MPs and the public: expectations, misconceptions and finding agreement

Cristina Leston-Bandeira, Professor of Politics at University of Leeds

Dr Alexandra Meakin, Lecturer in British Politics at University of Leeds

Recent evidence suggests a significant malaise with politics in the UK.

Three-quarters of the population believe MPs to be out of touch1 and only 28% believe that an MP cares about their local area2, with a recent report demonstrating that trust is at an all-time low.3

While such concerns may be alleviated, partly, by evidence suggesting that people feel more positively about their own constituency representative4, the level of public cynicism about the political system suggests a disconnect between what MPs actually do (an average working week of 69 hours, for example5) and what the public feel MPs do (nearly half the population believe MPs are generally lazy).6

This essay examines this tension to reflect on the need to increase public understanding of politics. It first considers the level of public knowledge and understanding around MPs’ work, to then examine what the public think MPs should do.

What do MPs do?

There is no job description or clear outline of required duties for members of Parliament.7 Some attempts have been made to collate a list, with the Commons Modernisation Committee, for example, publishing six “commonly recognised tasks” for MPs in 2007:8

  1. supporting their party in votes in Parliament (furnishing and maintaining the Government and Opposition)

  2. representing and furthering the interests of their constituency

  3. representing individual constituents and taking up their problems and grievances

  4. scrutinising and holding the Government to account and monitoring, stimulating and challenging the Executive

  5. initiating, reviewing and amending legislation

  6. contributing to the development of policy whether in the Chamber, Committees or party structures and promoting public understanding of party policies

This list is not exhaustive and, crucially, not prescriptive.

As the Committee on Standards in Public Life stated:

“The ability of MPs to determine for themselves how best to do their job is an important aspect of parliamentary privilege.”9

MPs will choose to prioritise different tasks at different times, whether due to the parliamentary timetable (an increased focus on constituency work during the recess, for example) or at different points during their career.

Such lists have also been criticised for failing to reflect the ‘politics’ at the heart of everything an MP does.

Tony Wright, on his retirement from the Commons in 2010, reflected on the Modernisation Committee’s list:

“Now the trouble with a list like this (…) is not that it is wrong, but that it does not really describe what MPs actually do. It is altogether too high-minded and unpolitical. For example, absent altogether from the list is an activity that could be called ‘campaigning to get re-elected’, yet this drives almost everything that MPs do.”10

Public perceptions of MPs and the House of Commons

How does the public think parliamentarians spend their time?

Campbell and Lovenduski found in 2015 “low levels of public knowledge of what MPs do but quite high expectations about what they should do”.11

Hansard Society research sets out a significant disconnect between the two, with the public believing that MPs spend their time “furthering personal and career interests” when they should be “representing the views of local people in the House of Commons”.12

As Figure 1 shows, only 13% of the public identified casework as one of the two or three tasks MPs actually spend their time doing.

Figure 1: public views about what MPs should, and do, spend their time on.13

FD essay pic 3

The misconceptions are broader than just the work of individual MPs.

In 2019, one in four people were “not at all interested in politics”, with one in five saying they “know nothing at all about UK Parliament”.14

This is particularly concerning as the level of knowledge varies considerably across socio-economic groups: whereas 74% of people in social class AB say they know a great deal or a fair amount about Parliament, this decreases to 25% in social class DE.

How do misconceptions occur?

There is a lack of political knowledge, often affected by an inability to differentiate between Parliament and government.

Citizens form their views about politics through school, their households, the media and social media.

Among all these sources of information, it is often difficult for Parliament and MPs to communicate about their work. Yet we have seen great strides over the past couple of decades in communication efforts – for example, the expansion of Parliament’s education service, and the way MPs now regularly explain what they do via social media and annual reports.

However, there is often a tendency to broadcast rather than to listen15 and communication is not uniform between MPs – Auel and Umit found that “MPs in safe seats spend less on communicating with constituents”.16

In addition, while monitoring sites such as TheyWorkForYou.com can offer valuable insights into parliamentary votes and contributions, it has been criticised for creating “an incomplete and skewed picture that has led to considerable misunderstanding among constituents”.17

MPs may also, intentionally or inadvertently, damage the reputation of Parliament, thus damaging the collective image of MPs, through their own anti-establishment positioning. In doing so, they may be reinforcing misconceptions about MPs.

What does the public want from MPs?

Vivyan and Wagner carried out a survey of voters19 to infer what constituents would prefer their MPs to do once elected. They found that voters prefer “MPs who spend three days of a typical working week on constituency matters and two days working on national policy”.20

This emphasis on constituency work echoes other studies.21 This raises questions about the implications of MPs increasing their constituency-based work and whether this is feasible within the current financial and procedural frameworks. On the latter point, would quotas for constituency work conflict with parliamentary privilege and an MP’s right to determine how they exercise their role, for example?

To provide background to such a question, we now consider the issue of casework in depth.

Casework

The increase in MPs’ constituency work may explain some of the misconceptions about what MPs do, as much of it is hidden from the public.

As Parker cautioned, “observing a member’s efforts to develop a constituency service profile is challenging. Casework files cannot be accessed, and it is difficult to track the surgeries the members hold”.22

Casework may garner votes at an individual level but, as Gay noted, “the type of people most helped by constituency casework were those least likely to vote”.23

As with all MPs’ tasks, no set time is specified to spend on casework.

By 2007, the increase in constituency work was “out of control” according to Professor Cowley,24 with MPs representing constituencies in England shown to spend far more time on casework than almost all other European countries.25

This must be understood within the reality of electoral politics.

As Professor Norton stated in 2007, MPs are “very bad at saying no to constituents”,26 with the convention that an MP will only act on behalf of their constituents also implying that an MP will act on behalf of their constituents, even if the constituent does not vote for them, or if they cannot vote at all.27

Rawlings’ seminal 1990 study of casework found that MPs refuse to act in only 0.6% of cases28 – it is fair to assume this will have remained the same if not decreased since.

While accepting the private nature of casework, it can have a positive impact on an MP’s reputation. While Norton cautioned that only a small minority (estimated between 10-15%) of constituents ever contact their MP,29 knowledge of MPs’ capacity to support constituents can be well known.

This can be cumulative for long-standing MPs – ahead of the 2019 General Election, campaign leaflets for Dr Alan Whitehead stated that “everyone knows someone who has been helped by Alan”, referring to his 22 years of casework as the MP for Southampton, Test.30

Casework is also an important part of an MP’s job. Searing argued that casework is “interwoven with British concepts of representative and responsible government”, noting how it is deeply rooted in the role of the House of Commons.31

The Modernisation Committee in 2007 suggested that the constituency work of MPs was “vital”32, and a 2005 survey found that MPs valued this part of the job.33

Indeed, MPs argue that you cannot delineate between constituency and parliamentary work as the latter is driven by the former, with casework informing what they pursue in Westminster.34

Conclusion

This essay has considered the disconnect between what MPs do and what the public think they do. It has highlighted the complexity of this task by noting the lack of a job description and the shortcomings in collating such a list. It has summarised the evidence, showing what the public think MPs actually do and considered the reasons why such misconceptions have developed and persist. Finally, it has summarised the evidence of what the public want MPs to do and explored the issue of casework in depth.

It has shown that focusing on casework may have benefits for MPs while also meeting the public’s expectations. But it has also noted the increased workload faced by constituency offices in recent decades.

If MPs were to further increase this part of their role, it would raise questions around practicality, funding and even parliamentary procedure.

Endnotes

  1. YouGov (2024a), “Do Members of Parliament care about the area they represent?”. Accessed 29 August 2024.

  2. YouGov (2024b), “Are Members of Parliament out of touch?”. Accessed 29 August 2024.

  3. Curtice, J, Montagu, I and Sivathasan, C (2024), Damaged Politics? The impact of the 2019-24 Parliament on political trust and confidence, National Centre for Social Research. Accessed 03 September 2024.

  4. Skinner, G, Pedley, K, and Garrett, C (2020) “Trust in MPs to tell truth still low but higher than pre-election” Ipsos. Accessed 8 September 2024.

  5. Korris, M (2011), “A year in the life: From member of public to Member of Parliament”, Interim briefing paper. Hansard Society. Accessed 8 September 2024.

  6. YouGov (2024c), “Are Members of Parliament hard working?”. Accessed 29 August 2024.

  7. See Holden Bates, S and Bhattacharya, C (2025 – forthcoming), “The role of a backbencher”, in C Leston-Bandeira, A Meakin and L Thompson (eds), Exploring Parliament, Oxford University Press Searing, D (1994); Westminster's world: understanding political roles, Harvard University Press, Rush, M (2005) Parliament Today, Manchester University Press; Vivyan, N and Wagner, M (2015), “What do voters want from their local MP?”, The Political Quarterly. 86(1), pp 33–40.

  8. Modernisation Committee (2007), “Revitalising the Chamber: the role of the back bench Member” First Report of Session 2006–07 HC 337. Accessed 29 August 2024, para 10.

  9. Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) (2009), “MPs’ expenses and allowances” 12th Report Cm7724. Accessed 1 September 2024, p 31

  10. Wright, T (2010), “What are MPs for?” The Political Quarterly, 81(3), p 299.

  11. Campbell, R and Lovenduski, J (2015), “What should MPs do? Public and parliamentarians’ views compared”, Parliamentary Affairs, 68(4), p 605.

  12. Hansard Society (2010), Audit of Political Engagement 7: The 2010 Report. Accessed: 31 August 2024, p 93.

  13. Hansard Society (2010), Audit of Political Engagement 7: The 2010 Report, p.93.

  14. Hansard Society (2019), Audit of Political Engagement 16: The 2019 Report. Accessed: 31 August 2024, p 26.

  15. Liaison Committee (2019), The Effectiveness and Influence of the Select Committee System: Fourth Report of Session 2017-19, HC 1860. Accessed 3 September 2024.

  16. Auel, K, and Umit, R (2018), “Explaining MPs’ communication to their constituents: Evidence from the UK House of Commons”, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 20 (3), p 745.

  17. Worthy, B and Langehennig, S (2022), “Accountability, analysis and avoidance: how PMO data impacts on Westminster”, The Journal of Legislative Studies, p 12.

  18. Judge, D and Leston-Bandeira, C (2018), “The Institutional Representation of Parliament”, Political studies, 66(1), pp 154–172; Thompson, L (2018), “Understanding third parties at Westminster: The SNP in the 2015 parliament”, Politics, 38(4), pp 443–457.

  19. Vivyan and Wagner (2015), What do voters want from their local MP?

  20. Vivyan and Wagner (2015), What do voters want from their local MP?, p 33.

  21. For example: Campbell and Lovenduski (2015), What should MPs do? Public and parliamentarians' views compared, p 700.

  22. Parker, D C (2021), “Looking after constituency interests: The utilisation of MP expenses and Early Day Motions to craft constituency service home styles”, Parliamentary Affairs, 74(1), p 163.

  23. Gay, O (2005), “MPs go back to their constituencies”, The Political Quarterly, 76, p 61.

  24. Modernisation Committee (2007), Revitalising the Chamber: the role of the back bench Member, Ev 25.

  25. André, A, Bradbury, J and Depauw, S (2014), “Constituency service in multi-level democracies”, Regional & Federal Studies, 24(2), pp 129–150.

  26. Modernisation Committee (2007), Revitalising the Chamber: the role of the back bench Member, Ev25, Q58.

  27. Norton, P (2012), “Parliament and citizens in the United Kingdom”, Journal of Legislative Studies, 18(3–4), pp 403–418.

  28. Rawlings, R (1990), “The MP’s complaints service”, The Modern Law Review, 53 (1), p 34.

  29. Norton (2012), “Parliament and citizens in the United Kingdom”, Journal of Legislative Studies, 18(3–4), p 408.

  30. Whitehead, A. (2024), “Alan Whitehead: An update from your MP”. Accessed 28 August 2024.

  31. Searing, D (1985), “The role of the good constituency member and the practice of representation in Great Britain”, Journal of Politics, 47(2), p 350.

  32. Modernisation Committee (2007) Revitalising the Chamber: the role of the back bench Member, para 7.

  33. Rosenblatt, G (2007), “From one of us to one of them: The socialisation of new MPs”, Parliamentary Affairs. 60(3), p 513.

  34. Modernisation Committee (2007) Revitalising the Chamber: the role of the back bench Member; Rush, M (2005) Parliament Today.