What should we expect from the candidates seeking our support in next month’s general election to the House of Keys?

Not to have all of the answers, obviously, because that would be unrealistic.

But we are entitled to more than the underwhelming blandness so often on offer.

These people are asking us to appoint them to the most important job in the Isle of Man.

To put them in charge of our laws, vital services like health and education, and public funds running into billions of pounds.

They want to be given ultimate responsibility for the environment, economy and employment opportunities.

If they get it wrong our families will pay the price in a poorer quality of life and standard of living.

Yet the recruitment process for this exceptional role is far from rigorous.

It is a community popularity contest, reflecting a view of MHKs as glorified local authority representatives.

In this amateur arena being well known in the parish is enough to make you a guardian of the nation.

There may be supermarket trolleys with more sense of political direction, but you can still end up as an Honourable Member.

When it comes to manifestos the bar is set pretty low. It helps to emphasise your personal and community credentials, and if your family has lived in the area since the last ice age that can be a selling point.

The candidate must be in favour of good things (’tourism - I’m all for it’) and skilled at stating the obvious (’education is important’).

A preoccupation with local issues is essential.

You can excuse your lack of policy proposals by explaining that as one member amongst many you may not be able to achieve much anyway.

Or that you won’t really know the score until you get in there.

Clearly not all candidates are such empty vessels, but some are and some get elected.

The quality of the membership does matter, however, and in a parliament as small as ours there should be no room for duffers.

Like Cronk-y-Voddy sports the race for the House of Keys is open to all comers, but contenders are not tested for their potential as national politicians. It is too easy for individuals to be over-promoted to positions of public responsibility through the happy accident of having a large circle of family, friends and acquaintances.

So how can the humble voter hope to sort the sheep from the goats?

There are a number of positive points to look out for. You might consider candidates more credible if they:

* Have done some homework. It’s surprising how many would-be MHKs try to wing it without a basic knowledge of parliament, government and major issues. If they are not interested in the subject why should we take them seriously?

* Show a clear sense of priorities, values and vision for the future.

They and you know what they stand for.

* Offer some thoughts on priority issues beyond merely stating their importance. Can talk about challenges and solutions in education, for example. Able to argue coherently using evidence.

* Recognise that the role of MHK involves national and international responsibilities, not just constituency concerns. Aware of the bigger picture.

* Possess a mind of their own, and the integrity to challenge groupthink. Could ask incisive questions in the public interest.

* Could make and explain hard decisions. Would not put short term popularity ahead of their responsibility for longer term consequences.

How many candidates can tick all of the boxes?

In tomorrow’s Isle of Man Examiner, I will suggest questions on which you should try to get a yes or no answer from candidates.