The Independent: "Lord Tebbit, the former party chairman, who was injured with his wife, Margaret, when a Brighton conference hotel was bombed in 1984, said he would be saddened by the move. "I am sad about it because it does seem to me an attempt by the leadership to put distance between itself and the party membership. I think it is another part of the centralising approach to minimise the contact with the grassroots, who tend to be old, which is a sin, and tend to be right-wing, which is also a sin." Lord Tebbit said the week-long conference was a great social event for the ordinary members to rub shoulders with cabinet ministers in the fuggy atmosphere of the conference hotel bars, or the banquets and dinner-dances organised by the seaside."
I don't know about all that, but certainly it seems a poor way to build morale among the die hards, and the needless squandering of a highly effective political platform. We shall have to see.
Posted by: Ed R | December 10, 2005 at 10:29
I am sceptical about this, if only because of the publicity a week-long jaunt provides. I'd be in favour of keeping the weekday schedule and moving the Conference into a City.
That said, I doubt there will be a big ruction about it, especially as it was Davis's idea in the first place...
Posted by: Cllr Iain Lindley | December 10, 2005 at 12:19
"That said, I doubt there will be a big ruction about it, especially as it was Davis's idea in the first place..."
So? Davis doesn't speak for everyone.
Posted by: James Hellyer | December 10, 2005 at 12:26
Isnt it possible to get a compromise, by keeping the main annual conference we still get the greater media exposure and at the same time have weekend mini-conferences to allow more of the membership to go.
Posted by: Rob | December 10, 2005 at 12:46
Shortening and moving conference is risky, especially if the other main parties keep their longer conferences. I suggest a Thurday to Sunday conference as a compromise. Activists would only need to take two days off work rather than four.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | December 10, 2005 at 13:24
"So? Davis doesn't speak for everyone."
Indeed. From my point of view, that was the great tragedy of the membership round of the leadership election - that it was a contest between two modernisers.
Face it - the sort of person who can't get it together to save up a few days' holiday to spend at Conference almost certainly doesn't have what it takes to be a very satisfactory candidate, let alone an MP.
Posted by: Michael Smith | December 10, 2005 at 13:27
Face it - the sort of person who can't get it together to save up a few days' holiday to spend at Conference almost certainly doesn't have what it takes to be a very satisfactory candidate, let alone an MP.
I have to say this is one of the most ludicrous things I've read on this blog. If you think the ability to find the fringe event with the best free booze, and drink the night away in hotel bars are necessary requirements for being a candidate, then fair enough I suppose.
Quite apart from that the overwhelming majority of people attending Conference are not MPs nor have any great desire to become one, so it's a rather moot point anyway.
Posted by: Cllr Iain Lindley | December 10, 2005 at 16:30
Now I've thought about it, to be honest I'd much rather prospective MPs used their time off work for either grassroots campaigning, or a family holiday.
Most of my Council meetings are - much to my annoyance - weekday afternoons as well. Plenty of our local Councillors must use up their holiday time to attend meetings and serve their communities. Are they incapable of being MPs too?
Posted by: Cllr Iain Lindley | December 10, 2005 at 16:34
I think it is quite interesting that meetings for Councillors are on weekday afternoons. Surely that means that only a small section of people can realistically become active in local politics?
Posted by: Frank Young | December 10, 2005 at 17:13
I think it is quite interesting that meetings for Councillors are on weekday afternoons. Surely that means that only a small section of people can realistically become active in local politics?
Posted by: Frank Young | December 10, 2005 at 17:14
I attended my first conference in 1992 - and have been to most since (and most of the confereces of the other parties with work).
The fringe meetings are interesting. The main conference events less so (for me anyway) Policy isn't made here - and whilst we talk about all the great media coverage lets not forget that in recent years they have brought about some less than complementary media stories.
I think as a party we need to decided what actually we want from a conference. Is it a policy forming body? Just a get together at the seaside? If you think that businesses are going to pay thousands for a conference stand three times - well it just wont happen.
The point about councillors meetings being on an afternoon is interesting. I know of one Tory council who moved meetings to the evenings - much to the chargrin of the officers - and Labour councillors who were allowed time off from work. A model I would advocate elsewhere as it helps attract us professionals whose employers may be less willing to allow the considerable time commitment which is needed.
Posted by: Jonathan Sheppard | December 10, 2005 at 17:23
Michael - Don't you think your comments are a bit harsh? I gave up a full years leave for the General Election - yes five weeks? How much more would the party like? Perhaps the several thousand pounds I spend subsidising a General Election campaign because the Association was saving its money for a rainy day isnt enough. Or perhaps the hours or free advice and help given to a Shadow Minister doesn't count for much. Or every weekend working on something for the party - locally or nationally.
Then there are people like Iain above who are councillors who certainly aren't in it for the money.
Im lucky enough to go to Conference because of my job - so it doesnt cost me any annual leave or money. For others its not so simple. You may want to look at how many MPs no longer attend all week too.
We just need to look at alternatives to see what might work better.
Posted by: Jonathan Sheppard | December 10, 2005 at 17:31
Frank - That is certainly the case in New Forest. It is extremely difficult to have a full time job and be an active councillor. The only other option is to make councillors fully salaried, and that is not a realistic prospect. It is really only suitable for the retired, or the self-employed.
Posted by: Derek | December 10, 2005 at 17:31
At Thanet District Council, meetings tend to be in the evenings during the week. Exception is Licensing Committee when it is the morning. A couple of other minor gorups meet at the late afternoon-early evening. I work mornings and afternoons so I can still be active in politics with no problems about getting to meetings (I attend meetings without being a Councillor to learn how the system works-I would have an big advantage of experience in the Council system when it comes to campaigning in 18 months time). I dont take time off unless I really have to, which is rare occasions.
Posted by: James Maskell | December 10, 2005 at 17:35
Although I know one regrettably Conservative Councillor (in fact my Councillor) who works full time outside the District and lives outside the ward. His attendance record isnt exactly a shining example to the public... Sadly neither is his record in doing things for the ward itself.
Posted by: James Maskell | December 10, 2005 at 17:38
This is why we as a party need to make it easier for our candidates to become councillors. Historically Labour councillors were often Union reps - and the Unions would let them have time off. We need to make the system work for professionals who otherwise couldnt commit to doing such a role.
Posted by: Jonathan Sheppard | December 10, 2005 at 17:40
I know many Councils that have meetings in the evenings but there are plenty that still do not. At the moment I am working for a Constituency Association who are (obviously) understanding but I do not expect (or want - I need a real job :p) this to be the case in the future and it could provide me with a real headache depending on how flexible my hours can be.
We need to be making a real effort to get young and professional people into local government. There are a stack of stumbling blocks towards this but a huge one is the incompatibility of being a local Councillor whilst maintaining a good job, with retired elected members and some officers reluctant to schedule meetings in the evenings.
Posted by: Cllr Iain Lindley | December 10, 2005 at 18:36
Im not sure hes a very aplicable case really. He doesnt appear to even try. The public dont think he cares. A fatal car crash on a junction (with an already poor safety record) 5 minutes walk from 3 primary schools doesnt motivate him to do something. Instead I had to get in contact with the media and start a local campaign, something I am proud to do for the local residents who are terrified of their childrens safety. Im just a member of the public.
Theres a difference between being able to but choosing not to and not being able to due to time constraints but wanting to.
Posted by: James Maskell | December 10, 2005 at 18:52
Just sounds like a useless Councillor James - I don't think a change in the system would make any difference if what you've described is true...
Posted by: Cllr Iain Lindley | December 10, 2005 at 18:56
I think the person who suggested the Thursday-Sunday conference was a good one, or, as I've said before, Could use bank Holiday weekends.
Even it was, Say, Thursday-Sunday, We could allow the Real action to happen @ the weekend days - giving people real choice ; The die-hards can attend the entire conference along with MP's etc while the other lot Cameron wants can come at Weekend, Seems like everyone would be happy?
Matt
Posted by: Matthew Oxley | December 11, 2005 at 12:21
We probably need to re-think exactely what we want from "conference" from a party persepctive it is a very useful media opportunity and essentially an extended press conference. From a democratic point of view it is an opportunity for party members/supporters to engage with debate directly.
I tend to think the democratic functions should, in a vibrant party, be happening a association level. While the party functions left would make "conference" more akin to the conventions held in America. Having 2/3 convention style conferences over the year allows Cameron and his team an extended opportunity to present the message in different cities and at different points during the year.
Posted by: Frank Young | December 11, 2005 at 12:35
The Conference season does need to be updated to allow young professionals to attend, and also from a logistical perspective, to allow those who usually find the events inaccesable to attend!!
Posted by: Neil | December 12, 2005 at 11:35