The requirements for license-the criteria

Figure 7. Data taken from the NHS England database and collated by the BBC, demonstrating the rise of patients on the waiting list. The small waves refer to the rise in numbers each Winter with some recovery. The sharp trough in March 2020 relates to the start of the COVID pandemic and the campaign to protect the NHS. Overall, the pandemic caused a sharp increase, but the trend was already on its way up, from 2012 

Politicians over the years have developed the habit of not being able to admit to failure when not achieving a certain goal. They have learnt not to make promises. They have learnt to be vague in their election campaigns in order to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. Perhaps as part of the deal for increasing their truthfulness, not succeeding in some aspects should be more allowable. For example, in a 5 year parliament, in its manifesto, the political party will have a number of aspirations that they wish to achieve. 75% achievement with progress on the other 25% should be seen as a good outcome. This would not be too far removed with what happens in business, where the business will have a business or development plan which would be monitored against various steps, stages and interim goals.

One of the apparent current barriers to truthfulness in parliament is the custom that prevents one member accusing another of lying, even when it is known they are. The MP in question has to be reported to the standards and privileges committee. The system arose in the times when a member’s honesty was assumed. The argument to keep this protocol, is to avoid debates deteriorating. 

What should be the criteria for license renewal of existing politicians? It is difficult to give definitive numbers as politicians have very different levels of prominence and activity. This is possibly an area where the system will need to be piloted and trialed before being committed in earnest. 

Currently what appears to be most important to politicians is image. For many in the public, very often that is all they have to go on. Like the professionals, the politicians will need to learn and adapt themselves to quoting source material accurately. Both public and politicians alike, must learn that it is far more important for politicians to have the qualities of truth and honesty than not have it. The learning is not just the theoretical acknowledgment that truthfulness is good but also changing the habit. For example, it would be refreshing to see a politician hold their hands up and say that they are behind schedule on this aspiration. The public also will need to learn and adapt and be more tolerant of politicians who are delivering but behind schedule.

The attitude must prevail that being untruthful is the prerogative of the incompetent. As Sophocles implied 2,400 years ago, “A person who is competent has no need to be untruthful.”

For sitting MP’s, their speeches are recorded in Hansard. These could be fact checked by a dedicated panel. However, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is already probably good enough to be an automated fact checker, at least as a screening tool. Major speeches outside of parliament can also be recorded and also should be fact checked as should all personal websites, canvassing literature and written articles available to the public. The gold standard should be to fact check everything, which with AI may be possible, but experience may be able to inform where it can afford to be more focused. Written literature should have source material quoted, for example Figure 7.

Perhaps another role for AI may be to provide regular reports giving feedback to MPs on an ongoing basis. Thus, it becomes more of a friendly educational tool and less of an intrusive policeman. 

The system also needs to allow a response when one member of parliament is complaining about the truthfulness of another. Currently parliamentarians have a role in fact checking their colleagues. Fact checking in real time is not easy, unless done when a particular parliamentarian has developed a mastery over a particular topic. This should continue to be encouraged. To overcome the protocol of not accusing another of lying, perhaps the MP should stand up and say something like, “Mr Speaker, a point of order. I wish the minister’s last statement to be fact checked. I believe that the correct description is that…” if the challenged member does not concede the point, it can go to the dedicated panel for their adjudication. 

A national fact checking service (NFCS) will cost some money, but given the benefits, this will be a relatively small amount with the gains outweighing the losses. Compare the benefits of the CQC to health and social care or OFSTED to teaching, or the various watch dogs to the utility services, or the ombudsman services to their respective service. 

For first time applicants for the license, there will be less information. Examples of public writing should be analyzed and if necessary, fact checked. If there is evidence of significant truth distortion the license should be withheld. 

Truth and honesty should be certified at least a couple of times from different sources, e.g. University/college/school, work, social clubs including religious/charitable organizations and professional sources. If the applicant has studied an academic subject, there will be training in examining and quoting the source data. Academic supervisors or heads of department may be good individuals for consideration as certifiers. 

1. Is consistently free from legal threat.

This too is considered to be of primary importance. We just have to look at the USA to see the mess they are in. How is it that a country that prides itself on free speech and that anybody can make it good and be a success; has the potential to sink so low as to be in the position that it can elect to be the holder of the nuclear codes a man who is a known liar, cheat and fraudster; convicted felon, whose statements strongly suggest that at times he cannot discern fact from fiction and whose words and actions all pointed to him being the autocrat he is becoming. 

He was, nor is, nor will be, the only democratically elected leader who is in power with legal uncertainty hanging over his head. Bibi Netanyahu has been facing three cases of fraud charges for 5 years. Whether it is true or not, he cannot escape suspicion that the conduct of the war in Gaza and Lebanon are influenced by his need to stay in power and avoid the process of law regarding these charges. At the very least with a certification process in place, if he would have been barred from being a member of the Israeli parliament, he would have been spared having further charges imposed upon him by the International Criminal Court. 

While the circumstance in every country is different, and people may say it could never happen in the UK, the US example shows how easily a system that has structural weaknesses can be manipulated. The US system often praised for its checks and balances was designed on the assumption that the people who would be coming forward would all be honourable. This clearly is not the case. Nor is it in the UK. I am sure that regardless of one’s political affiliations we can all identify at least one politician who should not have been allowed anywhere near having their name on a ballot paper. 

The argument that a member of parliament should be free from a legal threat is the same as the one that he should be free from a financial threat. Not only must decisions for the benefit of the public not be influenced by the social survival of the politician, but the public also requires the confidence that no politician is at risk of being tempted of prioritizing his social survival above that of the public need.

Thus, for this criterion to be assessed as satisfactory the bar must be set very high. Conversely the threshold for unsatisfactory needs to be low. If we look at levels of evidence and the burden of proof, we have the following legal scale.

1. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt
2. Guilt not proven (Scotland)
3. On the balance of probability
4. Prima facia evidence sufficient to go to trial-in the US the grand jury agree to charge the suspect. 
5. Prima facia evidence sufficient to require investigation
6. Hearsay evidence only. 

If there is a lesson to be learnt from the USA, it is not to wait until the top level has been reached. Over there, the democratic and legal systems have already become weaponized. Indeed, following the Supreme Court ruling that presidents cannot be held legally liable for their duties, it is tantamount to saying that the law does not apply to presidents, in other words presidents in the USA are above the law. We can see very clearly that the aim is for the democratic and legal systems not to be used for the benefit of the public but for the benefit of the president. There is already evidence that the legal system will be used for vengeance and not justice. 

The root cause of this sorry state of affairs is the inadequate separation between the presidency and the judiciary with the president able to appoint judges not on merit but who have certain political biases. The result is that legality and politicization have become merged. But while the role of the judiciary is to interpret the law and resolve conflicts including political conflicts, once politicized it is neither independent to resolve political conflicts, nor is it independent to resolve conflicts involving politicians. The judiciary itself has become part of the conflict. 

Common sense dictates that individuals who are convicted and have not yet repaid society with their time, should not be allowed into a post that one of its requirements is for the post holder to be respected as a law-abiding citizen. Anything less would be considered absurd. And yet this is exactly what has happened in the USA. If the USA would have had a licence for politicians, and one of the criteria would have been not to issue a licence if the applicant is under legal threat or legal investigation, there would have been no questions asked. The current president would have been prevented from standing, not to mention, all the other reasons that could equally as well apply to him. 

I have gone into a bit of detail about what is happening in the US to highlight the dangers. It is highly debatable if the remaining systems will be able to hold back the intense pressure and onslaught likely to ensue over the next four years. As a general rule, once lost, democracy is not an easy thing to be regained. Lives and livelihoods will be lost before it becomes better. 

In the UK we may be more vulnerable. It is just that we have not had the political onslaught that is facing the US citizens. We have much better separation of powers between the law makers and the law adjudicators, but not between the Legislature and the Executive where ministers are usually part of both. With the current electoral system allowing a majority government with a minority vote and a second chamber that has been largely stripped of its powers we cannot say that we are immune from a combination of selfishness, negligence, malevolence and incompetence getting a hold of the population. While I am not for a minute suggesting that there was any malevolence, relative to the USA we were let off quite lightly with the Brexit referendum. With only 650 Members of parliament in an adult population of about 54 million, it is not much to insist that all members of parliament are above reproach including being clear of legal threat. 

Based on the above criteria for burden of proof, if there is a level 6 situation the position is noted. For those with a licence there is no further action required. For those who have applied for a renewal or are first time applicants, they should wait until closer to the deadline for licence requirement, until there is confirmation that the hearsay evidence is not being explored further and that no action will ensue. This is to prevent would-be parliamentarians being adversely affected by baseless slander.

If the applicant is in a situation that satisfies level 5 or above, a new license should not be issued and/or the present license suspended. Not issuing a licence on this criterion does not imply legal guilt. If after the investigation with no further consequences, the license may be issued or reinstated according to the circumstances. 

The same guideline applies to those who are being investigated, not by the police but by the applicant’s professional body if they have one. Civil cases will be taken on their merits. In the civil case the applicant may be defending vindictive litigation. On the other hand, if successfully sued, for example for selling a faulty product, this may require the licence to be revoked on the basis of a lack of truthfulness, or a lack of integrity in business or personal affairs. 

1. Only ever accepts legal donations

This may require a change in the law to clarify which donations are legal and which are not. The advantage of having the standards enshrined in law is that behind them, they would have the weight of law to support those standards. An alternative approach would be for the Parliamentary Standards Committee or the proposed Royal Panel for Parliamentary Licences (RPPL) to set the standards. This may be more flexible which may be an advantage or disadvantage. 

The system must be so designed that the principle to be followed is to allow Britons and Ulster men and national businesses to support a candidate or his party of their choice, while excluding donations from foreigners and ensuring that any such donation is free from returning an obligation. The only issue here may be that in this world of multinational companies, to define what constitutes a British company may not be so readily attainable. Donations must have a financial cap to them.

One approach to achieving transparency of donations, perhaps is that they are all given anonymously. This could be achieved by on-line donations that are transferred through an intermediary account and only once the donation application has been vetted and approved is the donation transferred to the candidate’s electoral expense account. 

The system would be identical for all applicants, returning and new candidates, and for Levels 1 and 2 certificates. They would have a dedicated account for their electoral expenses, that would be scrutinised for irregularities. This would be in addition to the personal accounts that also would be scrutinised for safe financial management. Unsatisfactorily explained entries may result in the license not being issued. If nothing untoward is revealed the criterion is satisfied as progress towards the issuance of the license. 

1. Declares an intention and maintains a minimum of 75% of the time is dedicated to parliamentary work

This is to ensure that the parliamentarian serves his constituents and if a minister also the country. The advantage of permitting some extra work is to allow for the additional expertise that comes from having an external role into the quality of the debates and ultimately hopefully also the decision making. Certain professions require keeping up to date to ensure the professional licence is maintained. Thus 1 day each week is allowed. There would be a list of allowed duties. These would include professional services, supporting health services, business consultancy and charity support. They would have to be declared, including the time spent and the amounts received. 

Single attendance on the media is what happens when interviewed. This could be extended to one off documentaries on a topic that the member is passionate about or has a particular interest in. It could also be extended to single guest appearances on shows such as ‘Desert Island Discs’ or ‘Have I Got News for You’ to emphasize the member’s human or humorous sides. Excluded would be regular radio/TV show appearances including reality TV. The first could be seen as being a platform for broadcasting one’s own views. The second is frivolous. It could also give the impression that if there is such a need to appear on such shows the image of the member would be that of incompetence due to an inability to achieve for themselves by more usual means. 

For candidates seeking reelection their conduct is governed by the rules. A minor inadvertent infraction would merit a warning. A clear breach and the license would not be renewed at the expiry of the present license. Clear public distaste and the current license could be revoked forthwith. 

For first time applicants they would not be governed by such rules. All they would need to provide is a statement of intent describing that if elected, what is their plan with their present roles in life. They would not need to follow exactly their stated plan if the strategy they followed would be within the rules and declared.

1. Consistently demonstrates an ability to present both sides of an argument and is able to state why the one is more preferable

It may not be immediately obvious why this seemingly illogical, possibly contradictory requirement should even be considered.

The main benefit would be that it would screen out those members and potential members who are so driven by a particular point of view that they are unable to see and therefore state the alternative. To fulfill the criteria the bilateral views offered must be relevant, legal, based on truth and neither hateful nor inciting. Failure to respect alternative viewpoints can very easily lead to a disrespect of those holding the alternative opinion. It is anticipated that this simple requirement will identify and exclude extremists and bigots.

There are other perceived benefits. One is that mental flexibility is also being tested. The member and prospective member have the potential to change their mind should there be changing circumstances in the world. In turn it means they are more likely to be more open to compromise and be pragmatic if the situation demands. 

There is an anticipated change that some may see as a potential benefit and others as a drawback. Depending on the numbers screened out, it is possible that if extremist views are excluded there will be in parliament more in the centre and mainstream of politics.

To be clear, this criterion is to exclude extremists, of any persuasion, who have fixed views and who have lost or never had the ability to see another’s point of view. These are people who may resort to undemocratically bulldozing their opinions on others, possibly even through violence or other illegal means. These are different to those who are passionate about a cause but who are still able to see counter-arguments and advocate the matter without resorting to underhand means.

It would be the same for both the current members and the potential first timers. This criterion for license would be assessed by interview. The applicants would be presented with 6-10 topics on economic, social and foreign policy out of a pool of 100 topics. The large number is intended to reduce the benefit of preparation. They would be expected to give bilateral arguments in favor of all the topics asked. 

This is another area that may need to be trialed and piloted first before being rolled out. It is anticipated that a panel will generate the topics with a list of potential responses. In this way, the questions can be moderated to be fair. The questions would need to be renewed for every election cycle. There is no reason why training and practice should not be available. 

1. Consistently demonstrates an understanding of a variety of facets of national society

This is the first of a batch of criteria that will have some in-house mandatory training

We want to avoid a situation in which for example the Prime Minister leaves a national commemoration day for matters that could wait, A US example of not complying to the norms, would be the expectation that an out-going president co-operates with the in-coming. More generally, parliamentarians with constituencies in one part of the UK should understand lifestyles in all others, urban dwellers should understand the lifestyle of rural communities and vice versa, and the well-off to understand the needs and aspirations of the poor and vice versa. This should be achieved without any lived experience.

Level 1 applicants will only require knowing about those aspects relevant to the constituency, national customs and national institutions. First time Level 1 applicants will not have a constituency, therefore may reflect on their constituency of residence, work or childhood. Mandatory training and a knowledge test similar but perhaps more relevant to that faced by citizenship applicants should be sufficient for Level 1 certificates. Level 2 applicants will require a more substantial test. They will be eligible to be ministers. They will require more extensive understanding about different sub-populations. Training and practice should be available before taking the test. 

1. Consistently demonstrates and understands safeguarding

This has received rightful prominence and priority because abuse of the elderly and other vulnerable adults can shorten their lives and abuse of children disrupts their development forcing them to cope with life rather than embrace and enjoy life.  It is important to politicians, not necessarily because they will be in contact with vulnerable children or adults, as those in other professions may, but for them to understand the issues which in turn will guide decision-making and inform law drafting. As in the professions that require it, e.g. teachers, care workers, etc., the same mandatory training, with testing for both levels 1 and 2 licenses would be appropriate.

1. Consistently demonstrates and Understands Equality and Diversity. 

Having a sound E&D strategy is not only of benefit to the individuals who otherwise may be adversely prejudiced, but for society as a whole. Welcoming different cultures as equals does not diminish a person’s sense of self. Rather it provides a wider understanding as different cultures will have different perspectives on the same issue which when respected will make the whole community wiser. As with safeguarding, the importance is to have an understanding of the issues with the same benefits. Additionally, the prospective parliamentarian needs to recognise that everybody has biases and what are their own. Understanding these can help give a more balanced viewpoint that will assist in creating policies for the whole good, not just a sizable majority. 

Similar to understanding safeguarding the requirements for levels 1 and 2 certificates can be identical, that is mandatory training with testing. 

1. Consistently demonstrates and understands Democracy

This is the fourth of five criteria in which it is proposed that there would be mandatory training followed by a short online test. And a necessary requirement for both levels of certification. 

The reason for this criterion’s inclusion is that in the same way that we would expect those promoted to the top of their profession, or business to have a mastery of the essence and material to which they are in charge, we should also be expecting our political leaders to have a mastery of what is democracy. Without imposing it on anybody else they will have the familiarity and understanding to defend and promote democracy with pride when it is publicly challenged. Having dedicated and protected learning time on the subject would also be a setting a good example. 

And yet there is frustration from many at hearing politicians claim that a victory in the general election as determined by an overall majority but with only 42% of the popular vote is a mandate for the government to execute the whole of their program, including unpopular and ill-advised measures. 

Democracy is much more than simply having a vote and the ability to elect. Democrats should have a code of conduct. It is about understanding the following:

1. Democracy is above politics. It is about the process by which political decisions are made, not the decisions themselves.
2. Democracy is a system of government in which the citizens are sovereign.
3. Democracy is about all being equal, regardless of status, occupation, race, religion, creed, age, gender, disability and orientation.
4. Democracy requires a system of law, order and justice.
5. Democracy is about having the respect for and developing those institutions that promote and support democracy.
6. Democracy is about understanding the views and wishes of the electorate and turning these views into actions by the elected, on behalf of the whole electorate. 
7. Democracy is about the responsibility to present arguments in a manner that is balanced, truthful and fair. 
8. Democracy is about the minority acknowledging and respecting that there is an alternative prevailing majority view. 
9. Democracy is about the majority acknowledging and respecting the minority and that there is a minority point of view.
10. Democracy is about the majority acknowledging that they still have responsibility for the care of the minority.
11. Democracy is about free speech and the freedom to express oneself safely and freely without duress.
12. Democracy is about taking the privilege of free speech and using it responsibly.
13. Democracy has a responsibility to uphold and promote the truth and to reflect accurately on the world as it is. 
14. Democracy is about having a free and responsible press to disseminate the news along with views and opinions in true and proper balance.
15. Democracy has built within itself, the ability to correct mistaken decisions. 
16. Democracy is not to be taken for granted.
17. Democracy is a privilege, a responsibility and a duty to be upheld.
18. Democracy should not be used as a means to manipulate the population, either for self-interest or against democracy itself.
19. Democracy is about having in place protection for democracy 
20. Anything that is contrary to the above is undemocratic

I am sure this list is incomplete, and others would add to it. But it gives a flavour of the ethos that needs to be enhanced. Regular reviews for our leaders on the basics will be time well spent. 

1. Enhanced mental well-being: good emotional intelligence, mental resilience, psychological balance and inner realism

The difficulties

This arguably is one of the most necessary criteria and yet is also one of the hardest objectively to label and define. I will be discussing Emotional Intelligence in more detail below. 

The American Psychological Association gives a description for resilience (14):

“Resilience is the process and outcome of successfully adapting to difficult or challenging life experiences, especially through mental, emotional, and behavioral flexibility and adjustment to external and internal demands.”

It is the ability for the person to remains strong and functioning even when under stress and pressure. It is a good attribute to have. The duties of the parliamentarians, from the backbencher up to the Prime Minister, if carried out diligently is hard and responsible work. Resilience can be thought of as the bank account of psychological solvency. The more we have the more secure we feel. When we are under stress, like paying for the domestic emergency, we need to use our emotional resources to deal with the crisis, and we have less in our psychological bank account. We can take out a loan by drawing on deeper resources at the risk of going beyond that which we would normally but at the expense of needing later time out, We can continue to function until we have been overwhelmed by the stress faced and our resilience has been exhausted.

Psychological balance is meant to imply that the different psychological components are in balance. The person reacts to situations appropriately. The person can respond both emotionally and by action in a manner that is neither an over- nor an under-reaction. It implies that the person has the right balance between looking after the needs of themselves, their family and the wider community. It implies that the person can focus and be motivated in a particular direction without being so driven that they cannot stop. Balance here does not imply politically balanced. A person may hold extreme political views relative to others and still be psychologically balanced.

Inner realism refers to our minds accurately conceptualizing the world as it truly is. The opposite when it occurs in others is easier to recognise. For example, we may observe a politician stating something they believe to be true, but because of personal lived experience we know that their reality is wildly off the mark.

As citizens we should be demanding that our representatives to be emotionally sound. The word ‘Enhanced is used to imply that if such a thing could be reliably measured, they need to be well endowed with this quality and it should be regularly promoted and enriched.

And yet, recognising good mental well-being is not straightforward. even to those engaged in some form of mental health practice. Different situations bring out different aspects of our persona and setting fair inclusion/exclusion criteria will be a challenge to avoid potential inconsistencies. Some of the difficulties posed include:

1. The person’s ability to function is often seen as an important marker. The problem is that temporary loss of function may be therapeutic, and continued functioning can sometimes be at the price of later detrimental mental health.
2. Depending on circumstances and the individual, the same actions, thoughts and emotions may in one person be a sign of well-being and in the second imbalance.
3. Making mistakes can be seen as incompetence or an opportunity to improve. Owning up to one’s mistakes may be seen as weakness or the taking of responsibility.
4. Blaming others, and politicians are good at that, can be viewed as describing a situation or failing to take responsibility.
5. Having a good personal image and a positive self-esteem are good attributes to have but not to the point where it is arrogance and believing that the person is better than others.

Emotional Intelligence

There is no suitable useful psychometric test that assesses a person’s psychological fitness to be an MP. The Intelligence Quotient (IQ) such as measured by the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale measures just one aspect, the person’s ability to calculate quickly and see patterns. It says nothing about the person’s Emotional Intelligence (EI) which may be a better reflection of the potential MP and minister’s ability to perform. While most people will have a general concept of EI, it is not so easy to use. The American Psychological Association defines Emotional Intelligence as ‘a type of intelligence that involves the ability to process emotional information and use it in reasoning and other cognitive activities.’ (15) This is a bit jargonish, but it can be thought of as the ability to use our emotions to enhance our well-being rather than undermine it.

Unlike IQ, EI is not a homogenous entity. It is a list of skills and competencies. EI is much more qualitative based than quantitative. Between different EI tests there is an overlap in what is measured. Different measures assess different competencies. Some may be useful and will reflect well the MP’s emotional abilities skills. Others less so.

Different measures have different approaches. Most are self-report measures but are also adapted to be a 360-degree analysis, when work colleagues around the subject person also provide feedback on the individual. Some use situational tests to make their assessments. Some are designed for teams. Some provide training programs and some are designed for use in industry and business. Some metrics address handling one’s own emotions of self while some also emphasise managing the emotions of others. Some are organised into global competencies and others into specific skills. (16)

The competencies that I would deem to be particularly important for an MP or a minister to possess are: 

• Emotional self-awareness
• Assertiveness
• Empathy
• Social responsibility
• Impulse control
• Mental flexibility
• Anger wisdom
• The willingness to admit to being wrong
• The acceptance of loss

The last three are not found within the measures, and yet I think are essential.

‘Anger Wisdom’ is my phrase, but it refers to using anger wisely. Anger can be a force for good, providing the emotional energy and drive to correct wrongs, but it is often highly destructive. So destructive can anger be, that all societies take steps to limit its expression. But unexpressed anger may give rise to people learning never to be outwardly angry. Instead, the unexpressed emotion can result in destructive opinions and viewpoints. Therefore, part of Anger Wisdom is to be able to express anger constructively or at least safely, that is without harming oneself or others. The other part of Anger Wisdom is to ensure that from an individual perspective the anger does not manifest itself as anti-social opinions and views that will emerge later as destructive behaviour. The last thing the world requires are leaders and politicians with high levels of concealed destructive anger. Some can be readily identified.

Detecting unexpressed destructive anger is not easy but there could be clues from interview. Do they use words and phrases such as ‘Destroy’ ‘I am against’, ‘the enemy’, etc,. What are the person’s attitudes to family, friends and others close to the person? If they are unable to speak about these people with even some affection, this may be a clue. But whether this would be a reliable indicator for refusing a licence would be debatable.

Not being able to face up to making a mistake or being wrong, when it is wise to do so can lead to defending a position that appears out of touch with reality. For example, when in 2018 Jacob Rees Mogg said that it will take about half a century to see the benefits of Brexit, even then it seemed unrealistic. (17) In a fast-changing world how could one possibly accurately foresee beyond 15 years, never mind fifty? And who would wait that long for the benefits?

The ability to accept loss is important, again for the purposes of being realistic by not living in the past and by being able to move forward. The human benefit of the grief reaction while unpleasant is to restore the person’s mind to emotional and cognitive realism. 

The biggest issue for the unsuitability of psychometric measurement is that such measures are self-appraisals, hardly suitable for determining a licence application. In our ‘emotional bank account’ actively grieving is like paying off the emotional arrears.

Better may be that a scale is used for the MPs as another self-monitoring tool permitting personal training and emotional self-development within the role. And the only commitment is to have undergone training twice in the 5-year cycle.

An alternative approach may be for the MP’s to have compulsory EI training as part of their duties.  Non-participation would demonstrate poor EI and poor decision making because the licence will not be renewed.

Perhaps demonstrating balance and realism can come from the following guideline that a committed and dutiful politician can aspire to:

"I shall try to act in such a way that my decisions will benefit everybody. When inevitably they cannot, I will act to give opportunity to all by prioritizing those whose needs are greatest whilst not neglecting and minimizing the adverse effects on those who may have to wait or contribute more.

Such a statement as well as being Emotionally healthy could quite reasonably be part of the Democrat’s Code of Conduct.

Mental Health

Another issue to overcome is that the criteria should not be prejudicial against those with mental illness or mental disorders. Their presence in the parliamentary chambers will undoubtedly add to the collective wisdom.

The criteria need to detect those who are unsuitable because their condition poses a risk to their ability to adhere to the other criteria, for example if they are too self-centered, or lost touch with reality, or their emotional needs are too great impeding their ability to deliver a service. Most people in such a state of mind will self-select against choosing a political path in life. They will have neither the energy nor the inclination for it. Furthermore, they are unlikely to seek the limelight except when it is part of their imbalance. Others will not go beyond the local vetting process or interviews, when they are unable to engage with local selection committees. But there are applicants with mental health issues and current processes who may not be immediately apparent by the current means of prospective parliamentary candidate selection. 

Failure to demonstrate mental health balance and psychological integrity may emerge elsewhere in the criteria. Having an additional independent layer of screening will be beneficial.

For all the above reasons it is this section probably more than any other that would require the most expert input to make workable and fair. 

In setting the criteria by using a mental disorder, like for the other criteria, the evidence needs to be clear and uncontroversial. The psychological integrity criteria may be based on the following tests.

In the presence of certain psychological diagnoses, the licence would not normally be given. These and the reasons are listed in table 2