UK Politics Has A Talent Problem. Blame Devolution.

Illustration by Will Allen

It is safe to say that Britain’s political parties have seen no shortage of inept, unserious, and untalented political leaders in the last few years. Right now, the UK is led by Keir Starmer, a man who seems unable to master an insurmountable parliamentary majority and even appears to have sworn off politics in its entirety. Before him there was Rishi Sunak, a politician dragged far out of his depth by a party desperate to stay in power (no matter how many leaders it ran through). Going back further reveals yet more breathtakingly inadequate leaders who were often defenestrated for their inability to tackle major crises that hit the country (sometimes of their own making). To understand how and why British politics has gotten itself into this mess, we need to look no further than devolution and its continuing disconnect with Westminster. 

For all the talk of talentless politics, British politics is not really that talentless. While Westminster, the parties, and leaders who inhabit it may be increasingly devoid of ability, the rest of the country is not. Up and down the country, British politics is full of gifted politicians and experienced leaders. These leaders exist in the many layers of governance created by devolution. Politicians like Andy Burnham, Greater Manchester’s Labour mayor, or the former mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, demonstrate there are assiduous and tested politicians all over the country. Peeling back yet more layers of devolved governance illustrates more individuals who can string together coherent visions that paint clear pictures of the policies they believe in. Mark Drakeford, in his time as Welsh Labour leader, is perhaps the talismanic example, not least for swelling support for his party. 

Yet these leaders, primed with the experience to lead our national parties, are nowhere to be seen. Despite their talent – and often favourability among the party faithful – individuals like Burnham are essentially locked out of our national parties by a very specific rule, one which is common across all parties: that the party leader must hue from Westminster. This rule, designed to ensure parliamentary party politics can function and smack down double jobbing by politicians, has left Westminster and individuals in devolved government completely detached. For this reason, Britain’s parties – by their own making – cannot easily dip into the pool of individuals spread across the regions and nations of the UK. They have been left with an increasingly short list of politicians to pick from, often with limited experience. 

Starmer is a prime example of this undesirable outcome for our parties. First and foremost a lawyer, Starmer would undoubtedly make an excellent attorney general (and may be why he was drafted into politics in 2015). Yet, Ed Miliband lost, and this never happened, precipitating successive losses and an increasingly fractious party, eventually foisting Starmer far above his mark. In a mere matter of years – five to be precise – Starmer went from winning his first election to assuming leadership of Labour – it left him little time to understand the rough and tumble of politics. The same issue is true of Sunak and Badenoch, who took just seven and five years respectively, to lead the Conservative party. 

While it is not the be all and end all to have extensive experience in politics, this moment requires it. Neither Starmer nor Sunak (or Badenoch for that matter), rose to the top of their party by playing the long game. None of these individuals have shown themselves to be political masters, moving pieces across the board of politics with great skill. Instead, they have emerged at the top of their parties as the symptoms of a strained system searching desperately for talent where there is little. 

At the other end of the system, Burnham, and devolved leaders of all stripes, remain trapped, unable to vaunt to the top of their parties without the perfect set of circumstances arising. Even in the event that the right circumstances were to materialise for one of these leaders, it is not exactly easy, or risk free, to be parachuted into a parliamentary seat. The process can be incredibly acrimonious, time consuming, and one filled with the kind of backroom dealing that is increasingly frowned upon by voters. For those reasons, it is hard to see why good politicians would ever attempt such a move in today’s political climate. 

Illustration by Will Allen

For the same reasons parties want their leaders to be MPs (so they can manage the intricacies of Westminster and parliamentary parties), parties should also strive to elevate leaders who have experience fixing the problems voters deal with every day. Mayors, and our other devolved leaders, have experience touching some of the most prescient problems facing Britain every day – housing, policing, and transport. These individuals, their experience in government and their focus on delivering for the nations and regions of the United Kingdom make them assets to not only deliver change, but also pull an increasingly fractured nation together. 

Yet, as it stands there is no route for some of our most experienced politicians to rise to the top of our parties, nor does it appear there ever will be. Westminster and devolution continue to spin on their own individual axes, completely detached from one another, and based on completely different ideas. Without further thought, some of our most talented, and experienced, politicians will remain caged in their own political landscapes, unable to rise to positions of power within national parties. While talented politicians will likely come along again, it is better that the system is able to draw on a full range of talents, and not just those with a seat at Westminster. If we don’t find a way to draw on the widest range of talents in British politics, Britain will be left at the behest of leaders unable or unwilling to construct a vision for the country.