Why Party Conferences Still Matter

I've been meaning to write an inconsequential reply to Labour MP turned ex-blogger Tom Harris about party conferences. He writes in last week's Telegraph about how party conference is "not for him" and that as a phenomenon they're largely useless nowadays anyway.

He does make some useful points. Conference really is for the most committed of political bods. Given the huge prices charged for visitors' passes (delegates are funded by their constituency parties/associations), you might say party conference is the province of them with more money than sense. You can't disagree with him about the huge travel and accommodation costs. The Tories were right to have their annual gathering in a central(ish) location this year. Labour's decision to hold conference on the south coast however wasn't the most sensible for folk who already have to travel some distance for a middle (with a small m) England venue. What about MPs getting a further three weeks away from Parliament as conference season rolls around - can that be justified?

And then there's the meat of Tom Harris's argument.

He says party conferences are an anachronism, a hangover from an age where delegates drank themselves silly on earnest debates and the free red liberally supplied by the Co-Op. As policy-making powers have progressively drained away from conference and become bound up in Byzantine consultation exercises and wonky-sounding documents that occasionally land on secretaries' door mats, conference just ceased to matter. And this isn't just a Labour thing. At least there was once an option to formally set policy for the people's party. Such things have always been the prerogative of the party aristocracy in the Conservatives. Hence, Tom argues conferences are now occasions for parties to tap up donors and create a bit of media excitement around latest statements of intent. Unless you're the LibDems.

But despite that, I think Tom is wrong. As it happens, I think conference should be the sovereign policy-making body. While the internal arrangements for each and every political party are a matter for themselves and its members, it is only natural that the volunteering of a regular cash payment and active campaigning for a party is "rewarded" by a chance to help shape its policies. But even though Tory and Labour conferences fall well short on the 'rights' side, the once-yearly jamboree is still important.

Yes, it is a showcase for parties. And there is an argument that they do improve the otherwise stunted democratic political culture we possess. That one week Labour talks about its plans for providing work for the long-term unemployed, while the Tories today think compelling them to attend 39 hour weekly job hunts down the dole office certainly helps clarify who has a sensible policy on the issue.

More importantly however is what conference means for party activists. It offers an opportunity to mix with activists outside the stifling confines of one's local or sub-regional party organisation. There is a chance of meeting a leading politician or having drunken conversations with celebrities. If you want to spurn the company of the Blairites or the wets that infest your local CLP or association, fringes offer the chance to hang out with your political kin. Conference for all the mainstream parties is the annual moment where the closed universe of the Westminster (or, if SNP, Holyrood) bubble opens up and briefly admits thousands of 'ordinary' members. It shows members they are part of a wider political endeavour, of a collective movement that is roughly united around common objectives. The chance to participate in debates with political notables in the room, the exchange of banter with ex-ministers while nipping to the loo, it encourages one to believe you are a component of something larger than yourself - that you are a bit player in the drama that determines the ship of state's bearings. It's powerful, inspiring, intoxicating. Most come away refreshed and eager to sock it to the enemy. In this sense it is an annual booster for the armies of campaigners, leafleters and canvassers. As such it is indispensable to mainstream politics.

As Tom admits, he enjoys conference. But he figured that he'd best "spend this week with my family rather than with colleagues, many of whom I see plenty of when Parliament’s sitting anyway." As the member for Glasgow South, he is someone who is a participant/player in the Westminster game anyway. Conference is more a less an extension of the work Tom does, except scenery changes year on year. And because it is his 'everyday' he might not fully appreciate the galvanising power of conference for those who do not and will never sit in the House.

The Politics of the Marriage Tax Breaks

The Conservatives are a desperate party led by a desperate man. The stars are not lining up for an election victory in 2015, despite a summer of awful headlines for the Labour leader; and Dave finds himself with little room for manoeuvre now Ed has pledged action on the issues that matter outside the Westminster circus. To grab the headlines and the attentions of the voters, this weekend's Conservative Party conference needed something bold and something that would save people a packet of cash.

Hence the marriage tax break. Of course, not every married couple in the land will qualify. And the policy is highly problematic. But £200/year isn't to be sniffed at. So, why the rush to "incentivise" marriage?

1. Beneath the restaurant-smashing Flashman act, Dave is a big old softy. He thinks the hallowed institution is the bee's knees. As it is for many Tories, marriage is the bedrock on which a stable society thrives. Providence has given us the means for realising a secure environment for the raising of children and establishing a strong bond of certainty between two loving people. If more people get married, regardless of the sexuality of the partners, the happier and more fulfilled our society will become. And having one partner take time out from work to raise the kids might do a little bit to massage the jobless figures too.

2. Dave has struggled to find a way of driving a wedge between disenchanted Tory voters and UKIP that won't see the softer support fall away should he adopt a tough rightwing stance on the issues 'kippers care about. Pushing a policy that might be seen as strengthening marriage is one of the precious few ways he could woo fed up Tories giving UKIP the eye without upsetting the other.

3. Admiral Ackbar says "it's a trap!" Dave has divined correctly that Labour, the LibDems and a whole host of other opponents would be opposed to the marriage tax break. And how easy it will be to paint them all as enemies of marriage and "traditional values". As the tropes for 2015's campaign of vilification are being polished up before their ultimate reveal, the reds and the yellows will be singled out for being "anti-family". Now, Dave and Crosby might think they've been clever clever and boxed them into a toxic position. But it's like lobbing a mustard gas shell that not only falls short of the enemy trench, but is blown back toward your position by the wind. They are effectively saying to millions of couples who co-habit, have kids out of marriage, or are single parents that their situation is not good enough and that they should pay more tax than people who've made a lifestyle choice the Tories approve of.

They think they're getting out of a hole. But in fact, they're digging it much deeper.

Quarter Three Local By-Election Results 2013

Party	Number of candidates	Total Vote	% Vote  Share	+/- Quarter Two	Average/ contest	+/- Quarter Two	+/- Seats
Conservative	65	22,955	27.3%	-2.8%	353	-147	-1
Labour	58	28,089	33.5%	+3.7%	484	-70	+4
LibDem	40	8,697	10.4%	-2.0%	217	-86	-1
UKIP	53	14,211	16.9%	+1.5%	268	-198	+1
SNP*	0
Plaid Cymru**	2	1,091	1.3%	+1.2%	545	+469	n/c
Green	19	3,263	3.9%	+0.4%	172	-14	n/c
BNP	1	120	0.1%	-0.1%	120	+49	n/c
TUSC	6	521	0.6%	+0.1%	87	-197	n/c
Independent***	24	3,989	4.7%	-0.1%	166	-131	-1
Other****	10	1,008	1.2%	-0.4%	101	-88	-1

*There were no by-elections in Scotland.
**There were four by-elections in Wales, two of which were contested by Plaid Cymru.
***There were three independent clashes this quarter.
****There were no 'other' clashes. For further details of which parties stood see the results for July, August and September.

Overall 83,944 votes were cast over 65 individual local authority (tier one and tier two) contests. Fractions are rounded to one decimal place for percentages, and the nearest whole number for averages.

For sad election anoraks like me, while theoretically taking a snapshot of local elections over a longer period evens out the distortions that can creep in by clusters of by-elections taking place in safe parliamentary seats, it also has an effect of flattening the support for the two main parties. Well, partly. Labour's share hasn't been as low as 33% for an age, but a number of recent polls have placed the Tories at around the 28% mark. These results only have them a single point beneath that. However, despite that the six-point margin Labour has opened here between itself and the Tories also more or less matches that consistently reported in the polls of late. Interesting.

Also of interest is the "flattening" does not seem to effect the smaller parties much, despite their totals coming from fewer seats. Both the UKIP and LibDem share of the vote appears to be a credible reflection of relatively recent polling, and the Greens consistently knock around the 3-4% mark. 

The flattening effect on the two main parties is probably an effect of local authority contests being second order elections. That is all other elections outside the general election "matter less" and therefore voters are more likely to take a punt on a protest party. One oft-noted example is the belief by many that come the general election, the bulk of UKIP voters will return to the Tories to keep Labour out of government.

By-Election Results September 2013

Party	Number of Candidates	Total Vote	%	+/- August	Average/ contest	+/- August	+/- Seats
Conservative	30	11,123	32.6%	+5.8%	371	-40	nc
Labour	25	9,688	28.4%	-6.9%	387	-185	nc
LibDem	18	3,206	9.4%	+1.1%	178	-12	-2
UKIP	28	7,261	21.3%	+3.2%	259	-98	+3
SNP*
Plaid Cymru**
Green	10	1,140	3.3%	+2.2%	114	+45	+1
BNP	1	120	0.4%	+0.4%	120	+120	nc
TUSC
Independent***	9	1,381	4.1%	+0.6%	153	+16	-1
Other****	3	176	0.5%	-2.1%	59	-84	-1

* There were no by-elections in Scotland.
** There were no by-elections in Wales.
*** There was only one independent clash consisting of two candidates in a single contest.
**** 'Other' this month consisted of National Front (16 votes), English Democrats (78 votes) and Tendring First (82 votes)

Overall, 34,095 votes were cast over 30 individual local (tier one and tier two) authority contests. All percentages are rounded to the nearest single decimal place. For comparison see August's results here.

Ostensibly, this was a poor month for Labour. It won a single councillor, and lost another while holding out in a large number of seats. It also demonstrates that despite being a larger party than the Tories (and for that matter, UKIP), the fewer number of candidates may suggest membership is more concentrated and less widespread than either of these two organisations - an observation that has more than a few anecdotes to back it up. And yet, despite this, the average vote per contest remains marginally higher than the Conservatives and well ahead of UKIP's. Yet there's no denying Farage's one man band can pull in the numbers and win elections outside of European contests. They're now hitting the sort of votes the LibDems can only dream of.

Once again, these monthly results come with a large caveat: the places by-elections take place vary enormously from month-to-month. Such differences of location are more likely to be balanced out over a larger time frame and a more accurate picture of (possible) voting intention could emerge.