Last week Parliament was reconvened after the mini recess which allowed MPs to attend their party conferences. This post analyses commitments made at the Conservative and Labour conference, and ask what function these conferences they serve today.
Why do party conferences matter?
To activists, party conferences are the “Glastonbury” of the political calendar. They chiefly exist to fulfil three functions. Party conferences are one of the main fundraising events of the year for political parties where they receive the bulk of their funding through donations from individuals and organisations, and renting space to ginger groups. Party conferences provide an opportunity to influence public and political views. The influence goes two ways, though. Conferences are one of the few opportunities for parties that are not in government to make policy announcements. But they are also an opportunity for lobbyists, public affairs teams, think tanks and party members to influence policymakers. Moreover, party conferences raise morale amongst members and activists, and therefore allow a consolidation of support. To paraphrase Bagehot, they “raise the army”.
The Labour Party conference
While Labour have already changed policies on prisons, winter fuel payments and have introduced 15 bills to Parliament, the headlines have been dominated by “gift gate”: allegations that the party has accepted gifts amounting to a total of £700,000, including clothing from high-street brands and Taylor Swift concert tickets, and latterly by the related resignation of Sue Gray. Putting the criticisms of “warm words on ethics in public life” to one side, the Government reiterated four important policy commitments on the duty of candour in public life, employment rights, social housing and devolution at this year’s conference.
While the Hillsborough law – imposing a duty of candour on public authorities – had been promised in the election manifesto, the Prime Minister declared that it would be enacted before April. Second, Sir Kier Starmer announced a new “Homes for Heroes” scheme which would give veterans, young care leaders and domestic abuse victims free housing for life, without needing to prove any local connections. Third, the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner appealed to trade unionists and those to the left of Labour by confirming a new bill on employment rights. While this bill has not been published yet, it will supposedly prohibit zero-hours contracts in most circumstances. This bill is expected to strengthen rights in relation to parental leave, sick pay and unfair dismissals. Fourth and finally, in a IfG fringe event, Jim McMahon confirmed that Labour was committed to ensuring that all parts of England will ultimately be covered by mayoral devolution, though the details of this strategy are still being consulted upon. That Labour has not announced any new policies in relation to human rights or the constitution largely reflects its focus on socio-economic issues.
The Conservative Party conference: party leaders pitch their visions
Whereas the Labour Party conference was focused on consolidating support in the wake of awkward criticism on improper gifts, the Conservative Party conference was described as upbeat. This particular conference was unusual in that it served as a platform for four politicians to make their pitch for the Party leadership. Going against convention, the acting leader did not give a speech, rather, Kemi Badenoch, Robert Jenrick, Tom Tugendhat and James Cleverley each gave speeches outlining vastly different visions of Conservativism.
Where are the Conservative candidates on human rights and immigration?
Jenrick and Badenoch positioned themselves to the right of the Party, whereas Tugendhat and Cleverly seemed to be endorsing a form of One-Nation Conservatism at the conference. Out of the four candidates, Jenrick’s views were the most extreme: he claimed that Britain “must end mad targets” like NetZero and promised to lower net migration to zero, following a parliamentary vote. According to Jenrick, the outgoing Conservative government’s track record on migration was “disgraceful” and amounted to one of the worst public policy failures in recent memory. Echoing Brexiteer rhetoric, Jenrick claimed that he was “all for leaving” the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which he misrepresented as a Labour initiative alongside “Tony Blair’s Human Rights Act”. Jenrick argued that membership of the Convention had not only prevented the UK from deporting illegal immigrants, but that it had led SAS members to “killing rather than capturing terrorists.” This particular claim angered Tugendhat who suggested that Jenrick displayed a “terrible” lack of knowledge surrounding the sensitive nature of military operations. Although some have argued that Jenrick’s promises are largely performative given that he voted Remain, this seems unlikely given his repeated pledges to scrap human rights legislation. More likely seems to be that Jenrick has himself shifted further right on these issues over time.
In a less extreme attempt to appear hard-line, Badenoch called for the defence of conservative values in relation to women and gender politics and criticised the former government’s tendency to “speak right but govern left”. In a fringe event hosted by the Spectator, she called for jailing one in ten civil servants for government leaks – though this remark was widely held to be satire. In relation to immigration and the ECHR Badenoch adopted a more non-committal stance. While not setting any specific figures, she committed to a cap on the number of immigrants. Despite not fully ruling out leaving the ECHR, she admitted that the Convention was not the main obstacle to deportation and suggested that leaving would lead to Brexit style “legal wrangling”.
Whereas Jenrick and Badenoch pessimistically focused on the failures of the outgoing Conservative governments, Tugendhat and Cleverly optimistically looked towards “better days ahead”. Echoing commitments by David Cameron, Tugendhat promised to cap annual net migration to 100,000 and stated that the Conservatives needed to accept that bringing down numbers was “not easy”. He also acknowledged that the Rwanda deportation scheme did not fail because of foreign courts but committed to “reforming the ECHR”. Tugendhat’s pledge failed to gain traction with his colleagues, though, and he proved the first candidate to be eliminated from the race.
Finally, Cleverley adopted the most positive stance on immigration and human rights. He ruled out leaving the ECHR as unnecessary, emphasised the importance of freedom and individual rights and criticised the previous government’s overly paternalistic approach during the Coronavirus pandemic. Although Cleverly signalled support for tougher controls on immigration, he described “stopping the boats” as an unhelpful soundbite which simplifies a complex problem. The most striking aspect of his speech was its deliberately upbeat and centrist tone: Cleverly promised “Conservatism with a smile” and called for being “more normal.”
It seems the hearts and minds of many Conservative MPs are leaning right. On 8 and 9 October, Conservative MPs whittled down the choice to Badenoch and Jenrick, signalling perhaps a fatal blow to “compassionate” conservatism. After much horse-trading, Cleverley received the endorsement of 37 MPs, Jenrick was supported by 41, and Badenoch by 42. The parliamentary Conservative party are, it seems then, focused on wining back the 14.3% of voters who chose to vote Reform at the last election.
Though both the remaining candidates come from the same ideological wing of the party, there is some difference in their policies. Badenoch prioritises conservative cultural issues and reversing “wokeism”, while Jenrick has signalled adopting a more cutting approach towards longstanding rights legislation. From 15 to 31 October, Conservative Party members will have the final vote on who becomes the next party leader. Whichever candidate triumphs, it is certain that they will need to rebuild public trust following the worst Conservative electoral defeat in history last July. Some commentators remain pessimistic; Sir John Curtice believes that neither Badenoch nor Jenrick are likely to win over moderate voters or unite the Right at the next election.
Last words
Perhaps the common thread amongst the Conservative and Labour Party conferences this year was that they each revolved around fund-raising, moral-setting and consolidating support rather than any general policy-setting. The substance of Conservative policy depends on who wins the leadership, though we can expect a return to hardline policies towards immigration and rights, while the Labour government is expected to make its most significant announcements during the budget on 30 October.
Tasneem Ghazi.
Tasneem is a PhD student at the UCL Faculty of Laws. Tasneem previously completed the Barrister Training Course while working part-time as a research assistant at the Constitution Unit. In 2021, she interned at the Institute for Government and at the UK in a Changing Europe. Tasneem holds an MA in History from King’s College London, and an LLB in Politics, Philosophy and Law.
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.