Rigid party conferences are the enemy of the new politics

[T_i_B]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/17/party-conference-politics

What price new politics to go with this new political season? The season past was, by general consent, the most demeaned of the modern era. Public confidence in the British political system, admittedly never high, took a huge hit from the expenses scandal. So surely the autumn party conferences that begin this weekend will be crackling with the necessary damage-repairing energy? Dream on.

Surely the party conferences in such a year ought to be dominated by the task of responding to that appetite for a new politics? Even the TUC, rarely a byword for innovative thinking, voted yesterday to look at electoral reform. But don't hold your breath for the main party conferences to emulate their call. It will be a surprise if either Labour or the Tories allow a proper and open debate this time on how politics might be mended.

Party conferences are deeply unresponsive events. They ought to be parliaments of the experienced and committed, arenas in which leaders and members connect, talk with and listen to one another and the wider electorate. They ought to be full of political fibre as well as fire, exchanges of ideas and agenda-setting forums for shared partisan approaches to the issues of the day – such as political reform.

Yet party conferences no longer come near to these ideals, if they ever did. As political events, they are not unimportant; ask the party leaders. And they still have a galvanising purpose, especially in a pre-election year. But modern parties are not what they were and, in the case of Labour and the Tories – we will come to the Lib Dems later – the conferences have become little more than bland cheerleading and money-raising shows. For the two largest parties, conferences are where debate and democracy go to die. They have become an important part of what is wrong with our politics.

[oldironside]

1. This is nothing new for the Tories.

"The Tory party usually manages to organise its debates with superb efficiency. Dissent is stifled, amendments ignored, everything arranged to provide seamless impression of calm moderation. The party managers miss no tiny detail, including the fact that the daily conference TV coverage is interrupted at 11 every morning for a children's programme. This means that hundreds of thousands of housewives are watching the box in the few minutes before the kiddy slot begins. Naturally it is vial that these people, many of them floating voters, see a dignified speech by a senior Tory leader, not some crazed loony from the constituencies who wants to bring back hanging, drawing and quartering.

To this end there is a woman whose job it is to pass a note to the Chairman at around 10.45, warning him that the key moment is imminent. A year or so back it was Keith Joseph who was on his feet, and the Chairman noticed that he was nearing the end of an extremely short speech. he passed him a note: "You must keep going until 11o'clock." Joseph, never the sanest looking or sounding individual, suddenly slowed down to a crawl, slurring each word, leaving long pause between syllables, altogether giving the appearance of a man totally demented. Thousands of housewives must have fled the party in terror."
(from On The House by Simon Hoggart, Pan Books, 1982)

One of the first warning signs about New Labour was when Blair started doing this sort of thing to the Labour conference. It was much more fun (and probably much more productive) when it was closer to open warfare between left and right. At least we had real debates and different points of view put then. But the party sold it's soul in the overarching quest for power, with consequences we all know.

[TheBigotBasher]

2. All but the Liberal Democrats have conventions now

and not conferences (out of the major Parties).

The minor ones may have real debates but in part - that is why they are minor. "Exciting conferences" for those attending are shown as divisive on tv.

[T_i_B]

3. I'd put it slightly differently

"The minor ones may have real debates but in part - that is why they are minor.

I'd say that it's not "why" but "because" they are minor. If they were to get big and get their conferences on TV they would get as bad as the main parties are now.

Either way it's a grim situation. Makes me glad I'm not a member of a political party.