Politics has never been a meritocracy. Without, as pfr wisely cautions, having a personal grudge, or even bias, the premise of the thread is wholly flawed.

Politics is, and always has been, about "Does your face fit". I can easily go on at length but, for once, shan't (huge sighs of relief all round, I'm sure {bg}). Just think about it. Who gets to stand for election? Someone whose face fits. "When a new party turns up...", I can hear the thought crossing some minds. A new party either fades or establishes; if it establishes, then who gets to stand is still whose face fits for that party.

Politics is the art of the possible; a famous & accurate quote. Because politics is fought with words, it's always made sense to select candidates from the better educated. They have more words, generally; they are better at being rational, about expressing their ideas & ideals, generally; they are better at thinking about whether what they are about to say is going to add or subtract, generally (Rees-Muppet is currently providing a shining exception to the generally!).

None of that makes politics a 'meritocracy'. It is the nature of things that if leadership is not simply a matter of brute force, as it sometimes is / has been, it will naturally fall to those more able to think things through & able to persuade the flock of their point of view, fitness, virtues, etc.