The case for licensing politicians
When individuals are harmed by those in positions of authority—such as doctors, drivers, teachers, employers, or parents—where “harm” may arise from incompetence, negligence, or intentional misconduct, it is a natural response for those affected to experience anger. This anger often serves as a catalyst for change. In turn, societies may respond through a range of measures designed to reduce the likelihood of future harm by those who hold power over others.
These measures typically include providing structured support, training, and mentorship to ensure that individuals exercising authority are equipped to do so responsibly and ethically. In addition, formal systems of governance are established in the form of laws, regulations, codes of practice, and professional standards, all of which define clear boundaries for those whose decisions can significantly impact the lives of others.
A further safeguard is the requirement for licensing, whereby individuals must demonstrate competence, integrity, and suitability before being permitted to practise in certain roles. Alongside this, organisations are subject to regular inspection and oversight to ensure compliance with legal and professional standards. For example, educational institutions are inspected by bodies such as Ofsted, healthcare providers are reviewed by organisations such as the CQC, and public utilities and services are often subject to independent ombudsman schemes that adjudicate disputes between organisations and individuals. In the corporate sphere, governance frameworks such as “fit and proper person” tests—now often replaced by broader owners’ and directors’ assessments—serve to uphold standards of leadership and accountability.
In many professions, such licensing and regulatory requirements are widely accepted as a routine part of safeguarding public interest. Operating without the appropriate licence is often unlawful. This applies across a range of sectors, including driving different categories of vehicles, providing certain healthcare services, or selling alcohol to the public. In some jurisdictions, regulatory requirements have even extended historically to areas such as media access, such as television licensing.
However, when considering elected representatives and parliamentary politicians, the regulatory framework is comparatively limited. Aside from rules governing election expenses and oversight by parliamentary standards bodies—which generally act in response to concerns that have already been raised—there are relatively few formal entry requirements for becoming a Member of Parliament. Typically, candidacy depends primarily on selection by a political party and subsequent approval by the electorate.
As a result, attaining one of the most influential public roles in government is largely dependent on a combination of party endorsement and electoral success, rather than a structured pre-qualification process comparable to other regulated professions. This stands in contrast to many public service roles that require formal certification, training, and ongoing professional oversight.
In light of this, it is argued that the vetting and qualification processes for elected officials may be insufficiently robust. Instances of inappropriate or questionable conduct among elected representatives in recent parliamentary terms have further highlighted concerns regarding standards and accountability.
When comparing entry requirements across public service roles, it becomes apparent that many professions impose significantly more stringent preconditions and ongoing obligations than those currently applied to politicians. This raises an important question about whether the current framework is appropriately balanced.
One perspective is that this situation persists partly because individuals in positions of power are naturally resistant to imposing constraints upon themselves, even though such constraints are often accepted as necessary for others in order to maintain order, consistency, and public trust.
- 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).
