Here's an analogy that might help you see party conferences for what they are - party politics is just like prog rock.
Both are pompous self-referential masturbatory activities undertaken by mostly middle-class white boys, which are meaningless and irrelevant to most people.
Though its fans and practitioners believe what they're doing is important and look down upon those who fail to appreciate this, the truth is that anyone with genuine intellect or taste is wholly alienated from the process.
Leaders' speeches or policy initiatives are like 20-minute guitar solos. They are not intended to connect with the outside world, or with facts and ideas, but are merely ways to impress the cognoscenti for a short while.
Both are vastly expensive activities, and equally pointless.
Just as only the initiated could distinguish between Yes and Genesis - or saw any point in trying to do so - so only devotees can distinguish between the main parties.
Both prog rock and party politics abandon efforts to pursue traditions or connect with the people, in favour of a showy trickery which is in fact largely empty and illusory.
In both cases, activities that should be done by the people are wrenched from them, and supplanted by the ideology that people should be passive consumers and admirers of a self-selected "elite."
The question is: what's to be done? And here the analogy breaks down, in two senses.
First, it was easier to ignore prog rock in the 70s than it is to avoid politics now. (Not entirely easy, though. It was hard to ignore Emerson Lake and Palmer in the 70s, though the effort was well-rewarded.)
Second, although prog rock was (partly) swept away by the DIY music of punk and post-punk, it's hard to see a similar process happening in politics. In music, barriers to entry were low. In politics they are not.