When history books come to be written, what will be made of the opening decade or so of this century? For Britain, it will doubtless be described as the era when public trust in the country’s major institutions was left in tatters.

The Murdoch-led besmirching of Fleet Street was just the latest in a string of recent scandals, the cumulative effect of which served to confirm that the people who exert influence and power over our lives are seldom as well behaved as they should be. While the financial scandal exposed the lack of integrity among bankers, the expenses scandal did the same for politicians. The hacking scandal hit two birds with one stone, by exposing corruption in both the media and the police.

But does any of it matter to the public? And is anyone going to change their voting behaviour – or spending habits – as a result? Think tank Theos commissioned a special ComRes poll in association with Total Politics to explore these issues. The results provide a fascinating insight into the public’s expectations about how politicians and journalists ought to behave. Members of either profession who are worried about being found out should put this article down now and go and make a cup of tea, or consult a solicitor.

The first surprise for politicians and journalists is this: the public overwhelmingly expects you to behave according to higher standards than those looked for in ordinary punters. This is particularly so for politicians – 71 per cent say they expect politicians’ personal moral standards to be higher than for ordinary members of the public, compared to ‘only’ 56 per cent who say the same of journalists.

So MPs must recognise that it is insufficient for them to be simply as fallible as the next man or woman – their behaviour needs to be beyond reproach to deliver what the public expects of them (see graph A and B).

The youngest age groups are the least demanding, and there is a clear link between age and the expectation of politicians and journalists to have higher personal moral standards. While 54 per cent of young people want politicians to have higher moral standards, this increases to a whopping 80 per cent in people aged 65 and over – who are, after all, the age group most likely to vote.

Before media types breathe a sigh of relief that expectations on them are lower, the poll shows that the the public is less demanding of journalists perhaps because they expect their personal moral standards to be lower than those of politicians (see graph C).

This image problem – doubtless exacerbated by the freshness of the hacking scandal – is also reflected in the finding that more people believe that politicians are ‘basically decent and honest’ than, say, the same of journalists.  Here we begin to encounter party loyalties, with Conservative voters being the most prescriptive about moral standards for politicians, but also the most positive about the basic decency and honesty of ‘most politicians’. Least positive are those who would vote for the party whose general election posters ran the strapline: “Sod the lot of them” – UKIP (see graph D).

The views of different generations are particularly significant. Younger people have lower expectations than their elders and a lower view of the integrity of both politicians and journalists. That a mere 17 per cent of people aged 18 to 24 agree that ‘most politicians are basically decent and honest’ tells you all you need to know about political engagement. Fully six in ten (60 per cent) of this age group disagree. As Theos director Elizabeth Hunter notes, this “turns upside down the assumption that the young will be idealistic and hopeful about public life, while the old tend to be more disappointed and cynical”. It is shocking that young people view with such disdain those running the system that will determine their future life environment (see graph E).

On the issue of private integrity and public fitness for office, public opinion is more evenly spread across demographic groups, with clear warnings for those who believe personal integrity is a matter for the private sphere alone. We set out to test the specific notion of whether ‘a politician is faithful to their husband or wife has no bearing on their job as a politician’, or that ‘if a politician is unfaithful to their husband or wife it does affect their job, as it shows they cannot keep their word’.

Politicians with a roving eye, beware… just over half the public, 51 per cent, say marital unfaithfulness is indeed important as a measure of personal honesty. And there’s relatively little variation by age, gender or social group to this question. Neither is there much difference by party – 56 per cent of Labour voters take a high moral stance on this issue, as do half of all Tory voters and 45 per cent of Lib Dems. Almost half (47 per cent) accept the flip side of the coin, that marital infidelity ‘has no bearing’ on a politician’s job.

Nevertheless, politicians ultimately want votes and cannot ignore the fact that half the public is simply not persuaded by the defence that what happens in the bedroom stays in the bedroom. As Hunter notes: “The private/ public distinction is distrusted by many people.”

What does all this mean for the bottom line – voter behaviour? We tested whether, if either an election party candidate or journalists on people’s chosen newspaper were shown to have low personal moral standards, people would be prepared to change their behaviour. While 43 per cent said they’d be willing to switch vote, more than half (52 per cent) said they would be prepared to change the newspaper they buy.

This is far from a perfect question. It deals in theoretical situations with all sorts of shortcomings – such as no defined alternative election candidates –  but it underscores the risk to political parties of ignoring voters’ moral sensitivities. Play away from home, and you risk the wrath of more than four in ten voters (see graph F).

This issue is of supreme practical importance. Politicians are expected to behave differently, yet attempts to hide their peccadilloes, or even to explain away sloppy financial behaviour, suggest that members of these professions do not believe that. They need to wake up and realise that although the mystique surrounding the political class has largely been dissipated, they are still expected to take a moral lead – especially if they want high office. It is understandable that voters struggle with the notion of David Laws asking to be trusted with the country’s finances when he made a mess of running his own household. Perhaps to their surprise, journalists too are expected to hold higher standards of moral behaviour.

For some, especially the young, this takes on a renewed importance in light of the disturbing age breakdown. As Hunter points out: “Unless those currently in that age group (18 to 24) are convinced of the integrity of their political leaders, we risk them remaining cynical and disenfranchised.”

The political party that takes a lead on personal integrity stands to be rewarded. The issue of an MP claiming expenses for a mortgage that has already been paid off really does matter to people, and politicians cannot defend extra-marital affairs by pretending that the public isn’t interested. The public is understandably asking what claim it has upon a politician’s loyalty if they cannot keep a promise to remain faithful to their spouse or to obey a law they voted to introduce. As George Reedy, press secretary to President Lyndon Johnson, said when Gary Hart abandoned his race for the US Presidency: “What counts with a candidate for President is his character, and nothing shows it like his relationship with women. Here you have a man who is asking you to trust him with your bank account, your children, your life and your country for four years. If his own wife can’t trust him, what does that say?” Quite.

Andrew Hawkins is chairman of ComRes. Source x 2: Theos/ComRes August 2011, online poll of 2,028 GB adults

Tags: Andrew Hawkins, Comres, Mps expenses, Phone hacking, Polling, Theos