People’s political engagement is shifting towards non-traditional forms of mobilisation to elicit dyadic (Blumenau, 2021) representative responses, including signing petitions, protesting in the streets (Melo and Stockemer, 2014), and striking. But do MPs pay attention? If they do, which method do they respond to more? This project investigates how MPs respond through parliamentary and public methods to opinion mobilisation and why some forms elicit rapid responses while others may be ignored. This study focuses on dyadic responses where MPs advocate for issues their constituents are vocal about. This impacts the First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system’s tradition of constituency based representation. Inadequate or lacking responses can jeopardise constituency-MP links, a core justification for maintaining FPTP (Kelly, 2008), eroding electoral system trust. Citizen voice between elections could also be limited, impacting British representative institutions. Unconventional political engagement is important to study as younger people and working age adults vote less and use protest and petitions more (Melo and Stockemer, 2014), shifting political behaviour characteristics. This research sits in the Secure, Effective, and Trusted Institutions pathway by evaluating the effectiveness of local MPs dyadic representation and the trust this builds. Previous studies have investigated MP responses to forms of expressed public opinion (Blumenau, 2021; Bernardi et al., 2021; Barrie et al., 2024) without comparing which MPs respond to more, nor which methods of response are used more. This study remedies this gap by investigating response rate and type across protests, petitions, and strikes using quantitative methods and interviews with MPs and staffers.