Five things we learned from the Conservative Party Conference 2024

The delegates who turned up to CPC24 were firmly focused on the future of the Conservative party, and the opportunity to reverse its fortunes in the context of a Labour government so far failing to capitalise on its election victory. Many conference attendees comforted themselves with the view that the election had been a rejection of the right rather than an endorsement of the left – leaving space for the hope that a Conservative party that could change itself could also transform voters’ perceptions of its competence, values and ability to deliver. But while there was widespread acknowledgment that the July 4 poll had been a decisive rejection of the Conservatives’ record of delivery – at least over the past five years – there was much less agreement over the nature of the failings that had led to that rejection or the conclusions that should be drawn from it. 

That much was evident from the numerous fringe and main stage appearances of the four leadership candidates. They appeared to agree on the need to ‘renew and rebuild’ the Conservative party but differed on their prescriptions for how that should be done – from James Cleverly’s plea to return to being ‘more normal’ to Robert Jenrick’s call to focus on immigration and leave the ECHR. The choice members make about their next party leader at the end of October will demonstrate whose analysis they want to believe and therefore the path the party will take during the first years of this parliament.

Conservative divisions on devolution were on display

As the deadline expired for councils to submit devolution proposals to the government, the debate on the Conservative party conference fringe made clear that the party remains divided on the benefits of devolution, in particular the mayoral model introduced by the Conservatives in government.

There are advocates, including leaders such as Anne Handley of East Riding of Yorkshire council. She told an Institute for Government event that as the only part of Yorkshire without a mayor, East Yorkshire was at risk of being ignored and missing out on investment. This led her to conclude a devolution deal with Hull City council, which goes live in May 2025.

Others are pragmatists, accepting they might have to accept a mayor as the route to securing the most extensive package of powers. This was the position taken by Cornwall leader Linda Taylor at the IfG event, who spoke of practising “the art of the possible”. Surrey leader Tim Oliver likewise recognised the political reality, but questioned whether there was enough on offer to make adopting a mayor worthwhile.

Many are more openly resistant, especially if devolution requires them to join with neighbouring councils in a combined authority. The leader of Buckinghamshire, for instance, was adamant that there was no need for structural reform and that powers should be devolved directly to the county council. The former leader of Gloucestershire spoke government trying to impose a geography that suited the Treasury but made little sense locally.

It is clear that the government will face tricky local political obstacles as it seeks to extend devolution. In the end, as a recent IfG report concluded, ministers may have to take the final decision over the geography of devolution if they wish to ‘complete the map’.

The party has moved on from Brexit battles – for now

If history remembers the 2010-2024 Conservative government for one thing it will be Brexit. And yet the great time and attention consuming achievement of the four Conservative administrations was relegated to the outer fringes of the party conference this year.  There was one – reportedly packed – event on what happened to the benefits of Brexit courtesy of the Spectator. There was a meeting of the Conservative Europe Forum – in a much smaller room. There were European diplomats and journalists – but their focus, like everyone else’s was on the leadership contest.

For the overwhelming majority of delegates Brexit was done. But while Ed Miliband’s “mad” energy plans and Keir Starmer’s predilection for freebies proved great knocking copy, hardly anyone was working themselves up to defend Brexit purity against potential Labour backsliding. Leadership contender Robert Jenrick channelled the language of the referendum into a “leave or remain” choice about the next European constraint on UK sovereignty – the European Convention on Human Rights.

On another side of the fence, the only Conservative in the land with any real power at the moment, Ben Houchen, told UK in a Changing Europe’s Anand Menon that he would approach relations with the EU more pragmatically – and where the UK would clearly benefit from a bit of mutual recognition, possibly even alignment - for example on chemicals (big in the Tees Valley), he would not be opposed.

No one in the Conservatives is yet minded to think where they will want to be if Labour’s reset yields fruit. For them that battle has moved on. Brexit is done, and barely to be mentioned.

The net zero consensus appears to be breaking down

Energy and climate events proliferated across the Conservative party conference fringe, with the feeling sometimes that Ed Miliband was being mentioned more often even than Keir Starmer. But there were two entirely different conversations taking place.

On one side Ben Houchen argued that Conservatives should be up for seizing the economic opportunities of net zero, with shadow energy secretary Claire Coutinho using an IfG event to argue that that while green energy was important, cheap energy should be the priority to stop British manufacturing moving to more highly emitting countries. She argued that innovation here could open up opportunities and benefits from helping the global energy transition.

But elsewhere it appeared as though the consensus on net zero and the 2050 goal – as a shared goal for both parties – was evaporating.

Among the leadership contenders Robert Jenrick said that Britain should be working towards net zero but called for an end to “mad” net zero targets, while Kemi Badenoch described herself as not a climate sceptic but a net zero sceptic, suggesting targets could be reviewed. Tom Tugendhat said he did not accept the term ‘climate emergency’ and argued that Ed Miliband’s policies were going to “destroy Britain”, with every single project was designed to make power more expensive and harder to get. James Cleverly’s team briefed in contrast that he believed the UK should be pushing the world to decarbonise and supported the 2050 target, but that GB Energy was a bad idea and that ignoring local consent for things like solar panels was unacceptable. ⁷ www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/27/net-zero-next-tory-leader-embrace-green-agenda-oppose

What united these two conversations was a focus on the price of energy, but while Claire Coutinho said she approved of a move to locational pricing – where consumers located close to energy infrastructure pay less, now back on Ed Miliband’s desk – others seemed not to understand how energy prices were set currently, and failed to set out workable proposals for how energy bills could be reduced or climate change mitigated in the absence of net zero targets. 

As Jenrick pointed out in an article earlier in the year, in 2019 Theresa May upped the UK’s emissions target to net zero after only a 90-minute debate with support from across parliament. ⁸ www.robertjenrick.com/columns/the-public-are-sick-of-politicians-dishonesty-about-what-net-zero-entails  If this week in Birmingham is any indicator, DESNZ Ministers should be readying themselves for a lot more scrutiny and challenge from at least some of the opposition benches in this parliament.  

Civil service reform requires serious debate not easy applause-lines

The machinery of government, and particularly the civil service, was repeatedly raised in the numerous fringe discussions about where the Conservatives went wrong during the last 14 years. And in their rallies, Q&As and ‘in conversation’ events, all remaining leadership candidates discussed the issue at some point. 

The candidates are in an interesting position. They know that plenty of Conservative members are suspicious of the civil service. In many conference audiences, promoting the idea of an over-unionised, inefficient and obstructive left-leaning blob guaranteed applause. There was evidence of the candidates pandering to those views – for example Kemi Badenoch’s tongue in cheek but nevertheless remarkable comment that 5-10% of civil servants are so bad they should be in prison for leaking official secrets and undermining ministers, and James Cleverly’s complaint that foreign office officials hated it when he told them what to do.

Yet all of the candidates were ministers until relatively recently. They understand the reality of government, and have experienced the partnership between officials and ministers without which very little can happen. So their criticisms were qualified – both Cleverly and Badenoch made clear they had worked with exceptional officials, even if they were frustrated by a minority. Robert Jenrick, though taking a critical tone, correctly highlighted the problem of unclear accountability and a need for greater diversity of views.

It will take time for the Conservative party to assess its record in government and consider its future offer to the electorate. It is right that the state of the civil service – whether it was up to scratch, and what reform might be needed in future – forms part of that thinking. The challenge for the party will be to engage in those issues seriously, while rejecting the simple narratives that might win quicker applause.

There was a lack of grown-up discussion about spending choices

Is the Conservative party putting serious thought into where it failed to deliver in government and the lessons it needs to learn about how to govern in a more effective way and face up to the challenges facing the UK?  The evidence in Birmingham suggests not, at least not from many of the people now sitting on the opposition benches. 

Thoughtful contributions largely came from former MPs and advisers, but among shadow ministers and sitting MPs there was often a fundamental lack of seriousness about how a Conservative government would approach the difficult trade-offs that being in power requires. 

Even at last year’s Conservative conference, with Rishi Sunak in No10 and the party in government, there were plenty of then ministers speaking as if they were the opposition, unwilling to confront tough choices. A year on it seems as though sitting MPs were taking even greater comfort from the decision-free comfort zone of opposition.

This was typified on the fringe by Greg Smith MP and Lord Frost, who spoke passionately about the need for cutting government spending (by 5-10 percentage points of GDP) but refused to name a single thing that they would actually cut.

That included condemning Labour for cuts to the winter fuel payment. That is a perfectly reasonable political position to take. As is calling for lower public spending. But to do so while declining to name any other spending area to cut is not a serious argument to make. To oppose is not to choose, but whoever succeeds Sunak as leader will need at least need to show they have a more sophisticated position than increasingly stale cakeism.