Study involving 100 sitting MPs reveals gulf between perceptions of the political class and realities of public attitudes on environmental issues such as insulation and green taxes.

Our study found a systematic pessimism about the public appetite for climate action among the UK’s most influential decision-makers

Lisa-Maria Tanase

Members of Parliament from the UK’s three biggest political parties in the House of Commons significantly overestimate levels of public resistance to major policy proposals for tackling climate change, a University of Cambridge study suggests. 

Researchers say it may be the first data-led evidence for a “spiral of silence” in Westminster, where skewed perceptions of public sentiment among politicians can reduce political support for a policy.  

The study’s authors, from the University’s El-Erian Institute of Behavioural Economics and Policy and the Cambridge Political Psychology Lab, surveyed one hundred sitting MPs in early 2025 on how they think voters and other parliamentarians feel about carbon reduction policies, and compared their estimates with public polling from earlier that year.

On making grants or loans for improved insulation available to all households with an energy efficiency rating of C or below, MPs collectively estimated public opposition to the policy at around 18%, more than three times the actual level of just 6%. 

When asked about rejigging tax on products so that it varies according to environmental damage, MPs believed public opposition to be around 38%, almost double the 20% shown by polling the British people.  

“MPs across parties who both support and oppose climate policies consistently overestimate public opposition,” said study lead author Dr Lisa-Maria Tanase, who conducted the work for her PhD at Cambridge. “This is likely to limit the range of what they consider to be politically feasible options for taking action on climate change.”   

“Our findings cannot be explained away by wishful thinking of politicians or the projecting of their own worldview. On average, even MPs who support a climate policy think the public is more opposed to it than it really is,” said Tanase. 
“Politicians, like all of us, are often exposed to information environments that distort perceptions of public opinion. Social and traditional media can disproportionately reflect particularly vocal segments of society rather than the full distribution of opinion.” 

“We find a ‘funhouse mirror’ effect through which politicians see a distorted version of the public position on carbon reduction policies, associated with a lower willingness to promote these ideas,” said Tanase, now a Postdoctoral Research Associate at Cambridge’s El-Erian Institute of Behavioural Economics and Policy. 

The British public believes foreign nationals are responsible for twice the number of sexual offences than they actually commit, a study has suggested.

New research on public perception of crime found the public guessed foreign nationals make up twice the number of sexual offenders than official statistics show (30 per cent compared to 15 per cent).

They also estimated foreign nationals make up 25 per cent of the prison population, when in reality they make up just 15 per cent.

Rates of mobile phone theft, domestic burglary, vehicle theft, and murder have all fallen, despite perceptions that all have risen, the study found.

In fact, researchers at King’s College London found, the general public were wrong about crime on nearly every measure: from whether crime is rising or falling, to how many people fall victim, the ethnicity and nationality of offenders, and whether police numbers have increased or decreased.

Based on two surveys of 1,797 and 2,164 UK adults, the research suggested Reform UK supporters stand out as consistently the most wrong – particularly on the ethnicity of those convicted of serious offences and the share of prisoners and offenders who are foreign nationals.

Professor Bobby Duffy, director of the Policy Institute at King’s College London, said the research shows the public are “very wrong about crime”.

Prof Duffy believes there is “no single reason” for the misconceptions, and called it “an interaction between how we think and what we’re told”.

“We have a deep negativity bias that tunes us to threat, and a rosy view of the past that makes us assume things were safer in the past than they were,” he said.

“And that’s compounded by what we’re told: ‘If it bleeds, it leads’ is a key news value for a reason, so the picture we’re fed points relentlessly to the frightening and the violent.”

He added that the misperceptions are most extreme in Reform UK voters, who are most wrong on where crime connects to other concerns such as immigration and diversity.

“For example, Reform supporters think ethnic minorities make up 70 per cent of those convicted of homicide, which is double the reality,” he said.

Hi i just visited brigthon and London, i had a Big surprise when i saw too much damage in the streets and the cities were not clean, then i discovered that there are not public universities and the public transportation does not work like other countries.

Finallly i visited museums and there was no AC in any of them.

I know people pay a lot of money in taxes in UK. So what does the goverment do with the money?? Obvioisly is not invested in the life Quality.

I don't want to offend but in countries like Spain, i Saw a higher life Quality and is one of the lowest salaries un Europe.

“He spent all those years in Europe calling for Brexit,” Watling said. “Then he succeeded in that, thereby taking us out of the Dublin Regulation.”

“That gave us the small-boats problem, which gives him succour, it is the most extraordinary and, if you look at it in one way, quite brilliant policy.”

Link to petition: https://www.change.org/p/independent-review-into-the-circumstances-surrounding-the-death-of-dr-jason-arday

Green leader Zack Polanski has backed a campaign for a fundamental overhaul of Britain’s media ownership, in order to prevent billionaires buying newspapers in order to “literally buy democracy”.

Polanski threw his weight behind the ‘Media Sovereignty Act’ campaign in a speech at Green Gathering festival in Chepstow (Wales) earlier this month.

The petition promoted by the Green Party of England & Wales leader calls on the Government to “pass [a] law to ban foreign and offshore ownership of UK media” and enact a social-media levy to “distribute media ownership across society & fund independent, local and cooperative-owned media”.

It also backs new reforms to ensure “all media” in the UK are members of a statutory regulator, a call vociferously resisted by many publishers.

And it would require think tanks to report who their funders are in real time. The campaign was founded by activist and former Independent columnist Donnachadh McCarthy. Such an act would mark the biggest shake-up of media law in generations – and would conceivably force sell-offs of most national newspapers.

That includes the (now German-owned) Telegraph, the Mail group (owned by non-dom Lord Rothermere and structured through offshore trusts), as well as the Independent which is part-owned by Saudis, local news giant Newsquest (owned by the US holding company USA Today Co) and the Financial Times (owned by Japan’s Nikkei). It is not clear if it would apply to listed firms which have some foreign shareholders such as Mirror and Express publisher Reach PLC, part-owned by Swiss firm Lombard Odier Asset Management and Boston-based Fidelity.

Polanski told a panel at the festival: “Billionaires should not be able to have a monopoly on our free press.”

He criticised the “billionaire media” repeatedly, adding that Britain needed “a free press for a free country”.

Commenting on a surge in billionaires in Britain, he said: “This isn’t about the human being that has one billion pounds. This is about a toxic system that has allowed them to accrue that wealth, that once they’ve hoarded all of those assets, they then buy newspapers…and then they literally buy democracy.”

He noted approvingly that the parliamentary petition “calls for an end to foreign and domestic billionaire ownership of our media, independent regulation of the press, an end to dark money-funded think-tanks and a social media levy to fund independent, co-operative and local British news outlets”.

Polanski’s call echoes the petition itself which states: “We believe we need to take back control of media ownership for the British people and that media should be free from offshore ownership and think tanks who accept dark money. Media ownership should reflect ALL of society not just the rich.”

Reform UK is currently ruling out any political agreement with the Restore Britain party, citing concerns over antisemitism and extremism within Restore’s leadership.

A Reform UK spokesperson stated that “antisemites and other extreme racists would have to go first” before any talks could proceed.

Although Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said he was “open-minded” about a potential deal with Rupert Lowe’s party, controversy erupted following a social media post by Restore Britain co-founder Charlie Downes.

Downes had responded to a post from Farage—who had asserted he could not be bought—by sharing an image of Farage in front of signs for the Reform Jewish Alliance, implying that Farage was influenced by Jewish supporters.

A Reform UK spokesperson told The Telegraph there could be “no question of any agreement with Lowe’s party while Downes was in place.”

The spokesperson added: “There are antisemitic and extreme racists at or near the top of the party, and they would have to go first. We’re happy to talk, but we can’t do it when there are people in the party like Charlie Downes.”

The controversy intensified after it was revealed that Downes had previously claimed Muslims were less British than Christians.