An increasingly common response on the doorstep is "You're all the same, you politicians", or "You're only in it for yourself". Fuelled by all the recent stories of John Lewis wish-lists and new kitchens and light bulbs for MPs' second homes, there is a noticeable shift towards distrust of MPs from the people I speak to.
No wonder, really.
Exposing expenses claims makes for a great story and so it attracts particular media attention, but I don't think we can blame the media for this one.
The whole system of MPs' expenses, and the institutional culture surrounding it, is unjustifiable. At a time when most people are having to watch what they spend and calculating the daily rise in the cost of living, it jars that their representative in parliament is claiming from the taxpayer for new kitchens, televisions or toasters.
To make matters worse, the parliamentary authorities have seemingly made every effort to keep this information out of the public domain, creating further suspicion and interest.
I don't blame individual MPs for the nature and amount of their actual claims. It's the system and the institutional culture that supports it that are wrong and in need of major reform. However, its MPs' job to make sure it's put right and restore public confidence.
Reports this week that MPs and the house authorities are considering a lump sum to replace the "additional cost allowance" (and hence the need to submit separate claims for items and costs) miss the point entirely.
If I were an MP now, my first advice to colleagues would be to keep out of the detail of the discussions. There's nothing more unedifying than MPs deciding how much to pay themselves.
That leaves the question: Who should take charge of reforming the system? Who should decide how to pay MPs and help them meet the inevitable costs of having two bases - in the constituency and near parliament? I feel it should be neither the current parliamentary authorities nor those who represent them, like the Speaker or the Leader of House.
In my experience, the arrangements and culture within "the House" are still far too clubby. Parliament is run like a club, with special, secret rules and customs where officials are accountable to club members (MPs and peers who in turn decide the rules.
There is no place for the public, or public accountability, in this set-up, other than through the club members themselves. But if this were a true club and not a national parliament, then members would stand for election on manifestos of reform of the club.
Yet, of course, it isn't a club - it's an elected parliament, there to hold the government to account, not to reform itself.
To give an example, I recently made a complaint about an MP's use of their communications allowance, which, knowing the guidance quite well, I was sure they had breached. After numerous enquiries, I was told that although the internal investigations were complete, I would not be informed of the outcome as this "was a matter between the house and the member". The public right to hold this expenditure to account is non existent.
If MPs want to restore public confidence in them, it's time to take some brave steps to reform: establish a publicly accountable, arms-length governance of parliament and its members; set independent and transparent pay and allowances (which meet the basic costs of a second base, like rent and utilities, but not added extras); and radically change the culture of parliament away from an exclusive, cosy club, into a modern organisation.
For me, these are just necessary first steps. I would then go a lot further...
