Publications / Reports

Audit of Political Engagement 15

30 Apr 2018
People walking over Westminster Bridge towards the Palace of Westminster, Houses of Parliament

After four major electoral events in four years, some political engagement measures have been boosted to their highest levels in the 15-Audit series. Our 15th Audit of Political Engagement (2018) also shows public dissatisfaction with political parties and the system of governing, and a stark digital divide in levels of online engagement.

  • The share of the public saying they are certain to vote is at a new Audit high of 62%, 11 points higher than in the first Audit in 2004. The number saying they are interested in politics is seven points higher than in Audit 1 (57% vs 50%), knowledgeable about politics 10 points higher (52% vs 42%), and knowledgeable about Parliament 16 points higher (49% vs 33%).

  • But, compared to 2004, satisfaction with the system of governing Britain is down seven points (36% to 29%), and people’s sense of being able to bring about political change (our efficacy measure) is down three points (37% to 34%).

  • Compared to last year, certainty to vote is up three points to 62%, interest in politics four points to 57%, self-assessed knowledge of politics three points to 52%, knowledge of Parliament four points to 49%, and the number of people who have undertaken a political activity in the last year six points to 75%.

  • 27% feel they have influence locally, up four points from last year. This is the highest score for this indicator in the Audit series.

  • This year saw some notable rises in political engagement among some traditionally less engaged groups, namely those in social class DE, BME respondents and women.

  • Among 18-24s, certainty to vote rose five points from last year to 44%, the highest in the Audit series. Compared to Audit 1 in 2004, it is 16 points higher.

  • 18-24s’ knowledge of politics is also up since Audit 1 in 2004, by eleven points (28% to 39%), as is their interest in politics (by six points, 35% to 41%) and their sense of political efficacy (also by six points, 35% to 41%).

  • However, like the population overall, 18-24s are less satisfied with the system of governing Britain than they were at the start of the Audit series. 18-24s' satisfaction with the system of governing Britain has deteriorated by seven points since Audit 1 in 2004 (35% to 28%).

  • Only 14% of Scots say they are satisfied with the system of governing Britain, a decline of three points in a year and 22 points since the first Audit in 2004.

  • Compared to last year, interest in and self-assessed knowledge of politics are both up four points, to 62% and 56% respectively. But certainty to vote dropped 10 points, to 59%, below the Britain-wide average.

  • Compared to Audit 1 in 2004, certainty to vote is up five points, political interest 16 points and knowledge 25 points. But people’s sense of political efficacy is down nine points at 36%.

  • Overall support for the greater use of referendums stands at 58%, down three points in the last year.

  • Before the EU referendum (Audit 13 in 2016), this stood at 76%.

  • Overall, 31% think the system of governing is good at protecting minority rights. However, BME respondents are more likely than white respondents to think it is bad at doing this (40% compared to 31%).

  • For other functions, the numbers of people saying the system performs well are just 26% for ‘providing political parties that offer clear alternatives to each other’, 22% for ‘providing a stable government’ and ‘ensuring the views of most Britons are represented’, and 21% for ‘allowing ordinary people to get involved with politics’. The system is seen to be worst at ‘encouraging governments to take long-term decisions’: 17% think it does this.

  • As the most important factor in determining their vote, 32% said whether a party ‘can be trusted to keep its promises’, 30% that it ‘has policies I fully support’, 28% that it ‘represents the interests of people like me’ and 20% whether it ‘is the most competent’.

  • Among the functions of political parties, people rate parties most poorly for their capacity to provide a way for ordinary people to get involved with politics; just 16% think they are good at this.

  • Of ‘leave’ voters, 48% think political parties are bad at telling voters about the issues they feel are most important to Britain and how they will work to solve them, against 36% of ‘remainers’ saying the same.

  • 50% say they were happy with the choice of political parties available to them at the June 2017 general election, 29% that there was more than one party that appealed to them at that election, and 37% that they are a strong supporter of a party.

  • 74% of those who used them said the party leaders’ debates and political interviews were at least ‘fairly important’ in their decision-making, and 72% that they were influenced by face-to-face discussions or conversations with other people.

  • 49% were aware of parties’ printed campaign publicity, but just 34% of them said it was important in deciding whether and for whom to vote, the lowest score for any of the sources of election news and information tested.

  • News or news programmes on TV or radio were the leading source of election-related news or information at the 2017 general election: at 69%, they had a reach 20 points beyond any other source.

  • 48% of the public report having undertaken no form of online political engagement in the last year.

  • Age divides are stark: watching politically-related videos online was done by 43% of 18-34s but 15% of over-55s; visiting the social media account of a politician or political party by 29% of 18-34s but 12% of over-55s; sharing something politically-related online by 21% of 18-34s but 11% of over-55s.

  • 55% think social media help broaden political debate by giving a voice to people who would not normally take part, and 40% that social media help break down barriers between voters and politicians and political parties.

  • But 49% think social media are making political debate more divisive, and 46% that it is making political debate more superficial.

News / Parliament Matters Bulletin: What’s coming up in Parliament this week? 2-6 March 2026

The newly elected Green MP, Hannah Spencer, will be introduced to the House of Commons. A Ministerial Statement is expected on the situation in Iran, while the Foreign Secretary faces MPs’ questions. Chancellor Rachel Reeves will deliver her Spring Statement, and MPs will consider billions of pounds in revised departmental spending through the Supplementary Estimates. The Commons will debate the Representation of the People Bill, the contribution of Commonwealth troops in the First World War, and the future of palliative care. In the Lords, Peers will scrutinise the Crime and Policing, Tobacco and Vapes, National Insurance Contributions, and English Devolution bills, as well as debate the India trade deal and International Women’s Day. Select committees will hear from Northern Ireland, Home Office and Cabinet Office ministers, military experts on the Armed Forces Bill, and Bank of England officials.

01 Mar 2026
Read more

News / Mandelson, Andrew and Epstein: Should there be parliamentary committee of inquiry? A conversation with Tom Tugendhat MP - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 133

After the Greens’ Gorton and Denton by-election win, we assess the fallout: pressure on the Prime Minister, possible party-switching, shifting alliances, and whether mainstream parties’ sub-30% vote share could revive electoral reform. Tom Tugendhat MP calls for a parliamentary “super-committee” to probe the Mandelson–Mountbatten-Windsor saga. Plus: Speaker drama over Mandelson’s arrest, and looming battles over the Spring Statement and billions in public spending. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

28 Feb 2026
Read more

News / The forgotten pioneer: Who was Margaret Bondfield, Britain’s first female Cabinet Minister? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 132

Why is Britain’s first female Cabinet Minister largely forgotten? Historian Nan Sloane discusses her new biography of Margaret Bondfield, the trade unionist who became the first woman in the British Cabinet. Rising from harsh shop-floor conditions to national prominence, Bondfield took office as Minister of Labour in 1929 at the onset of the Great Depression. As economic crisis split the Labour Party, her reputation never recovered. Was she a pioneer, pragmatist, or unfairly judged? Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

20 Feb 2026
Read more

News / What happens when you lose the party whip? A conversation with Neil Duncan-Jordan MP - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 131

Labour MP Neil Duncan-Jordan reflects on rebelling against the whip and calling for Keir Starmer to resign, as we assess the fallout from the Mandelson–Epstein affair and its implications for the Government’s legislative programme and House of Lords reform. We examine Gordon Brown’s sweeping standards proposals, question whether they would restore public trust, revisit tensions over the assisted dying bill in the Lord and discuss two key Procedure Committee reports on Commons debates and internal elections. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

13 Feb 2026
Read more

Blog / Once again, there is still no alternative: the costed proposals for Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster

The Restoration and Renewal Client Board’s latest report once again confirms what Parliament has known for nearly a decade: the cheapest, quickest and safest way to restore the Palace of Westminster is for MPs and Peers to move out during the works. The “full decant” option was endorsed in 2018 and reaffirmed repeatedly since. Remaining in the building could more than double costs, extend works into the 2080s, and increase risks to safety, accessibility and security. With the Palace already deteriorating and millions spent each year on patchwork repairs, further delay would itself be an expensive course of action, one that defers decisions without offering a viable alternative.

07 Feb 2026
Read more