Why merit, not identity, should decide who enters parliament

FOR YEARS I HAVE USED the word parvenu when talking about modern politicians. Some people think it’s simply another way of saying someone comes from a humble background. It isn’t. Britain has always produced excellent politicians from ordinary families. Clement Attlee, Margaret Thatcher, John Major and the late Ann Widdecombe all proved that where you start in life tells us very little about where you can end up.

A parvenu, in my view, is someone who has climbed to a position of influence without acquiring the judgement, experience and independence that should come with it. They have the title, the office and the status, but not always the depth that inspires confidence.

That is one of the biggest problems in British politics today and in recent years it seems to have been considerably worse in Scottish politics!

Politics increasingly feels like a profession rather than a vocation. Too many MPs have spent almost their entire working lives inside the political system. They leave university, become a researcher, then a special adviser, then perhaps a councillor, before finally securing a safe parliamentary seat, if they are lucky. They know Westminster inside out, but many have never managed a business, defended someone in court, worked on a building site, served in the armed forces, or spent years dealing with the pressures faced by ordinary working people.

Experience matters. Running a country is not a student exercise. It requires people who understand the consequences of decisions because they have lived them.

One development that often comes up in this debate is Labour’s use of all-women shortlists. It is only fair to acknowledge why they were introduced. Supporters argued that women had historically been under-represented in Parliament and that the existing selection process did not always provide equal opportunities. There is a legitimate debate to be had about that, but one may also accept that of woman are to compete in public life, they should compete on equal terms with men. Margaret Thatcher set out the way long before Tony Blair launched his positive discrimination campaign. It should be noted that positive discrimination is still discrimination, and I am firmly against it.

My other concerns lie elsewhere. Once any political party decides that one characteristic should determine who is eligible to stand for a particular seat, merit is no longer the sole consideration. The discussion shifts from selecting the strongest candidate to selecting candidates according to a particular category before the contest has even begun.

Unfortunately, merit has increasingly had to compete with representation by identity

That does not mean the women selected were incapable. Some have been highly effective MPs and ministers. Nor does it mean women cannot succeed without such measures. British politics has produced formidable female politicians across different parties over many decades.

The broader question is whether any system that limits competition in advance is healthy for democracy.

I believe the public expects every parliamentary candidate to compete on equal terms. Most people do not care whether their MP is a man or a woman. They care whether that person is competent, honest, hardworking and prepared to speak up for their constituents.

Unfortunately, merit has increasingly had to compete with another idea that has become fashionable in politics: representation by identity.

We hear endless discussion about whether Parliament reflects society in terms of gender, ethnicity, sexuality or other characteristics. Far less attention is paid to whether Parliament reflects society in terms of life experience.

Where are the engineers? The small business owners? The police officers? The farmers? The skilled tradesmen? The scientists? The experienced nurses? The people who have actually built careers outside politics?

Instead, Westminster and the devolved legislatures often appear full of people who know how political parties work but have relatively little experience beyond them.

That helps explain why many voters feel disconnected from Parliament. They do not see people who have faced the same challenges they have. They see professional politicians speaking a language that often sounds more familiar to think tanks and party conferences than to ordinary households.

The result is a widening gap between those who govern and those who are governed.

Social media has made that divide even more obvious. Politicians are constantly rewarded for saying the approved thing rather than the true thing. Every interview becomes an exercise in avoiding offence. Every difficult subject is wrapped in carefully tested language.

That is not leadership!

Leadership sometimes requires saying things that are unpopular. It requires explaining difficult decisions honestly rather than hiding behind slogans or focus-group language.

political debate has become centred on who is speaking rather than what they are saying

One of the strengths of British democracy has always been that people from different backgrounds could challenge one another through argument rather than through labels. Increasingly, however, political debate has become centred on who is speaking rather than what they are saying.

I think that is a mistake.

Arguments should stand or fall on their own merits. They should not become stronger or weaker because of the age, sex or ethnicity of the person making them.

If Parliament is to regain public confidence, candidate selection needs to focus first and foremost on ability. Parties should cast their net far wider than the Westminster bubble. They should encourage people with established careers and practical experience to enter politics, even if they are older and even if they have never worked for a political party before.

Local members should also have a greater say in choosing who represents them. Too often, candidates appear to be selected because they fit what the party leadership wants rather than what local voters need. That weakens accountability and reinforces the perception that politics is controlled from the centre.

None of this means turning back the clock or excluding anyone from public life. It simply means returning to a principle that most people instinctively understand: the best person should get the job.

That principle should apply regardless of sex, race or background.

Politics should be open to everyone, but it should also ask the same question of everyone: are you the best candidate for this constituency?

If the answer is yes, then nothing else should matter.

British politics does not lack talent. It lacks confidence in the idea that talent, judgement and character should come first. Until that changes, the public will continue to feel that Parliament contains too many people who have mastered the politics of getting elected but not always the harder task of earning lasting respect.

For me, that is the real meaning of the political parvenu. It is not about class or upbringing. It is about confusing political advancement with genuine achievement. The two are not the same, and unless we remember that distinction, we risk filling Parliament with people who know how to win selections but have yet to demonstrate why they deserve to govern.