Party conferences are weird things. Part political rally, part fund-raiser and part HR team-building exercise, they arguably fulfil none of these functions satisfactorily. And depending on one’s motivation for attending, the same conference can either be successful and stimulating, or a disappointing waste of the train fare to somewhere beyond Zone 6.
One thing the modern-day party conference is not – with few exceptions – is a forum for actually deciding policy. Those halcyon days are long gone. Yes, the parties like to give the impression, to a greater or lesser extent, that rank & file members have a say when it comes to policy decisions, but it’s a wafer-thin veneer.
When it comes to policy discussion, most of the action happens not on the main conference stage, in the set-piece debates or the televised ministerial speeches (of which there are now fewer and fewer), but in the burgeoning fringe events. Rather like the Edinburgh Festival, and with only slightly less comedic value, it’s the fringe at the main party conferences which have the most to offer. Often standing room only, the meetings are organised by a variety of external, third sector and commercial organisations, and especially by think tanks who have a policy platform to push. They are invariably well-supported, and attract parliamentarians, ministers and thought-leaders as panel speakers.
These events are scattered across the main venues, smaller meeting rooms and hotel function facilities, stretching from breakfast discussions to, ahem, evening receptions with ‘refreshments’ aplenty. Many go unreported, and so there is a challenge in pinning down what was said, when and by whom. But it’s these events which hold the greatest prospect for discussion of constitutional matters during party conferences. The exception, of course, is when a particular policy is a significant chunk of a party’s programme for government, in which case it will be given greater prominence in the official conference agenda and receive mentions in the big speeches from the main platform. And so it is that we begin our odyssey in Liverpool.
Labour
Being the party of government, Labour has a measurable and well-documented slate of policy proposals in the broad constitutional arena. These were accordingly given an airing at their annual gathering, mostly in the form of ministerial speeches reassuring the faithful that the various manifesto commitments are still being actively pursued, despite considerable evidence to the contrary.
The most eye-catching constitutional change in Labour’s manifesto was the commitment to lower the voting age to 16. It’s the most high-profile measure amongst a package of ‘seismic changes to modernise UK democracy’, as the government website grandly puts it. Others include the extension of voter ID to include bank cards, and new rules to guard against foreign political interference and abuse of election campaigners.
Other policies in this area include the pledge to create an independent integrity and ethics commission. This would oversee ministerial standards and take power away from Number 10, where the Prime Minister has hitherto enjoyed joint roles as judge and jury (and occasionally executioner) when ministers are deemed to have strayed.
Improving transparency and standards in public life is the overall theme of the package – an entirely laudable ambition. But the mills of government grind slowly. In July, a year after coming to power, a ‘strategy paper’ was published. However, there was no explicit commitment given at Labour’s conference on the timing of the introduction of the measures, seismic or otherwise. The overall impression is that things barely moved forward at Labour’s gathering, and the measures appear to be languishing in the slow lane following the leaving of Liverpool.
Conservatives
Your author first attended a Conservative Party conference more than two decades ago. In the many years since, I’ve gone to these gatherings wearing multiple hats: party campaigner, councillor, Member of Parliament, public affairs consultant, journalist… This year, in Manchester, I added ‘Constitution Society blogger’ to my collection of metaphorical headgear, albeit in an unofficial capacity.
The Conservatives, of course, find themselves in an invidious position. More than a year after a devastating general election defeat, they have largely failed to cut through with the public. Many of their clothes have been comprehensively stolen by Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, and most commentators agree that Kemi Badenoch has fallen short when it comes to setting the opposition agenda.
This conference sought to change that, and with some success. Almost alone amongst the major party gatherings, the Tories made headline-grabbing policy announcements. The most newsworthy was the leader’s rabbit-out-of-the-hat pledge that a future Tory government would abolish stamp duty for home buyers.
But in the constitutional field, the Conservatives were also keeping the scribes busy. The most potentially far-reaching measure was the plan to withdraw the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights. Given that the ECHR largely underpins the UK’s human rights law, this was an announcement of some significance. And the Tories were not alone in making such a proposal, as we’ll see.
Also during the conference, Robert Jenrick – arguably today’s most high-profile and media-savvy senior Conservative – said the power to appoint judges in England & Wales should be restored to the government. This would effectively reverse the position laid down by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Jenrick also proposed abolishing the Sentencing Council and shifting most of its role back to ministers.
Taken together, these Tory policy announcements have clear implications for the separation of powers and the UK’s legal and international obligations. They largely went down well with the conference faithful, but whether they will survive intact long enough to be enacted by a future Conservative government is highly questionable.
Incidentally, although the Tory conference was undoubtedly more sparsely attended than usual, and the numbers of commercial exhibitors and lobbyists was definitely down, I felt no sense of a party traipsing to Manchester to attend its own wake. Maybe those present were the hard-core optimists, lifetime supporters and young wannabes who have no choice but to believe their party has a bright future. In the current febrile and highly changeable political climate, they might just be right.
Reform UK
Nigel Farage’s party conference was a brief affair, involving just a one-night stay in Birmingham. But it would be foolish to suggest any correlation between length of event and volume of publicity generated. Reform is clearly enjoying a purple patch, winning council by-elections, showing consistent leads in the opinion polls and leaving other parties scratching their heads about how to counter the Farage juggernaut.
Like the Conservatives, Reform wish to leave the ECHR. They would also repeal the Human Rights Act, and instead enact what they are calling a British Bill of Rights. It’s not immediately clear what this might entail. Both policies were given an airing at the conference, as part of Reform’s broader policy offering, but little flesh (red meat?) was added to the bones.
Reform’s manifesto also includes a commitment to replace the House of Lords with what they describe as ‘a much smaller, more democratic second chamber’. And the party says it will hold a referendum on introducing a proportional voting system for Westminster elections. Sound familiar?…
Finally, in Bournemouth
Both the Liberal Democrats and the Greens travelled to Bournemouth for their respective conferences-by-the-sea.
The LibDems confirmed their call for closer UK/EU cooperation, including trade access to the single market for certain UK products, leading to more formal arrangements for closer ties with the European Union. Their conference also touched on the other big domestic constitutional issue of our times: the government’s push for further devolution of power away from Westminster, and the creation of larger, unitary local authorities. They expressed concern at the ‘democratic deficit’ caused by the postponement of this year’s council elections in areas where the government is looking to re-organise the council structure.
The Green Party’s new boss, Zack Polanski, addressing their conference as leader for the first time, also argued for proportional representation. He described the current first-past-the-post electoral system as ‘fundamentally undemocratic’. He’ll be hoping to capitalise on his newfound fame in the coming months, and is already enjoying a modest post-conference poll bounce.
Which, bluntly, is one of the main aims of the modern party conference. With the political cycle so fast-moving, and the media driven increasingly by short-term stories, an extra couple of percentage points in the polls can provide both valuable publicity and a sense of momentum. But this year, with a couple of notable exceptions, those commodities have eluded most of the major players. Also largely absent has been the creation of significant new policies, constitutional or otherwise, during these slightly strange gatherings. The party machines have returned to Westminster, and politics grinds on. Any bets on how many of the party leaders will still be there for their conferences in a year’s time?
Peter Heaton-Jones.
Peter Heaton-Jones served two terms as North Devon’s MP, and was parliamentary private secretary at the DWP and MoJ. He now works in public affairs.
The Constitution Society is committed to the promotion of informed debate and is politically impartial. Any views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and not those of The Constitution Society.