Only a fifth of the public have confidence in a royal charter prepared by parts of the press as an alternative to the charter prepared by politicians and parliament, a poll finds today.

A total of 56% say they have little or no confidence in the media's charter. But the public are almost exactly divided (38% to 37%) over whether the government should press ahead with its royal charter, or wait until it has reached agreement with newspapers. Ukip voters most favour delay.

However, if the government goes ahead with its plans, a majority of voters think newspapers should participate. The government has put on hold its plans to send its royal charter to the Queen for sealing on 15 May in order to allow time for consultation on the rival proposal put forward by sections of the industry.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport made the announcement last Friday, leading to suggestions that, faced with newspaper opposition, it does not feel politically strong enough to impose the royal charter endorsed by parliament.

A total of 73% in the poll say there is a risk that unethical and illegal practices will be repeated if the press royal charter is accepted, as opposed to the one prepared by government; 36% say there is a large risk, 37% a small risk and 8% no real risk.

Successive polls on attitudes to press regulation have been subject to criticism for asking loaded questions designed to produce responses that suit those commissioning the poll.

The YouGov poll was commissioned by the Media Standards Trust, a body campaigning for tighter press laws.

In its major question, the Media Standards Trust asks: "In March, a new system of press regulation, based on Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations, was agreed by the three political parties and by parliament, and was backed by representatives of some of the victims of press abuses.

"A number of major newspaper publishers have said they oppose the new system of regulation and have proposed their own alternative system. How much confidence would you have in the alternative system proposed by newspaper publishers?"

In reply, 20% said they would have a lot or a fair amount of confidence. By contrast, 56% said they would not have much confidence or would have none at all.

The YouGov poll, which was carried out on 1-2 May, finds 76% think a regulator should be able to direct a newspaper to publish a correction or apology and say where it must appear. A total of 52% think the regulator must require "a fast low-cost system of arbitration for people who feel they have been libelled or harassed". By contrast, 18% say this should be optional The MST claims the industry royal charter dilutes a newspaper's obligation to go to arbitration, and reduces the obligation to publish apologies.

The poll also finds that if the government's royal charter went ahead, 10% readers would not want their newspaper to join, against 52% who would be in favour.

The government has insisted in public it is only delaying its royal charter due to a legal obligation to consult on the industry proposal, but it is also clear it is eager to see if there is any middle ground that could yet be constructed that would secure the co-operation of the industry.

At present it looks as if the bulk of the industry will not co-operate, exposing the industry eventually to the risk of exemplary damages and costs.

The polling shows Liberal Democrat supporters have least confidence in a press version of the royal charter (82% no confidence), and most favour of obligatory arbitration (71%). They are also most in favour of giving a regulatory the power to direct apologies or corrections (89%). But Conservative supporters also support a regulator with powers to direct corrections or apologies (80%) .

YouGov also tried to break the results down by newspaper readership with 73% of Times readers saying they would not have confidence in the alternative press system, and 68% would want the Times to join the agreed system established by royal charter. Sun readers have the most confidence in an industry-led royal charter, but even here a small minority say they will have little or no confidence.