Mario Creatura: The Conservatives want candidates who’ll get things done – not an army of angry activists

Mario Creatura is a councillor in Croydon and was the Conservative candidate for Croydon Central in 2019.

Just before Christmas Kemi Badenoch made a pointed observation: too many people now enter Parliament to act as activists and campaigners, not as legislators.

It may be easy to miss the point, but it is an important one.

Much of the public’s frustration with politics today comes from a sense that there is plenty of noise, but not enough problem-solving. Voters want representatives who can use the institutions of the state to deliver outcomes. Too often, they see politicians who are better at expressing outrage than navigating the systems they have been elected to operate.

Henry de Zoete’s blog last week on how to get things done in government is a useful reminder of what effective delivery actually requires. His lessons are practical and rooted in experience: clarity of purpose, personal responsibility for progress, an understanding of people and process, and a scepticism towards gestures that create activity without impact. It is a description of government as it actually functions, rather than how it is sometimes imagined from the outside.

Those principles apply just as much to parliamentarians as they do to Ministers and advisers.

Campaigning has an essential role.

It is how issues are raised, attention is focused and pressure is applied. I say that as someone who has led many campaigns and believes in their value. But campaigning is not the same as governing, and it is not the same as legislating. The task of an elected representative is to turn intent into results within the constraints of law, funding and administration. That requires judgement, patience and a willingness to engage with unglamorous complexity.

In recent years, that distinction has blurred. Activism rewards speed, certainty and visibility. Legislating requires compromise, sequencing and an understanding of how change is actually implemented. When the instincts of activism dominate inside Parliament, decision-making becomes reactive and policy is shaped to manage pressure rather than to solve problems.

We can see the consequences of this in both Labour and Reform actions over recent months.

Labour’s early months in office have been marked by hesitation and inconsistency. The confusion surrounding the November Budget was not simply a communications failure. It reflected a Prime Minister without a backbone – struggling to reconcile internal pressures with the hard choices of governing. On welfare, ministers repeatedly shy away from decisions that would impose discipline or reduce long-term dependency. On agricultural inheritance tax, the recent u-turn underlined the absence of a settled position and the speed with which policy can unravel under pressure. On taxation more broadly, the government has presided over unjustifiable and painful increases on working people despite explicit promises to the contrary. Relaunch after relaunch, constantly reprioritising their apparent priorities, all leaving the public unmoored and unsatisfied.

This is what happens when campaigning instincts carry over into office. Despite a huge majority, difficult decisions are kicked into the long grass after the mildest backbench pressure. Pie crust promises are made without a clear route to delivery. Policy becomes something to be adjusted in response to noise, rather than pursued with confidence and consistency. The result is chaos and an erosion of faith in our institutions – a ripe context for populist actors to seize.

Reform UK illustrates the same problem.

Their unprecedented churn of councillors since May, including resignations, suspensions, sackings, infighting and in some cases serious allegations, is not just bad luck – it is a symptom of a party that has prioritised grievance and visibility over competence and suitability for office. Selecting people who are ill-prepared for the responsibilities of public administration inevitably leads to chaos once the easily dispensed slogans meet reality. Holding office is not simply about opposing things. It requires an understanding of process, accountability and restraint. Making promises is easy, Reform’s early record suggests that many of those it has elevated do not understand what the job entails.

When politics rewards volume over judgement, institutions suffer. Parties that mistake activism for aptitude find themselves unable to govern effectively once they acquire power, whether locally or nationally.

Kemi is right – if Conservatives want to rebuild trust, we should focus not just on policy positions, but about seriousness in public office. We should promote legislators who understand institutions as they exist in reality and are prepared to work within them to deliver lasting change. That does not mean timidity or technocracy, it means recognising that change which endures is rarely achieved quickly, and almost never achieved noisily.

Kemi’s increasing personal ratings reflect that instinct. Voters respond to politicians who appear grounded, who understand how government works and who are willing to take responsibility for difficult decisions rather than duck them.

Parliament does not need more reactionary campaigners. It needs more legislators who understand the job they have been elected to do, and who are prepared to do it properly.