitably, and perhaps you are sorely disappointed, because this isn't what you expected."
3. It is written from within "The Bubble" as Hardman calls it, and suffers from that narrow view.
No where is there any suggestion that many of the problems are due to the party system that traps candidates and MPs into a certain course of action.
We hve two great opportunities to bring about change in parliament, in my opinion, Brexit chaos and an archaic building which should no longer be used for government business. These opportunities are not addressed in Hardman's book as she sees everything narrowly from within.
Although I've been quite critical, the book is still well worth reading. Just don't raise your expectations on the basis of the title alone. Hardman gives great insights into the way that "The Bubble" thinks.
1. It is 3 books in one cover
2. It fails to answer the question in the title.
3. It is written from within "The Bubble" as Hardman calls it, and suffers from that narrow view.
With these criticisms in mind, it is well written, easy to read and contains many useful insights.
1. It is 3 books under one cover.
The first 188 pages "Part 1: How we get the wrong politicians" Is an apologetic written probably for its target audience - MPs. It is rightly sympathetic to the lot of a politician, divorce, suicide, alcoholism and the slow realisation that they can actually achieve very little even though they are expected to spend a great deal of time working the way that the system requires. Then, after spending a considerable amount of time and money getting elected (or not), along comes an election and they are suddenly out of a job that was all consuming, and they are a bit lost back in the real world. Hello! That, actually, happens in many other walks of life. However, the insights and her personal knowledge of individual MPs, makes book 1 a good read as long as you are aware of its limitations.
Her insider's valuable analysis of the way legislation is processed using The Health and Social Care Act 2012, The Iraq War, Libya, Grenfell, Brexit and the bedroom tax, as examples show very clearly how parliament is just not fit for purpose but not why we get the wrong politicians. It is a system and structural failure that leads to such poor legislation. She does make the case well that politicians shy away from major legislation, because they know that they will get it wrong and that will affect their re-election chances. This explains a lot about our 'toothless' government.
The final chapter, The Conclusion, of only 16 pages, would make the basis of an excellent book about government, parliament and its politicians. I don't agree with some of what is said, because it is written from this within "The Bubble" viewpoint, but these 16 pages are the conclusion of the book that I was expecting to read, and almost worth buying the book for these pages alone.
2. It fails to answer the question in the title.
As Hardman makes clear, the political system is broken. As she writes: "So do we really get the wrong politicians, or the wrong culture in parliament?" Her premise is that the very nature of parliament means that we draw MPs from a narrow sub-set of the population, getting the "Wrong Politicians". I didn't feel that the case was made, but, nonetheless, this part was still well written and informative.
Near the end, on page 266, she writes:
"Here's a confession. I've led you on rather in this book, suggesting with its title about the 'wrong politicians' that we do indeed have a bunch of self-serving toffs in the House of Commons. Of course, you will have realised by now that I think of them rather more charitably, and perhaps you are sorely disappointed, because this isn't what you expected."
3. It is written from within "The Bubble" as Hardman calls it, and suffers from that narrow view.
No where is there any suggestion that many of the problems are due to the party system that traps candidates and MPs into a certain course of action.
We hve two great opportunities to bring about change in parliament, in my opinion, Brexit chaos and an archaic building which should no longer be used for government business. These opportunities are not addressed in Hardman's book as she sees everything narrowly from within.
Although I've been quite critical, the book is still well worth reading. Just don't raise your expectations on the basis of the title alone. Hardman gives great insights into the way that "The Bubble" thinks.
May 7, 2019
Dobré čítanie pre každého political junkie - špeciálne so záujmom o fungovanie parlamentov, alebo UK. Napísala dlhoročná parlamentá korešpondentka. Dávno som nič trefnejšie nečital o praktických problémov zastupiteľskej demokracie, ktoré ale asi nikdy nebudú na titulkách novín, ale ani vo vedeckých štúdiách. Selection process, work-life balance, media cycle, všetko.
Jo, ešte to dostalo parliamentary book award. Raz by som také niečo chcel u nás.
Jo, ešte to dostalo parliamentary book award. Raz by som také niečo chcel u nás.
March 21, 2019
I read this book almost in one sitting, so gripped was I by Hardman’s arguments and obvious frustration with our political system. Much of what she writes is well known - that politicians now face terrible abuse, threats and actual danger to themselves and their families, and that we expect them to be both above reproach and just like us: an impossible mission. But she also set out the ridiculous process a Westminster candidate is expected to go through in order to first get nominated and then win a seat. If you can’t afford to give up your job and spend thousands of pounds of your own money, then you might as well forget it - so that puts paid to the chances of most of us ever getting involved. And she makes interesting points about the degree to which most politicians get caught up in constituency casework rather than focusing on legislative scrutiny, and on the systems which encourage MPs to be docile and compliant with their party whips.
This book focuses entirely on Westminster, which is understandable given that it’s Hardman’s professional environment. But if it ever to be updated, I’d love to see a chapter on the devolved administrations and whether any of their systems point a way towards a more productive politics.
This book focuses entirely on Westminster, which is understandable given that it’s Hardman’s professional environment. But if it ever to be updated, I’d love to see a chapter on the devolved administrations and whether any of their systems point a way towards a more productive politics.
August 19, 2019
Amusing parallels with the struggles of Indian Parliamentary Democracy, the book eases through issues plaguing British people while electing their representative. Amusing, because India is still a young democracy at no more than 7 decades now, but it is interesting that an almost ancient one(Monarchical, if not Republican Democracy, but Parliamentary nonetheless) is still struggling to find that perfect method or methodological refinement in existing modes to give itself some fine gentle(wo)men to sit in the highest temple of their polity.
Hardman makes a strong case that politician are not terrible people – they are often talented individuals who want to make a difference, undertaking an extraordinarily difficult job. Blame for the UK’s broken parliamentary system should instead be placed on its own structure and culture, which raise up politicians from similar backgrounds, encourage petty partisanship and promotion to executive-level and, ultimately, discourage the scrutiny of legislation.
She further suggests to democratize the MP selection process and separate the legislative from the executive, so as to improve the government and start encouraging the right behavior in British politicians.
Hardman makes a strong case that politician are not terrible people – they are often talented individuals who want to make a difference, undertaking an extraordinarily difficult job. Blame for the UK’s broken parliamentary system should instead be placed on its own structure and culture, which raise up politicians from similar backgrounds, encourage petty partisanship and promotion to executive-level and, ultimately, discourage the scrutiny of legislation.
She further suggests to democratize the MP selection process and separate the legislative from the executive, so as to improve the government and start encouraging the right behavior in British politicians.
June 20, 2019
A boring case of stupidity. And even the writing is dull.
So let's take in whatever order:
* a queen. Not voted. Yet who costs the tax payer a lot.
* a large gang of Lords. Not voted. Yet nicely paid by the public. And with an ability to vote. And yes, that includes the national church. Glorious for such a superior democracy.
* a bureaucratic system that is aggressively expanding since the Napoleonic Wars. None voted. But who decide what substances you can put in your body, whom who are legally allowed to marry, and whom you can invite to your home.
* EU and multiple other International treaties signed in the name of the public by unelected members of the Cabinet, without consulting the said public.
Than there is Hardman, the idiot who has found the source of all evil: it's the Parliament! And it's because the plebeians are too stupid to vote the "right" people.
So let's take in whatever order:
* a queen. Not voted. Yet who costs the tax payer a lot.
* a large gang of Lords. Not voted. Yet nicely paid by the public. And with an ability to vote. And yes, that includes the national church. Glorious for such a superior democracy.
* a bureaucratic system that is aggressively expanding since the Napoleonic Wars. None voted. But who decide what substances you can put in your body, whom who are legally allowed to marry, and whom you can invite to your home.
* EU and multiple other International treaties signed in the name of the public by unelected members of the Cabinet, without consulting the said public.
Than there is Hardman, the idiot who has found the source of all evil: it's the Parliament! And it's because the plebeians are too stupid to vote the "right" people.
February 11, 2023
An interesting book which looks at the intricacies of the role of MPs to question why there are structural reforms needed to the way our country is governed.
Whilst I liked the suggestions offered by Hardman, I did feel that there was little discussion of the extra-parliamentary factors which change how our country is governed, whether that be the right-wing media and the entrenched wealth of the aristocracy, amongst other things.
On the whole an interesting read, although I (perhaps due to my own biases) felt it could be more provocative in advocating for change.
Whilst I liked the suggestions offered by Hardman, I did feel that there was little discussion of the extra-parliamentary factors which change how our country is governed, whether that be the right-wing media and the entrenched wealth of the aristocracy, amongst other things.
On the whole an interesting read, although I (perhaps due to my own biases) felt it could be more provocative in advocating for change.
October 12, 2019
The somewhat sensationalist title is misleading, but 'why being an MP is hard (plus how legislation works)' probably wouldn't sell. It's a fine guide to those topics, though a bit lacking in the pizzazz department.
January 23, 2022
Not as critical as I originally wanted it to be as I have gotten quite cynical about politics in recent years. However, this book has shown the realities of parliament the good, the bad, and the ugly. At times it inspired me to run as an MP before it equally crushed that small idea with the reality of life as an MP.
We do get the wrong politicians and this book attempts to outline the reasons for this and small solutions we can all do to 'breathe life' back into the system rather than revolutionise it.
We do get the wrong politicians and this book attempts to outline the reasons for this and small solutions we can all do to 'breathe life' back into the system rather than revolutionise it.
January 10, 2024
super interesting read, bit repetitive in places
January 22, 2021
a high 3.5 ⭐️
August 13, 2019
The title of this book is somewhat misleading, in that the problems with our democracy laid out here go far beyond the selection and election of our MPs. It isn't simply that MPs often come from a similar background, or that running is prohibitively expensive in both time and money, but also that the very systems in place in Westminster are not set up to allow proper legislative scrutiny. The culture rewards politicians for pursuing the wrong priorities.
The insights offered here are fascinating, if deeply concerning. As well as examining what happens to MPs when they enter Westminster, Hardman also looks at some recent controversies and what might have contributed: Grenfell, the Iraq War, welfare reforms, and the Health and Social Care Act. The latter is a particular interest of mine, and this book offers an insight into the party political wranglings and various failings that allowed these harmful NHS reforms to pass into the statute book.
Definitely recommend for anyone with even a passing interest in politics. 4.5/5. #book11of14 #2019readingchallenge
The insights offered here are fascinating, if deeply concerning. As well as examining what happens to MPs when they enter Westminster, Hardman also looks at some recent controversies and what might have contributed: Grenfell, the Iraq War, welfare reforms, and the Health and Social Care Act. The latter is a particular interest of mine, and this book offers an insight into the party political wranglings and various failings that allowed these harmful NHS reforms to pass into the statute book.
Definitely recommend for anyone with even a passing interest in politics. 4.5/5. #book11of14 #2019readingchallenge
July 13, 2023
Title a bit misleading, but a nice one overview of what UK politicians actually do. Isabel recommended separation of powers at the end of the book, which is something I’d like to learn more about.
August 3, 2019
Thought this was excellent - really brings to life as an MP and how Parliament isn’t set up to succeed. First section looks at lifecycle of an MP and challenges they face and second section what happens when policies go wrong. I would have liked a slightly more empowering ending but otherwise thought it was great.
April 28, 2019
I went into this book expecting it would make me angry, expecting a list of stories of dodgy dealings and salacious scandals (and, to be fair, there are a few of these). Instead I came out of the book feeling nothing but despair, with just a smidgen of hope that perhaps things could be better.
This is not really a book about excoriating out of touch Westminster Bubble elites, posh toffs or any of the other stereotypes we have of MPs, although it does have a fair bit to say about such things. This is a book about how the whole culture of Parliament makes it inefficient, ineffective and basically impossible for a well-meaning MP to make a difference, starting from the astronomical costs of running in a constituency (something I hadn't known about), to the useless rubber stamping bodies that most committees are (something I had some idea of before), to the fact that so many votes are held that MPs often have no idea what they are actually voting on. The only way to make a difference is to become a minister, and the only way to become a minister is to shut up and follow the government's lead. Even when you become a minister, the Yes-man culture of parliament prevents your bill from getting the scrutiny it would need to become an effective piece of legislation. A whole raft of perverse incentives act to inhibit MPs from actually making that difference that most of them entered the Commons with dreams of making. Meanwhile the metrics by which we measure a politician's effectiveness (number of questions in the commons, speaking time in debates) are measuring the least effective ways that MPs can actually influence legislation.
This is a book that needs to be required reading in schools, if only to give the general public a better idea of why it is that MPs seem alienated, out of touch and incapable of governing in an increasingly complicated world.
This is not really a book about excoriating out of touch Westminster Bubble elites, posh toffs or any of the other stereotypes we have of MPs, although it does have a fair bit to say about such things. This is a book about how the whole culture of Parliament makes it inefficient, ineffective and basically impossible for a well-meaning MP to make a difference, starting from the astronomical costs of running in a constituency (something I hadn't known about), to the useless rubber stamping bodies that most committees are (something I had some idea of before), to the fact that so many votes are held that MPs often have no idea what they are actually voting on. The only way to make a difference is to become a minister, and the only way to become a minister is to shut up and follow the government's lead. Even when you become a minister, the Yes-man culture of parliament prevents your bill from getting the scrutiny it would need to become an effective piece of legislation. A whole raft of perverse incentives act to inhibit MPs from actually making that difference that most of them entered the Commons with dreams of making. Meanwhile the metrics by which we measure a politician's effectiveness (number of questions in the commons, speaking time in debates) are measuring the least effective ways that MPs can actually influence legislation.
This is a book that needs to be required reading in schools, if only to give the general public a better idea of why it is that MPs seem alienated, out of touch and incapable of governing in an increasingly complicated world.
October 24, 2021
Insightful.
It’s not news that politics has been (and still is) dominantly populated by rich, white, middle class men but Hardman explains why this demographic is able to be so dominant by dissecting and exploring what is required in each step of the process to become an MP. Not only that, we learn about the effect politics has on the mental and physical health of those striving to become a part of or remain in Parliament and the cascading effects this has on their families and relationships.
The book is not about explaining the social science behind “why we get the wrong politicians” or pointing fingers at certain politicians/moments in British political history that may help answer the eponymous question, but rather about unravelling the ridiculous layers of complication that makes up our political system and providing an honest account of the life and responsibilities of those we vote for to make a difference.
This book is not for those seeking a scapegoat for Britain’s current political landscape but for those wondering what goes on in the life of MPs before, during and after Parliament.
It’s not news that politics has been (and still is) dominantly populated by rich, white, middle class men but Hardman explains why this demographic is able to be so dominant by dissecting and exploring what is required in each step of the process to become an MP. Not only that, we learn about the effect politics has on the mental and physical health of those striving to become a part of or remain in Parliament and the cascading effects this has on their families and relationships.
The book is not about explaining the social science behind “why we get the wrong politicians” or pointing fingers at certain politicians/moments in British political history that may help answer the eponymous question, but rather about unravelling the ridiculous layers of complication that makes up our political system and providing an honest account of the life and responsibilities of those we vote for to make a difference.
This book is not for those seeking a scapegoat for Britain’s current political landscape but for those wondering what goes on in the life of MPs before, during and after Parliament.
December 15, 2018
This book is a really eye opening insight into the way our Parliament works (or rather, doesn't work). I understand things about the mechanics of government that were murky to me as a layperson, with Hardman explaining things in a relatable and non-partisan style that ought to appeal to all.
She poses the problems (mainly all traceable back to the fact that politicians are flawed people, like we all are) and then some solutions, but there are no revolutionary suggestions here. Rather, incremental and simple changes are proposed which, while far from glamorous and attention grabbing, might have some chance of actually being achieved and achieving something.
The only slight criticism I would have of this book is that there seem points in the text where it hasn't been edited very well. While I appreciate the non-formal style of the language, there were a few sentences that I actually didn't understand because of their word order and grammar, and needed to read again to make sense of them. A small point however and certainly not one that should stop you reading.
She poses the problems (mainly all traceable back to the fact that politicians are flawed people, like we all are) and then some solutions, but there are no revolutionary suggestions here. Rather, incremental and simple changes are proposed which, while far from glamorous and attention grabbing, might have some chance of actually being achieved and achieving something.
The only slight criticism I would have of this book is that there seem points in the text where it hasn't been edited very well. While I appreciate the non-formal style of the language, there were a few sentences that I actually didn't understand because of their word order and grammar, and needed to read again to make sense of them. A small point however and certainly not one that should stop you reading.
December 9, 2018
This is a quick read but a good canter through some of the drivers of dysfunctionality in Westminster and, in less detail, what could be done about it. The chapter on the pressures on MPs’ families and personal lives is particularly well-researched, as are the bits on how ill-defined the role of an MP is. The final chapter (how things could be improved) is a combination of really good ideas -giving Select Committees more power to bring forward legislation and treating that as a serious career option - and some that would be hideous (the idea of ‘Payback Panels’ is good in theory, but seems like it would be a recipe for Twitter, only in person).
December 11, 2018
Why We Get the Wrong Politicians by Isabel Hardman is brilliant. If you’re interested in political sciences and why Westminster hasn’t been working for the British people then this is the book for you. Read by the author, the audio edition was really compelling. There isn’t a clear separation of power between the government and MPs which makes legislating harder. The incentives and conditions to be an MP aren’t working as only privileged and well-connected people can realistically be candidates. There is lots of food for thought on changes needed for a better political landscape in the UK.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 300 reviews