Licensing Politicians: A Democratic Necessity
Introduction and Summary
Sir Winston Churchill famously said about democracy (1):
‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
Winston S Churchill, House of Commons 11 November 1947
I view democracy from a different perspective. Democracy is the best form of government until it is ruined by those who call themselves democratic but are antithetical to it.
World leaders and the politicians that are supposed to serve us range from the excellent down to the incompetent, negligent, and criminal. It possibly always has been so but in the 21st century with the planet in trouble, we can ill-afford incompetence in our political leaders. With an increasing population, global warming and potential future food and water shortages. it is not difficult to perceive of a situation when nations come together, not in cooperation but in conflict fighting over finite and insufficient resources. Put nuclear weapons into the mix and we can see where this can lead to.
Most world leaders, even of smaller countries will have more responsibility for the lives and livelihoods of individual people than I ever had throughout the whole of my medical career as a family doctor. Would the governors of a school allow the headmaster and teachers at that school, to remain in post, if they were failing to educate, or even worse, ruin the lives of the children in their care. Would the shareholders of a company allow the managing directors to bankrupt the business? Would we the public, tolerate incompetence from our doctors, dentists, solicitors, engineers and many others? Of course we don’t. So, the question is not ‘why do we at times accept incompetence from our politicians?’, the question is ‘why should we accept incompetence from our politicians?’
The answer of course is that we shouldn’t. We the public should be demanding of our political leaders, to have all the necessary attributes to meet the demands and responsibilities of the job. In a free society anybody can become a doctor, solicitor, engineer, etcetera. Anybody can learn to drive a car. But there are certain minimum requirements before being allowed to do any of these things. It should be no different with politicians. Anybody, if they are so inclined can become a politician, but they need to exhibit certain minimal requirements. It is with this in mind that the concept of licensing politicians came to mind, so that only those with ability and integrity will be permitted to stand for parliament.
This composition, perhaps a book chapter in an unwritten book focuses on the United Kingdom although other countries also receive a mention. It starts by giving a brief description of democracy and why it is the best system. The licensing of politicians is only one of several ideas required to promote and endow democracy with resilience to ensure its survival. A brief description of the other required ideas is presented. After describing the current situation and the scale of the problem, there is a lengthy discussion on the arguments for and against the licensing of politicians.
There is then a detailed description of the process. It is presented as such to demonstrate that such a proposal is realistic and workable. It is written in a style that this is the best and most workable system, to give the concept clarity, but it isnot intended to be a final version. It is intended to be blueprint and a first consideration for discussion.
There will need to be a statutory body to organise, award and revoke licences. It has been given the name the Royal Panel for Parliamentary Licenses (RPPL). Licenses will be arranged in two levels. Level 1 is for backbench parliamentarians. Level 2 license would be for the government ministers and the shadow cabinet. There will be 16 criteria for a Level 1 Licence and 2 extra for a Level 2 licence. A single unsatisfactory criterion and the licence will not be issued. None of the criteria should be deemed to be unsatisfactory with most being deemed to be satisfactory allowing only a few to be either considered irrelevant or uncertain.
Some of the criteria generated issues worthy of discussion. Should ministers have legal culpability for making serious mistakes to the point of negligence or criminality within the scope of their work. The answer is generally No’ except for one specific issue.
The second is much more positive. Parliamentarians like everybody else in other professions and walks of life, need to keep up to date. Currently it would appear to be not much better than intellectual osmosis. It is proposed that the RPPL will organise a scholastic program that will help the MPs fulfill their educational requirement
This composition is completed with a brief outline of dissemination and further exploration to bring the whole concept to fruition.
The concept of licencing politicians is not prejudicial for or against any particular political party. It is hoped that once politicians recover from the shock of the notion and realise that not only is it not a threat to any decent respecting politician, but also that it will prevent their generally good name from being tarnished by a few ‘bad eggs.’ It is therefore hoped that once presented to the political parties, some at least will be able to embrace it.
Once approved in principle, it is hoped that parliamentary time can be found and thereafter the necessary approvals given, and structures to be set up in time for the first election to be held in the 2030s.
Table of Contents
Introduction and Summary 2
Table of contents 4
A teaser 6
Background 6
Advocating Democracy 7
Democracy’s vulnerabilities 9
Overall defensive strategy 9
Electoral Reform 9
Separation of powers- 9
Introducing the Constitutional Guardian 10
Press reform 10
Promoting the Education of democracy 11
The scale of the problem 11
Sleaze, incompetence and lack of leadership 11
Post-truth 14
The legal status of politicians? 17
The case for licensing politicians 17
The case against licensing politicians 20
Unnecessary-? 21
The system is not broken 21
It will never happen because the politicians will not vote for it 22
Contrary to human rights 22
It will be too watered down to be meaningful 22
Such a system will introduce its own biases. 23
The requirements for license-a statuary body to manage the process 23
The requirements for license-the process 23
The application and length of validity 24
Eligibility to holding a licence 25
Licences: non-renewal, suspensions and cancellations 26
The requirements for license-the standards to be attained 26
The requirements for license-the criteria 27
A. Has served in a role to help individuals in the public for no reward 27
B. Able to bring a skill, knowledge or insight of a particular aspect of 28
C. Demonstrates a consistent ability to manage financial affairs with 28
D. Demonstrates a consistent ability to manage personal affairs with 29
E. Demonstrates a consistent ability to look after themselves and avoid 29
F. The person has a value system they adhere to 30
G. Demonstrates a consistent adherence to truth and accuracy 30
H. Is consistently free from legal threat 32
I. Only ever accepts legal donations 34
J. Declares an intention and maintains a minimum of 75% of the time is 35
K. Consistently demonstrates an ability to present both sides of an argument-but is able to state whythe one is more preferable 35
L. Consistently demonstrates an understanding of a variety of facets of 36
M. Consistently demonstrates and understands safeguarding 36
N. Consistently demonstrates and Understands Equality and Diversity 36
O. Consistently demonstrates and understands Democracy 37
P. Enhanced mental well-being: good emotional intelligence, mental 37
The difficulties 37
Emotional Intelligence 38
Mental Health 40
Setting the criteria 42
Q. Nothing ever to suggest the person is or was a security risk 42
R. Is of an attitude that when required seeks and follows the consensus 42
Awarding or refusing the licence 43
Political legal liability 44
Educational program 45
The Singapore experience 46
Promotion and dissemination 47
Summary and Conclusion 47
References: 49
Appendix 1 SWOT Analysis of UK democracy post 2024 UK general election 50
Appendix 2. Governance and misconduct arrangements in certain professions 51
Appendix 3: Table of evidence required for each criterion 52
Appendix 4: Process for converting Criteria satisfied to Licence granting 55
A teaser
Of the various jobs and professions listed in Table 1 what is the common thread in the list on the left that does not apply to the list on the right? And which list should include journalists
| DoctorsPolice officersPrison officersTeachers Social workersCity ArchitectsJudgesFire FightersParamedicsCivil servantsSoldiersLocal government employeesPoliticians | FarmersHairdressersBusinessmenFactory ownersChefsConstruction WorkersPilots Estate agentsPhotographersShow business entertainersHoteliersMerchant seamenProfessional sportsmen |
| Journalists? | |
Table 1. Two lists of jobs and professions. What is the distinguishing factor that places a job in the list on the left or the right? In which list should journalists go.
If it is not obvious, the answer will be a little bit later in this article.
Background
I am not a professional historian, nor a political analyst. I hope that I have represented both these disciplines fairly. Rather my background is one of being a medical doctor with an interest in mental health and psychology. As well as personal observation on society as a whole, I have drawn very largely on my experiences in these disciplines and the managerial roles that have been part of my career portfolio.
I undertook a personal review on the state of UK Democracy, with of course more than a passing interest of what has been happening in the USA. As part of this review, I carried two analyses. The first was a SWOT analysis and the second a Root Cause Analysis (RCA). The outcome of the RCA, I shall describe later.
The SWOT Analysis is in Appendix 1. I am not going to go through it in detail, but a few things are worth highlighting. It is a personal view rather than being the outcome of a group exercise. Therefore, there probably are aspects that would have been equally as valid that I had not considered but others would have included.
It seems to me that not just in this country, but elsewhere also, democracy and democratic processes have come under severe strain. At a time when the peoples of non-democratic countries should be looking up to the democracies and deriving inspiration from them, we find the opposite. Instead, we see that democratic countries, and countries espousing to be democratic are under threatened or actual military attack putting them under existential threat, whilst countries that are clear democracies have shown remarkable disrespect to the rule of law that maintains those democratic institutions.
The clearest example of this is what is happening in the USA. A thorough Senate Committee provides evidence demonstrating beyond all reasonable doubt that the then president instigated an insurrection against the very constitution that he himself is sworn to defend; that he is a convicted felon who paid hush money out of campaign expenses to keep his affair out of the press so as not to damage his electoral chances; and the same president leaves office with boxes of top secret and highly confidential documents that should be kept secure in the national archive are discovered in his personal retreat. It is mind boggling that there is a widespread body of opinion within the US electorate that would deem this to be acceptable behaviour, not only to allow him to run again for the top office in the country but to re-elect him. If an athlete would be found with performance enhancing drugs he would be banned for at least 4 years, to encompass one Olympic cycle. There would be an immediate investigation with potential fines imposed when a Health Trust or other medical establishment carelessly leaves paper or electronic files with confidential patient information unsecured in places they should not be, for example, the hospital car park, a disused hospital or supermarket car park, or a rubbish dump. (2)
Matters in the UK are not quite so perilous as in the USA, but they are still not good. We have had 2 governments, in Westminster and the Scottish Assembly that have displayed the following behaviours:
- incompetence-an inability to lead by example
- a lack of integrity-using untruths as a political weapon
- selfishness-putting their own interests above those of the people they serve, including breaking the law when it suits
- ignorance-ignoring expert advice and instead acting based on political doctrine and dogma
- devoid of ideas-prioritising an ineffective illegal scheme to solve illegal immigration
- not listening-to people and therefore failing to deal with the very real problems of poverty, crumbling hospitals, insufficient infrastructure investment, over-crowded prisons, and the financial welfare of the population.
- unprincipled-threatening to leave the European Convention on Human Rights court because it is ‘inconvenient’ to their political agenda
- a security risk-by having friendships with foreign nationals of dubious character and drinking alcohol in their presence
- abusing their authority-to quash investigations that could have been politically embarrassing
But these events must be seen within current global trends towards a more authoritarian world. There is a sustained disinformation campaign led by those who for whatever reason are selfish in the extreme. They play on institutional and individual vulnerabilities creating mass intellectual and emotional confusion. They create a path towards anarchy in which they come along and become the ‘saviours’ restoring order but, in the process, give themselves unrestricted power. In this way the democracy has been taken over by an autocracy.
We must not take Democracy for granted. It needs to be understood so that when it is endangered the threats are recognised and from there it can be protected.
Advocating Democracy
But why democracy? What are its advantages. In contrast to autocracies, I am going to give five benefits when it works well.
- As an aspiration for countries, from the cradle to the grave, it is to maximize the potential of all 100% of its citizens. To achieve this the education and health of its citizens needs to be maximized, and crime needs to be minimized. Opportunities must be available for everybody to engage in their special talents, whatever they are. Of course this needs to be achieved within frameworks of economic, environmental, social and geopolitical security and stability. Contrast this with autocrats. Benevolent dictators exist, but laws and decisions are as much likely to be motivated by the dictator’s self-interest to maintain power and survival rather than the needs of the population.
- To achieve the first reason, democracies, should be upholding human rights. The European Convention on Human rights is a typical example, (3) While it is true that many autocratic countries have human rights considerations within their judicial systems, it would also be fair comment to say that circumventing those human rights provisions is more likely to come from autocratic thinking that sees human rights as something to be ignored when it impedes fulfilling political ambitions.
- In remembering those that have died for the country it is often phrased thus ‘By making the ultimate sacrifice, they fought to preserve the freedoms that we enjoy today. They shall never be forgotten.’ But what are those freedoms? Seldom are they defined. Through its laws, every country, from the most liberal to the most dictatorial imposes some limitations on its citizens simply to maintain law and order and have some degree of societal cohesion. The freedoms that democracy advocates, can be thought of as the freedom to express oneself by whatever means that comes naturally to the person without adverse repercussions or the fear of repercussions, and if it is done responsibly and does not infringe on the human rights of others. Responsible freedom is freedom that does not harm others, incite harm to others or be wanton derogation. As John Stuart Mill put it, “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” (3)
- The decision-making processes in democracies and autocracies are very different. The autocracy is a hierarchical system. The ones at the top delegate to those underneath, and these in turn delegate down the chain to those at the bottom. Some local initiative is permitted, but nothing that would challenge the authority of the dictator. In contrast the well-functioning democracy is a hotbed of thoughts and ideas. Some of these develop a resonance within the population sufficient for the politicians to take heed and respond. The contrast is stark. In a democracy working well, there is 2-way communication. The more individual freedom afforded to the population, the greater is the creativity and the more is the innovation. In the democracy, decision making within government is not confined to coming from a small caucus at the top but instead is responsive to the population’s needs. In the autocracy when free speech is curtailed, those at the top may not know or be aware of what is being thought at the bottom. The broad outcomes are that in the democracy relative to the autocracy, while decisions may be slower, the creativity that is encouraged, the responsiveness to broader viewpoints and the prioritisation of the population’s needs over those of the dictator result in wiser decisions, greater individual and national development and peace within and between democracies.
- Changes of power are smoother and more importantly bloodless. In an autocracy, potential outcomes are a coup or a failed state followed by a coup. Occasionally the outgoing leader appoints his successor. Contrast this to a democracy. For example, here in the UK, if needed, the removal van arrives at Downing Street the day after the general election to collect the defeated prime minister’s personal possessions.
But the need for the national democracies to be healthy and vigorous is not only for the benefit of the democracies themselves but also for every nation. The planet is in trouble and therefore the world and civilisation are also in trouble. For example, what are we doing about global warming? Clearly not enough. But why is democracy relevant?
A potential scenario is global warming disrupts food and water supply. The population of the autocracy may tolerate loss of civil freedoms as long as its people do not go hungry. Thus, the self-interest of the autocrat is that his continuance as leader and possibly even his personal survival is dependent on ensuring that his people are fed. If this cannot be achieved, his days are numbered. If feeding his population means concocting ‘an argument’ with the neighbours, in his eyes, this is a ‘necessary’ price to paid by his citizens for his survival. People do not function properly on an empty stomach and can make bad decisions. Autocrats with a hungry population are also more than likely to make unwise decisions. Belligerence from nations will be rife. Throw nuclear weapons into the mix and there is no guarantee that either logic or common sense will prevail.
Two democracies co-operate. Two autocracies when at least one is belligerent go to war. Autocracies can work co-operatively when it suits them. But one belligerent autocracy and one democracy will see the democracy bending over backwards to avoid conflict. Unless the autocracy moderates its aspirations or the democracy can exhibit sufficient resistance and robustness; war, sooner or later is also inevitable.
So, in short, the world needs more democracies. The world needs democracy as a system of government to prevail. Democracies need to demonstrate to the autocracies the merits of democracy. But autocrats are no different than other people, they do not like being told how to behave, particularly when they see so-called ‘democrats’ abuse democracy for their own selfish purposes. When democratic leaders lie, cheat, break the law, use handed-fisted methods, use the instruments of state to line their own pockets and live to the premise that the law does not apply to them, the autocrats in other countries are given ready-made justifications to any action that they consider; ‘it happens everywhere’; or ‘so called democrats can preach all they like but at least we are not being hypocritical.’ Regardless of this attitude’s veracity, the autocrat has no respect to listen to the democrat. Not only cannot democracy be imposed on a population that does not have that culture but given the double standards clearly visible, it does not hold a position of moral strength for it even to be advocated.
So, not only do we need more democracies than autocracies and fewer belligerent autocracies than co-operative autocracies, but we also need democracies that are robust and stable.
If it is true that the national well-being and strength of autocracies are only as good and strong as its dictator’s ability to govern wisely; it is also true that the national well-being and strength of democracies are only as good and strong as its population’s ability to uphold the principles and values that sustain the culture of democracy and its rule of law.
The first priority for democracies is to clean their own backyards. Democracies need to set its leaders the highest standards of behaviour and for these to be meticulously followed. Democracies’ structural vulnerabilities need to be minimised or where possible even to be eradicated. Democracies need a system and culture that will enable it to extinguish undermining pressures from within and be repellent to destabilising forces from outside. It is only once its own house is in order will democracy with all its complexities have the ability and the moral standing to be the beacon and example for other nations to follow.
Thus, the single most important argument is not that democracy should be strong for the individual or the nation, which of course are important considerations. Nor is it that it gives the best opportunity for the whole population to grow and develop, both as individuals and collectively; and this too is important. No, the single most important argument is that democracy needs to be strong for the planet. In a world where there is no meaningful leadership, where the largest players, be they individual, corporate or national, make the rules to suit themselves, or flaunt the rules that others have made, democracy needs to be strong and respected for civilisation to survive.
Democracy’s vulnerabilities
Having observed democracy in several countries over 50 plus adult years, my overall conclusion is that the public do not realise how good it is, nor how essential it is for their well-being. Because it has been around for 12 to 15 generations in the United Kingdom like the air that we breathe and the sun rising in the morning and setting in the evening, it is taken for granted that it will be there every day. It is assumed that the systems and processes that have served each democratic country well over the generations and not previously let us down are optimized for efficiency and protection. When challenged we can see that this assumption is false. As it is, not only are people not engaged in democracy, but also the institutions that uphold the freedoms that people enjoy are vulnerable. Indeed, they will only have the full comprehension of its benefits if they lose it and will then wonder ‘why did we not do more to uphold its principles before it disappeared.’ The citizens of the USA are waking up to this realisation.
Having an awareness that democracy is under threat, is not too dissimilar to the awareness that the planet and mankind are under threat from global warming. If either is ignored and left unattended without taking urgent steps, it would make life on earth very unpleasant, if not impossible. Democracy must be strengthened, so that its systems are not reliant on the decisions of humans.
As part of my review of democracy, I undertook a Root Cause Analysis (RCA). This is a system that addresses the reasons behind a serious untoward incident (SUI). It is a form of analysis from which lessons can be learnt and changes implemented. It is the reason why the aviation industry is generally so safe despite the amount of global air traffic. Every accident or near miss is investigated and evaluated.
My experience in undertaking RCA’s comes from scrutinizing reports within mental health services when events do not go as planned or indicated. There are certain principles to be followed. These include:
- A ‘no blame’ culture
- When mistakes are made, unless otherwise indicated, it is assumed that the person who made the mistake did not want to make that mistake
- Therefore, it was not the individual who failed, but the system that failed the individual to perform optimally
- To find a root cause rather than simply an intermediate cause one needs to ask five times the question “Why? In this way, one is not looking at the immediately obvious but trying to uncover the reasons behind the reasons behind the failure.
- Often a system failure is not just one cause but a series of causes with no one single cause being entirely responsible for the failure. It is compared to slices of Swiss Cheese with all the holes lining up
For the purposes of reviewing Democracy the serious untoward incident was defined as “Why is democracy underperforming?”
Overall defensive strategy
I now list my conclusions from the RCA. While I am focusing this article mainly on the appropriateness of politicians to serve us, this is only one of several vulnerabilities and hence also ensuing recommendations that I would be personally making. The areas I believe that need to be tackled are the following:
- The system allows too many politicians inappropriate for the role to serve us and act as national leaders
- prospective parliamentary candidates and ministers need to be licenced to demonstrate their suitability
- The iniquitous system of first past the post electoral system that fails to produce a parliament that truly represents the political views and priorities of the country
- To move to a more proportionally based system of election
- Constitutional changes can take place based on a single simple majority vote which makes the country highly vulnerable to a majority self-interested government elected on a minority government changing the rules to self-perpetuate its existence.
- strengthening the separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary so that the powers of legislation creation and constitutional monitoring and development are separated
- introducing the concept of a constitutional guardian
- Currently parliament is sovereign (Has the final say)
- The Citizens should be sovereign with parliament representing the population.
- The need for a second chamber that is more representative of the population and with a more defined role.
- House of Lords Reform
- A largely self interested press pushing an agenda
- press reform
- A lack of political awareness and involvement
- Bringing more people into politics
- education in schools and elsewhere on UK constitution and parliamentary systems as part of the national curriculum
- To celebrate a National Democracy Day
This article is about number 1 above, so some short paragraphs on each of the others.
Electoral Reform
Ideally this should be proportional representation, but also worth considering is the single transferable vote system, which while it does not give rise to a proportionate outcome it does maintain the direct representation of the citizen with his local parliamentarian. Both systems are likely to discourage the voting for extremist views in parliament. I see no reason why there cannot be a hybrid system that uses the single transferable vote with a proportional outcome. But while there may be good representation at the local level the representation nationally needs to be much improved.
Separation of powers-
Traditionally the separation of powers is the separation of the Legislature that creates the laws, the executive that carries them out and the Judiciary that interprets them. This separation is incomplete. Government ministers are both members of parliament and part of the executive. Most MPs will also be a member of a political party. Therefore, they can be faced with a conflict of interest, between allegiance to their party or their constituents. We have recently had the Metropolitan Police investigating its own head, the Justice Minister over Partygate. While it clearly is advantageous to have ministers also head the departments they are working in, there needs to be greater clarity and clear guidelines implemented through action over potential conflicts of interests to ensure that the standards of behaviour that our politicians follow is at least as high as that expected from everybody else. Nobody should be in a position where they are voting for their own self-interest, when it can be avoided. Politicians must never be, nor be seen to be, above the law.
Sovereignty and the Constitutional Guardian
This would be the constitutional institution with the head of state as its figurehead, that would be dealing with all matters pertaining to the management and processes of law making, leaving the policy and law making itself to the parliament. For example, in the last parliament we have had the introduction of voter identification(voter-ID) by the government, but under the accusation that they have been acting under political self-interest and not on the merits of the arguments for and against, as it appears prejudicial against younger and working-class voters who may not have such ID. Like other matters such as MP pay, electoral boundary changes, electoral rules and the rules for referenda, the consideration and outcomes of these matters do not change people’s lives, only the way the decisions are made. The constitutional guardian would be independent of politics, political parties and politicians.
Regarding Sovereignty, the differences between the present and the advocated are subtle. Instead of parliament being sovereign, it is the citizens. It is to emphasise that parliament serves the citizens, that the ultimate authority is with the people and that the elected representatives have that honour and responsibility for a set period of time. In this respect the opening line of the American constitution has it right, “We the people… .”
There is a democratic benefit that is more than just the legal side of it. If there is an unpopular act of parliament that has been successfully legislated, by a majority government based on a minority popular vote use the power to force the legislation through. This may allow for a legal argument to block the act becoming law. It could also raise the possibility of a referendum being called to reverse the decision of parliament.
Figure 1 presents the relationship between the various institutions of law and order. The constitutional guardianship would evolve from the monarchy, a role that in the UK it already has, but it would be better defined. The monarch and monarchy would not be acting alone. How it would be legally constituted so that its powers are real but limited within the scope above is not for this paper.
Having a constitutional guardian and a separate assembly to address constitutional matters will not entirely prevent politicians acting in their own self-interest. It will stop them from changing the rules of government that favour themselves over their opponents.
When subsequently referring to Figure 1, I will be implying the sovereignty of the citizens, although there would be little difference if the descriptions below are based on the current situation of parliament being sovereign.
Press reform
This is one of those areas where even if deemed necessary, governments are reluctant to become involved. Not only is freedom of speech seen as being sacrosanct, but if the press institutions are under attack, they have the means to verbally savage any government aspiring to curtail its activity. What is very much under-appreciated is that the right to free speech comes with responsibilities. Along with politicians and academics, the press, media, and political influencers all have a greater responsibility than the rest of us, as they have a duty to accurately record and inform the public so that the public can be better advised. Having a singularly biassed press, serves the interests of nobody, including the side it supports. The underlying principle must be “Free speech with responsibility.” It seems to me that much of the press and media have acted in a manner that has been to serve self-interest and not balanced informing of the public. Press self-regulation, like having unlicensed politicians has allowed public acceptance of a culture that has permitted standards to fall to below a satisfactory level. As much as one may be reluctant, there is a strong argument that states that if press standards are to be improved, they too ought to have an independent watchdog that can execute meaningful sanctions
Promoting the awareness of democracy-
This should start in schools and is essential. It is interesting to note that one of the tenets of Project 2025, the blueprint for autocracy in the USA, is the dismantling of the US Department of Education. Autocrats rely on an uneducated population that cannot challenge their authority. Those in the UK voting against Brexit or those in the USA voting for the Democrats, tended to come from the larger urban areas and from the higher echelons of education. If the public are better educated and better able to recognise when and how democracy is under attack, or understand the basics of economic policy, they will be better able to respond in a pro-democratic manner with wiser choices. Teaching critical thinking skills to question assumptions, to be sufficiently self-aware of inherent contradictions, and to ask ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions are all important abilities for everybody, not just for the academic elite.
The scale of the problem
Sleaze, incompetence and lack of leadership
There has always been a low level of corruption among politicians. Wikipedia gives a list (5). Presented in Figure 2 are the numbers by decade aggregated from the Wikipedia article.
The exercise in Figure 2 cannot be a complete analysis, partly due to interpretation of the qualifying criteria. For example, I am not sure that the 1988’s Edwina Currie ‘Salmonella in eggs’ scandal merits a place as an example of corruption but rather was inadvisable use of the tongue. The COVID PPI scandal appears to be omitted. There is an investigation and therefore as an example of corruption, but it is still only alleged.
Nevertheless, they share some consistent aspects. The cases contributing to the statistics will have had to have made the press to qualify for the list. Most appear to be from the party in power. There may be a statistical reason, as they will have more members of parliament, but it may also have something to do with having power and therefore the opportunity to abuse power. In England it is also noticeable, that it tends to be right wing politicians. Not all right-wing politicians should be tainted by the same brush, but an ethos that promotes the self and competition over one that emphasises working together as a community and having regulation, is more likely to have individuals prepared to bend or break the rules.
My first recollection of scandals was not so much of the scandal itself, but the aftermath of the scandal. It was the 1963 Profumo affair. Even to an under ten, as I was at the time, this was big news. One may argue whether this scandal was greater or less than any one of the more recent questionable acts, but taken together, there is no comparison. In the 1960’s it was one man. In July 2024, from a YouGov survey, when the public were asked why the Conservative party lost the recent general election, it is clear that in the public’s mind, incompetence, self-interest and a lack of leadership were more influential than matters of policy. (6) See Tables 2a and 2b.
| Detail | Num. | Category |
| In power for too long / people wanted change | 14 | Others better/country needs change |
| They left the country in a mess / were not fit to manage the country | 12 | Incompetent, failed to deliver, made things worse |
| They are liars, useless and corrupt | 9 | Corruption, self-centred, hypocrisy |
| The public lost trust and confidence in the party | 7 | Others better/country needs change |
| Out of touch with the public / only care about themselves | 7 | Corruption, self-centred, hypocrisy |
| Failed to deliver on their promises / key issues | 4 | Incompetent, failed to deliver, made things worse, |
| Boris Johnson’s unacceptable behaviour and Partygate | 4 | Corruption, self-centred, hypocrisy |
| Mismanagement of the Covid-19 pandemic | 4 | Incompetent, failed to deliver, made things worse, |
| Too much internal fighting / disunity in the party | 4 | Lack of leadership |
| They did not manage the economy well | 3 | Incompetent, failed to deliver, made things worse, |
| Liz Truss and the failed mini-budget | 3 | Incompetent, failed to deliver, made things worse, |
| They did not address the cost of living crisis | 3 | Incompetent, failed to deliver, made things worse, |
| Lack of / bad leadership | 3 | Lack of leadership |
| Poor / unprofessional behaviour during the campaign | 3 | Corruption, self-centred, hypocrisy |
| Rishi Sunak was not a capable leader | 3 | Lack of leadership |
| Failed to tackle immigration | 3 | Incompetent, failed to deliver, made things worse, |
| Unpopular views / policies | 1 | Wrong policies |
| Inability to manage Brexit well | 1 | Incompetent, failed to deliver, made things worse, |
| Reform UK split the conservative vote | 1 | Others better/country needs change |
| People thought Labour might do better | 1 | Others better/country needs change |
| Other | 6 | |
| Don’t know | 5 | |
| Total | 101 |
Table 2a. The first 2 columns are taken from the YouGov survey. The figures in the second column are percentages of respondents. The survey was carried out with the respondents giving free text and YouGov’s AI topic model interpreted the text into meaning categories. The total comes to more than 100 because of rounding errors. In the right column this is my placement of the meaning categories into broader meaning groups.
| Others better/country needs change | 23 | ||
| Wrong policies | 3 | ||
| Lack of leadership | 10 | ||
| Incompetent, failed to deliver, made things worse, | 33 | ‘Others’ and ‘Don’t knows’ | 11 |
| Corruption, self-centred, hypocrisy | 23 | Total | 101 |
In table 2b are each of the broader meaning groups and the total of responses calculated as the sum of the relevant meaning categories. The possible interpretation of these broader meaning groups could be that the public felt that the country needed change because of the issues highlighted in the other meaning categories. If we exclude the ‘Don’t knows’, ‘Others’ and the ‘Wrong policies’, however we look at it, the view remains that more than two-thirds of the population felt that the Conservative Party lost due to their personal failings.
Table 2 implies that at least two-thirds of people believe that the conservatives lost because of their personal failings rather than the policies they were advocating. Sleaze and corruption are the clearly unacceptable end of self-interest. Table 2 lends support to Figure 1 that these are on the increase.
It is not just sleaze and corruption that needs to be addressed. We can look at the course of opinion polls through the previous parliament. (7) This is displayed in Figure 3.
Boris Johnson’s premiership started with the Covid pandemic. After an initially good start where the country was united against the viral enemy, it did not take long for it to unravel. Around Dominic Cumming’s trip to Durham, a lack of leadership was demonstrated with the public clearly feeling that the rules had been broken, rules that the Prime Minister himself had set and described to the country. (8)
When the news around Partygate broke, it highlighted the hypocrisy of one rule for the public and a different one for the lawmakers. Here too was another example of a leadership failure. One quality of leadership is for the leader to lead by example. Just like every home, every business, every public service, every healthcare provider had to interpret and enforce the on-going rules of social distancing, this did not happen in the home and workplace of the man who set the rules.
And finally, there is the premiership of Liz Truss whose brief reign comes under the category of ‘Incompetent, failed to deliver, made things worse.’
But why does a single affair, such as the John Profumo affair shock the public whereas a series makes less of an impression?
What makes an event newsworthy is when the incident being reported stands out from the norm. The press has a part to play. They can choose the emphasis or the angle from which an event is covered. Leaving aside the role of the news media, when an event is more of the same it is less newsworthy. When it is more of the same it is part of the culture. For good or bad, the culture is set by the people at the top. The culture is the norm. The culture is taken for granted as one of our basic assumptions in life in which most people can agree. The culture is not newsworthy. But when ineptitude or malice are taken as not being newsworthy, it is a bad sign for society. Ineptitude and malice have been normalised as part of the culture.
Incompetence, corruption and verbal dishonesty, undesirable characteristics for success in any walk of life appears prevalent amongst politicians. Why?
First, they can get away with it. Second, they can change the rules, thus protecting themselves. Third, investigative journalism, which can be very good at highlighting issues, appears to be ignoring this one. Fourth, this undesirable state is accepted by the public.
The last is by far the most serious. The public need to be motivated to apply pressure on politicians to effect change. People become demotivated when they feel disempowered. There is the sense of ‘I cannot do anything about it therefore I will focus on other things that I can do something about.’ But as the ‘StoptheTories.vote’ campaign showed, that if coordinated on a large scale, individual frustration and disempowerment can be coordinated into a collective motivation that can have a large effect.
Post-truth
It is said we live in a ‘post truth world.’ What an indictment that is. What will be next? A post-just world? A post-honest world? A post-secure world? A post-free world? A post-life world?
The ancients knew a thing or two about running a society. Regardless of one’s belief in a deity, the 9th of the 10 Commandments, states “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” While this may be specific of not accusing an individual or a group of crimes they have not committed, it may be more generally implied as ‘do not make any false statements.’
Other quotes, this time from the Greeks, are more general. (9)
“Plato is my friend, but the truth is my best friend.” (Antiphanes, 405-335 BCE),
“Hiding the truth is like burying gold.” (Pythagoras, 580-490 BCE)
“The truth is always the strongest argument.” (Sophocles, 496-406 BC)
And returning to Rabbinic teaching:
“By three things is the world sustained: law, truth and peace. As it is stated: “execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates” (Zechariah 8:16)”, (Ethics of Our Fathers: Avot 1:18,)
If truth is absent not only is a fundamental value being ignored, but the quality of life is lost.
Unfortunately, the wisdom of the ancients has missed some of our modern-day politicians. It was obvious to anybody that there was a culture of a government leaving truth behind on the lawns of Westminster, rather than bringing it into the chamber of the House of Commons as a principle to be upheld.
There were many statements made that were more in the spectrum of misleading to downright false rather than an accurate representation of reality. Statements in the form of aims, objectives or aspirations that are inconsequential promises without any intention or plan towards their fulfillment eventually creates disillusionment.
There were policies that made no logical sense and were frankly thus empty words. Solving a problem of criminal gangs encouraging illegal immigration by boat by sending these immigrant/asylum seekers to another country, has as much wisdom as preventing a flood in a building by having available a bucket to clear the flood water once it is inside.
It becomes starker when politicians are compared to other professionals.
Scientists will very meticulously quote the work of others and lay down the context in which their research is carried out. Before publication of their findings, the proposed paper is peer reviewed. The peer review process is there to improve the quality of the paper with suggestions of “have you considered the work of…” or “perhaps another explanation is… .” Once written the authors will be very modest in making claims by using phrases such as ‘these results are compatible with…’ or ‘these results suggest that… …and more research needs to be done to confirm or disprove the hypothesis.’
Accountants are meticulous in using the financial figures in front of them and ensuring that they are all added into the appropriate calculations.
In the legal profession accuracy is also paramount. Judgements are made on the evidence before the court and that evidence is objectively measured against the requirements of the statute. For example, in a trial the evidence that is permitted to be admitted to the courts is laid down. The laws to be applied are also clearly defined. Whether it is a decision of a jury or of magistrates, the evidence is weighed and assessed against the law to see if the threshold of the law being broken was achieved ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Truth is paramount. Wasting police time by frivolous or false accusations is a crime. Perjury, the deliberate expression of false statements, is a crime.
There are other areas in society where being less than fully truthful is a crime. Examples include, making false representation and fraud. There are laws against applying hidden costs. The British Government states that all marketing and advertising needs to be:
- an accurate description of the product or service
- legal
- decent
- truthful
- honest
- socially responsible (not encouraging illegal, unsafe or anti-social behaviour)
The guidelines are supplemented by 2 codes of practice. (10)
In all these examples, for the good of the public, we rely on professionals to have the highest standards of honesty of which truth is a major facet. Parliament has quite rightly set standards of honesty for tradesmen and salesmen. And yet the people who make the laws often are speaking very shoddily relative to the standards that they demand of others. If, as I believe it should be, we the citizens are sovereign, we should be demanding that our politicians are truthful at all times, nothing less. Other professionals can do it, and therefore so too should politicians. Even by the present criterion, of parliament being sovereign, we the citizens should be demanding that we only elect truthful politicians. If other places in the world wish to live in a post-truth world that is their choice, but for the British public and defenders of democracy and freedom, we must have zero tolerance to falsehoods.
So let us be very clear why honesty and precision in speech amongst politicians should be no less than for everybody else. Figure 4 tries to depict what happens if there is tolerance to politicians misinforming the public.
Hearing an honest politician saying it as it is, informs the public and the citizens can act appropriately. There is clear, quick and unequivocal direct communication. It is simple and straightforward.
But when there are paradigm differences of truth and reality, either between the politician and the public or between the two sides of an argument, every statement needs to be fact checked. This is tedious and exhausting. Worse, the two perceived paradigms of truth, like the person with multiple identity disorder, neither identity, and neither truth recognize the existence of the other as being valid. It is impossible to have a constructive discussion to the way forward because the underlying reality of the present is disagreed. But of course, there is only one absolute reality of truth. Opinions and interpretations of an event can be different. Between two people, if they disagree about whether an event happened or not, at least one of them must be wrong. An event either happened or it did not. It cannot be both.
Thus, what we have recently seen is that those who had half an interest in politics or detailed knowledge about the topic under discussion knew when truth was lacking. To everybody else it was unrecognized gaslighting.
And once there is a culture of misinformation, we have moved into a post truth society. But who do we believe? How do we make decisions? What is real? What is not? Psychologically, uncertainty gives rise to anxiety. Put it another way, anxiety is the emotion of uncertainty, and it is usually associated with perceived harmful outcomes. Ask anybody with anxiety and depending on the severity they will tell you that as a human they function less well and everything is an effort. As a society, being post truth is not something we should adhere to. It is a sickness.
The culture of an organization is set by the head of the organization. If the soul of a democracy is its citizens, the parliament is the head. We as citizens must be demanding of our politicians that they are always truthful. It will be the politicians who will realign the culture.
The legal status of politicians?
The idea of licensing politicians before they serve the public is to ensure that they have the necessary high standards of conduct. But when professionals are negligent in their duty, for example doctors, engineers, solicitors, etc., they can also be financially liable to make good the losses that others have incurred because of their negligence. Should politicians be held similarly liable for damages from the harm caused by the execution of their policies?
Being a member of parliament confers Parliamentary Privilege including protection against civil or criminal liability for deeds done or statements made while carrying out their legislative duties. It is a necessary requirement to ensure free speech within the chambers and committees and that matters can be discussed freely. (11) But it may result in slanderous or libellous statements being made. Should this system be allowed to continue?
In 2024, the Supreme Court in the USA gave an additional protection to the president in the course of his normal duties by granting presidents absolute immunity for acts committed as president within their core constitutional duties, at least presumptive immunity for official acts within the outer perimeter of their official responsibility, and no immunity for unofficial acts. This ruling is yet to be tested. I am not a lawyer let alone one that is expert in American constitutional law; and as such, I am not going to attempt to interpret US law. The question is how much liability and protection should a national politician in the UK have?
If we look again at Figure 1b, which is how I perceive the UK constitution should be formatted, we see that the citizens are both subject to the laws and sovereign to the creation of the laws. The rest of the institutions are there to assist the citizens create and uphold the laws that are right and proper for the collective of citizens, otherwise known as the nation. If nobody is above the citizens, nobody, politician and heads of state included, is above the law.
It is right and proper that politicians have legal protection from the decisions they make. Legal protection should not extend as far as breaking the law, but the creation of laws and running a country inevitably will result in outcomes in which there will be those who benefit and those who will lose out. Politicians should not be liable for harm from what is an inevitability of their role. There is one possible exception, and this will be discussed later.
The case for licensing politicians
When a person has been harmed by a bad doctor, a bad driver, a bad teacher, a bad employer, a bad parent, etc., and ‘bad’ can be either incompetent, negligent or malevolent, the person will be angry. Anger motivates change. The changes can be one or more of several options all designed to prevent those with the power from harming those without. Help, support, mentorship is provided to guide the one to use the power and authority wisely. Laws, guidelines, rules, protocols, standards are put into place, setting limits on the activity of those whose actions can significantly change the lives of those for whom they have responsibility. And finally, licenses to practice are issued, only to those who can demonstrate competence and integrity.
As well as licenses to individuals, organizations are regularly inspected to ensure that they are complying with the law. Educational establishments have Ofsted inspections. Health organizations have CQC visits. Public utility and service companies, have the ombudsman’ services to act as the final arbiter in conflicts between the powerful organisations and the individual. Owners of football clubs had the Fit and Proper Person Test which has evolved into the Owners and Directors Test. The notion that the powerful, both the individual and the corporate are actively scrutinized; and that there is a culture of maintaining ethics and standards are well-established.
For many licences, they are just taken for granted as part and parcel of our society. Acting without the licence would be illegal. There are licences for driving different types of road vehicle, for medical establishments offering termination of pregnancy services, or for businesses to sell alcohol to the public. There is even a licence to watch television. And yet politicians…?
If we look at parliamentary politicians, what rules are they governed by? Very few are specific to politicians. There are rules on election expenses. There is the parliamentary standards committee, but they respond only once an issue has been raised. In terms of entry requirements into parliament, the only criteria usually are approval by the local political party and then approval by the local electorate.
So, to become an MP, one of the top jobs in the country and one that carries with it a large measure of responsibility, the entry requirements are little more than an interview and two popularity contests, the second of which is often based on the statements and personality of another. I cannot think of another top or important job that would be demanding so little from its successful applicants.
In the last parliament the vetting process that took place, if any, is clearly inadequate. There were far too many unsuitable MPs whose behaviour was questionable.
Going back to Table 1 with the two lists of jobs. The list on the left are jobs in which the post holders all provide a public service. The list on the right may provide a service, or may be important to keep society running, but they are not public service jobs. Journalism in its current format is not a public service, but perhaps it ought to be. The BBC is considered a public service broadcaster. The service provided is to inform and entertain the public. Unfortunately, the BBC is caught up in the battleground of ‘Which Truth’.
Appendix 2 gives a summary and therefore a contrast of the preconditions and on-going requirements for a sample of public service jobs. This highlights the point made at how few are required for politicians in comparison to others in the public service sector. Is this as it should be? Of course not. So why is this situation as it is? Because while nobody particularly likes rules and obligations on themselves, we nevertheless need them to keep order and make others less unpredictable. While politicians can respond to public demand to ensure that everybody else does not step over the mark, they are naturally reluctant to impose any constraints on themselves. This may be one prominent reason satisfactorily explaining why national politicians may at present be poorly controlled, but it is hardly an adequate justification for tolerating its continuance.
Here is a list of reasons why politicians should be licensed:
- To demonstrate that they can responsibly use the authority and power given to them by the electorate
- To ensure that they have leadership qualities and are fit to lead
- To ensure that they can lead by example
- Democracy globally is under attack. It needs the most able people to defend it.
- To be a reliable part of a robust system that is able to repel the misinformation war leading to intellectual and emotional confusion.
- To ensure that as leaders, they can promote the culture and ethos of democracy and the democratic institutions, thus making the state and the population less vulnerable to electoral interference from outside.
- To promote the image of democracy that it is a strong and robust system of government
- To ensure there will be no double standards between politicians and the public
- To ensure that they are competent in what they are doing
- To ensure that in areas where they do not have the knowledge, they can understand and take expert advice
- To ensure that they are dedicated to what they are doing
- To ensure that they have a basic understanding of life in many different parts of the UK.
- To ensure that parliamentarians, even if they hold a particular point of view can understand the contrary argument to their own opinion
- To give confidence to other nations that the UK ‘house is in order’ and that therefore the UK will not renege on deals and commitments due to the whim of a particular government.
- To give moral authority to the UK government when it needs to make representation to another government and avoid accusations of double standards, e.g. Human rights violations, or supporting another country’s sovereignty against tyranny.
- To ensure that they have integrity, including honesty in the conduct of their personal and business affairs
- To ensure that they are not asking other public servants that which they themselves have not done or been through
- To ensure that they are not a security risk
- To ensure that they uphold the law
- To ensure that their judgements are sound and not influenced by an unmasked psychological condition
- To ensure that their judgements and decisions are not motivated by excessive self-interest or self-protection.
- To ensure that they uphold equality and diversity
- To ensure that they uphold Truth
- Party leaders will no longer be faced with adjudicating over colleagues who have had lapses in their personal conduct as the RPPL would be suspending the licence or not.
- Higher thresholds of suitability will raise the overall standard of MPs thus increasing the pool of very able politicians from whom ministers including the prime minister may be drawn.
- To enhance policy and decision making, not only by promoting a more able set of parliamentarians but also by creating a healthier atmosphere in which serious difficult issues may be discussed more freely with hopefully less destructive labelling.
- To restore the name and reputations of politicians so that in the eyes of the public, they may be held in the highest, not the lowest esteem.
I would hope that 27 good reasons should be convincing enough of the necessity.
The healthier atmosphere for enhanced policy making would arise by cross party and expert opinion coming together. For example, when discussing ‘Immigration and Asylum’ policy free from accusations of racism or wokeism
The observations from the last parliament very clearly were that there were many politicians who failed on at least one of the above counts. It is little wonder that our politicians are held in such low esteem by the public. Figure 5 presents the outcome of the Veracity Index survey run annually by Ipsos UK (12).
Politicians generally with a veracity score of 11% are bottom of the pile, with government ministers, one place above them on 15%. The figures represent an increase on the previous year. It is not clear to me why politicians should tolerate such an image. It should be shameful. And yet these are our leaders, the people who should be guiding the country and its citizens to a better life.
Overall, I do not think that anyone in the UK wants to live through and a have a government so riddled with incompetence and a lack of integrity as the last one. And while the UK may be turning the corner from its period of being poorly led, few British citizens would want to be in the situation faced by their counterparts in the USA. following their recent presidential and state elections.
To sum up, the reason for licensing politicians is to promote the highest of standards by ensuring that only the most able, most competent and most trustworthy of citizens are entrusted with the honour and privilege to be our representatives and to lead us.
The case against licensing politicians
Here are the arguments against licensing politicians:
- It is unnecessary
- The system is not broken; therefore it does not need fixing
- It can never happen because the politicians will not vote for it
- Such a system is contrary to the human right that these jobs can be available to anybody who wants.
- The principle is fine, but it cannot be made workable, or it will be too watered down to be meaningful
- Such a system will introduce its own biases
Let us take each in turn.
It is unnecessary
What has happened in the USA must be taken as a cautionary tale. Democracy there had insufficient inherent defenses. The founding fathers were wise to put into place a system of checks and balances, but I think they made one fatal flaw that they could not possibly have foreseen. The system was dependent on the good will and character of the people, which was fine in their day, but they could not have envisaged, that the democratic institutions they had set up would come under such a sustained attack. So, in the last 4 years, while there were many significant individual acts supporting democracy in the USA, there were also many acts that undermined it. Over time the defenses were nibbled away. At the time of completing this article, it feels the dam is breached and its survival is very much in doubt. If the largest most powerful democracy collapses, not only may other democracies feel more vulnerable, but their own anti-democratic voices from within may feel more emboldened.
While in the last general election, the UK has probably moved away from the self-interest and sleaze of recent years, it is far from being in the clear. Political cycles revolve. Just because we have entered an improved phase does not mean that the UK is immune from the dark forces prevalent elsewhere returning to undermine democracy. It is only during the good times can the changes be implemented to improve the defenses of democracy, so that they are not dependent on the good will and hard work of individuals. Now is the time to act.
Within the UK, given the evidence from the last parliamentary term and even prior, saying that licensing is unnecessary, says more about the person advocating such an argument rather than the argument itself. Its needs and benefits are clearly described in the previous section. The only people who would argue against licensing politicians are those who do not wish to be regulated as it will allow them to act without sufficient scrutiny. Good people, politicians included, should have no fear of being licensed. Doctors would be horrified if the medical licence would be taken away to allow in those unsuitable to practice medicine and doctoring. Even the concept of revalidation which is a relatively recent introduction, is now generally accepted as having merit, even if it does add to the paperwork and workload.
The system is not broken
As evidence supporting this claim it will be stated that the parliamentary standards were able to investigate a previous prime minister and find him lying to parliament. They will also claim that the public had their say and in quite dramatic fashion in the last general election removed the Conservatives from power. Against the backdrop of what happened, the evidence is very much to the contrary. You could make this claim if there was say just one MP behaving unacceptably, but not when it involved many in the government.
The system is very slow. The problems were known at the previous general election, but without a party and its leader who were seen as being an electable alternative, nothing changed. Public opinion in the form of elections is not a good means of executing justice. Again, the USA presidential election is a good example of this. On any specific issue, or for any particular candidate, there will always be some who will ‘prosecute’ the individual regardless of the arguments and those who will defend, likewise, regardless of the arguments.
Just because we have a new government with a completely new cohort of government ministers who appear to be more on the ball does not mean that there cannot be another cycle of deterioration in standards of those in power, eventually followed by the return of sleaze, corruption and incompetence. As the system is at present, a lack of truth and lying can give short term relative benefits until the public can kick back. But the public are fickle. There is no guarantee that the outcome of elections is always in the country’s best interests. History will almost certainly view Brexit as an electoral mistake. At the time of writing there is no guarantee that democracy in the USA will survive for there to be congress, senate and presidential elections in 2028 as we know them today.
So, while the system may not be broken, it is certainly not fit for purpose. The system is reactionary when it should be anticipatory. Using a medical comparison, it is better to immunize and prevent the lethal infection than to try and treat it when the patient is already ill and at risk from succumbing to it. We in the UK may have survived this time but there is no guarantee that we will not be the next. In 2016 the American citizens saw the early warning signs. In 2020, they had a close call. In 2024, by a combination of allowing the malevolents to actively promote disunity and chaos, being oblivious to the dangers, ignoring the warning signs with inaction, and allowing fear to triumph over joy; human rights protections in the USA are likely to be somewhere in the range from eroded to non-existent. The UK may not be so lucky in 2038. But we need to act now when the parliamentary arithmetic is favourable.
It will never happen because the politicians will not vote for it
This is a commonly used statement making the case that what is being asked is so difficult, it will never happen or that it is perceived to be so far away that nothing substantial will change, and therefore I am not even going to try. As such, this is another attitude that says more about the people who say it than about the merits or otherwise of the case. For example, implied is the person who may argue to themselves, “I do not have enough energy or motivation to campaign on this matter and see it through.”
It is not a valid argument because it confuses two different aspects. There is the merits or otherwise of the case and then there is the ease or difficulty of achieving the result.
There is no law to say that politicians cannot vote for such an idea. Ultimately politicians have to respond to the public demand. They must have a perceived advantage for themselves. The promise of power is a good perceived advantage. Political parties and their leaders are always looking for good ideas that will make themselves different to the other parties.
What is required to defeat the ‘politicians will never vote for it’ argument is for the public not to lose the anger, motivation and drive aimed at the previous government to remove them from power. That was phase 1, but only phase 1. Phase 2 is to set up the political system whereby a culture of competence and honesty is not only encouraged but also can never backslide so far without systemic alarm bells being rung, and the system correcting itself.
Contrary to human rights
The argument goes that in contrast to an autocracy, such a system is contrary to the human right that these roles should be available to anybody who wants, subject to selection procedure. First there is no such human right though the sentiment behind such an argument is acknowledged. There are two arguments that one can reasonably conclude. Neither contradicts the sentiment. Anybody can drive a car provided they take lessons and can satisfy an examiner that they are proficient. Nobody is deprived of their freedom by being locked up, unless they have lost that privilege by committing a crime that makes that person unsuitable to be outside prison for a period of time. Similarly, the right to stand for parliament would be available to everyone. All that is required is for the person to demonstrate their suitability and avoid doing anything that would result in this right being refused.
It will be too watered down to be meaningful
This has some merit but ultimately it is an argument that lacks both vision and determination. The application of standards is an exercise that is an evolving process. There needs to be clarity between the end point with the highest standards and the interim stages which are initially more attainable. The development of standards needs to learn from the experience of their introduction and from what works well and what less so. The culture and attitude of everybody should be to be the best and always give of their best. One would not accept the doctor who treats half the body very well on Mondays and Tuesdays and the other half of the body poorly at other times. Likewise, the politician who is honest only half the time should be deemed unacceptable. There should be a collective focus to achieving the highest standards and no compromise in their ultimate attainment.
Whether it will be meaningful or not is in the detail. I hope that I will be able to demonstrate in coming sections that it can be meaningful, relevant and workable.
Such a system will introduce its own biases.
There is the obvious bias of only permitting those who are honest and trustworthy. None of the protected characteristics such as race, gender, religion, war veterans, etc should be disadvantaged. Other groups will be considered under the requirements. If there is any bias, it will be a bias against unsavory political views, e.g., racism leading to fascism. An argument that needs to invoke race as a reason for action or inaction has very weak underpinnings.
Overall, any disadvantage of a secondary bias is very largely outweighed by the primary benefit.
The requirements for license-a statuary body to manage the process.
In the same manner that there is the General Medical Council, the Solicitors Regulatory Authority and the Architects Registration Board that in the UK regulates doctors, solicitors and architects respectively, there will need to be the equivalent for parliamentary politicians. An envisaged structure will include:
- a board level committee to make policy within their legal remit and to award or revoke the licences to the prospective parliamentarians.
- an executive office to make the necessary investigations and ensure that all the criteria that are required are fulfilled, and that the paper chain is complete.
- an investigative arm to investigate possible breaches of the licence terms
- an education arm to ensure that mandatory training courses are available
The board level Committee would be constituted with no more than 40% existing of previous or current parliamentarians with a minimum of 30% still actively in parliament. This difference is to allow for MPs who may lose their seats in parliament not to lose their place on their board level committee. They should still nevertheless have a Level 1 Licence. The other 60-70% would come from a variety of walks of life. There should be a wide range of backgrounds, but some attributes to consider would be experience of audit, finance, health and safety, safeguarding, data analysis, psychology, legal, academia, standard setting, critical incident analysis, moral philosophy, civil aviation, the military, the security services to list a few. To be eligible for the board, they too must undertake Level 1 licensing. This implies that before the formal board can be established and start issuing licences, there will need to be a shadow board. The role of the shadow board would be to establish the terms of reference for the board and the first draft of the licensing criteria and the initial board selection.
The level of licence for the board level committee members is up for debate. The higher level is not relevant for the nature of the work to be undertaken but could be advocated so that the Board Level Committee members have experienced the process.
It will only be for the Board Level Committee to award, suspend or revoke licences but it will be based on recommendations and a review of the evidence from the executive office or the investigative arm.
A suggested name is the Royal Panel for Parliamentary Licences (RPPL). The ‘Royal’ term is included to denote that it is above and independent of both Parliament and Government. The board could have an honorary president from the Royal Family, who too would require a Level 2 licence.
The requirements for license-the process
The overriding principle that is being proposed is that the would-be politician must have a license of suitability to become a parliamentarian.
Within parliament there are different levels of responsibility. With increasing responsibility these could be
- Constituency MP
- Junior ministers outside a security portfolio
- Junior Ministers with a security portfolio, all cabinet ministers and the prime minister.
Shadow ministers probably do not require the same level of clearance as they will not be coming into contact with the same level of sensitive information as their governmental counterparts. But the shadow leaders may be dutifully informed over security matters and therefore should have the same higher standard of attainment as their governmental counterparts.
With three different levels of responsibility the implication is that there could be three different levels of license. This is probably unnecessary. This could be a seen as a barrier to political promotion as the aspiring high rising politician, needs to have the license in place before they can take up the post. Therefore a 2-tier system is being proposed.
- Level 1: All MPs,
- Level 2: All government ministers, leaders of all political parties with 5 MP’s or more.
The Level 1 licence is for back bench MPs with no aspiration for a role in government. The Level 2 Licence is for government ministers and those who may be exposed to national secrets and members of the privy Council. Government ministers who are not members of parliament will require a Level 2 Licence. The Constitutional Guardian, his officers who may be in contact with state secrets and the Supreme Court Justices also would all require a Level 2 Licence.
Level 2 Licences will confer all the benefits of a Level 1 Licence. The criteria for a level 2 licence will be the same as for Level 1 and then there are two additional criteria.
The application and length of validity.
Potential prospective parliamentary candidates will apply for the license. It matters little whether they have their party’s nomination or the license of suitability first, as long they can demonstrate that they have at least the level 1 licence when submitting the application to stand as a candidate for parliament.
When issued, the length of time it will be valid for will depend on when it was issued relative to the electoral cycle and whether it was a Level 1 or Level 2 Licence. The Level 1 licence will be valid from the date of issue until the dissolution of parliament for the next but one general election. The Level 2 licence will be valid from the date of issue until 26 hours after closure of polling stations for the next but one general election. Figure 6 summarises. These different timescales reflect the constitutional understanding that once parliament is dissolved prior to the general election there are no members of parliament, but there is still a government that needs to be in place to run the country.
The Level 1 licence remains valid, regardless of whether the licence holder is elected or not.
Once in receipt, the Level 1 licence holders will be permitted to have a seat in parliament, not only in the current parliament, but in the next. It means, they can apply, not only to stand as candidate in the next general election, but also any bye-election in the current parliament and the next. A level 1 Licence that has been renewed by a sitting MP who was not re-elected at the general election could use the same valid licence to seek election in a bye-election in the same or a different constituency.
If the potential prospective parliamentary candidate wishes to stand at the next general election or the successful candidate wishes to seek re-election, the license will need to be renewed during the current parliamentary term. The renewal may be applied for any time during the parliament as long as it is in place before the final date for the application to stand in the parliamentary election.
The Level 2 license of suitability is optional but without it the MP will remain a back bencher. There is no set time in which the application should be made, but the Prime Minister will only be able to choose his governmental ministers from those who have the license. The Level 2 Licence remains valid regardless of whether the licence holder has a position in government or another licence requiring position.
There are other considerations The opposition parties, who after the next general election will want to form the government, also need to consider their numbers of Level 2 licensed members. And ministers from outside Westminster, too, will also need to obtain the Level 2 licence.
When the Fixed Term Parliament Act was statute, it would have been easier to plan the systematic renewal of licences over a known timescale. As it is now, the Prime Minister, may call a general election at any time and there may be good reasons for calling it early. A balance needs to be made between the managing of the workload and allowing the licences being valid for too long without scrutiny.
It is therefore suggested that when the subsequent general election is held within 3 years of the date of the previous, for this purpose only, licences due to expire within 5 years of the previous general election will be automatically renewed to expire no later than 5 years after the previous general election. The licence will need to be renewed before the expiry date, otherwise the MP will need to stand down. Licences that had already be renewed will continue for 5 years after the current general election.
In keeping with this arbitrary 3-year cutoff for an early general election, it is suggested that prospective parliamentary candidates who will be seeking election for the first time should be applying within years 3-5 of the electoral cycle. Newly elected sitting MPs should apply in years 2-4 as they will require the first year for settling in. MPs seeking re-election should be applying within years 1-3 of the electoral cycle. These time suggestions are only advisory.
Eligibility to holding a licence
For a level 1 licence, anybody may hold a licence as long as they are a British Citizen, 18 years or older, they have legal capacity, and they fulfill the licensing criteria described in detail below. There is no requirement for any specific academic or occupational qualification. For example, a university degree may be testament to a level of education but then what type of degree? A degree in politics may give understanding to political processes in the UK and elsewhere, but 650 politics degrees would give a very lopsided view of the British public. Furthermore, individuals who have been educated through apprenticeships or experience in the workplace would carry just as much benefit and would help to make the parliament to be more representative of general society.
Like for voting, there needs to be a lower age limit, but there also must be a certain level of maturity. The holding of the license by itself will not necessarily mean the licence holder will be elected to parliament. They would still require the support of a political party and the electorate. While it would be nice to have in parliament somebody to understand and be representative of the youth, who until very recently was one themselves, it is more likely that the license in the youngest age groups would allow standing for elections and learning how to engage with the public.
For a level 2 licence, age 25 or one full term of parliament of more than four years, whichever is less is suggested as the eligibility criterion. This license too, would give the license holder only the permission to be in government. It allows the appointment if the prime minister considers the licence holder to be the most suitable person for the position.
Licences: non-renewal, suspensions and cancellations
Awarding the licenses will be made after tests will be applied to the full list of criteria. The overall quality assessment standard to be tested for awarding a Level 1 licence is by asking the question ‘is the potential parliamentarian free from any concerns regarding their competency, suitability and integrity?’ Awarding Level 2 licences is similar. Achievement of the required standard is to be ascertained by asking the similar test question ‘is the potential holder of a position in government free from any concerns regarding their competency, suitability and integrity?’ The conclusion to be derived should be a fairly straightforward, ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.
These tests are designed to be objective, so that awarding or refusing the licence by the RPPL can be as unbiassed as possible and if necessary, can be scrutinized by auditors. Reasons for refusal can be passed on to the unsuccessful applicant and if something is not in place or has not been achieved it should be clearly identifiable and if possible, readily solvable.
If the licenses are awarded appropriately at the onset, there will not need to be many subsequent suspensions.
The requirements for license-the standards to be attained.
To attain the overall standard, there will be a number of criteria each of which need to be passed, or at least none to be failed. The standard of each criterion needs to be uncompromisingly high. It is about giving the public confidence that our leaders are always making decisions on our behalf and that they are for the common good. It is to ensure that our elected representatives are not basing their decisions or views on self-interest or other nefarious reasons.
For example, it is well known that a ruler who is under pressure at home will take the opportunity to unify the country by going to war against a common enemy. Another ruler frustrated by their own law courts will advocate or appoint to curtail the rulings of their judges. They will come up with plausible arguments why they should act as they do but the reality is the hidden motivation to retain power.
The licenses are to ensure that when ministers make decisions and MPs vote they do so in the best interests of all of us without any intruding self-interest. Most ministers are members of parliament and therefore the Level 1 certificates also ensure that the pool of members from which the ministers are drawn has individuals who are all of appropriate character to lead us.
Some evidence is to be requested and submitted by the applicant. Some evidence will be obtained by prolonged interview. Some evidence may be requested from relevant third parties. Some evidence will be a declaration in the form of a disclosure which if it comes to light that any pertinent material has been withheld, it may result in the suspension or withdrawal of the certificate.
When assessing a character criterion of suitable or unsuitable, the ‘legal’ standard to be used is not ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ as in a criminal case. Nor is it ‘on the balance of probability’ as in a civil matter. Rather, the tests that should be applied are:
- either ‘is there prima facia evidence that if substantiated would deem the prospective MP to be unsuitable?’
- or ‘are there three independent sources of hearsay evidence raising a concern that if found to be true would deem the applicant unsuitable.?
The three independent sources of hearsay test is to protect the would-be MP from a single act of defamation of character. For example, one expression of concern stating that the license applicant is a bully at work, may raise the issue, but it may also be the result of a fallout between the applicant and his employee. Three independent sources, and now it is more likely to reflect the applicant than all three of the complainants. While a single verbal concern or accusation may by itself be insufficient to meet the criteria for not awarding a licence, where merited this should not necessarily mean that an investigation elsewhere by the appropriate authority will not take place.
If the license is approved the applicant’s details will be entered onto the public register of approved licenses. If the license is declined the applicant is confidentially informed. Being declined a license, while it may be disappointing, unless it reveals potential criminal activity, by itself is not a legal offense, in the same way that failing a driving test is not illegal, but driving without a licence is.
If the prospective candidate, or indeed the sitting MP, who has had a licence turned down still wants to seek a license for the next parliamentary term, the onus would be on them to demonstrate that there are good alternative reasons to explain the evidence presented. In other words, they would have to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the raised concerns are false.
To be clear, by itself the failure to obtain a licence has the only repercussion, that the person cannot stand for parliament. The revoking of a licence does not imply any illegality undertaken, nor a criminal record. For example, a level 2 licence may be revoked if a minister undertakes activity that could reasonably give rise to suspicion that their personal activity places them as a security risk, even when there is no evidence that secrets have been passed on. The latter would be a matter for criminal charges to be placed, if the evidence warranted it, but this would be a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service, not the RPPL.
The requirements for license-the criteria.
In this section are the proposed detailed criteria to determine the applicants’ suitability for a licence. The criteria are suggestions, but otherwise well thought out starting points that are up for discussion and strengthening. They are presented here to give an outline of how they may look and as a demonstration that the challenge is not impossible as some may deem. The list of criteria is:
- Has served in a role to help individuals in the public for no reward
- Able to bring a skill, knowledge or insight of a particular aspect of society that may otherwise be under-represented
- Demonstrates a consistent ability to manage financial affairs with integrity
- Demonstrates a consistent ability to manage personal affairs with integrity
- Demonstrates a consistent ability to look after themselves and avoid reckless behaviours
- The person has a value system
- Demonstrates a consistent adherence to truth and accuracy
- Is consistently free from legal threat
- Only ever accepts legal donations
- Declares an intention and maintains a minimum of 75% of the time is dedicated to parliamentary work.
- Consistently demonstrates an ability to present both sides of an argument-but is able to state why the one is more preferable
- Consistently demonstrates an understanding of a variety of facets of national society
- Consistently demonstrates and understands safeguarding
- Consistently demonstrates and understands Equality and Diversity.
- Consistently demonstrates and understands Democracy
- Has enhanced mental well-being: good emotional intelligence, mental resilience, psychological balance and inner realism
- Nothing ever to suggest the person is or was a security risk
- Is of an attitude that when required seeks and follows the consensus view of experts in the field
All the criteria are to be assessed for the Level 2 Criteria. All but the last two are to be assessed for the Level 1 Licence.
A. Has served in a role to help individuals in the public for no reward
The idea is that the applicants can demonstrate that they have acted selflessly for no or little reward. Included in this will be those who have undertaken charity work committing several hours, or perhaps raising funds for a charity or being a trustee, or running a charitable organisation as a volunteer. All these would count. Serving in the armed forces for 3 years which although paid, given what could be demanded of the individual would also be considered a selfless act. There may be other qualifying roles. This would only need to be demonstrated the once as this historic criterion once satisfied would be carried forward to subsequent applications.
Ordinarily this criterion ought to be fulfilled but under some circumstances the licence may be allowed without.
B. Able to bring a skill, knowledge or insight of a particular aspect of society that may otherwise be under-represented
This criterion is different to the others as it cannot be a mandatory requirement. Not everybody has had experiences that in some aspect are far from the norm. Not everybody has had or is having a close relationship with a person who has had experiences far from the norm. The advantage to parliament is that it would give a voice to minority groups who may otherwise go unrepresented. These may include but would not necessarily be limited to the following.
- Disability
- Recovered from severe mental illness
- Neurodiversity
- Rehabilitation and time elapsed following a prison sentence
- Ethnic minority
- Former armed forces
- Certain professions that do not naturally lend themselves to having a political career.
Each of the items in the list will have its own considerations. The license holder is to be allowed to take the seat in parliament, but without a license he cannot be put forward as a candidate. On the one hand it is essential that the parliamentarian is able to fulfill the duties, and therefore there should be no compromise on the standards being proposed. On the other hand, there needs to be some interpretation and allowance that will facilitate these underrepresented characteristics to emerge. The licenses issued can state such characteristics and these can be added to canvassing literature or even the ballot paper. Such characteristics should be seen and promoted as a positive attribute. This of course does not mean that the candidates with licenses stating such characteristics will be elected, but it may encourage the more undecided or swing voter to be influenced by these characteristics.
C. Demonstrates a consistent ability to manage financial affairs with integrity
This is to ensure that before they are asked to take responsibility and make decisions on managing the nation’s finances, and also by implication make decisions affecting the welfare of others, the applicants can demonstrate that they have managed their own financial affairs satisfactorily. It is also to ensure that financial difficulties do not unduly influence decisions to advocate a particular course of action that would give or could be interpreted to give unreasonable financial gain to the applicant due to necessary or excessive self-interest.
At present for existing members only, there are requirements to provide a declaration of interests and a declaration of outside income. I am not aware of any financial scrutiny over those wishing to become members of parliament before they become elected.
For MPs returning to parliament a set of personal audited accounts including all offshore income and their tax returns should be sufficient. This will provide a continuous year on year record. Reduced external income may be at the mercy of market forces. This can happen to anyone. Reduced income alone would not be sufficient to disqualify from receiving a licence. What would require some explanation is unsafe purchasing, such that expenditure exceeded income by some considerable amount, or that debt levels were becoming unsustainable. 3 consecutive years of loss or being put in a position where debt needs to be met by selling assets should raise concerns. If after the event, debt has been cleared by selling assets, that would be viewed as good management. It is the debt before the event that raises the concern as there is no assurance it will be well managed or that it will bear influence on voting and policy making. Unnecessary, or unsafe speculation, should also raise concerns.
For the prospective candidates who have never been elected to parliament, they may not yet have set up the necessary accounting arrangements. Those who are self-employed and who run a business, may well have done so. If not, they should aim to do this at the earliest opportunity as soon as the application for the license is submitted. Beyond that, they should declare all banking account details, all sources of income, all loans and all potential conflicts of interest if elected. The banks should be asked to certify that the potential candidate is in good standing with the bank and that they have no concerns about the management of the accounts. The loan companies should certify that repayments are being made on schedule.
D. Demonstrates a consistent ability to manage personal affairs with integrity
This implies managing personal relationships well. The implication is that if a person is not able to conduct themselves well to those to whom they are closest, this raises concerns about their attitudes towards those they have never met, like the electorate.
The test here is, whether the person is able to manage their relationships with integrity. Anybody can make a mistake so a single error of judgement from which the person has learnt, developed and moved on from should not impede the receiving of the license. Below are two lists, one for matters that would be acceptable and another that would not. They take into account both modern norms and traditional values. The relationships need to be legal and non-abusive. The gender of the potential candidate and of the one with whom they are in a relationship with, and the nature of that relationship are otherwise irrelevant, as long.
Acceptable situations assuming there are no other complicating factors
- Single person outside a relationship
- First or second stable monogamous relationship, whether married, pre-marriage, cohabiting or choosing to be together but living apart
- A single parent
- A person going through a first divorce or other relationship break up.
Unacceptable situations.
- Failure to keep proper contact with offspring after divorce,
- Failure to make child maintenance payments
- Failure to follow any other aspect of the divorce proceedings court order.
- Offspring to 3 different spouses.
Some candidates may fall between the lists and a matter of judgement and subjectiveness may need to be exercised. If possible, the quality of the relationship should also be considered, not just its presence or absence. For example, a regular shared activity with the offspring, current spouse or previous spouse would be seen as positive.
The criteria would be the same for Level 1 and Level 2 licenses. The criteria would be the same for first and subsequent applications. The matters considered here will be on-going and over a 5-year parliamentary term the member’s important personal relationships may sour. Other things being satisfactory, a member who slips out from the acceptable list but not into the unacceptable may still be granted a licence. An applicant who through circumstances has fallen into the unsatisfactory list, may be given time to remedy the situation.
E. Demonstrates a consistent ability to look after themselves and avoid reckless behaviours
This is to ensure that the person has a reasonably healthy lifestyle. The bar for not being granted a licence on this criterion is set fairly high. There would be concern if a person was being reckless in looking after themselves, as they could be equally reckless when making decisions for others. For example, a speeding ticket alone would probably be insufficient to disqualify the applicant from having the licence, but if coupled with a charge of reckless driving or drunk driving or being 30mph over the speed limit, it would. Unsafe practices, for example, unsafe sex in the sense of putting oneself and/or others at health risk, or drunkenness, would be considered adequate reason for not issuing a licence, unless the applicant could provide evidence that it was a single event or that they have moved on from such activity. This last example would be evidence not sought after but used only if it came to light.
F. The person has a value system they adhere to
The nature of the value system is not that important. It can be religious or humanist. It can be based on concepts. It can be based on literature. The criterion refers to a system, therefore implying that one value is insufficient.
At interview, the applicant would be expected to describe the value system, defend it and describe how it manifests and enhances their life and describe how the value system enhances democracy. The lack of a value system would be concerning as it may imply that without values, the member of parliament would not be serving but that they may be more of a selfish attitude. It may also imply that they would be more prone to being influenced by self-gain, or by outsiders. It is also a test against the politician who would make empty promises. The applicant with a value system would gladly talk about it. The applicant without would either be left floundering or speak in words that sound good towards their audience, but there is no psychological substance underpinning them.
Establishing the value system at first application, and its positive benefits on the person’s life, can be reviewed each time the applicant is seeking re-licensing. If a person’s value system included for example living a life that is alcohol free and they were subsequently caught walking home drunk, this would be sufficient for the licence to be suspended or revoked.
G. Demonstrates a consistent adherence to truth and accuracy
This criterion is one that could be argued as being the most important. The epithet to follow is “Truth is sacrosanct.” The applicant’s adherence to it is paramount. All relationships including relationships between politicians of different persuasions and between politicians and the electorate is based on truth. If truth is undermined, then trust is undermined. How can the electorate advise politicians if they are misinformed. The legal standard of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth within a political discourse can be better put as describing the situation including all the salient facts with the correct emphasis and balance judged against the appropriate value system.
We can create an approximate truth scale. It can apply to both the spoken and written word.
- Level 1: Full Precision and Accuracy
- Definition: The statement is entirely accurate, precise, and perhaps supported by evidence. Either the statement is common knowledge or if the evidence is new, source material is quoted or referenced directly.
- Example:
“According to the Office of National Statistics the Consumer Prices Index including owner occupiers’ housing costs (CPIH) rose by 3.8% in the 12 months to October 2025, down from 4.1% in September.” - Level 2: Essentially accurate but with minor imprecision to make a point
- Definition: The statement is mostly accurate, but contains minor exaggeration, simplification, or generalisation for rhetorical effect. The core facts remain true.
- Example: “In the UK Parliament about 323 MPs are required for an overall majority.” (There is acceptable rounding or simplification, or minor exaggeration to make a point. The correct number is 326 but with Sinn Fein not taking their seats, the required number is a little less.)
- Level 3: Factually Correct but with a Positive or Negative Spin
- Definition: The statement is factually correct and no key facts are omitted but due to uncertainty, prejudice or a secondary agenda, it is presented with positive or negative framing to favour a particular position and to shape perception.
- Example: “The government has delivered record investment in health and only with us is the NHS safe.” (The figures are accurate but omits context such as inflation, so in real terms the investment is less.)
- Level 4: Selective Omission or Distortion
- Definition: The statement omits key facts or distorts context, resulting in a misleading overall impression. The omission or distortion is significant enough to affect understanding.
- Example: “Growth is the highest amongst the G7 nations.” (Only for the last 6 months, omitting that this is catch up after it was the lowest in the previous 3 years.
- Level 5: Untruths/False Statements
- Definition: The statement contains factual inaccuracies or falsehoods, but there is no clear evidence of intent to mislead. Errors may be due to misunderstanding, outdated information, or careless reporting.
- Example:
“Unemployment is at its lowest ever,” (When official statistics show otherwise.) - Level 6: Deliberate Lying to Mislead
- Definition: The statement is intentionally false, crafted to deceive or mislead the audience. Evidence of intent is not necessarily required. It can be considered in the presence of repeated false claims, internal documents contradicting public statements, incongruous statements and false promises, perhaps unsubstantiated by an action plan or in the form of wishful thinking that realistically are difficult or impossible to fulfill. It includes the creation of data when “I don’t know” may be the correct answer to a question.
- Example:
“We aim to eliminate poverty.” (But there is no intention or plan to fulfil the statement.)
This scale would allow for subsequent and timely correction if appropriate. Level 6 statements may take time to emerge, if it requires a repeated pattern to emerge or for the promise not to be fulfilled.
So, applying the above scale of truthfulness to political statements 1) and 2) are acceptable, 5) and 6) definitely not. 3) and 4) maybe acceptable under certain circumstances, for example during a debate, where many different people from both sides of the argument are presenting, or the speaker is making a single specific point, or there is limited time to speak. Ministers who are reporting to parliament should only be in 1) or 2) above. Assuming the statements are true, there is nothing wrong in them saying, “This is what I have done and this why I have done it.” Or this is what I believe in and this why I believe it is best. To say that something is the best is a valued judgement that is likely not to be valid.
The use of statistics often is selective. For example, an impressive headline figure is often taken from the most favorable period when in reality the underlying trend may be the reverse. This is not only being dishonest to parliament and the population, but also to oneself and fellow party members who may believe the false information.
To say that something describes a situation when it is the exception rather than the norm is unacceptable. Also unacceptable is when a significant explanation is omitted when another is offered. For example, hospital waiting lists were very badly hit by the COVID pandemic. But they were going up prior and ignoring this fact means the underlying problem was not being addressed. See Figure 7. (13)
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.
H. 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.
- Guilty beyond reasonable doubt
- Guilt not proven (Scotland)
- On the balance of probability
- Prima facia evidence sufficient to go to trial-in the US the grand jury agree to charge the suspect.
- Prima facia evidence sufficient to require investigation
- 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 ofabout54million, 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.
I. 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.
J. 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.
K. 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.
L. 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.
M. 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.
N. 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.
O. 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:
- Democracy is above politics. It is about the process by which political decisions are made, not the decisions themselves.
- Democracy is a system of government in which the citizens are sovereign.
- Democracy is about all being equal, regardless of status, occupation, race, religion, creed, age, gender, disability and orientation.
- Democracy requires a system of law, order and justice.
- Democracy is about having the respect for and developing those institutions that promote and support democracy.
- 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.
- Democracy is about the responsibility to present arguments in a manner that is balanced, truthful and fair.
- Democracy is about the minority acknowledging and respecting that there is an alternative prevailing majority view.
- Democracy is about the majority acknowledging and respecting the minority and that there is a minority point of view.
- Democracy is about the majority acknowledging that they still have responsibility for the care of the minority.
- Democracy is about free speech and the freedom to express oneself safely and freely without duress.
- Democracy is about taking the privilege of free speech and using it responsibly.
- Democracy has a responsibility to uphold and promote the truth and to reflect accurately on the world as it is.
- Democracy is about having a free and responsible press to disseminate the news along with views and opinions in true and proper balance.
- Democracy has built within itself, the ability to correct mistaken decisions.
- Democracy is not to be taken for granted.
- Democracy is a privilege, a responsibility and a duty to be upheld.
- Democracy should not be used as a means to manipulate the population, either for self-interest or against democracy itself.
- Democracy is about having in place protection for democracy
- 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.
P. 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Blaming others, and politicians are good at that, can be viewed as describing a situation or failing to take responsibility.
- 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
| Disqualifying Diagnoses | A brief description |
| Personality Disorders | Some only where the disorder may cause harm or adversely engage the public. |
| Narcissistic personality disorder | Feeling superior (grandiosity), needing admiration, lacking empathy, and neglecting others |
| Antisocial personality disorder | Disregard for consequences and for the rights of others, lacking guilt and empathy |
| Histrionic personality disorder | Excessive emotionality and attention seeking |
| Schizoid personality disorder | A general disinterest and the expression of few emotions in relationships. |
| Dissociative Disorders | All, because they are out of touch with reality |
| Dissociative identity disorder | Previously called Multiple Personality Disorder |
| Depersonalization/ Derealization disorder | Seeing yourself from outside/ Everything around you, feels unreal |
| Amnesic Personality Disorder | Missing memories or the existence of large holes in one’s life likely to be due to complex trauma and complicated by suppressed emotion |
| Substance related disorders | Implies that there is a lack of self-discipline resulting in the disorder. |
| Addictive disorders | Implies it is the substance controlling life and not vice versa. |
| Paraphilic disorders | Only those that are undertaken publicly, illegally, or non-consensually |
| Voyeuristic disorder | These all have illegal connotations |
| Exhibitionistic Disorder | |
| Frotteuristic Disorder | |
| Paedophilic Disorder |
Table 2: A list of disqualifying mental health diagnoses and a brief description why their presence should be disqualifying.
This list is intended as a guideline. It will probably need fine tuning. The personality disorders selected all have features that primarily have some aspect of selfishness about them. Their effects can be subtle and not readily recognizable. Not all personality disorders are included. For example, borderline personality disorder, also known as Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder, is characterised by overexaggerated emotional responses. Its effects are more visible to both the individual and others. In this condition, there is nothing inherently selfish as in narcissistic personality disorder or being out of touch with reality as in the Dissociative Disorders.
Like many of the conditions listed, If the mind is doing it in moderation the aspect may be normal, or a sign of health, but when excessive it gives rise to mental health problems. Dissociation may be a useful ability with the mind actively disengaging from personal mental distress. But widespread dissociation implies widespread mental disengagement and a highly traumatized individual. For example, in amnesic personality disorder, if the normal physiological inability for an adult to recall much before the age of 3 is extended into later childhood, it implies a childhood in which the person has memories they are not recalling. There will almost certainly be associated abundant anger, resentment and other emotions that are too traumatic, intense or painful. Dissociative conditions are not conducive to making rational decisions about others.
The same could be said about anybody who has a substance related or an addictive condition, even when not under the direct influence of the substance. A gambling addiction would be included as a disqualifying condition. That the person has allowed themselves to have a lifestyle that includes such substances implies the person is at least vulnerable to failing the tests of managing their personal affairs with integrity, or their financial affairs with integrity; or that at times they succumb making the person unreliable. Ongoing smoking addiction, be it nicotine or cannabis could be seen as an initial immature mistake in life. Ideally all parliamentarians should be smoke free. If the smoking is in private and no laws or by-laws are broken for example respecting no smoking areas, a licence may still be issued.
For all the conditions on the list, before issuing a licence may be considered, their needs to be a minimum specified length of time after therapy in which the person’s well-being has been maintained. The length of time should be such that there is reasonable confidence that there will not be a relapse within the person’s working life span. Three years without a relapse seems like a reasonable wait, though it may need to be longer.
Not on the list are conditions such as Schizophrenia and other psychoses. When acute or having relapsed, they would be better managed by medical certification as not fit for work. The licence can be suspended and reinstated once recovery and a period of time, e.g. 6 months has elapsed.
Relapse occurring due to not taking medication as medically instructed, should be considered as evidence that the person is not able to appropriately manage their personal affairs.
Setting the criteria
This is another area that will need to be trialed with learning from experience as to what works and what not. What is written here is proposed as a starting point.
For those from outside parliament, either there should be no history of a disqualifying mental health condition or if there has been, it is certified the applicant has been condition free for three years. Furthermore, there should be no further evidence emerging when inquiring about other criteria to be satisfied.
For those inside parliament it is suggested that emotional intelligence becomes part of a team building and continued educational program for the members.
Q. Nothing ever to suggest the person is or was a security risk
This is one of the two criteria that applies to level 2 certificate applicants only. If they are in a position where they may be discussing national secrets, whether that is directly as the relevant minister with a security portfolio, or in cabinet, or as the shadow representative who from time to time may be needed to be given confidential information the public needs to be confident that the person is able to maintain such confidentiality. An expensive extensive background check comparable to that required to join MI5 or MI6 should be undertaken. This would be carried out once every parliamentary term. In between and at any stage if it comes to light that there is or has been a security breech or unsafe security practices, this would be investigated. There should be a very low threshold for investigation. The license could be suspended pending the outcome and if the matters raised are not satisfactorily cleared up the licence would be revoked altogether.
R. Is of an attitude that when required seeks and follows the consensus view of experts
Of the 18 criteria for the licence 17 of them refer to the character and conduct of the politician. This is the only one that relates to the outcome of the political activity.
No politician can be or should be expected to know everything about all matters. The citizen who requires help seeks out those who know and pays for the services. The courts and judges rely on expert witnesses. Even experts seek other experts for an opinion on an overlapping matter.
Just as it would be unacceptable for doctors to prescribe an unsafe, unlicensed remedy with potentially serious side effects, it is equally unacceptable for senior politicians to take a stance that is contrary to the current perceived wisdom of those experts in the field who do know. The politicians, particularly those in authority should similarly seek advice when they understand their knowledge in a particular area is lacking. Failure to do so or failing to heed the advice would be seen as neglect. This leads to the one area where one may consider politicians to lose their absolute parliamentary privilege and to become legally culpable if they fail to take proper advice and act contrary to the perceived wisdom of the day.
Situations to avoid would be an environment minister not believing in climate change and promoting policies increasing global warming. Or a health minister advocating the non-immunization of children based on conspiracy theories to the safety of vaccines. The Prime Minister as head of government would also be liable for appointing such people.
These situations in the UK are hypothetical but has become reality in the USA. What has occurred in the UK is that prior to the Brexit referendum, almost every single economic expert was saying, “Don’t do it.” 5 years after leaving the UK economy is clearly suffering. This is felt by the public. From the high-water mark of the Leave Campaign which manifested itself at the time of the referendum, public opinion has swung to 55% or 65% believing that leaving was a mistake, depending on whether the ‘don’t knows’ are included or not. (18)
Returning to the comparison with other professionals, for example, if it came to light that a patient was harmed by a maverick doctor’s unacceptable practice, not only would the General Medical Council review the doctor’s licence to practice, but the harmed patient could go to a solicitor to seek damages. The current parliamentary equivalent to this would be no consequences other than leaving parliament and going on an international tour earning money as a celebrity guest speaker. With the licence in place the licence would be revoked.
Should the politician additionally be held legally liable? This is discussed later in this composition.
In terms of licence eligibility, a new member of parliament or a new minister will never have been in the political position of authority or power to be required at times to seek external advice. If a climate change denier was kept away from the Department of the environment, would it matter? It could do. Ministers of different departments need to talk to each other. Secretaries of State will be in cabinet.
Would it be known if a licence applier either held maverick views or was of a nature not to seek or ignore perceived wisdom? Possibly.
Would it matter if a member of parliament had a maverick view but in all other respects was decent, honest and served the constituency with integrity? Probably not. Indeed, the opposite could be argued. Having alternative minority opinions in a debating chamber is healthy.
Maverick views possibly ought to be encouraged. Like diversity they can provide a different perspective or insight. One, can never know when such a view may become mainstream. But until then it would not be healthy if a maverick view was the guiding policy in a department.
The issue is not the maverick view. The issue is that the maverick view is fostered onto the public against the consensus of expert opinion and perceived wisdom. It goes against that which the majority would be deeming sensible.
To summarise this aspect, the criterion is not relevant for a Level 1 Certificate. For a first application, unless the applicant has been a local councilor, the applicant will certainly not have been in a position in national government to have failed this criterion.
For a Level 2 certificate to be refused there needs to be evidence that harm came by not following perceived wisdom of the experts in the field. But it is possible that outside parliament due process or protocol was not followed. Thus, the applicant can self-declare that they have always sought advice appropriately and will do so if in a position of authority. If a matter subsequently comes to light whether in or out of government, the matter can be referred to and investigated by the RPPL.
Awarding or refusing the licence.
Appendix 4 is the form to be completed on the evidence presented about the fulfillment or otherwise for each of the criteria based on the evidence presented and available on each individual applicant.
There are 16 criteria to be assessed for level 1 certification and 18 criteria for Level 2.
There are three types of assessment under which the criteria may be considered. They are:
√☐–Criterion Satisfied
?☐-Criterion uncertain/undetermined
x☐ Criterion not satisfied
The three assessment types are not all available to each criterion. The Criterion satisfied and not satisfied are straightforward. The Amber options are available to occasionally permit some criteria to have a borderline assessment between ‘Satisfied’ and ‘Not Satisfied’. For example, the criterion has some subjectivity about it, and it is uncertain whether the evidence by itself should raise a concern sufficient to disallow the licence, or not.
For Level 1 and Level 2 certificates, a single red unsatisfied criterion is sufficient to prevent the licence being issued. There must be no criteria that are unsatisfactory for the licence to be issued.
For a level 1 Licence to be issued there needs to be a minimum 15 criteria satisfied green. The one missing is likely to be ‘B. Able to bring a skill, knowledge or insight of a particular aspect of society that may otherwise be under-represented.’ But if that is present, the applicant could be excused ‘A. Has served in a role to help individuals in the public for no reward.’ If that is satisfactory being uncertain or undetermined on one other would be allowed.
The fulfillment for the Level 2 licence is the same except there are two additional criteria relating to security and the responsibility of taking expert advice.
Political legal liability.
In preparation of the criteria two issues arose. The first was the comparison with professionals and the standards they uphold and the consequences they face if not met. This was highlighted by events both in the UK (19) and USA (20). When a politician seriously screws up, should there be some further legal consequence beyond losing the licence. This is another new concept, and it too is being introduced for debate.
There is only one specific situation that is under discussion here. It is when the Governmental and Executive Institutions are advocating or carrying out policy that is contrary to the perceived wisdom of the day. This may arise when a government has been elected on a platform that includes popular sensible policies, A, B and C but also includes policy D which not only is neither, but it is also to be pushed causing harm and damage to many.
Depending on the nature and circumstances of the issue the relevant institutions are parliament and its members, the relevant government ministers including the Prime Minister and the senior civil service as the executive branch.
If such a liability was to be created, how this would manifest itself if the matter came to a court needs to be worked out. The issue would be considered a civil matter. The opinion may be sought before the event or after it.
If before the enaction of the policy and once in court the legal test question to be asked would be, “On the balance of probability is the weight of expert opinion very clearly advising that enacting the proposed policy will cause more harm than good?”
The wording is such to acknowledge that experts too can have differences of opinions and that the policy advocates do not seek an outlying opinion that is sympathetic to their cause. ‘Very clearly advising’ is plainly implying much more than 51% of expert opinion. 90% of experts advising in the same direction is patently sufficient. It may depend on the probability-harm analysis of the specific issue. Where expert opinion is approximately equally divided there would be no liability as the test fails. While the overall harm benefit could not be accurately predicted, carrying out the intention may have a favourable outcome, or it may not and give lessons to be learnt for the future.
The opinion may be sought by the Civil service or the politicians themselves. The opinion may be sought by an interested opposition group challenging the government. If the advice of ‘do not enact’ was followed that is the end of the matter.
After the event the legal test is three-fold:
- Was there overall harm that ensued unequivocally greater than the benefit?
- If ‘No!’-there is no liability
- If ‘Yes’ ask question 2
- Was expert opinion sought prior to taking the action?
- If ‘Yes’ and the advice was ‘may enact’ there is no liability unless it can be demonstrated that the method of obtaining the opinion was flawed.
- If ‘Yes’ and the advice was ‘not to enact’, there is liability.
- If ‘No’ ask question 3
- If legal advice would have been sought, would the legal test question have been satisfied?
- If ‘No’-there is no liability, but future licence may be refused on the basis that expert advice was not sought when it should have been.
- If ‘Yes’ there is liability
What that liability should be is also up for debate. The liability should be limited. There needs to be some penalty but, for example, how does one monetize a crashed economy or harm to the environment? Its purpose is not to penalize or to recompense for damages, but to act as a deterrent to the arrogant politician who believes that their political doctrine is superior to the collective wisdom of the experts in the field. Its purpose like all the criteria is to focus the political minds on acting for the national good
Educational program
The second issue that emerged were areas of training requirements. They are:
L. Consistently demonstrates an understanding of a variety of facets of national society
M. Consistently demonstrates and understands safeguarding
N. Consistently demonstrates and understands Equality and Diversity.
O. Consistently demonstrates and understands Democracy
P Has enhanced mental well-being: good emotional intelligence, mental resilience, psychological balance and inner realism
Many firms and teams hold training days, away days, team building days, etc which takes them away from their regular duties. As well as the benefit of the team coming together, it is an opportunity to take a step back, pause and for the team players to think about what they are doing, why they are doing it and to consider their priorities and personal efficiency. If it is good within business, within the NHS and elsewhere it will also be good for parliament.
That is not to say that in organizing such events there will not be issues to be addressed. All ideas that are novel will require time to catch on. What will be the best format? How will it be monitored with feedback. To begin with who will carry it out? I would suggest that it probably ought to be externally monitored and academically studied, by the appropriate University Department.
How big should the teams be? 650 for a learning event is certainly feasible but the House of Commons chamber cannot seat every member of parliament even for Prime Minister’s Questions. Some learning events, particularly team building events would be much better organized in smaller groups. Should this be within the political parties or across party? It is likely to depend on the nature of the event.
How often should they be? Emotional Intelligence training should be at least annually. Facets of national society, could be site visits to areas very different to one’s own constituency. They could take in visits to good practice, or crumbling infrastructure, or specific industries. While one every four months in a 5-year parliamentary term will give 15 opportunities, parliaments often do not go the full length.
The training program and the learning opportunities would be for the responsibility of the RPPL to ensure that there will be significant sufficient events for the MP’s to fulfill their licensing requirements.
The Singapore experience
Singapore’s political system stands as a global benchmark for its thorough anti-corruption measures, showcasing a history of unwavering commitment to integrity and transparency. Transparency International’s annual survey of the Corruption Perception Index in 2024 places Singapore in third place out of the 180 countries being tested. (21) The methodology of the index production has been criticised on a number of counts. It measures perceptions of corruption rather than actual corruption. It surveys only government corruption, and not private corruption. While Singapore took the path of anti-corruption legislation, and not the licensing of its politicians, for our purposes this serves us well. It provides evidence that a rigorous policy to promote the quality of parliamentarians and government ministers, gives national dividends.
There were 6 components to the strategy. They were:
- Political will
- Legislation
- Adjudication
- Enforcement
- Public Administration
- Zero tolerance
The nation’s journey towards a corruption-free society began in earnest by the founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, when the People’s Action Party (PAP) was elected to government in 1959. (22) They did not gain full independence until August 1965 but initially was a self-governing enclave of Malaysia They knew that to be a success the nation at all levels of society needed to be incorruptible and for the government to be meritocratic. This has been maintained throughout and 60 years later it is engrained into the Singapore culture.
There are two pieces of legislation key to fighting corruption. They are the Prevention of Corruption Act(PCA), and the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (CDSA). Between the giving and receiving of bribes is outlawed in both the public and private sectors. The CDSA, permits the confiscation of ill-gotten gains from corrupt offenders.
The judiciary is independent and appointed by means similar to that in the UK. The Chief Justice is appointed by the President but following the advice of the Prime Minister and the Council of Presidential Advisers. District judges and magistrates are appointed by the President with advice from the Chief Justice.
The sole agency responsible for combating corruption in Singapore is the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). The CPIB works with various government agencies and private organisations to gather evidence and obtain information. Its single remit is to fight corruption vigorously and to enforce the tough anti-corruption laws impartially. The CPIB operates independently from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) though it does report directly to it.
The ethos pervades throughout the Singapore Public Administration. There is a code of conduct that guides the public officers. It is equivalent to “Good Medical Practice” guiding UK Doctors (23) or the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs for UK solicitors (24). There are frequent system reviews within the CPIB and public service to improve operative efficiency and reduce opportunity for corruption.
The attitudes that are upheld are integrity, incorruptibility and transparency with zero tolerance to that which is not.
Putting it all together all public servants are trained into observing the anti-corruption rules. So that it becomes second nature. They become readily perceptive to threats or deviations from the highest standard. With severe penalties the risk reward balance is very much based against corruption, with deterrence being prominent.
Singapore benefitted by insisting on having its officers and politicians above reproach. It did not have to reverse a culture of corruption.
In contrast to Singapore’s 3rd place the UK is placed 30th on the CPI, so clearly not bad. But we do not have zero tolerance with too many people making excuses for the politicians. When it comes to the licensing of politicians. There would almost certainly need to be some legislation, but the biggest gap is the political will. I doubt it is much more than nil, but if the thought has not even crossed the minds of politicians that such a thing would be possible, this is not a surprise. It needs to be tested. There is no reason why the licencing of politicians would not work.
Promotion and dissemination
Figure 3 is a schematic diagram of a suggested action suggesting how the licensing of politicians would be promoted and rolled out. It starts with the pro- democracy campaigners and stakeholders who are sympathetic to the idea of improving standards. Once convinced, they would need to sell the idea to the public and to involve academic and researchers to obtain the evidence to convince the politicians that it is to everybody’s benefit including their own. Eventually once there is a sizable majority of the public in favour the pressure on the politicians will be mounting for them also to agree and approve. This may be required to be done in stages, for example setting up a shadow APPL before the live panel emerges. There may need to be a phased introduction of the detailed criteria. This would soften the culture shock on the members of parliament who have “enjoyed” unlicensed service. This would allow them to gain confidence over time and that it is to their benefit as well as everybody else’s.
The promotion of an idea from its inception in the mind of one person to its realization is both an art and a science. The theory underpinning this is for the idea originator to convince those who are likely to be not only the most sympathetic, but also those who are likely to take on board the idea and be the most influential to others. These in turn will approach the next layer of adoptees who can be persuaded to take on board the idea. If there is sufficient growth, there will come a time when the 50% point is reached and passed. With a majority involvement the idea becomes the reality. Now, the quality or otherwise of the idea can be seen in practice. If the merits will be seen to be flawed, the idea and its execution will fade. However, if the lived experience proves beneficial, the idea will become established as the norm for everybody. Only a small minority will believe otherwise.
The art is in knowing whom and how to contact, and who may be sympathetic and therefore a potential advocate. That you are reading this suggests that you may be a sympathizer and potential advocate. It is also about reaching out to audiences via broadcasters, publishers and other disseminators of information in a very general sense. From the people with influence such as journalists, and social media influencers, it needs to reach those who have the power and authority to make the changes. Politicians themselves need to be persuaded that ultimately it is in their best interests.
It is an issue that should be able to transcend the political spectrum. The left may view it as a means of controlling the excesses of the right and similarly, the right could view it as a means of controlling the excesses of the left. On a party basis, if the present Labour Government adopts it as policy, they would be seen as the party to end systemic incompetence, dishonesty and corruption in parliament. For the Conservatives, embracing such a policy would indicate to the general public that they have turned a corner from their recent past. For the Liberal Democrats and other smaller Westminster parties, it would make them appear different to the two largest political parties in Westminster. As a steppingstone to overall adoption as part of the self governance of individual political parties, its local adoption by any one of them should show them in good light relative to the others. Of course it is not simply the political party taking it on as a campaign strategy, they need to have the will to push it through parliament.
In the wider context if the UK adopts the principle, other democracies can follow suit. The USA in a post-Trump, post MAGA-world may need to do something to cleanse itself from the destructiveness of the present. But the post-MAGA world may be years away. In the meantime, European right-wing groups may be encouraged and follow the lead of the USA. Some European Countries may be more vulnerable than others.
Once political good practice is established, it then becomes easier for nations with governments guaranteed to be competent and trustworthy to be able to guide others less so on how to achieve such a status.
Summary and Conclusion
In this paper, it is argued that politicians should be licensed. Politicians make far more decisions about the lives and livelihoods of people than the professionals in other occupations who require a license. It seems incongruous that those with the most power have the least supervision and least consequence for malpractice.
As well as the reasons for outlining its benefits and the reasons why counter arguments are invalid, we are left with the conclusion that the only reasons this has not already happened are because politicians have had no incentive to impose this on themselves, and that up until now the public have had no concept that it is either possible or beneficial. Presented is a detailed outline of the process. While the final structure may be a little different, it demonstrates that 1) it is feasible and therefore 2) if the national will is there. it is attainable.
But the systemic vulnerability of the UK, the collapsing of Democracy in the USA and the external pressures on the European democracies from the autocracies in the East, all demonstrate the urgency that is required. This will not happen quickly. At best, once the politicians accept the concept, the act of parliament is passed, the shadow RPPL lays the foundation for its establishment and the licences can start to be issued, it will be for an election in or around the year 2032.
What is required is for the public to be sufficiently agitated into demanding that this is the path our politicians go down.
References:
- https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/quotes/the-worst-form-of-government/, Posted 25th Feb 2016, Viewed 15 Mar 2025
- Online search of ‘medical records found in car park’ and ‘medical records found in dumpster’
- An Introduction to John Stuart Mill’s ‘On Liberty’, Paul Meany, https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/introduction-john-stuart-mills-liberty, viewed 23 Nov 2025.
- European Convention on Human Rights, https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG, last updated 2nd October 2013, viewed 23 Nov 2025
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_scandals_in_the_United_Kingdom, Edited 6th Feb 2025, Viewed 16th Mar 2025
- https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50470-why-do-tory-members-think-the-party-lost-the-2024-general-election, Matthew Smith, Head of Data Journalism, YouGov, Posted: 10th Sep 2024, viewed 6th March 2024
- https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/, Viewed 6th March 2024
- How Dominic Cummings’ lockdown travels changed public opinion, Chris Curtis, https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/29969-how-dominic-cummings-lockdown-travels-changed-publ, posted May 29, 2020, viewed 7th March 2025.
- https://best-quotations.com/catquotes.php?categ=0160, Viewed 18th Feb 2025
- https://www.gov.uk/marketing-advertising-law, Viewed 17th Feb 2025
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege, Viewed 24th Feb 2024
- https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2024-11/Veracity%20index%202024_v1_.pdf, Posted 20th Nov 2024, Viewed 16th March 2025
- NHS waiting lists hit record high in England, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66188529, Posted 23rd May 2023, Viewed 9th March 2025
- https://www.apa.org/topics/resilience, Viewed 13th March 2025
- https://dictionary.apa.org/emotional-intelligence Viewed 13th March 2024
- https://www.rochemartin.com/blog/best-tools-emotional-intelligence, Viewed 18th Feb 2025
- https://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2018/jul/24/two-50-or-100-years-when-do-leavers-think-brexit-will-pay-off, Posted 24 Jul 2018, Viewed 12th Mar 2025
- https://www.statista.com/statistics/987347/brexit-opinion-poll/, Viewed 20th Feb 2025
- https://niesr.ac.uk/blog/five-years-economic-impact-brexit Viewed 20th Feb2025
- Trump’s tariffs may end up blowing up the US dollar hegemony, Maximilian Hess, https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/3/13/trumps-tariffs-may-end-up-blowing-up-the-us-dollar-hegemony, posted 13th Mar 2025, viewed 18 Mar 2025.
- https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2024, Viewed 25th Nov 2025.
- https://www.cpib.gov.sg/about-corruption/legislation-and-enforcement/prevention-of-corruption-act/, Last Updated 10 Nov 2025, Viewed 25th Nov 2025.
- Good Medical Practice, https://www.gmc-uk.org/professional-standards/the-professional-standards/good-medical-practice, Came into effect 30th Jan 2024, Viewed 17th Mar 2025.
- https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/code-conduct-solicitors/ Viewed 14th Mar 2025
“If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools.” ~ Plato
Appendix 1 SWOT Analysis of UK democracy post UK general election, 2024.
| Strengths | Weaknesses | Opportunities | Threats |
| We have a democracy which allows for freedom of expression.Basic decency of the UK publicThe culture of democracy in the UK is over 300 years, giving it a degree of stability in the population’s mindsetDemocracy can kick back at those who disrespect itIt allows for the peaceful removal of individuals and governments who underperformUK is a hotbed of discussion, debate and good ideas with very many highly capable peopleThe population can make electoral errors of judgement, but these can also be acknowledged learnt from and rectified.Constitutional monarchy acting as bulwark against political overreachMultiple pro-democracy groups | Sovereignty is with parliament not the citizenshipConstitutional change based on a simple majority vote in parliament.Inadequate vetting process for parliamentary candidatesSelf-governance/regulation by politicians is inadequateDemocracy allows in, parliamentarians unsuitable for the role‘First passed the post (FPP) voting system with its inherent inequality allowing large parliamentary majorities from minority votesAn unethical news media that promotes its own agenda rather than being principled and holding politicians to accountA lack of understanding and appreciation of why democracy and its freedoms are so importantThe systems of democracy are slow and may not react quick enough before damage is doneThe systems of democracy are vulnerable to abuseThe systems of democracy rely too heavily on reaction rather than preventionThe systems of Democracy rely too heavily on the decency of politiciansThere is tolerance of the behaviour of politicians where in other walks of life there would be noneA disempowered unelected upper chamber | A new government with good intentions, wishing to set the agenda who appear will listen to good ideasA new government motivated to changeA new government whose majority is substantial and that will not be derailed, by extremists within its own partyAn angry and motivated public who do not want to see a return to the incompetence and lack of integrity shown in the last parliamentary termA return to the politics of doing good for peopleThe UK public strongly in favour of PR.PR likely to prevent political extremism Outcome of 2024 USA Presidential election acting as a warning sign. | Democracy under attack from out with, e.g. China and TaiwanDemocracy vulnerable to attack from withinTaking democracy for grantedThe rise of populism in the UK , and elsewhereMoves to proportional representation will allow greater representation of extremist views than currently2024 election voting appears to be dominated by voting against the least wanted. This is not sustainable in the long term2024, USA Presidential Election making the world a more dangerous place emboldening non-democrats to come out.The outcome of the 2024 USA Presidential Election creating a rippling effect in Europe encouraging autocratic forces Foreign influence in our elections be it from nations, oligarchs or social mediaUK Economy not in a strong positionNeed for increased defence spending |
Appendix 2. Governance and misconduct arrangements in certain professions
| Profession | Vetting | Qualifications and entry | Mandatory interval re-approval | Regulated | Professional misconduct |
| Doctors | No | At least two rounds of training. Medical School for 5-6 yearsPost-graduate specialist exams | 5 yearly revalidation including annual appraisal, evidence of knowledge keeping up to date and mandatory topics. | Statutory. By the General Medical Council | Can be reported to the GMC, suspended pending hearing and if found guilty can be struck off or only given a license to practice under strict conditions |
| Police officers | Yes | A variety of 2- or 3-year entry programs | Continuous in-house education | Non-statutory by the College of Policing. | The Independent Office for Police Conduct can investigate complaints or initiate investigations when merited. |
| Teachers | No | Generally speaking through the Post-Graduate Certificate of Education | EWC has online tools to assist but no obvious mandatory requirement. Scotland -Yes, has mandatory 5 yearly update. | Statutory in parts of the UK. The Education Workforce Council (Wales only). The General Teaching Council for Scotland(GTCs) | Have sanctions including restrictions and prohibitions to teach |
| Social workers | No | Degree or post-grad course | Yes. Annual CPD including peer review reflection to maintain place on register | Statutory, Eg, Social Work England | Sanctions include removal, interim suspension and conditions of practice. |
| Solicitors and Barristers | Yes | 2 rounds of training Law schoolLaw Society or Bar exams | No obvious mandatory requirement | Yes, Regulation Authority for solicitors and Bar Standards Board for barristers | Undertakes investigation. Disciplinary measures include financial penalties, controlling practice or discipline you, or removal |
| Judges | Yes | By appointment after minimum 5-7 year’s experience in the profession | No | Not statutory | May complain only about behaviour, language or conduct, Sanctions are Formal advice, formal warning, reprimand or removal |
| MI5 & MI6 | Yes, intense and continual | Success at a job interview process taking 6-9 months or possibly longer. Require a degree | No, but vetting is a regular process and personal learning encouraged | No | Nothing specific. Dealt with in-house under employment law |
| Civil servants | No | Various options to attain Post-grad level | No. Regular performance reviews | No | Nothing specific. Dealt with in-house under employment law |
| Politicians | Optional | Winning an election. | By holding seat at next election | No | At the discretion of parliament, leader of party or constituents. |
Appendix 3: Table of evidence required for each criterion.
| Criterion test | Cert. Level | Application/Applicant status | Source | Equivalent to profession | ||
| First or from outside parliament | Subsequent or from within parliament | |||||
| Has served in a role to help individuals in the public for no reward | 1/2 | Undertaken charity, fund raising or similar work; or served 3 years in the armed forces | Once demonstrated first time, may be carried forward | Applicant declaration supported by certified evidence | ||
| Able to bring a skill, knowledge or insight of a particular aspect of society that may otherwise be under-represented | 1/2 | Evidence that the applicant is eligible from one of the stated characteristics. | Certified by an appropriate person | |||
| Demonstrates a consistent ability to manage financial affairs with integrity | 1/2 | Declaration of interests. Either audited personal accounts or submission of all material financial statements that raise no concerns | Declaration of interests. Personal audited accounts, produced annually that raise no concern. | Applicant submission but produced by accountants and certified by bank and loan companies is of good standing. | Any individual or business that uses an accountant. | |
| Demonstrates a consistent ability to manage personal affairs with integrity | 1/2 | See guidelines of acceptable and unacceptable situations. The applicant needs to be in an acceptable situation. Some discretion may be applied if between the acceptable and unacceptable. | Applicant declaration and concerns to be raised at interview | |||
| Demonstrates a consistent ability to look after themselves and avoid reckless behaviours | 1/2 | See guidelines comparing the acceptable and unacceptable situations. There should be no concerns but discretion may be applied if the applicant can provide evidence that the concern was either a single event, or sufficient time has elapsed and the concern is historical. | Applicant declaration supported by certificates from medical record and DRB | Anybody working with the vulnerable in Society | ||
| The person has a value system | 1/2 | Any religious, humanistic or literary value system and how that would be applied in the role of parliamentarian. | May be reviewed and did the MP act according to the value system and how the value system has impacted on serving the population | Addressed at interview | Ministers of religion | |
| Demonstrates a consistent adherence to truth and accuracy | 1/2 | No concerns raised from certificates and published literature demonstrating a general adherence to and no significant deviation from the truth within the stated guidelines. | Fact checks Hansard statements and published literature. Demonstrating a general adherence to and no significant deviation from the truth within the stated guidelines. | Certification from several sources. Fact checking Hansard and written literature. | The legal, medical professions | |
| Is consistently free from legal threat | 1/2 | Clear of any criminal and professional misconduct investigations. Hearsay allegations that are not being investigated may be ignored. Civil cases to be taken on their merits. | Applicant declaration and information from the police and other licensing or investigatory authorities as required. | All citizens, any regulated profession | ||
| Only ever accepts legal donations | 1/2 | Each applicant would have a parliamentary donations account that along with personal accounts would be made available for scrutiny. | Applicant submission of the relevant audited accounts as certified by accountants. | Any public service professions | ||
| Declares an intention and maintains a minimum of 75% of the time is dedicated to parliamentary work. | 1/2 | A statement of intent declaring. Outside interest work and to comply with the rules | Does not go beyond the time extra-curricular work directive. | Self-certified may be augmented by employer certification. | Any profession in which there may be a conflict of interests | |
| Consistently demonstrates an ability to present both sides of an argument-but is able to state why the one is more preferable | 1/2 | Each applicant would answer questions on the arguments for and against on a particular topic and finally give why one is more preferable. | Assessed at interview. | Judiciary, Academia | ||
| Consistently demonstrates an understanding of a variety of facets of national society | 1 | Mandatory training and a knowledge test on those aspects relevant to the constituency of residence, work or childhood, national customs and national institutions. | Mandatory training and a knowledge test on those aspects relevant to their constituency, national customs and national institutions. | Online test at various centres. | Applicants for citizenship | |
| 2 | As for Level 1 but more extensive sub-populations. And industries | |||||
| Consistently demonstrates and understands safeguarding | 1/2 | Mandatory training and a knowledge test. | Online test at various centres. | Anybody working with the vulnerable | ||
| Consistently demonstrates and understands Equality and Diversity. | 1/2 | Mandatory training and a knowledge test. | Online test at various centres. | NHS | ||
| Consistently demonstrates and understands Democracy | Mandatory training and a knowledge test. | Online test at various centres. | Any profession with continuing professional education | |||
| Has enhanced mental well-being: good emotional intelligence, mental resilience, psychological balance and inner realism | 1/2 | No history of a disqualifying mental health diagnosis, or certified by objective criteria of being condition-free 3 years post-therapy.No evidence elsewhere that mental health factors are adversely affecting the other criteria. | Undergoes recorded Emotional Intelligence training at least once every 30 months | Multisource feedback on enquiry. Medical record disclosure Recording the training and any psychometric testing with the RPPL. | Business | |
| Nothing ever to suggest the person is or was a security risk | 1 | N/a | Extensive Security check | MI5, MI6 | ||
| 2 | Extensive background check | |||||
| Is of an attitude that when required seeks and follows the consensus view of experts in the field | 1 | N/a | Applicant Declaration and by assessing any complaint to the RPPL or if still in existence, to the Parliamentary Complaints Commission | Any profession that may face being sued for malpractice | ||
| 2 | If there is no evidence coming to light that the parliamentarian has not followed expert opinion and general perceived wisdom. | |||||
Appendix 4: Process for converting Criteria satisfied to Licence granting
| Has served in a role to help individuals in the public for no reward | ☐ | ☐ | When fulfilled for the first application, it is then carried forward to subsequent cycles. | ||
| Able to bring a skill, knowledge or insight of a particular aspect of society that may otherwise be under-represented | ☐ | ☐ | |||
| Demonstrates a consistent ability to manage financial affairs with integrity | ☐ | ☐ | |||
| Demonstrates a consistent ability to manage personal affairs with integrity | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ||
| Demonstrates a consistent ability to look after themselves and avoid reckless behaviours | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ||
| The person has a value system they adhere to | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ||
| Demonstrates a consistent adherence to truth and accuracy | ☐ | ☐ | |||
| Is consistently free from legal threat | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ||
| Only ever accepts legal donations | ☐ | ☐ | |||
| Declares an intention and maintains a minimum of 75% of the time is dedicated to parliamentary work. | ☐ | ☐ | |||
| Consistently demonstrates an ability to present both sides of an argument-but is able to state why the one is more preferable | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ||
| Consistently demonstrates an understanding of a variety of facets of national society | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ||
| Consistently demonstrates and understands safeguarding | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ||
| Consistently demonstrates and understands Equality and Diversity. | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ||
| Consistently demonstrates and understands Democracy | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ||
| Enhanced mental well-being: good emotional intelligence, mental resilience, psychological balance and inner realism | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ||
| Additional Criteria for a Level 2 Licence | |||||
| Nothing ever to suggest the person is or was a security risk | ☐ | ☐ | A single security risk in the past will be carried forward as a criterion that means a licence will never be issued. | ||
| Is of an attitude that when required seeks and follows the consensus view of experts in the field | ☐ | ☐ | Possible legal liability if failing to do so. | ||
| Totals | |||||
There are 16 criteria to be assessed for level 1 certification and 18 criteria for Level 2.
There are three types of assessment for each of the criteria. They are:
√☐–Criterion Satisfied
?☐-Criterion uncertain/undetermined
x☐ Criterion not satisfied
The three assessment types are not all available to each criterion. The Criterion satisfied and not satisfied are straightforward. The Amber options are available to occasionally permit some criteria to have a borderline assessment between ‘Satisfied’ and ‘Not Satisfied’. For example, the criterion has some subjectivity about it, and it is uncertain whether the evidence should raise a concern or not.
For Level 1 and Level 2 certificates, a single red unsatisfied criterion is sufficient to prevent the licence being issued. There must be no criteria that are unsatisfactory for the licence to be issued.
For a level 1 Licence to be issued there needs to be a minimum 15 criteria satisfied green. The one missing is likely to be ‘O. Able to bring a skill, knowledge or insight of a particular aspect of society that may otherwise be under-represented.’ But if that is present, the applicant could be excused ‘A. Has served in a role to help individuals in the public for no reward.’ If that is satisfactory being uncertain or undetermined on one other would be allowed. The fulfillment for the Level 2 licence is the same except there are two additional criteria.