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.