nfp Co-Managing Director, Tim Harrison-Byrne, and Head of Professional Audiences, Peter Dawson, write:

“Honestly, the rubbish I get [from charities]. [...] they send all sorts of nonsense that bears no relation to my role, interests or the government’s agenda.”

That was one MP, a charity campaigner of ten years before they were elected, in the open comments of our most recent quarterly survey with MPs.

It is not an uncommon complaint in our research, but it is a timely one. Staying relevant to an MP means keeping up with the government’s agenda and who is responsible for it, and both are in flux right now. Public affairs teams are carrying on, but are also waiting to see what happens.

The waiting game

Andy Burnham has said he would challenge Keir Starmer for the Labour leadership if he wins the Makerfield by-election. A contest needs the backing of a fifth of Labour MPs to begin, and Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting are mentioned as possible candidates too.

For public affairs teams, the effect is a series of pauses. First, we wait for Burnham. Then for a possible leadership challenge, or an early election. Then to see whether a new leader, or a new government, shifts direction, with another election perhaps to follow.

Each pause does the same damage and is deeply frustrating to those in public affairs and policy teams. Meetings slip. Officials grow wary of committing to anything a successor might unpick. And the minister a charity has spent a year getting to know is liable to move on. Ministers have been resigning in a steady stream since the 2024 election, more than under any recent prime minister at this stage bar one, and every departure is a relationship that has to be built again from scratch.

Ministerial churn is getting worse

This is not a one-off. The Institute for Government found that 13 of the 27 ministers attending cabinet changed roles or left at the last reshuffle, the highest turnover in any prime minister’s first reshuffle since at least 1979, and short ministerial tenures have been normal since the 2016 referendum. So a public affairs strategy anchored to individual ministers is always, in part, starting over. The more useful question is what to anchor it to instead.

MPs’ views of charities have held steady

Part of the answer lies in how MPs as a whole regard charities, which is far steadier than the turnover at the top would suggest.

We have asked MPs the same question every few months since 2017: how effective do they consider each charity to be. Across the largest charities we have tracked continuously over that time, MPs’ rated effectiveness has stayed remarkably stable, moving within a narrow range rather than drifting up or down. That period covers five prime ministers and three general elections, and their overall regard for these charities is much the same today as it was at the end of 2017.

What MPs see as the sector’s main challenges has been just as steady. Asked in our latest wave, they point to funding, the cost of living, national insurance and falling donations, not to the question of who leads the country.

Where influence moves

That stability is easiest to reach through the parts of Parliament that keep working when the front bench seizes up. When ministers are distracted and big decisions are paused, more of the work shifts to select committees, all-party groups and constituency casework.

It is also where MPs say the most effective lobbying happens. When we ask which organisations have lobbied well, and why, the reasons are mostly about relevance and access rather than ministerial contact: a clear ask, constituency-specific data, a briefing or event that was actually useful, steady contact over time. Dogs Trust, for instance, was praised by MPs from every party for its parliamentary events and for understanding how the Commons actually works. This kind of standing comes from engaging the whole of Parliament, not just whoever holds ministerial office.

The 2024 intake

It is also why the makeup of the current Commons matters. The 2024 election returned an unusually large number of new MPs, many still early in forming their views of the sector. A view held lightly by an MP who barely knows a charity is more open to change than one built up over years of contact, and today’s little-known backbencher may be in government before long. Many of the people who could run departments after a reshuffle or future election are forming their first impressions of charities now, and those impressions are often easier to shape before a promotion than after.

This is the job nfpPolitics Westminster does: tracking how MPs across all parties view charities, so the picture is there whoever ends up in charge. Far from being a reason to pause that work, upheaval at the top is when it matters most.

If you’d like to discuss how MPs perceive your organisation or sector, please contact Peter on Peter.Dawson@nfpresearch.com