Conference Season
Martin Kettle - writing in the Guardian the other day - made a convincing argument for abolishing the spate of political party conferences - that come along at this time of year.
Here's what Martin had to say in his column.
These demeaning rituals are a waste political parties can ill afford. The conference season – dominated by lobbyists and media and devoid of any debate – has long outlived its purpose.
On the shelves by my desk as I write stands a volume called Conservative and Labour Party Conference Decisions 1945-81, edited by the late Fred Craig.
Topic by topic, it contains the full text of every motion, on subjects from agriculture to Wales, debated by the two main party conferences during those years. It records whether the motions were carried, defeated, remitted or withdrawn. In the case of Labour conferences, it notes the exact result of every card vote.
When I bought Craig's book in 1982, it was an invaluable, living reference tool. I remember taking it with me to party conferences in the 1980s to compare the wording of the latest resolutions and decisions with those of the past. But it is years since I needed it. For the political world of party conference decision-making to which it refers is dead. It will never return.
Don't get this wrong. I am not dewy eyed about the old party conferences. They contained much that should not be mourned and, even if one did regret their passing, they are not coming back. Those old conferences could be tribal bear-pits – smoky too – in which foul prejudices were flaunted.
The Labour conferences were ruthlessly stitched up by the trade unions, and the Tory ones by the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations. Neither of the conferences was democratic in any sense that most people would instinctively recognise.
But what we have now is worse. Having completed the conference circuit yet again this year, it is clearer to me than ever that the old stitch-up conferences have now been replaced by pointless political pap. And by pretty sleazy political pap at that. Modern party conferences are dominated by special interests, lobby groups, single-issue campaigners and the media. They are a waste of time, a waste of space and a waste of money. It is time to scrap them.
This is not to say that even today's party conferences are uninteresting or unimportant. It is true that, in the old sense of resolutions voted on, arguments on the conference floor, or speeches which turned the tide of an argument, not much happens. This week's catflap between Theresa May and Ken Clarke got as much attention as it did because it was such a rare rip in the otherwise seamless conference texture.
But there is also a mood to be sensed, arguments to be better understood, talent to be spotted, and networking to be done. These things matter and one comes away from the conference better informed than if one stayed away.
But it isn't enough. The charge sheet against today's party conferences is much longer and weightier than the pleas in mitigation that can be made on the conferences' behalf. The most important failing is that they are passive not active. They do not bring anything to politics. They are controlled by the leaders and are willing to be controlled. They are public relations presentations. We should not talk any longer about members, delegates or representatives at party conferences, they are audiences, nothing more and nothing less.
Debates are almost a thing of the past. Tory conferences no longer have them. Audience members are occasionally allowed to ask vetted and scripted questions, but disagreement has been banished. Labour has debates but they do not matter, except on internal issues like the block vote or the devolution of the Scottish party. The Lib Dems, traditionally the most participatory party, are sliding fast towards passivity too. This year they voted not to have a vote on one of the few issues – health – which divides them. Policy making? Forget it.
The dominant conference hall mode is now the official speech. The days when even being chancellor of the exchequer did not guarantee you a hearing in the conference economic debate, as happened to Denis Healey in 1976, are long gone. And with the decline of internal argument, the quality of speeches has declined too. Most are not worth giving or hearing. No one has to persuade or convince any more.
Increasingly, all parties use softball question and answer sessions too, perhaps with a media or campaigning personality in tow. Joan Bakewell interviewed Ed Miliband this year at Labour. The Dowler family lawyer Mark Lewis appeared on a panel at Labour and gave a speech from the rostrum at the Lib Dems, despite not being a party member. Hugh Grant was everywhere.
Party members are not merely reduced to audience status in the hall. They are also increasingly squeezed into passivity on the fringe too. Once a place where Tory ministers could give carefully coded speeches, or where Labour or Lib Dem factions could voice their true feelings about one another, the fringe is now overwhelmingly dominated by media and lobbying events. A senior politician "in conversation with" a senior media personality is a favourite mode. In more specialist policy fringes, the lobbyists, campaigners, journalists and practitioners also dominate. Conference parties and dinners are undoubtedly fun, but they could take place for a fraction of the cost back home.
The sense that the conference exists for those who attend on expenses has been especially strong this year. Large numbers of empty seats at David Cameron's speech to the Tories, and at Nick Clegg's to the Lib Dems, are evidence that fewer party supporters make the trip now than before. That's partly because parties are losing members across the board anyway. Many local party branches or associations are mere shells. But it's also because times are hard and conference is expensive, particularly when the parties prefer big city venues, where they take a cut of the revenues, to cheaper seaside ones. ConservativeHome estimates the average cost of attending Tory conference this week was £722.50 a head. A big ask.
With party conferences, as with bankers' bonuses, binge drinking and overeating, it is time to say enough is enough. Let's ask what is the point of conferences. Let's examine whether the point can be better achieved in better ways, rather than blindly continuing down this unseemly, expensive and unproductive path. Party conferences have little impact on the polls these days, so why spend so much money on them? If party leaders want to mingle with their members, then hold a party or a gala or a town hall meeting. If they want to make a speech about something that matters to them, then do so, but don't waste time, energy and resources on speeches that are mostly forgotten the day after they are delivered. Party conferences demean rather than elevate politics. The conference season is a ritual which has outlived its purpose. Let's do politics better and get rid of them.
Another good reason - which Martin failed to mention - is that getting rid of these conferences would also make for much better use of government and parliamentary time.
Because Westminster effectively shuts down during this period - MPs are all off on an official break or 'jolly' for three weeks - which is a terible waste of public money.
Here's what Martin had to say in his column.
These demeaning rituals are a waste political parties can ill afford. The conference season – dominated by lobbyists and media and devoid of any debate – has long outlived its purpose.
On the shelves by my desk as I write stands a volume called Conservative and Labour Party Conference Decisions 1945-81, edited by the late Fred Craig.
Topic by topic, it contains the full text of every motion, on subjects from agriculture to Wales, debated by the two main party conferences during those years. It records whether the motions were carried, defeated, remitted or withdrawn. In the case of Labour conferences, it notes the exact result of every card vote.
When I bought Craig's book in 1982, it was an invaluable, living reference tool. I remember taking it with me to party conferences in the 1980s to compare the wording of the latest resolutions and decisions with those of the past. But it is years since I needed it. For the political world of party conference decision-making to which it refers is dead. It will never return.
Don't get this wrong. I am not dewy eyed about the old party conferences. They contained much that should not be mourned and, even if one did regret their passing, they are not coming back. Those old conferences could be tribal bear-pits – smoky too – in which foul prejudices were flaunted.
The Labour conferences were ruthlessly stitched up by the trade unions, and the Tory ones by the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations. Neither of the conferences was democratic in any sense that most people would instinctively recognise.
But what we have now is worse. Having completed the conference circuit yet again this year, it is clearer to me than ever that the old stitch-up conferences have now been replaced by pointless political pap. And by pretty sleazy political pap at that. Modern party conferences are dominated by special interests, lobby groups, single-issue campaigners and the media. They are a waste of time, a waste of space and a waste of money. It is time to scrap them.
This is not to say that even today's party conferences are uninteresting or unimportant. It is true that, in the old sense of resolutions voted on, arguments on the conference floor, or speeches which turned the tide of an argument, not much happens. This week's catflap between Theresa May and Ken Clarke got as much attention as it did because it was such a rare rip in the otherwise seamless conference texture.
But there is also a mood to be sensed, arguments to be better understood, talent to be spotted, and networking to be done. These things matter and one comes away from the conference better informed than if one stayed away.
But it isn't enough. The charge sheet against today's party conferences is much longer and weightier than the pleas in mitigation that can be made on the conferences' behalf. The most important failing is that they are passive not active. They do not bring anything to politics. They are controlled by the leaders and are willing to be controlled. They are public relations presentations. We should not talk any longer about members, delegates or representatives at party conferences, they are audiences, nothing more and nothing less.
Debates are almost a thing of the past. Tory conferences no longer have them. Audience members are occasionally allowed to ask vetted and scripted questions, but disagreement has been banished. Labour has debates but they do not matter, except on internal issues like the block vote or the devolution of the Scottish party. The Lib Dems, traditionally the most participatory party, are sliding fast towards passivity too. This year they voted not to have a vote on one of the few issues – health – which divides them. Policy making? Forget it.
The dominant conference hall mode is now the official speech. The days when even being chancellor of the exchequer did not guarantee you a hearing in the conference economic debate, as happened to Denis Healey in 1976, are long gone. And with the decline of internal argument, the quality of speeches has declined too. Most are not worth giving or hearing. No one has to persuade or convince any more.
Increasingly, all parties use softball question and answer sessions too, perhaps with a media or campaigning personality in tow. Joan Bakewell interviewed Ed Miliband this year at Labour. The Dowler family lawyer Mark Lewis appeared on a panel at Labour and gave a speech from the rostrum at the Lib Dems, despite not being a party member. Hugh Grant was everywhere.
Party members are not merely reduced to audience status in the hall. They are also increasingly squeezed into passivity on the fringe too. Once a place where Tory ministers could give carefully coded speeches, or where Labour or Lib Dem factions could voice their true feelings about one another, the fringe is now overwhelmingly dominated by media and lobbying events. A senior politician "in conversation with" a senior media personality is a favourite mode. In more specialist policy fringes, the lobbyists, campaigners, journalists and practitioners also dominate. Conference parties and dinners are undoubtedly fun, but they could take place for a fraction of the cost back home.
The sense that the conference exists for those who attend on expenses has been especially strong this year. Large numbers of empty seats at David Cameron's speech to the Tories, and at Nick Clegg's to the Lib Dems, are evidence that fewer party supporters make the trip now than before. That's partly because parties are losing members across the board anyway. Many local party branches or associations are mere shells. But it's also because times are hard and conference is expensive, particularly when the parties prefer big city venues, where they take a cut of the revenues, to cheaper seaside ones. ConservativeHome estimates the average cost of attending Tory conference this week was £722.50 a head. A big ask.
With party conferences, as with bankers' bonuses, binge drinking and overeating, it is time to say enough is enough. Let's ask what is the point of conferences. Let's examine whether the point can be better achieved in better ways, rather than blindly continuing down this unseemly, expensive and unproductive path. Party conferences have little impact on the polls these days, so why spend so much money on them? If party leaders want to mingle with their members, then hold a party or a gala or a town hall meeting. If they want to make a speech about something that matters to them, then do so, but don't waste time, energy and resources on speeches that are mostly forgotten the day after they are delivered. Party conferences demean rather than elevate politics. The conference season is a ritual which has outlived its purpose. Let's do politics better and get rid of them.
Another good reason - which Martin failed to mention - is that getting rid of these conferences would also make for much better use of government and parliamentary time.
Because Westminster effectively shuts down during this period - MPs are all off on an official break or 'jolly' for three weeks - which is a terible waste of public money.
