The scale of the problem
Sleaze, incompetence, and weak leadership
A certain level of misconduct among politicians has historically been present. Wikipedia provides a compiled list of such cases (5). Figure 2 presents the aggregated counts by decade based on entries from this Wikipedia article.
Figure 2: Numbers of scandal or sleaze by decade. With half the current decade passed the figure for the 2020s is projected forward from the present 10 cases so far.
The exercise in Figure 2 cannot be considered a complete analysis, partly due to the interpretation of the qualifying criteria. For instance, it is unclear whether the 1988 Edwina Currie “salmonella in eggs” incident should be classified as an example of corruption, or rather as a case of imprudent public communication. Similarly, the COVID-related PPE procurement issues appear to be absent from the dataset. While there have been investigations into these matters, many remain formally unproven or alleged, which complicates their inclusion within a defined category of corruption.
Nevertheless, the cases presented do exhibit certain recurring patterns. Those included in the statistics are typically those that have attracted media attention and entered the public domain. A significant proportion appear to involve individuals from the governing party. While this may partly reflect the larger number of office-holders within the party in power, it may also indicate the increased exposure to opportunities for misconduct that accompanies political authority.
In the context of England, there also appears to be a tendency for cases to involve right-leaning politicians. It is important not to generalise this observation to all individuals within that political tradition; however, it may be argued that a political ethos emphasising individualism and competition over collective responsibility and regulatory oversight could, in some cases, create conditions in which rule-bending behaviour is more likely to occur.
My earliest recollection of political scandal is not of the incident itself, but of its aftermath—the 1963 Profumo affair. Even as a child under ten, it was a significant media event. While it is debatable whether that case was more or less serious than more recent controversies, the cumulative scale of contemporary issues appears different. In the 1960s, the focus was largely on a single individual; by contrast, in July 2024, a YouGov survey indicated that when members of the public were asked why the Conservative Party lost the general election, perceptions of incompetence, self-interest, and weak leadership were more influential than specific policy concerns. (6) See Tables 2a and 2b.
| Detail | Num | Category |
|---|---|---|
| Failed to deliver on their promises / key issues | 4 | Incompetent, failed to deliver, made things worse |
| Boris Johnson's unacceptable behaviour and Partygate | 4 | Corruption, self-centred, hypocrisy |
| Mismanagement of the Covid-19 pandemic | 4 | Incompetent, failed to deliver, made things worse |
| Too much internal fighting / disunity in the party | 4 | Lack of leadership |
| They did not manage the economy well | 3 | Incompetent, failed to deliver, made things worse |
| Liz Truss and the failed mini-budget | 3 | Incompetent, failed to deliver, made things worse |
| They did not address the cost of living crisis | 3 | Incompetent, failed to deliver, made things worse |
| Lack of / bad leadership | 3 | Lack of leadership |
| Poor / unprofessional behaviour during the campaign | 3 | Corruption, self-centred, hypocrisy |
| Rishi Sunak was not a capable leader | 3 | Lack of leadership |
| Failed to tackle immigration | 3 | Incompetent, failed to deliver, made things worse |
| Unpopular views / policies | 1 | Wrong policies |
| Inability to manage Brexit well | 1 | Incompetent, failed to deliver, made things worse |
| Reform UK split the conservative vote | 1 | Others better/country needs change |
| People thought Labour might do better | 1 | Others better/country needs change |
| Other | 6 | |
| Don't know | 5 | |
| Total | 101 |
Table 2a: The first two columns are derived from the YouGov survey. The second column presents the percentage of respondents. The survey collected free-text responses, which were subsequently interpreted by YouGov’s AI topic model and assigned to specific meaning categories. The total exceeds 100% due to rounding.
The right-hand column reflects my classification of these meaning categories into broader thematic groups.
| Category | Total |
|---|---|
| Others better/country needs change | 23 |
| Wrong policies | 3 |
| Lack of leadership | 10 |
| Incompetent, failed to deliver, made things worse | 33 |
| 'Others' and 'Don't knows' | 11 |
| Corruption, self-centred, hypocrisy | 23 |
| Total | 101 |
In Table 2b, each of the broader thematic categories is presented, with total responses calculated as the aggregate of the relevant underlying meaning categories. One possible interpretation of these broader groupings is that respondents perceived a general need for change within the country, driven by the issues identified across the individual categories.
If responses classified as “Don’t know,” “Other,” and “Wrong policies” are excluded, the data consistently indicate that more than two-thirds of respondents believed that the Conservative Party’s electoral loss was primarily attributable to its own perceived failings, rather than to disagreement with its policy platform.
Table 2 therefore suggests that at least two-thirds of respondents attributed the Conservative Party’s defeat to personal or organisational shortcomings rather than to policy positions. Within this context, issues such as sleaze and corruption represent the most serious end of the spectrum of perceived self-interest and misconduct. The findings in Table 2 provide further support for the trends illustrated in Figure 1, which indicate that such concerns appear to be increasing.
However, it is important to note that the issues extend beyond questions of sleaze and corruption alone. An examination of opinion polling trends over the course of the previous Parliament further illustrates these developments, as shown in Figure 3. (7)
Figure 3: Opinion Poll Trends (2014–February 2025)
Figure 3 presents an amalgamated dataset of opinion poll trends sourced from the Politico website, covering the period from 2014 to February 2025. The data highlights three notable declines in Conservative Party polling support following the 2019 General Election.
The first marked decline occurs around 21 May 2020, immediately preceding the emergence of media reports concerning Dominic Cummings’ trip to Durham. A second significant decline is observed around 30 November 2021, coinciding with the emergence of the “Partygate” allegations. A third and more pronounced fall in support is evident during the short premiership of Liz Truss, during which Conservative polling performance declined sharply.
Leadership and Political Accountability
Boris Johnson’s premiership commenced during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the early stages, there was a notable degree of national unity in response to the public health crisis. However, this cohesion diminished over time.
The controversy surrounding Dominic Cummings’ trip to Durham contributed to perceptions of weak leadership and inconsistency in the enforcement of public health regulations. Many members of the public believed that rules established and communicated by the government were not being adhered to at the highest levels of authority. (8)
The emergence of the Partygate allegations further intensified concerns regarding consistency and integrity in leadership. These events reinforced perceptions of unequal application of rules, whereby restrictions imposed on the public appeared not to be observed by those responsible for creating them. A key principle of leadership is the obligation to lead by example; in this context, perceived inconsistencies significantly undermined public trust.
During the pandemic, households, businesses, public services, and healthcare providers were required to interpret and enforce rapidly evolving public health guidance. Against this backdrop, the perception that similar standards were not consistently observed within government contributed to further erosion of confidence.
The premiership of Liz Truss, by contrast, is widely characterised by its brevity and significant economic and political instability. In this assessment, it may be described as a failure of leadership in terms of policy delivery and governance outcomes.
Newsworthiness and Political Culture
A key question arises as to why isolated political scandals, such as the Profumo affair, generate significant public shock, whereas a succession of comparable events may appear to have diminishing impact.
Newsworthiness is often determined by the extent to which an event deviates from perceived norms. The media plays a central role in shaping this perception through editorial emphasis and framing. However, beyond media representation, repeated occurrences of similar events may lead to a form of normalisation, reducing their perceived salience.
In such circumstances, conduct that would once have been regarded as exceptional may gradually become embedded within the broader political culture. While culture is often understood as a shared baseline of expectations, the normalisation of incompetence or unethical behaviour presents a significant risk to public standards in governance.
The apparent acceptance of incompetence, corruption, or misleading communication raises important questions regarding institutional incentives and accountability.
Several contributing factors may be identified:
- The capacity of political actors to avoid or mitigate consequences
- The ability to alter procedural rules governing accountability
- Limitations in sustained investigative scrutiny
- Public disengagement or resignation
Of these, public disengagement represents the most significant concern. Democratic accountability ultimately depends upon an engaged electorate capable of applying sustained pressure for improvement. When individuals feel politically disempowered, they may withdraw from active engagement, focusing instead on areas perceived as more immediately controllable.
However, historical examples of coordinated civic mobilisation demonstrate that collective action can significantly influence political outcomes, even where individual influence appears limited.
Post-Truth Discourse
It is increasingly suggested that contemporary society operates within a “post-truth” environment. This characterization raises serious concerns regarding the integrity of public discourse.
The implications of such a shift are profound. If truth becomes secondary to persuasion or narrative framing, there is a risk of further deterioration in public trust and institutional legitimacy.
Classical and religious traditions have long emphasised the central importance of truth in maintaining social order. For example, the Ten Commandments include the injunction: “Thou shalt not bear false witness,” which may be interpreted as a foundational principle against deception.
Similarly, philosophical traditions from antiquity emphasise the importance of truth as a stabilising force in society. Antiphanes observed that “Plato is my friend, but the truth is my best friend.” Pythagoras likened the concealment of truth to the burial of gold, while Sophocles asserted that truth constitutes the strongest argument.
Rabbinic teachings also underscore the importance of truth, alongside justice and peace, as foundational elements sustaining society.
Truth, Governance, and Professional Standards
The absence of truth in public life represents a serious concern, as it undermines trust in institutions and weakens democratic accountability.
Instances of misleading or inconsistent political communication can contribute to public disillusionment, particularly when promises are perceived as lacking substantive intent or delivery mechanisms.
By contrast, other professional domains operate under strict norms of accuracy and accountability. Scientific research relies on peer review, evidential transparency, and cautious interpretation of results. Accounting requires rigorous adherence to verified financial data. The legal system is grounded in evidential standards such as “beyond reasonable doubt,” with serious penalties for perjury or false testimony.
Similarly, advertising and commercial regulation impose requirements for accuracy, honesty, and transparency in consumer communications.
Across these fields, truthfulness is treated as a fundamental professional standard. In comparison, public expectations of political communication often appear less strictly enforced, despite the significant consequences of political decision-making.
Democratic Accountability and Public Expectations
If sovereignty is understood to reside with the citizens, then it follows that the electorate should expect the highest standards of honesty and integrity from those they elect to office.
Even under the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, it remains reasonable for citizens to demand truthfulness from political representatives. In this context, electoral choice should be informed by an expectation of accuracy and integrity in public communication.
While different societies may adopt varying tolerances for political communication standards, a democratic system committed to transparency and accountability must prioritise truthfulness as a core principle of governance.
Figure 4: A diagram trying to depict how having truthful politicians makes life easier for the citizens. Green is positive and red is negative. a) If a politician makes a statement, the citizen hearing it or reading it must have the confidence it is truthful and that what was heard or read is, was and will be the way as described. The citizen can then make an informed judgement and vote or act accordingly. b) If the politician is a known liar or lacks the respect of the individual or the public more generally, they will be ignored. c) If it is not known they are lying they can misguide the public into responding against their better judgement. d) And the politician who has a certain charisma, persuasive and can deliver an appealing message, but also has a history of being deceitful, such a politician will leave either individuals or the society they represent confused. e) Once a culture of untruthfulness is established there is shock and surprise at how other basic assumptions are no longer valid.
So let us be very clear why honesty and precision in speech amongst politicians should be no less than for everybody else. Figure 4 tries to depict what happens if there is tolerance to politicians misinforming the public.
Hearing an honest politician saying it as it is, informs the public and the citizens can act appropriately. There is clear, quick and unequivocal direct communication. It is simple and straightforward.
But when there are paradigm differences of truth and reality, either between the politician and the public or between the two sides of an argument, every statement needs to be fact checked. This is tedious and exhausting. Worse, the two perceived paradigms of truth, like the person with multiple identity disorder, neither identity, and neither truth recognize the existence of the other as being valid. It is impossible to have a constructive discussion to the way forward because the underlying reality of the present is disagreed. But of course, there is only one absolute reality of truth. Opinions and interpretations of an event can be different. Between two people, if they disagree about whether an event happened or not, at least one of them must be wrong. An event either happened or it did not. It cannot be both.
Thus, what we have recently seen is that those who had half an interest in politics or detailed knowledge about the topic under discussion knew when truth was lacking. To everybody else it was unrecognized gaslighting.
And once there is a culture of misinformation, we have moved into a post truth society. But who do we believe? How do we make decisions? What is real? What is not? Psychologically, uncertainty gives rise to anxiety. Put it another way, anxiety is the emotion of uncertainty, and it is usually associated with perceived harmful outcomes. Ask anybody with anxiety and depending on the severity they will tell you that as a human they function less well and everything is an effort. As a society, being post truth is not something we should adhere to. It is a sickness.
The culture of an organization is set by the head of the organization. If the soul of a democracy is its citizens, the parliament is the head. We as citizens must be demanding of our politicians that they are always truthful. It will be the politicians who will realign the culture.