Running things is what the Civil Service is for, the machinery of state is not the Government.
Not to defend the professionalisation(?) of politics, but there is the issue that running things (such as education, health, economy, whatever) is technical. Having a cabinet that is genuinely representative of the population doesn't square with also viewing those people as being responsible for solving the problems that face us, and expecting them to take the flack.
This is one of the reasons why I'm happy for the Lords to remain in its current state, if it becomes voted for by the general public then it'll just become the same stupid pissing contest. Hell, Boris would romp home easily :-/
When we get into politics as a "profession" with a well-defined route of moving from public school, studying PPE at Oxford, to being an MP's researcher, then a candidate, it's not exactly drawing from a large cross-section of society.
It is ridiculous that we have the politicians we do, when was the last time a coal miner/steel worker was involved in government? Sorry for the completely off topic commentary!
It would work if we viewed the government as being our representation that state bodies were accountable to, but we view them as also being the solvers of problems. Which doesn't work. Would you expect a brickie to solve the economy? No.
We can't have it both ways, and you get the government you deserve.
One thing I do appreciate with the Lords is that there is some regard paid to expertise and proven experience/ability in specific fields. This doesn't happen in the commons because we want nice smiley faces that tell us what the papers have told us we want.
Our current chancellor has absolutely no background in economics. He demonstrably is unable to solve the problems of the economy.
What's of more concern is the lens he's looking at the economy through is one of privilege, where poverty is something that happens to other people, and is their own fault. Is he making decisions better than a Bricklayer?