What's Trust Got To Do With It? Public Trust in and Expectations of Politicians and Parliament

Publications / Reports

What's Trust Got To Do With It? Public Trust in and Expectations of Politicians and Parliament

5 May 2010

Did the expenses scandal really cause a collapse in public trust of politicians and the political system? Is a fall in trust key to the problematic relationship between voters and politicians? Rather than trust, this 2010 report identified the larger challenge as the fall in the relevance of politicians and political institutions to people’s everyday lives.

Politicians have rarely been trusted. The 2009 expenses scandal therefore did not lead to a collapse in trust in politics and politicians, because levels of trust were already so low. Public dissatisfaction with politics is based on deeper problems. Rather than trust, this report – published for the start of the first post-expenses-scandal Parliament in 2010 – identified the more urgent challenge as being the decline in the relevance of politicians and political institutions to people’s everyday lives.

What’s Trust Got To Do With It? highlights the fact that distrust of politicians is longstanding – pre-expenses-scandal research in 2004 showed already that only 27% of the public trusted politicians ‘a great deal’ or ‘a fair amount’. The same question, asked post-expenses-scandal in 2009, showed only a marginal decline in trust, to 26%. The expenses scandal did not therefore lead to a collapse in trust in politics and politicians, because levels of trust were already so low. In addition, for a majority of the public (53%), allegiance to a political party overrides perceptions of wrong-doing by candidates – party supporters would still vote for such figures.

The report identifies declining rates of satisfaction with the country’s system of governance as a major challenge for politicians: while 60% of the public think Parliament ‘is worthwhile’, only 19% see it as an influential institution in their everyday lives. Furthermore, 85% of the public believe they have ‘not very much influence’ or ‘no influence at all’ over national decision-making. This perceived lack of influence is rooted primarily in the belief that politicians do not listen to what the public has to say and that the political system does not allow the public to have influence.

What’s Trust Got To Do With It? recommends that MPs should concentrate on reforms to tackle lost satisfaction, relevance and influence rather than trying to address trust. Policies introduced to address issues of trust through the provision of greater transparency and accountability (such as Freedom of Information legislation) often have the opposite, unintended, effect of engendering a culture of suspicion rather than trust.

On its publication, the report's author, Dr Ruth Fox, commented:

"The events of the past year have opened up an opportunity for a serious dialogue about what kind of representative democracy we want for the future. Politicians, by focusing on policies designed to engender trust, have missed the bigger, broader, underlying concern – the declining levels of public satisfaction, perceived influence on decision-making and confidence in the relevance of Parliament to their lives. MPs in the new Parliament must tackle essential questions about the role and function of politicians and Parliament – if it’s just business-as-usual, public attitudes to politics and Parliament may plummet still further."

Executive summary

Politicians have rarely been trusted. The expenses scandal did not therefore lead to a collapse in trust in politics and politicians because levels of trust were already so low.
For a majority of the public allegiance to or preference for a party trumps perceptions of wrong-doing by a particular candidate.
MPs should concentrate on reforms to tackle lost satisfaction, relevance and influence rather than trying to address trust.
Parliament has seen a marked decline in public confidence – only 19% see it as an influential institution on their everyday life.
The public are more positive about political and governmental institutions of which they have direct experience. Familiarity has a strong influence on favourability.
Declining levels of satisfaction and influence are linked to a perception that decisions are made at a distance by unaccountable bodies – e.g. judges, the EU, multi-national corporations.
Declining investment in local and regional media will impact detrimentally on public perceptions of politics in their local area, and will have national repercussions given the link between familiarity and favourability.
Those parliamentary reforms proposed after the expenses scandal that link the political institution with the local community are most likely to be effective at deepening the relationship between Parliament and the public – e.g. petitions; recall of MPs.
Standards agenda reforms to improve transparency and accountability – e.g. Freedom of Information (FoI), Standards in Public Life – have helped engender a culture of suspicion rather than trust.
The public hold MPs to a higher ethical standard than they hold themselves. This is not consistent with the view that politicians should also be ‘ordinary people’.
Politics lacks a professional body to police and protect it, and serve the collective interest of members. Unlike most other professions, politicians also engage in direct partisan criticism of each other on a daily basis which has a corrosive impact on public perceptions.
An accepted ethical code might be drawn up for MPs and embodied in a revised parliamentary oath.
Marketisation of politics and the culture of consumerism it feeds off damages politics and politicians. Levels of satisfaction and confidence are linked to the fuelling of public expectations about politics and politicians. The more people know about politics the more it fails to meet their hopes and expectations.
The public lack proper understanding of what an MP does – they can readily identify the role and function of a judge, doctor, or teacher but most find it more difficult to identify for an MP.
There is no clear public consensus about what the role and function of MPs should be. There are significant differences of view that break along class lines.
Parliament is a stronger body today – vis-a-vis the executive and in terms of exercising its scrutiny function – than in the past. However, it is not as well regarded as in the past.
The public want more independently-minded MPs willing to vote against the party line, but they recoil from any party that is perceived to be split.
There is no 'silver bullet' for tackling public distrust and disengagement with politics. However, engendering a greater familiarity with politics, politicians and Parliament, and building on the more positive views people already have of their local experiences, may offer the best chance of success.

Latest / Highlights

News / Jury trials under threat? The Courts and Tribunals Bill explained - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 136

Plans to restrict the right to a jury trial have cleared their Second Reading in the Commons, but the proposals in the Courts and Tribunals Bill face growing resistance, including from Labour rebels. We discuss the legal and constitutional implications with barrister Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, examining what the reforms could mean for defendants’ rights and the criminal courts system. We also assess the passage of legislation removing hereditary Peers from Parliament, and the late compromise that eased opposition in the House of Lords. Meanwhile Sir Lindsay Hoyle clashes with the Chief Whip over delays in the division lobby, and newly released papers on Peter Mandelson’s Washington appointment raise fresh political questions. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

Briefings / Last-minute powers and limited scrutiny: Parliament and the risks of consigning online safety law to delegated legislation

Two late-stage government amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill and the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill would grant Ministers significant powers to reshape key parts of the Online Safety Act through delegated legislation. While the policy goals may attract support, the method raises serious constitutional concerns about parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. Using these amendments as a case study, this briefing explores the risks of relying on regulations to make policy and explains how the Hansard Society’s proposed reforms to the delegated legislation scrutiny system could better balance governmental flexibility with democratic oversight.

News / Is the assisted dying bill being filibustered? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 135

Debate over the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has been so slow in the House of Lords that opponents of the Bill are accused of deliberately running down the clock. Conservative Peer Lord Harper rejects claims of filibustering, arguing that Peers are undertaking necessary scrutiny of a flawed and complex bill. He contends the legislation lacks adequate safeguards and was unsuited to the Private Member’s Bill process and discusses whether MPs might attempt to revive it in a future parliamentary Session. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

Blog / The Backbench Business Committee 15 years on: Has it given backbench MPs a stronger voice in the House of Commons?

Fifteen years after its creation, the Backbench Business Committee has become an important mechanism through which MPs can secure debates and raise issues in the House of Commons. Drawing on new research analysing debate transcripts and interviews with MPs, Ministers and officials, this blogpost analyses the Committee’s impact on parliamentary agenda-setting and cross-party campaigning. It highlights how the Committee has transformed opportunities for backbenchers while identifying ongoing challenges around participation, transparency and the Committee’s potential role in representing backbench interests more broadly.

News / Parliament Matters Bulletin: What’s coming up in Parliament this week? 9-13 March 2026

The Treasury Committee questions Chancellor Rachel Reeves, the OBR, and the IFS, on the Spring Forecast. The Chancellor also faces MPs’ oral questions. MPs will for the first time debate the legislation – the Courts and Tribunals Bill – that proposes to abolish jury trials. They will also consider proposed Government powers to restrict children’s access to social media, complete the final stages of the Bill to implement the Autumn Budget, and hold a debate to mark International Women’s Day. In the Lords, the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill returns for consideration of amendments. Peers also continue their scrutiny of the Crime and Policing, Victims and Courts, Tobacco and Vapes, and National Insurance Contributions Bills, while the assisted dying bill reaches its eleventh day in Committee.