Last week you asked Theresa May a number of questions. Here are the Shadow Leader of the House's answers:
ToryT: Mrs. May, Dan Hannan said in his article on our local results that your early decision to go for a maximum number of candidates locally - ie standing even in rock solid Labour wards - would grow our parliamentary base.
Apart from the councillor gains, what effect do you think those losing candidates new to Labour wards will have on the General Election? It seems a very efficient way of flushing out our vote in Labour's bedrock and I wondered of the party had any data on that.
I support selecting as many candidates as early as possible for lots of reasons. First of all I think it is important that every voter – regardless of where they live in the country – should have the opportunity to vote Conservative should they wish. Having said that, it’s also advantageous for the Party because it helps us to build a base in those areas where we have not in, recent times, been as active as we’d have liked. It means that opposing parties don’t get a free run but are challenged to prove themselves to voters.. In seats where perhaps we don’t expect to win at the next general election, the new infrastructure gives us a chance to win local council seats and to build a campaigning base which could help us to win in the future. Politics is changing and as the demographics of different constituencies change so we need to be awake to the possibility of making gains where we have not traditionally done so.
Pisaboy: Do you have any thoughts on how Parliament's website can be more dynamic?
The internet is changing all forms of communication, and this definitely includes political communication. It makes it much easier for politicians to communicate directly with voters – think of the interest when David launched WebCameron, or Tony Blair’s rather embarrassing attempt to catch up on YouTube. But this easier communication doesn’t make it easier to control a message. On the contrary, the internet makes information easier to come by, but harder to control – think of the success of blogs like ConservativeHome and Guido Fawkes. I definitely think Parliament’s website can be improved – perhaps it could have better access to video feed, include interactive features or have discussion forums.
These modern means of communication are one reason why I recently opposed the Government’s decision to grant MPs a new communications allowance. With new technology giving us the opportunity to communicate directly with voters very cheaply, why did Labour MPs vote for a £10,000 allowance to tell voters what a good job they do?
Stephen: Your role as Shadow Leader of the House of Commons is all about managing Parliamentary business. This government has quite deliberately ignored Parliamentary scrutiny and we have had poor legislation as a result. What do you think we can do to strengthen Parliament?
There’s a lot that can be done to strengthen Parliament and improve the quality of our democracy.
I don’t think it’s surprising that this Government has ignored Parliamentary scrutiny. When your approach to government is to legislate for every conceivable aspect of life, you will force a large volume of legislation through Parliament.
A Conservative government would legislate less, and we would therefore allow more time for debate in both Houses of Parliament. I would like to see more time for the Commons to debate legislation – it is a scandal that we often have to rely on the House of Lords scrutinizing parts of bills that have received no scrutiny in the Commons. But I would also like to see more time made available for debates on issues that arise, possibly on the basis of substantive motions with a free vote so that the view of Parliament can be judged rather than the view of party. Because so much of our time is spent on debating specific legislation we don’t get enough time to debate underlying issues. For example with all the criminal justice bills we’ve had from this Government I can only remember one debate on anti social behaviour – and that came recently after I’d complained that we hadn’t had one!
I would also like to see more opportunities for topical debates in the Commons – an issue being considered by the Modernisation Select Committee on which I sit. I also approve of our proposal that Select Committees should have the power to hold confirmatory hearings for certain public appointments – like the Chairman of the BBC!
But there are other systemic weaknesses that need to be addressed. The EU now produces four major pieces of legislation every week – but our process of scrutinizing European legislation is hopelessly weak. The House of Lords is now stuffed with politically appointed peers – more than half its members were appointed by Tony Blair. And the Commons itself has insufficient powers to check an over-mighty executive. We’re working on proposals to address each of these problems.
Umbrella Man: Theresa: Thank you for your campaign to protect members' voting rights during the 2005 leadership race. Do you regret the recent decision of the Party Board to dilute members' voting rights in the selection of the party's MEP candidates?
First of all let me say that I really wish we did not have to operate with the party list system, but it was forced on the country by this Labour Government.
It was agreed after the Party’s selections for the candidates for the last European elections that there had been problems with the system and that it should be reviewed. The National European Forum has worked hard and has consulted in the Party to draw up the new system. Last time round members of the Party were able to vote at hustings on the order of priority of candidates on the party list. The initial list had been drawn up by a pre-seleciton committee. But only members who were willing to sign up and go to a hustings – all of which lasted several hours – were able to vote. The new system means that members will have the right to vote, in different categories, for the order of priority of candidates Again the initial list will have been drawn up by a pre-selection committee but this will be far larger than last time and will involve more party members. Then when voting takes place it will be open to all members to vote through a postal ballot. So in some ways members voting rights will be increased not diluted.
James Burdett: Theresa, part of the success of New Labour was the ability they had of defining us and our policies on their terms. With the imminent change of leadership in Labour how do we approach that task and seek to continue to define Labour and their leader on our terms given that there will be inevitable changes of tone and emphasis from them?
Well we already know what Gordon Brown and his spin doctors are going to try to do. They’re trying to present him as a change, somebody who can offer a new direction after ten years of Tony Blair. The problem is that there is no change and no new direction. Policy isn’t going to change – he’s been the No.2 in this government for ten years. The spin isn’t going to change – he already spends over a £1 million per year of taxpayers’ money on his army of special advisers. And the waste and the poor delivery isn’t going to change – on his watch, our pensions system is in crisis, tax credits are a mess, and the NHS is in deficit, despite 111 stealth tax rises. We don’t have to worry too much about defining Gordon Brown – he has defined himself.
Justin Hinchcliffe: Another question, if I may: when are we going to select a candidate for Eastleigh - it's getting beyond a joke!
Sorry, but I’m not able to say when the selection for Eastleigh will come up. It is a matter for discussion between the Candidates’ Team, and those responsible at local level.
Simon: Theresa, Did you understand Oliver Letwin's piece in 'The Times' today?! And can you please confirm that he will not be writing the manifesto for the next general election! I don't think my nerves could stand it.
I think it’s up to David who writes the next manifesto! Oliver’s doing a great job behind the scenes coordinating our policy development, and the Times article was a good explanation of where we are today. We need to fight Labour not just on economic issues but on quality of life issues, on our public services, on our broken society. And the answer isn’t yet more government and yet more legislation – it’s to help people help themselves.
Londoner: Why does your attitude to the House of Lords show such little appreciation of the valuable contributions of its various types of non-elected members, and why on earth do you think that elected peers, probably off Party lists, would be any more knowledgeable, more independent or provide any more of a different perspective or balance to the Commons than the present House?
If the Conservative Party cannot be relied upon to defend our remaining balanced institutions, who can?
Do you understand that many Conservatives regard the House of Lords as more fit for purpose than the House of Commons?
(But thanks for sticking up for internal Party democracy.)
Well it’s not just my attitude to Lords reform – it’s also David Cameron’s and Lord Strathclyde’s. I make no bones about my support for a more democratic House of Lords. In fact, I set out my arguments for a largely elected House on Conservative Home here, and in the debate in the House of Commons here.
I certainly don’t in any way belittle the contribution of the appointed and hereditary members of the House of Lords. But in essence, I support reform because the legitimacy that a more democratic House would have would empower it to challenge and better scrutinize the Government. In so doing, it would strengthen Parliament overall.
But let me pick up on a few of your specific points:
We shouldn’t be worried about the balance between the Lords and the Commons – we should be worried about the imbalance between government and Parliament. A more democratic Lords would not challenge the primacy of the Commons because that primacy is based on its powers, not its composition.
The argument that we need expertise in the Lords is a familiar one. But how do you decide who is an expert? Take Professor Lord Winston for example – there is probably nobody more expert in human fertility than him, but is he as expert about the other 99.9 per cent of the Lords’ business?
As for the method of election, you will never hear me arguing in favour of party lists. The Government proposed them as part of their now defunct white paper, and we opposed them because they place power in the hands of the party elites, and not the people.
I understand why some ConservativeHome readers are passionate about protecting our institutions. I share that passion. But conservatives believe just as much in reform as in preservation. The hereditary element of the Lords has largely been removed. We now have an almost wholly appointed chamber, with membership in the gift of the political parties. As I said before more than half of the members of the House of Lords have been appointed by Tony Blair. If we want to restore trust in the democratic process and strengthen Parliament, we have to put membership of the Lords in the hands of the people.
David Belchamber: Lord Saatchi's "pragmatic idealism" and his distinction between the "dependency" culture of Nulab and the "independency" culture of conservatism are as valuable as Oliver Letwin's statement today about Cameron's conservatism for an understanding of the clear differences between this government and the next conservative one. In practice, however, can you assure us of two things: (i) that we will see a tory government dedicated to governing in the best interests of the country as a whole and (ii) that it will carry out its eventual policies competently and efficiently?
You’re right to emphasise the importance of setting out an intellectual framework within which a Conservative government will operate. That is what Oliver did in his article and speech on “Cameron Conservatism”. Now that we have established our framework, the next job will be to start putting flesh on the bone – policies. To answer your first question, these policies will certainly be in the interests of the country as a whole: rich or poor; north or south; England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. We always have been and always will be the party of one nation.
As for your question about competent implementation, I will of course assure you that we will form an efficient government. One of the reasons why I support the way we have been working on policy proposals through the six commissions is that they have been able to bring together a wide variety of experts and others to discuss and consider policy ideas over a period of time. The work that has been put into this means that we can have confidence that the policies produced can be delivered. But there are other reasons to believe we will be an efficient government as well. First, we have a very talented team of shadow ministers in place. Second, the professionalism of our operation in opposition is much improved and augurs well for the future. And our third great advantage over Labour is that our policy programme is not doomed from the beginning. Labour ministers who try to run the public services from the centre, or try to legislate undesirable behaviour out of existence, are bound to fail. Conservative ministers who trust front line professionals, and want to build a stronger society, will have the advantage that their policies are the right ones.
