A QUESTION floats around the media: why is Rishi Sunak so bad? The obvious follow-up question — why did someone so bad at politics become Britain’s actual top politician — gets asked less.

It’s difficult for the Westminster media to ask, because any answer suggests the Westminster system itself is rotten, and the political press is part of that system. This means the enigma of Sunak is discussed, but never explained.
 
Rosa Prince on the Politico website gave a good expression of what is now the received wisdom of the pundits, saying the PM’s D-Day debacle was: “Yet another sign that Sunak is just really, really bad at politics.” She says “Sunak is just a really bad politician,” with “off-kilter political antennae.”
 
So why did someone so “bad” at politics want to become PM, and how did anyone let him?
 
The first question seems easy to answer. Top banking and finance folk think of themselves as “Masters of the Universe.” Sunak followed the Establishment route for a well-funded clever lad, from a top public school to Oxford and Stanford to banking with Goldman Sachs and then hedge funds.

Because he married into the super-rich Murthy family, a simple career in banking was a bit pointless: he had reason and opportunity to try his hand at politics.
 
It’s like a modern version of the old aristocratic tradition to ensure the ruling class run everything: have one son running the family business, one joins the church and one goes to the army. Sunak could “have a try” at politics without facing any financial risk. He could be an MP and have a Penthouse in Santa Monica, so why not?