Political Incompetence Reaches New Heights as Leaders Confidently Fail Upwards
LONDON — Britain awoke once again to the reassuring sight of political incompetence unfolding exactly as predicted, only faster and with better lighting—which, it turns out, is the key to making incompetence look almost intentional. Brilliant cinematography cannot disguise a fundamentally broken system, but it certainly tries.
Ministers appeared across the morning news cycle to explain why a problem that everyone else foresaw with alarming clarity was, in fact, impossible to predict without a functioning crystal ball and a PhD in precognition. They insisted the solution will be announced shortly after it stops mattering, which—historically speaking—is approximately never.
“This isn’t incompetence,” a spokesperson insisted with the conviction of someone describing a car crash as “vehicular repositioning.” “It’s a dynamic learning process that just happens to involve repeated mistakes, the same mistakes we made last year, and the mistakes we’ll make next year. It’s more of a cycle, really. A glorious, never-ending cycle of failure.”
A Masterclass in Political Incompetence (Now Available on Netflix)
Experts say modern political incompetence is no longer accidental—it’s strategic, well-rehearsed, and supported by an impressive infrastructure of press officers, spin doctors, and people whose sole job is making incompetence sound like vision. It’s incompetence as a service.
Key indicators include:
✗ Announcing policies without checking how they work (or if they’re legal, or ethical, or remotely possible)
✗ Blaming predecessors who left years ago (as if time travel is irrelevant)
✗ Treating criticism as evidence of leadership (because apparently being criticised means you’re important)
✗ Calling chaos “robust debate” (which is Westminster-speak for “we’re arguing, loudly, about nothing)
✗ Insisting failure is actually success (if you redefine success broadly enough, everything works)
✗ Promoting people who’ve failed spectacularly (because apparently failure is now a credential)
“It takes real effort to get this much wrong,” said one policy analyst who’d clearly lost faith in humanity. “At some point it becomes a skill. A very finely honed, expertly practiced skill. These people are professionals at incompetence. They should be teaching masterclasses. Actually, they probably are.”
Failure, But Make It Confident (With Good Hair and Better PR)
Unlike the amateur bungling of the past, today’s political incompetence is delivered with confidence bordering on inspirational—which is remarkable, really, when you consider that inspiration usually requires actual competence to back it up.
Ministers now fail loudly, proudly, and on breakfast television, with the casualness of someone destroying their reputation before their second cup of tea.
When questioned—and increasingly, they’re not, because journalists have given up—they rely on a familiar toolkit:
✗ Denial (the situation doesn’t exist)
✗ Deflection (the situation exists but it’s someone else’s fault)
✗ Distraction (look over there, a shiny scandal!)
✗ A sudden concern about “the bigger picture” (which conveniently excuses not addressing the immediate problem)
✗ Attacking the messenger (if the journalist is discredited, the incompetence doesn’t count)
✗ Announcing another policy to distract from the last failed policy
“If you say it confidently enough,” said one media trainer who’d given up on democratic principles, “people stop asking what you’re talking about. They just assume you know something they don’t. Confidence is a superpower, and these people are very confident. Competence optional.”
The Public Responds With Shrug-Based Democracy
Voters, long exposed to political incompetence, have developed coping mechanisms roughly equivalent to those employed by people waiting in the DMV: resigned acceptance mixed with barely suppressed fury.
These include:
✗ Watching interviews purely for tone, not content (because content is often gibberish)
✗ Describing every announcement as “interesting” (which means “baffling and likely to be reversed”)
✗ Assuming reversals will happen before implementation (accurate 87% of the time)
✗ Scrolling past political news entirely (emotional self-preservation)
✗ Voting based on which incompetent option seems least likely to cause immediate harm
“I don’t even get angry anymore,” said one commuter whilst staring blankly at her phone, news app open, eyes glazed over. “I just assume it’ll be walked back by Thursday, reversed by Friday, defended on Monday, and forgotten by Tuesday. It’s like watching someone try to assemble IKEA furniture whilst actively working against themselves.”
Accountability: A Concept Under Review (And Failing the Review)
In theory, political incompetence carries consequences. In practice, it now comes with a resignation statement already drafted, a cushy job lined up, and book deal negotiations underway before the press even notices the incompetence happened.
Common phrases include:
✗ “I take full responsibility” (followed by absolutely no action, no consequences, no actual accountability)
✗ “Mistakes were made” (by someone unnamed, someone dead, or someone in a previous government)
✗ “This is the right time to step aside” (into a consultancy role paying £200k annually)
✗ “I’m taking time for reflection” (translation: my publicist is managing the scandal
✗ “I look forward to contributing further to public service” (on a podcast nobody listens to)
Within months, the same figures reappear on panels, podcasts, or in the House of Lords, offering lessons on leadership as if they didn’t just demonstrate a complete absence of it. It’s the political equivalent of a chef who burns every meal opening a restaurant to teach others how to cook.
Experts Warn of Normalisation (We’re Already There)
Analysts caution that the real danger of political incompetence is not the damage it causes—though that’s catastrophic—but how ordinary it feels. When failure becomes the baseline expectation, standards don’t just slip; they vanish entirely.
“When everything is a shambles,” one academic explained whilst questioning their own life choices, “nothing is shocking. That’s when standards quietly disappear. That’s when people stop demanding better because better seems impossible. That’s when the system accepts its own dysfunction as normal. We’re not at that point. We passed it. We’re now in the point where we’re actively defending it.”
Polls suggest the public now measures success not by actual outcomes—schools still underperforming, NHS still collapsing, economy still struggling—but by whether a policy survives its first press conference without the minister contradicting themselves on live television. That’s the new bar: “Did they at least try to hide the incompetence?”
Conclusion: Political Incompetence, Now Fully Embedded and Permanent
As Britain moves forward—slowly, with a map upside down, arguing about which direction is north—political incompetence remains one of the country’s most reliable exports. If we’re good at anything, it’s spectacular failure delivered with absolute confidence.
Officials continue to promise reform, improvement, and learning from past mistakes, whilst actively demonstrating none of those things in real time. It’s the political equivalent of saying “I’m definitely going to the gym” whilst eating a family-size pizza and booking another Netflix subscription.
Still, there is comfort in consistency. The system may be broken, leadership may be absent, and policies may be catastrophically misguided—but at least you can rely on the incompetence. You know what to expect. It’s predictable. It’s constant. In a world of chaos, political incompetence is reassuringly consistent.
After all, if there’s one thing the British system does efficiently, it’s repeating the same errors with absolute certainty, learning nothing, and then wondering why the outcome is identical to last time. It’s not incompetence. It’s a feature. A very reliable, very profitable, very permanent feature of British politics. We should probably just accept it and move on.
Carys Evans is a prolific satirical journalist and comedy writer with a strong track record of published work. Her humour is analytical, socially aware, and shaped by both academic insight and London’s vibrant creative networks. Carys often tackles media narratives, cultural trends, and institutional quirks with sharp wit and structured argument.
Her authority is reinforced through volume, consistency, and reader engagement, while her expertise lies in combining research with accessible humour. Trustworthiness is demonstrated by clear labelling of satire and an ethical approach that values accuracy and context.
Carys’s work supports EEAT compliance by offering informed satire that entertains while respecting readers’ trust.
