Charles Walker MP: Andrew Gimson is wrong about Grant Shapps. He's the best man to do the Job from Hell

Charles Walker is MP for Broxbourne and a vice-chairman of the 1922 Committee.

I would respond to Andrew Gimson's criticism of Grant Shapps on this site yesterday by saying that being Party Chairman is never easy at the best of times (no job worth having is) - but being Party Chairman in coalition is a job dredged up from Hades.

Having received this hospital pass in the current Cabinet, Shapps is wearing the mantle of his position well. Turning up in multiple broadcasting studios, day-after-day, to defend what are quite frankly at times the almost indefensible realities of coalition is not a job for the faint-hearted.

The first requirement for our current Chairman, any Party Chairman, must be to retain a sense of good humour and perspective. Once this has been mastered, the next requirement is to make the case for the Conservative part of the coalition with conviction and enthusiasm, which Shapps does unflinchingly and energetically.

Charles Walker MP: Fewer MPs must mean Fewer Ministers

Charles Walker is MP for Broxbourne and a vice-chairman of the 1922 Committee.

The mood of the House of Commons has been lifted by a new and refreshing intake of Parliamentarians. Regardless of their age, they are bright, articulate and in the main less partisan than the issue that went before them.

My own benches positively sparkle with talent and it’s great fun getting to know the range of characters and personalities that I’ve the pleasure of calling colleagues. They’re impressive and diligent - keen to champion their constituencies and the causes dear to their heart.

Of course, David Cameron, must take much of the credit for the wave of optimism surrounding the Class of 2010. Whether you like it or not (and I do), the coalition has tapped into the public mood for at least a period of politics that leans toward placing the nation’s immediate and pressing interests above all else.

But unlike his predecessor in Number 10, the current Prime Minister is not a control freak. He has the maturity to tolerate reasoned dissent. His relaxed style is refreshing and reaches beyond Downing Street, right into the heart of Parliament. In an age without deference, he recognises that his new colleagues are far more comfortable challenging both him and the institution that they serve. This is healthy and is to be welcomed.

The primary role of Parliament is to hold Government, the Executive, to account. The Whips are adjusting to this new streak of independence. Out of necessity, the testosterone-fuelled bullying and cajoling of the past is slowly being replaced by a more subtle approach. Of course, the Whips are never going to completely sheath their claws but their style is now less rabid Rottweiler and more attentive Labrador.

If what we’re seeing in the House of Commons is a manifestation of the much vaunted “New Politics” we were promised by the coalition, then it deserves to be welcomed. But caution is still required in the handling of “New”, lest it simply provide marketing cover for some old-style fixing.

Charles Walker MP: Radical surgery is required to rebalance our democracy - and we should start by removing the Executive from Parliament

Charles Walker MP has been MP for Broxbourne since 2005.

The recent expenses scandal was the bursting of a septic boil that had been festering for more than a century. For it is over this period of time that Parliament has meekly ceded its legislative powers to the Executive, rendering it an increasingly toothless debating chamber - easily derided and bypassed on the big issues of the day.

Nobody wants to be regarded as an irrelevance, least of all the egos like mine drawn to politics, so Members of Parliament like myself have retained the trappings of power, busying ourselves with constituency work while pretending that the nation hangs on our every breath. The hopelessness of our position was perfectly demonstrated by a recent exchange in PMQs:

Michael Meacher (Oldham, West and Royton) (Lab): The Reform of the House of Commons Committee proposed that the House should have the opportunity to debate and vote on its recommendations within two months, and that period has elapsed.

The Prime Minister: The Government will make time available for a debate and the House will have an opportunity to decide on the Committee's recommendations.

A reasonable request swatted away. How very generous of the PM to try and find Parliamentary time! It used to be the case that the House decided what was worthy of its attention and if the Prime Minister didn’t like it - tough on him. Now it is he who calls the shots. How feeble we have become - reduced to begging for a hearing in our own Chamber.

This leaching away of Parliamentary powers to the Executive has accelerated over the past thirty years to such an extent that when Prime Ministers stop to groom themselves in the mirror, they see a President staring back at them. Vanity dictates that they like what they see. Why else would we be having television debates between the leaders of the main Parties? Such excitements are the staple of a Presidential, not a Parliamentary system.

Charles Walker MP: Sir Christopher Kelly's review of MPs' expenses risks favouring independently wealthy MPs and giving the government whips even more power over their charges

Charles Walker has been Conservative MP for Broxbourne since 2005.

Two years ago, as a Home Counties Member of Parliament representing the constituency of Broxbourne, I gave up the Additional Cost Allowance (ACA) in favour of commuting into London on a daily basis. This was a decision that best met my personal circumstances. Turning my back on the ACA does not make me a saint (far from it) but simply reflects the fact that I have no overriding ambition to serve on the Frontbench and that I prefer being with my family than staring at four walls in London.

Despite not claiming for a second home, I recognise the hours that many colleagues work makes having a place to stay in London essential. For this reason, I took a keen interest in the Kelly inquiry, suggesting that the second home allowance of £24,000 be paid as non-pensionable income, taxed at 41%, with any reimbursements negotiated with Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs. Making the taxman the arbiter of the allowance would go some way towards restoring the public’s confidence in their elected representatives. This approach would also do away with layers of expensive bureaucracy in the House of Commons Fees Office.

The argument I put forward was reflected in the submissions of other colleagues, who shared my desire to see Members of Parliament argue the toss over permitted expenditure with the taxman rather than the Fees Office. Unfortunately, it seems that Sir Christopher Kelly may have chosen to travel down a different path. Below, I have set out a brief, non-exhaustive resume of the pros and cons of his likely findings: