Theresa May MP: Norwich North proves that people don't listen to parties they consider to be nasty, and reward those who remain positive and honest

Theresa May is Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary and was Campaign Manager at the Norwich North by-election.

All by-elections fascinate the commentariat and political classes because they can provide important insights into public opinion.  With less than a year until the next general election, the Norwich North by-election will be studied carefully by media commentators and party strategists alike.  But Norwich North is interesting not just because it preceded the general election, but because it followed the political crisis caused by the controversy over MPs’ expenses.

For the last month or so, I was based in Norwich, overseeing the Conservative campaign that led to the election of the newest and youngest Member of Parliament, Chloe Smith.  How local people felt about the political crisis, how the parties reacted to popular disenchantment with the political system, and how voters responded to the very different campaigns run by each party tells us a great deal about post-expenses politics.

In Norwich, as across the whole country, local people were outraged by the revelations about MPs’ expenses.  But the local picture was made all the more complicated by the fact that Ian Gibson, the outgoing MP, was popular and respected for his independence. Opinion on the doorstep was mixed. Some voters explained their admiration for Dr Gibson, but felt let down by his actions on expenses. Others felt he had been badly treated by the Labour Party.  But while they liked him, and didn’t exactly welcome the need for a by-election, they wanted the parties to show that we ‘get’ the depth of the crisis and that we know we need to change the way we do politics.

Each of the mainstream parties reacted to this challenge in remarkably different ways.

Theresa May MP: Government defeat brings EU laws into the open

Theresa May MP, Shadow Leader of the House of Commons, points out that EU legislation will now be scrutinised in public meetings.

Last week the Opposition scored a significant victory against the Government in the House of Commons. Did you miss it? I’m not surprised. “Government caves in on Conservative amendment to change standing orders on the EU Scrutiny Committee” is hardly the stuff of banner headlines. But if you’re worried that too many of our laws come from Brussels and we don’t seem to be able to do anything about it then this victory is for you.

Between fifty and seventy per cent of UK laws originate in the European Union (EU).  The EU produces four pieces of secondary legislation each week.  And every year, more than 1,000 European documents are deposited in Parliament. Only a handful are debated fully in the House of Commons.

Dealing with EU legislation is clearly an enormous part of the work of the Houses of Parliament. Yet our system of scrutiny of EU legislation is woefully inadequate.  The body in the House of Commons responsible for considering this plethora of EU laws is the European Scrutiny Committee. But it lacks real teeth and too often Parliament is ignored and its decisions are overridden.  The relationship between ministers and Parliament is not unbalanced – it is broken.

What’s more this Scrutiny Committee usually meets in private. Our victory last week was to force the Government to accept that it should be required to meet in public so that this whole process of scrutinising EU laws can be more open to the public.

Theresa May MP: 100 sleaze allegations show that Brown must clean up government

Theresa May is Shadow Commons leader.

Tomorrow, Sir Alistair Graham will stand down as Chairman of the Standards in Public Life Committee.  There’s nothing new in that; both of his predecessors have served only one term.  But this time, the difference is that no successor has been named – in the midst of the ‘cash for honours’ scandal, this Government has made clear its disdain for scrutiny, and left the Committee in a state of limbo.

But there’s no need to take my word for it.  Sir Alistair himself has been scathing in his criticism of Labour’s record in office.  Looking back at his time as Chairman of the Committee, he has said: “My greatest regret has been the apparent failure to persuade the Government to place high ethical standards at the heart of its thinking and, most importantly, behaviour … As a result, I believe, we have seen a loss of trust by the public in ministers and politicians as a class” (Committee on Standards in Public Life, Annual Report 2006, p.iii).

And looking back at this Government’s record, it’s easy to explain Sir Alistair’s frustration.  It’s not just ‘cash for honours’, but Peter Mandelson’s home loan, the Hinduja passport scandal, the ‘dodgy dossier’, the Bernie Ecclestone loan, Stephen Byers’ lies, John Prescott’s trips to America, and even the number of Gordon Brown’s special advisers.  I could go on. 

Of course it’s too late to expect Tony Blair to do anything about this.  But with a change of prime minister, we can perhaps expect a new approach.  As Sir Alistair has said, “a new government might start to create a more trusting atmosphere around politicians and the political process. One issue in particular, and on which I have made statements throughout my term, can set a new tone of seriousness about ethical standards – that is radical changes to the Ministerial Code of Conduct” (Committee on Standards in Public Life, Annual Report 2006, p.iii).

I agree.  For that reason, on Friday, I wrote to Gordon Brown, asking him to change the way that the Code should be monitored.  As things stand, when it comes to ruling on breaches of the Ministerial Code, the prime minister remains judge and jury of both his colleagues and himself.  That is an absurd situation, and I asked Gordon Brown, as the likely next prime minister, to commit to removing that responsibility from Number Ten and placing it in the hands of an independent body.

To make my case, I sent a dossier highlighting one hundred examples of accusations that Labour ministers – including both Mr Blair and Mr Brown – have contravened the Code.  I’m not suggesting that ministers were guilty in every single case, but the dossier provides stark evidence that the Ministerial Code needs to be monitored by an independent body, rather than the prime minister.

As I said in my letter to Gordon Brown, when he becomes prime minister, he will have a great opportunity to clean up British government.  I very much hope he takes it.

Theresa May MP: Why we are the democrats and Labour are the reactionaries

Theresa May is MP for Maidenhead and Shadow Leader of the House of Commons.

How much people trust politicians is a well-rehearsed debate.  How much politicians trust people receives less attention, although it matters just as much.  Tonight, we’ll find out just how much MPs trust the people, when they vote on the future of the House of Lords.  Should it be accountable to the people, through democratic elections, or should it remain in the hands of the party elites, through patronage and political appointments?

The House of Commons will vote on a series of options for reform of the House of Lords.  MPs will first decide whether the Lords should be abolished or retained, and then vote on a series of proposals, ranging from an entirely appointed to an entirely elected upper chamber, with a variety of mixtures in between. 

The timing of the vote is not auspicious.  It comes at a time when the Prime Minister has been interviewed by the police and his aides have been arrested and questioned under caution.  The public might have thought that the “cash for honours” scandal would bring an end to the parties’ power of patronage.  After all, Tony Blair once said: “the prime ministerial patronage should go”.  But they’d be wrong. 

Although it is allowing MPs a free vote, the Government has brought forward its own proposals.  Its white paper recommends that the House of Lords should be twenty per cent appointed by a Statutory Appointments Commission, thirty per cent appointed by the political parties, and fifty per cent elected, with members elected through a “list” electoral system, representing large European region constituencies. 

Jack Straw, the minister tasked with reforming the Lords, likes to paint the proposals as a sensible compromise that will make the House more democratic.  But in reality, they are a messy compromise between divided ministers, and far from making the Lords more independent, they will leave it in the hands of the parties.