C2I 1
CONSERVATIVE TO INDEPENDENT
INTRODUCTION
District Council / Political Party Organisation
I have described in Much to Pray About how, in 1973, I became a Conservative Councillor representing East Ward, Harpenden on the newly-formed St. Albans District Council. This section explains how three years later I became an Independent representing the same Ward.
There were two principal factors in my switch from Conservative to Independent, the first of which arose only two months after my adoption as candidate for the 1973 election. There were no precedents for the new Authority so when I was asked by the Harpenden Branch chairman to write the manifesto for the three Conservative candidates for East Ward I started from scratch. Thus I came to include the following heading:-
It is important that the voice of East Ward should be heard
The draft manifesto was reviewed with the other two Conservative
candidates for East Ward, Mike Harrison, who like me was a new boy, and Freda Wyborn, a
member of the Harpenden Urban Council which was soon to disappear. After
some minor amendments and a major addition, but without alteration to the
heading, the manifesto statement from the candidates was agreed, sent to the
Constituency officers and published by John Seller, the Party Agent.
Secondly, I had a professional interest in the rules and other aspects of the way in which the political groups on the Council operated. My lectures in Management Studies were to mature students and among the topics covered in my sessions were Organisation and Organisational Behaviour. Moreover a number of course members came from local authorities, some as Officers and others as Members, and as the basis of teaching was to make the material relevant to actual jobs and activities I was concerned to examine what actually took place within the authorities. Coupled with this, because District Councils up and down the country were completely new, from the time of their establishment in June 1973 the political groups had to draw up Rules, Regulations, Constitutions, Standing Orders and the like. Consequently, when the Rules or Standing Orders for the Conservative Group on St. Albans District Council came up for consideration, I took both a professional and political interest in them.
ROCKY ROAD TO RULES
The question of Standing Orders was raised at the first meeting of the Conservative Group, which took place on 13th June 1973, six days after the election. The meeting was fraught because of the different traditions and practices in the three local authorities, St. Albans City, St. Albans Rural and Harpenden Urban, which were brought together in the new Council. It was evident that a power struggle was taking place, with one constituent endeavouring to impose its will on the other two. The Group Leader (Keith Wood) and Group Secretary (Ken Jenkins), both Harpenden Councillors, were elected at the first meeting and a Leader’s Advisory Committee along with them. For future reference it should be noted that Harpenden was further represented on the Committee by John Dymoke and Colin Curl, who were also members of Harpenden Urban District Council. During discussion, the view was generally expressed that there was no need for Group Standing Orders but, following comments by the Party Agent about the need to specify procedures for the election of Officers, the Group agreed that the Leader’s Advisory Committee should “consider the need ..... and, if necessary, prepare Draft Standing Orders for further consideration by the Group”. At the next meeting, 3 days later, it was reported that the Leader’s Advisory Committee felt some Standing Orders were required and it was resolved that they should be drafted for consideration at the next meeting. On 7th July, Ken Jenkins circulated draft Group Rules (as they were now called) with a view to their adoption at the meeting of the Group on 11th July. For a variety of reasons the draft Rules were strongly disliked by many members of the Group. One of the items which particularly caught my attention was the following:-
10 Matters of Group Policy
a) For important issues before the District Council, the Group shall be entitled to declare a subject ‘a Matter of Group Policy’. ..... Unless there is an overwhelming reason of conscience or local pressure which prevents a member from doing so (and this is made known to the Group at the appropriate Group meeting prior to the District Council), all Group members are expected to vote in District Council with the Group’s policy.
At the meeting on 11th July the question of Group Rules was carried over to another meeting on 19th July but consideration was again deferred to a special meeting on the Rules to be held in September at which the Draft group rules were to be used as a basis of discussion.
On 24th July 1973 I called on the offchance at Conservative Central Office and got to see a Mr. C. Dawson, Head of the Local Government Section. In the course of discussion I enquired of him about Group Rules and in response he gave me a Conservative Central Office paper (CD/AMcC June 1972) he had written in early preparation for the Local Government reorganisation. The paper was entitled “Guidance notes for the formation of Conservative Council Groups on the new County and District Councils”. The Central Office paper contained the clause:-
Council Groups emphasise the desirability of maintaining a line of unity both in speech and vote in Council but, if any member conscientiously feels he must oppose the Party line - he may do so without acrimony.
The Special meeting on Group Rules took place on 19th September 1973. I went into the meeting seeking rules which were less restrictive, were based on co-operation and with the leader assisting members of the Group as well as vice versa. I was glad to find that many others, including two or three of the Harpenden contingent, had the same views.
AGREED GROUP RULES
Discussion was vigorous but after three hours agreement was reached on most clauses in a much-amended version of the Draft Rules. Item 10 (a) above on Matters of Group Policy had been replaced with the following:-
The aim should be for Members to give maximum support for decisions taken as ‘Matters of Group Policy’ and Members are reminded that while they have every right to speak or vote against such a decision, it is a matter of loyalty to the Group that he/she should inform the Group or the Leader of his/her intention to do so.
The agreed Group Rules were circulated by Ken Jenkins, Secretary of the Group, on 5th October 1973. For me personally the question of the rule on Matters of Group Policy caused no problem for the next two years or so but they then assumed considerable significance in an issue which arose out of the re-drawing of Ward boundaries.
BOUNDARY REVISION
By early 1974 the Boundaries Commission had asked District Councils up and down the country for recommendations regarding their electoral boundaries, to take account of changes in population and other specified factors which had occurred or were likely to take place in the foreseeable future. In Harpenden, the East Ward was the only one which could be described as politically sensitive - although all three of its District Councillors were Conservative, a well-known Labour candidate had come not far behind in the poll and before reorganisation, for a short period, two Labour Councillors represented the Ward. The other Harpenden wards were then safely Conservative.
The boundary changes proposed for Harpenden by the St. Albans Conservative Association could be seen to have the effect of making all four of the proposed Wards overwhelmingly Conservative. The Association argued that the changes would make the four Wards numerically equal and this was to be achieved by taking the boundary through a traditionally unified part of Harpenden known as Batford, which was currently included in toto in East Ward. This feature of the Conservative scheme led to great uproar in Harpenden.
On 23rd November 1974 there was a meeting of the District Council's Working Party on the Revision of Electoral Wards. The Working Party consisted of the leader of the Conservative Group, Keith Wood, and two other Harpenden Conservatives, Colin Curl and Mike Harrison, together with the leaders of the Labour and Liberal Groups (both St. Albans). According to the Minutes, the Working Party was advised that the scheme submitted to the Council by the St. Albans Conservative Association had been accepted as a basis for discussion with interested parties, that representations from Parishes and Political Parties had been considered and it was to be recommended to the Council that the Conservative Association proposals should be formally advertised as the proposed new wards for the City and District.
The next event was a meeting of the St. Albans District Council on 14th January 1975. It was at this meeting that the Conservative scheme for the Boundaries was put to the Council for adoption as the official St. Albans District Council scheme. The Conservative vote was made ‘A Matter of Group Policy', and strong pressure was put on members of the Group not to raise queries or be drawn by Labour or Liberal arguments. The advice was along the lines of ‘Stay silent, let the others ramble on a bit then vote it through’. As a result, the Conservative scheme became the set of Council proposals and as such had to be put out for consultation in the District before submission to the Boundaries Commission.
I myself was not involved in this vote for I had sent my apologies "due to an engagement over 25 years ago". I later heard that when the Mayor's Chaplain, Rev. John Waller (who was also our Rector at St. Nicholas Church, Harpenden), took the opening prayers he called upon the Councillors and Officers to pray for Harold and Sheila Beck. Apparently those assembled wondered what had happened to us, until he went on to say that this very day was our Silver Wedding anniversary. Later in the proceedings the Council expressed their congratulations and best wishes to us, as is recorded in the Minutes.
SIGNIFICANT EVENTS
It took awhile for the consultation process to get into full swing and meanwhile there were a number of notable events. The first of these was the election, on 11th February 1975, of Margaret Thatcher in place of Ted Heath as Leader of the Conservative Party and therefore Leader of the Opposition. Then, locally, on 18th February there was the AGM of the Conservative Group, in the course of which the Group's Officers for the ensuing year were elected. According to the Minutes the outgoing Group Leader after a two-year term, Keith Wood, warned that the Group must not succumb to the pressures of the other two parties to destroy the Group principle. The new Leader was John Dymoke, who said "he hoped to keep the Group strongly together to uphold the Conservative principles and policies". He asked that the Group vote as a body on Matters of Group Policy "and any member who felt for some reason he could not vote with the Group should inform the Chairman of his or her intention".
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
It was from mid-June 1975 that the Ward Boundaries issue became public. The consultation process on what were now called the District Council's proposals was under way and for the first time there was a chance for everyone concerned to comment.
Harpenden's Parish Council deliberated on two boundary schemes, namely the Council/Conservative proposals and one by Labour in which the whole of Batford would be retained in East Ward. Remarkably, the overwhelmingly Conservative Parish Council sent both schemes forward to the District Council as having equal merit. Arising from this, the public's attention was greatly intensified by a headline and article on the front page of The Review of 10th July 1975:-
The war of the wards in Harpenden heated up this week when over 1000 people said "No" to a plan that Labour Party members claim will end their chances of winning council seats in the town.
And among the protesters is Ian Fulton, whose job it was as Tory mayor of St. Albans last year to send the offending plans to Whitehall. At that time he admitted that he had reservations about the scheme as it would nullify the effect of the Labour votes in the town.
This week he went further by signing one of the 5000 leaflets sent out by the Labour party requesting that the Boundaries Commission reconsider the scheme, drawn up by a district council working party and accepted by the commission.
He declared: "I wouldn't like to think that this is a case of gerrymandering but I am conscious of the dangers of one-party government. There are a large number of Labour voters in Harpenden and it would not be right if they had no representation".
CONSERVATIVE DIFFERENCES
At this time and for some time to come I expressed my concern about the boundary proposals privately, within Conservative circles. My fellow East Ward Councillor, Mike Harrison expressed his agreement with the points I was making and said he would look after East ward interests on the Council's Working Party. Meanwhile there was disquiet by officers of Conservative ward committees. Thus Peter Cox of the East Ward said that he had been invited to one meeting of the Political Sub-committee at which ward boundaries were discussed, led by Keith Wood, and there was no proposal at that stage to divide Batford. He was not invited again. There was a feeling among Conservatives, particularly in East ward, that something was going on in which they ought to be involved but had been unable to become so.
It was a Conservative reply to a Labour pamphlet and petition which brought matters to a head so far as East Ward Conservatives were concerned. In an article headed "Wards Row: Enough is Enough say Tories" in the Herts Advertiser of 18th July 1975, journalist Grace Smith discussed a statement produced by Tory Councillors to clear up "the real situation" once and for all. It was written by the three Conservative Councillors on the Working Party and in strong language rebutted the arguments put forward by Labour and denied ‘rigging’ the boundaries. The article concluded with following quote from the statement:-
It is puzzling to be wrongly accused of political bias and at the same time to be told that recommendations should be biased in the opposite direction.
The whole of Harpenden, including the present East Ward, is currently represented by Conservative councillors. That is the electorate's wish, and we consider it wrong to be asked to fix boundaries in such a way as to frustrate that wish.
The officers of the Conservative East ward committee and myself as East ward councillor did not see the statement until a few days later, at a meeting of the Harpenden Branch of the Conservative Association on 22nd July 1975.
The relevant Minute began as follows:-
Revision of Ward Boundaries Councillor Wood told the meeting that following recent opposition and adverse publicity to the proposals, the Working Party had prepared a statement which had been sent to the Boundaries Commission. The statement was circulated and fully discussed.
A Councillor from another ward asked if the statement could be distributed throughout East ward. This led to further discussion which culminated in agreement that members of East Ward should compile a draft circular, simply outlining the reasons why it had been necessary to revise the Ward Boundaries along with the criteria which had been considered in so doing and incorporating the views expressed in the Working Party statement.
One member described the brief given to the East Ward Conservatives as “re-writing the statement in less ‘slanging match’ terms”.
LABOUR WEIGHS IN
On 25th July 1975, the Herts Advertiser published the following letter from Labour's John Fryd under the heading "Ward Boundaries - the political row rages on":-
So the three Conservative District Councillors from Harpenden who strangely "made up three-fifths of the ward boundary working party" deny that they were influenced by political considerations!
In defence of the reputation of Councillor Curl I accept his sincerity in signing this statement. When invited to do so by his colleagues he could hardly do otherwise. Everyone who knows him knows also that he will not have been the member who initiated the drawing up of the new boundaries in the way to which we object. It won't even have occurred to him that the other members had any motive at all.
Councillor Harrison was not a member of the old Harpenden UDC and I don't know him well enough to judge.
But Councillor Keith Wood I do know and I respect his political acumen and complete devotion to the Conservative cause. It would be insulting to him to suggest HE didn't know what he was doing.
John Fryd went on to say that the Labour Party was not proposing to re-draw boundaries so that the bulk of those who are Labour voters are "grouped together"; they were simply urging that they should not be artificially divided.
An East Ward Working Party comprising the ward Chairman, David Woodhead, Frank Walker and myself met on 29th July to draft a circular about the ward boundaries, in response to the request by the Harpenden Branch Committee. The Working Party found it could not support the arguments in the Boundaries statement drawn up by Colin Curl, Mike Harrison and Keith Wood
It was around August 1975 that the Draft proposals of the Boundaries Commission were circulated. Evidently the District Council considered the consultation process was complete and had sent the proposals, along with copies of letters and submissions objecting to the draft proposals to the Boundaries Commission which had in turn circulated them to Councillors and other interested persons. Included in the bundle was a copy of the statement by Colin Curl, Mike Harrison and Keith Wood, which was described as having been distributed locally.
On page 4 of the Harpenden edition of the Herts Advertiser of 1st August 1975 there was a Letter to the Editor from Colin Curl, headed “How the decision was first reached”. The case he made out may have seemed convincing to the general public but to anyone who knew what was going on behind the scenes the explanation was flawed in many respects. To give one example, it was claimed that Mike Harrison had represented East Ward on the Council's Working Party.
LOCAL DEVELOPMENTS
On 18th September 1975 the Boundaries issue was discussed by the Harpenden Branch. The matter arose during a report of the Political Sub-committee and the Minutes record the concerns of East ward members, including the Chairman, David Woodhead:-
Mr. D. Woodhead reported that the East Ward Committee had met to discuss the statement proposed by Councillor K. Wood. Councillor Wood suggested that a further meeting be held, and comments from East Ward indicating their wishes on further action should be made known to the L.G.A.C., in order that the Association can make its views known quickly in the event of a Public Enquiry being held.
Councillor Beck expressed his concern at the lack of information and consultation with Ward Members during the revision of the Ward boundaries.
Mr. F. Walker stressed the serious nature of the issue . . . . . it could be possible to revise boundaries without splitting Batford.
Other points of note were that it was stated that the Conservative proposals had been fully discussed by the District Council, that they were referred to as the Commission's proposals and that the Branch knew nothing about the Matter of Group Policy implications. The disparity between what was being stated to the Branch Committee and what was happening behind the scenes became even more obvious for the day after the East Ward Committee was asked to make its views known to the LGAC, the Party Agent wrote to David Woodhead deterring him from any such action.
SELECTIVE CONSERVATIVE COMMUNICATION
On 6th October 1975, the District Council's Working Party on the Revision of Electoral Wards met in Harpenden. Due to absences of the St. Albans Councillors, the Working Party in effect consisted of the three Conservative members. The meeting lasted 40 mins. No reference was made to the East Ward Conservatives' reservations but there was discussion of Labour's proposals. The Working Party recommended what it had already proposed.
On 14th October David Woodhead, Frank Walker and myself, met as a sub-committee to consider further the Ward boundaries issue. After long discussion it was left to me to decide whether or not I should raise East Ward concerns about the boundary proposals at a District Council General Purposes Committee on 16th October. This would be in public, with the Press present. It was agreed I would get backing either way. I immediately phoned one of the two other East Ward Councillors, Mike Harrison, at about 2130 and spoke with him for half an hour, with David Woodhead and Frank Walker listening in with Mike's knowledge. Mike Harrison said he would like the East Ward boundaries as at present but he approved the Conservative proposal. He also said he had taken no part in the Council's Working Party's discussions about East Ward.
The next morning, at 7.45 am, John Dymoke, the Conservative Group Leader, telephoned about my mooted action about the boundary issue. Since the end of our conversation at 2200 the previous evening, Mike Harrison had informed Keith Wood who in turn had informed John Dymoke. In our phone conversation, John Dymoke warned me of the very serious view that would be taken should I proceed. He said I would be "out in the cold". I informed John Dymoke that while I had not finally decided about proposing modifications to the boundary proposals so far as East Ward was concerned, he should officially take notice of my intention to do so.
On 20th October 1975 John Dymoke wrote, in the context of a forthcoming Council decision on the Community Land Act, about the importance of members adhering to Group decisions on items which had been declared a Matter of Group Policy and setting a deadline for members to let him know if they were not in agreement with the Group decision.
John Dymoke ended his letter to members of the Conservative Group as follows:-
..... our Group must be well organised and willing to abide by Group policy. I quote "a Council with a lot of Independents or no clear political control will never be in a position to control council policy and operations, as it should be." I am taking this opportunity therefore, of asking you all to attend Group Meetings whenever you can and thereby to assist as much as possible in the formulation of responsible policies which we can all agree and implement. "United We Conquer."
BRANCH APPROVAL
I decided that instead of raising the East Ward boundaries issue in public at the General Purposes Committee, I would sound out the views of the Harpenden Branch Committee at a meeting being held on 23rd October. Conservatives present at the meeting, in addition to those mentioned below, included Chris Grenside (Chairman), Ken Jenkins and Michael Dorton (like Ken Jenkins a Shell man, and not then my next-door neighbour). The Minutes of the meeting, which in no way convey the intensity of feeling prevailing, record the following:-
Boundaries Councillor Wood reported that a Public Enquiry would be held on 30th October at which the Council would be defending its proposals . . . . .
Mr. Woodhead reported that the East Ward Committee had decided not to circulate the previously mentioned statement ....., pending further developments.
A full discussion followed, during which some members again expressed concern at the lack of consultation during the early Meetings of the Working Party on the revision of Ward Boundaries.
Councillor Beck said he felt that in the initial Brief from the Boundaries Commission, undue emphasis had been placed on the numerical division to the detriment of community considerations . . . . .
Mr. Woodhead proposed that Councillor Beck should present his above stated views as an East Ward Councillor, at the Public Enquiry. This was seconded by Mr. Walker.
The result of the ensuing vote was 9 in favour, 6 against and 3 abstentions.
I would have thought the vote would have settled the matter - but not a bit of it. In the day or two after the Branch meeting, the Branch President, Ralph Gray, asked to come and see me at my home, to which I agreed. When he arrived, he said our meeting was to obtain my views concerning my ‘proposed’ giving of evidence on behalf of East Ward to the Boundaries Commission Public Enquiry. I re-iterated the views of the East Ward Committee.
A few days later, on 27th October 1975, there was a meeting of the St. Albans Conservative Political Committee. Its original purpose was to set up procedures for the selection of candidates for the 1976 Election, but almost the entire meeting was given over to means of preventing me from making a statement to the forthcoming Boundaries Commission Public Enquiry. Among those present were Keith Wood and Mike Harrison, along with John Dymoke, the Group Leader. ‘Matters of Group Policy’ were represented as being absolutely binding. It was implied that if I persisted in making a statement I would not be re-nominated for the 1976 Election.
Shortly afterwards, the Harpenden Branch President called again at my home. This turned out to be a ‘dire warning’ meeting rather than the fact-finding approach of a few days before.
BOUNDARY COMMISSION ENQUIRY
The Boundaries Commission Public Enquiry took place in St. Albans on 30th October and I decided, despite the pressures to the contrary, to go ahead and make a statement so that the voice of East Ward would be heard. I had prepared a statement which drew a distinction between the numerical approach to determining ward boundaries and the community considerations. The 1972 Local Government Act made provision that subject to numerical considerations "regard shall be had to ... any local ties which would be broken by the fixing of any particular boundary". Also, in the Commission's Notes on Boundary Making, under the heading "The process to be followed by Authorities when choosing boundaries" it was stated that "Boundaries should not sever local communities except for district wards where this is essential to achieve broad equality of representation". The official Conservative proposal achieved broad equality of representation but the boundary severed Batford. The East Ward Conservative modification achieved the same or closer equality of representation without severing Batford. This formed the basis of my argument.
I was present during the morning session of the Enquiry, which was devoted to consideration of parts of the District other than Harpenden. The Harpenden issue was to be covered in the afternoon. As I had a teaching commitment in the afternoon I arranged to make my statement immediately before lunch.
The issue so far as East Ward Conservatives were concerned was ‘numbers’ versus community considerations and this is what I brought out in my statement. I did not mention gerrymandering or criticise the Conservatives in any way. Instead, I related my argument back to the Boundary Commission itself. I was, of course, absent when others gave evidence on the Harpenden proposals.
Considering I had spoken just before lunch on the day of the Enquiry I was very surprised to see a quote from my statement on page 1 of the Harpenden Advertiser the morning after.
‘TRANSGRESSION’ REPORTED
The next development in the saga was the following handwritten letter from John Dymoke, dated 13th November 1975:-
Regretfully, I have to inform you that it is my duty, as Group Leader, to bring to the attention of the Group the fact that you contravened our Rules by making a statement at the informal enquiry into the Boundary problems without notifying the Group officially of your intention to do so.
Courtesy demands that I should let you know that the Group's Officers have agreed that I carry out this distasteful task at the next Group Meeting, the date of which has been announced.
The Group's Officers other than John Dymoke were Deputy Leader Ken Hill and Secretary Frank Hulley. It seemed that the Group Leader was determined to ‘get’ me and the only basis he had was on a technicality, which was presumably that I had not actually written to him as Group Leader notifying him of my intention to make the statement to the Enquiry. It is clear from what has already been described that he cannot have been in any doubt about my intention.
Two or three days after the receipt of this letter there was a meeting of the Conservative Group. Most of the meeting was taken up with preparation for a forthcoming District Council meeting and it was quite late when John Dymoke reported my ‘contravention’ to the Group. He outlined the Group Rule I had broken but when I said his outline was at variance with the Rules agreed by the Group he said he was quoting unwritten rules. Keith Wood and Ken Jenkins were present but were silent throughout the discussion, in which quite a number of the Group supported my viewpoint and account of events. The ensuing Minute was quite inadequate:-
The Group Leader spoke of a member who had gone against Group Policy. This member replied and a general discussion took place on the importance of support for Group decisions. The outcome was that any member who cannot go along with a Group Policy must inform the Group or its officers as early as possible to give the Group time to discuss the position.
This was a far cry from the agreed "Members are reminded that while they have every right to speak or vote against such a decision, it is a matter of loyalty to the Group that he/she should inform the Group or the Leader of his/her intention to do so". I had no doubt that "discuss the position" really meant the exertion of pressures to toe the line, of the type I had already encountered.
PARTY RAGE
On 25th November 1975 there was a highly turbulent meeting of the Harpenden Branch of the St. Albans Conservative Association. The Minutes state that Ralph Gray (Branch President) was in the Chair for the item about Ward Boundaries and that Chris Grenside (Branch Chairman) chaired the meeting thereafter. The attendance was much larger than usual and included Mike West and Pat Burgin (both County Councillors) and Norman Tarry (then of St. Albans), who was Chairman of the Association. Together, these ‘took over’ the first part of the meeting. The Party Agent, J. Seller, was also present and others included Mike Dorton, John Dymoke, P.C. Florey, Frank Walker, David Woodhead and myself. The Boundaries issue was Minuted as follows:-
(a) Item 7iii Boundaries Mr. Gray reported that as a result of the Committee's decision, Mr. Grenside had received letters from the Political and Administration Vice Chairmen (Keith Wood and Ken Jenkins, who were not present) in which they resigned from the Committee and would no longer participate in Branch activities. Their reason was that the vote taken at the last meeting which was contrary to their recommendations, had indicated to them that the Branch no longer had confidence in their judgement.
Mr. Grenside read these two letters to the meeting and also reported that he had received letters from Cllrs. Dymoke and Harrison expressing similar concern at the Branch decision.
Mr. Gray reported that he had replied to Councillor Wood. He then asked the Meeting to discuss the situation taking into account the effect on the Harpenden Branch if the resignations were accepted; also the position of the resigning members should they wish to stand as Councillors at the next Election.
A full discussion followed, during which the Councillors present emphasised the political implications of the Branch's decision at the last meeting and explained in detail the importance of Councillors accepting Group Policy and the difficulties of accepting this discipline.
Mr. Tarry, as Chairman of the Association, expressed his deep concern at losing two such valuable members. He expressed his view that the Committee should accept that damage had occurred which must be rectified and avoided in future.
Pat Burgin proposed a motion which was taken up by his County Council colleague Mike West and put to the meeting. Only those in favour were asked to vote. The Minutes record:-
It was resolved that:- had the Branch been aware of the full political implication arising out of their decision and that this would be taken as a question of confidence the Branch would not have so decided, and that the Committee regrets the letters of resignation received from Councillors Wood and Jenkins and by passing a vote of confidence in them hopes that they will withdraw their resignations.
The resolution was carried overwhelmingly.
On the basis of this resolution Keith Wood and Ken Jenkins withdrew their resignations.
--------------------------------------
Being at the receiving end of a Party pack in full cry is an experience to be missed.
7d