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 / Parliament Matters Bulletin: What’s coming up in Parliament this week? 13-14 May 2026

Parliament returns on Wednesday with the State Opening and the King’s Speech marking the start of a new parliamentary session. Many traditions will be observed, including presentation of the Outlawries Bill and the Select Vestries Bill and an order instructing the Metropolitan Police to prevent “stoppages in the street”. In the Commons, the Speaker will remind MPs of their duties and responsibilities, before debate begins on the Loyal Address. The Education Committee will take evidence on the benefits of children reading for pleasure, and the Home Affairs Committee will consider responses to antisemitism.

Briefings / The assisted dying bill: How could the Parliament Act be used?

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – the bill to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales – fell at the close of the 2024-2026 parliamentary session, after running out of time in the House of Lords. Attention has now shifted to whether the bill could return in the next session and, if so, whether it could be enacted using the procedures set out in the Parliament Act. This briefing explains the Parliament Act procedure, examines previous uses of the Act and the procedural lessons that may be drawn from them, and looks at the constitutional issues involved.

News / What now? The local election fallout hits Westminster - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 141

Labour’s disastrous local election results have intensified speculation about Keir Starmer’s future. But if pressure on the leadership continues to grow, how exactly do Labour’s leadership rules work – and what would it take to mount a serious challenge? Now that the Scottish and Welsh elections are over, attention will turn to governing. How do the devolved parliaments return to business? And in Wales, where the Senedd will install a non-Labour First Minister and government for the first time in its history, how will the process work? Could a new administration trigger fresh tensions with Westminster and Whitehall? Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

News / Dynamic alignment and Henry VIII powers: What will the Government’s EU reset mean for Parliament? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 139

A major “EU reset” bill could allow Ministers to dynamically align UK law with EU rules using so-called Henry VIII powers, raising fresh questions about Parliament’s role and scrutiny. We are joined by Professor Catherine Barnard to explore the trade-offs and implications. We also examine Parliament’s surprise block on Church of England governance reforms and ask whether shutting down Parliament for a two-week prorogation – when it cannot be recalled – is wise in an increasingly unstable world. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

Submissions / Written Parliamentary Questions - Our evidence to the House of Commons Procedure Committee

The use of Written Parliamentary Questions (WPQs) is rising sharply. Since July 2024, MPs have tabled questions at unprecedented levels. By late 2025 MPs were tabling over 600 per sitting day, more than double the long-term average. WPQs are a cornerstone of parliamentary scrutiny, helping MPs obtain information, challenge government policy and put issues on the public record. But this surge raises important questions about how Parliament balances transparency and accountability with the practical limits of the system. The House of Commons Procedure Committee is now examining the issue and has just published our submission containing our latest data and analysis.