US election a reminder that being a politician doesn't make you a good pundit

America eh, bloody hell. After a battle between a felon and a last minute-candidate, the former has swept the board, with the American public perhaps deciding he has more convictions.

There are lots of reasons for Donald Trump’s victory and the Democrats’ disaster, but watching some British coverage of the election, you’d be forgiven for missing them. They, like so much of political analysis, made the fatal mistake of going to former politicians for their verdict, because there is no one more informed on their own profession than one no longer in it.

Rory Stewart garnered the most scorn, with the former minister insisting online that Kamala Harris would win, it would not be close, and even bragging that he’d bet the limit of what was allowed on that outcome. Betting when lives are at stake, showing he has more in common with his former party than he’d like to admit.

He was of course wrong, and the super-rich podcaster, who manages to fill out stadiums with people willing to hear his analysis, explained he wasn’t saying what he thought would happen, but what he wanted. So that’s OK then.

This is the fundamental problem with having ousted politicians offer insight, it isn’t, it’s just how they view the world. His analysis was based on his own ideals, like many politicians, rather than the reality of the situation on the ground. He is being paid not for facts, but feelings.

Not that he was the only one to be floundering on our screens, or even the only old Etonian, with Boris Johnson inexplicably popping up on Channel 4, as if the night couldn’t get bad enough. Now Boris was a Prime Minister who overlapped with Trump and dealt with him, when he wasn’t having parties, lying about them, or appointing known dangers as ministerial whips. With his experience, he should know a bit about Trump, his motivations, or how the UK can work with him on trade or Ukraine, at least before any of his American trials come to an end. It could very easily have been interesting.

Instead, what we got was constant denials about his responsibility for partygate, endless giggling while he showed off his new book, and arguments with Succession’s Brian Cox, who it was admittedly nice to see taking time off from advertisements.

This is the problem with the political panel format, so often it relies on big names who will follow party lines, giving them more space and indeed money than those in the know. Sure, Brian Cox lives in America, so that’s slightly insightful, but where’s the Washington journalist with a bulging contacts book, talking us through what people are thinking on the campaign? Why am I listening to yesterday’s men?

I suppose it’s the same issue in coverage of our own elections, with Nicola Sturgeon getting paid £25,000 by ITV for their UK election coverage. Again, loads of experience, but they’re paying for someone who can’t answer any of the burning questions we actually have, due to an ongoing investigation.

A lot of people will rightfully be asking how Trump won. But the question closer to home is, why are these the people we’re trusting to explain it?