MPs must weigh up this weekend how to approach the debate – and possible vote – on the Privileges Committee report on Boris Johnson. Snap polls show the public mood to favour strong action. Alan Renwick draws on Constitution Unit research showing that this desire for honesty in politics is deep and enduring. People want a robust standards system, in which lying to parliament is punished.

Snap polling conducted in the wake of this week’s Commons Privileges Committee report on Boris Johnson indicates that most people think the former Prime Minister did mislead parliament; they are far more likely to think that he was given a fair hearing than not and to believe that his punishment was too lenient rather than either too harsh or about right.

Such rapid polling always raises the question: are these views just a knee-jerk reaction, reflecting no deeper public sentiment? The answer is a simple ‘no’.

We at the Constitution Unit have carried out detailed investigations over the past two years into public attitudes towards the state of our democratic system. We conducted large-scale surveys in the summer of 2021 and again last summer. And we held a Citizens’ Assembly on Democracy in the UK over the final months of 2021. The first survey took place before partygate, while the second was in the field during Johnson’s final days in office, after he announced his resignation. The Citizens’ Assembly – which shows what a representative sample of the UK population thought about our democratic institutions after learning about the issues and discussing them over six weekends – reached its conclusions as the first partygate allegations were breaking, but before they peaked in early 2022. These sources thus provide a medium-term view on patterns of public thinking over the last two years, rather than being driven by this week’s events.

All the evidence shows that most people in the UK care a great deal about whether their elected representatives are honest. They think those who are not honest should be punished. They do not think it should be left to voters to use the one ballot they get to cast every four or five years to serve up this punishment. They want parliament to act against wrong-doing. If parliament fails to uphold the rules, they think matters may need to be taken out of MPs’ hands.

Do people care about honesty in politicians?

Our 2021 survey asked about what characteristics it is more important for politicians to have. ‘Being honest’ came top, closely followed by ‘owning up when they make mistakes’.

The 2022 survey explored which issues matter to people most. The cost of living, the NHS, and levels of taxation understandably came top. But ‘the health of democracy in the UK’ and ‘politicians’ moral standards’ ranked high too – on a par with issues such as crime, immigration, and climate change.

Both surveys asked respondents to choose between two statements: ‘Healthy democracy requires that politicians always act within the rules’ and ‘Healthy democracy means getting things done, even if that sometimes requires politicians to break the rules’. 74% of respondents in 2021 and 78% in 2022 chose the former. In each case, just 6% chose the latter.

The 2022 survey asked about many possible changes to how our democracy works. 80% thought democracy would work better if ‘politicians spoke more honestly’; 73% thought it would work better if ‘MPs were thrown out of parliament for lying’.

Such ideas did not change after people had had a chance to think things through in detail. The members of the Citizens’ Assembly on Democracy in the UK developed 16 principles that they thought should underpin a ‘good’ democracy in the UK. The one that came top was ‘honesty in politics’. Assembly members prioritised honesty as most important because they believed it had a knock-on effect for all of the other principles that they agreed. They saw it as essential ‘so that the public can trust their elected representatives and have confidence and faith in the democratic system’.

Attitudes to the standards system

Given that most people have little idea how the current standards system works, we get the clearest sense of where public sympathies really lie by looking at the recommendations of the Citizens’ Assembly. These show where people stand once they have had a chance to learn about the system a little and think through their views.

In an overarching resolution on upholding ethical standards, the assembly members said they thought the current system needed to be strengthened. Of all the assembly’s resolutions, this received the highest level of ‘strong’ support.

Under this overall resolution, Assembly members made several specific recommendations. They particularly highlighted the need for lying in parliament to be punished. Their perception in December 2021 was that parliament was being lied to, and action was not being taken to address this.

In a recommendation that MPs deciding how to approach the debate and possible vote on Monday might particularly take note of, assembly members also concluded that, while standards should be upheld through a political rather than a legal process, tighter regulation might be needed if MPs failed to enforce propriety.

Conclusion

What does all of that mean? First, public anger over dishonesty in politics runs deep. The view that ‘it’s one rule for the politicians and another for the rest of us’ came up again and again throughout the Citizens’ Assembly, even before the partygate allegations began to emerge. Many people think politicians are taking them for a ride.

Second, most people are outraged at the suggestion that they should have to use up the one vote they get every four or five years to make what they think should be a blindingly obvious point: that lying to parliament ought to be punished. They expect politicians to step up and enforce the rules. If that doesn’t happen, they could increasingly support more stringent – and perhaps problematic – external constraints on parliament.

Third, the debate and possible vote on Monday will affect how MPs are viewed by the public. Clearly, a minority of voters do still support Johnson. But most are in no doubt that he is a liar, and that liars should be dealt with.

Full details of the Unit’s research project on public attitudes to democracy in the UK, including reports on the surveys and the Citizens’ Assembly are on the Democracy in the UK after Brexit pages of the Unit’s website.

If you are interested in the topic discussed in this post, then the Unit recommends that you attend its annual conference, entitled The Future of the Constitution, which is due to take place via Zoom on 28 and 29 June. The conference is free to access, open to all, and will include panel discussions on numerous topics, including the state of constitutional standards in the UK. Chaired by Professor Meg Russell, Director of the Unit, the standards panel will include Lord (David) Anderson of Ipswich, Dr Hannah White and Jeremy Wright KC MP.

About the author

Alan Renwick is Professor of Democratic Politics at UCL and Deputy Director of the Constitution Unit.