C2I 2
INTERVIEW PRELIMINARIES
On 9th December the Party Agent wrote inviting me to a candidates selection interview on 5th January 1976. I do not now know if I had received the invitation before or just after I wrote on 10th December, the following ‘temperature cooling’ letter to John Dymoke:-
I am sorry I could not agree with you at the Harpenden Branch meeting (25 Nov) about the Group rules matter being settled. I had not been too unhappy about the outcome of your reporting me at the Group meeting on 17th November and thought that your raising the matter had on the whole been useful. However, when I read the resulting Minute and received the spontaneous reactions to it from other members, I felt little had been achieved and further consideration would be needed if only to alter the Minute.
At the Group meeting I forebore from making some important points in order to keep the ‘temperature’ fairly low. Since the Branch meeting I have come to feel that it would be best for the Group if the matter is not raised again in the form of a proposed amendment to the Minute at the next meeting. So, while I hereby register my disagreement with the Minute I also wish you to know that I will not seek its modification.
The controversy has got me thinking a great deal about Group Policy matters in general and I would like at some future date, when emotions have died down, to circulate a note clarifying Group Policy issues as I see them, so that the chances of ‘snarl ups’ are in future lessened. Meanwhile I would like to assure you of my support and of my wish to help you in your difficult task in any way I can.
I am sending copies of this letter to Ken Hill (to whom I had mentioned the question of the Minute) and to F.Hulley (who was expecting an amendment to the Minute from me).
On 2nd January 1976, three days before the Selection Interview, John Dymoke penned the following letter in reply to mine of 10th December:-
With reference to your recent letter, I thank you for your assurances of support. I am sure you will agree that I feel I am entitled to expect support from all Group members!
I do not accept your attempt to register with me your disagreement of a Group Minute, whilst stating that you do not seek its modification. In my opinion you must either accept the Minute which was prepared by the Group Secretary or take steps to have it altered. You must not hide behind the thought that you can clear problems by mentioning your disagreement to me.
Likewise, if you wish to circulate your views on how Group Policy issues can be clarified, it is up to you to communicate your proposals to the Group through its Officers, who will ensure that they are brought to the attention of the members. You are entitled, in common with all of the members, to make representations to the Group on any matters which may be of interest to it. Had you borne this in mind in the past, it is my opinion that many of the difficulties which have beset us would not have arisen. Certainly, such a course of action would have eased my "difficult task" as Leader (to which you refer in your recent letter) and made my duties more pleasant to perform.
The day after John Dymoke wrote the letter and the evening before the interview was to take place I spent a very convivial evening at the Elliotts' home in Connaught Road. Derrick worked for Shell and, interestingly, he and I had a great deal in common - he was an IEE man in charge of the instrumentation side of an oil pipeline project, he was a Freemason and a committed Christian. So, greatly relaxed in the company of Derrick and his wife Brenda, as well as mutual masonic and other friends, I was in a good spirits for the interview. I did not know I was heading for a trap.
INTERVIEW & REJECTION
At 7.45 pm on 5th January 1976, I presented myself for interview with a view to re-adoption as a Conservative candidate for the St. Albans District Council elections due to be held in May 1976. The interview took place at 15 Kirkwick Avenue, Harpenden, which I think was the home of Chris Grenside, Chairman of the Harpenden Branch. Norman Tarry, Chairman of St. Albans Constituency, chaired the interview panel. Strangely, I do not remember much about the selection interview itself. The dark and stormy night on which the interview was held typified what was to follow, which came about from what had been going on behind the scenes, not from the actual face-to-face on 5th January. I think most of the questions were quite straightforward and I answered them well enough but one stood out from the rest, namely "Do you have any reservations about standing with any other potential candidates?". I replied that I had no reservations.
In the evening of 7th January 1976 a letter from J.W. Seller, Secretary and Agent of St. Albans Conservative Association, was hand-delivered to my home. At the time I was boiling up parsnips to make wine and I later called the brew my Election Parsnip.
The letter said:-
I very much regret to inform you that the Harpenden Branch Selection Committee did not select you as a candidate for the District Council elections.
I hope you will not be too disappointed by this decision, and that you will appreciate that with 14 applicants for 11 seats it was inevitable that 3 people would not be selected.
The Committee asked me to advise you that they unanimously resolved that you should be invited to stand for the Harpenden Parish Council, elections for which are also to be held on 6th May. I would be extremely grateful if you would confirm your willingness to be a Parish Council Candidate.
Later, as part of the preparations for an appeal to the Constituency President, Gurney Mercer, I saw the papers with which the Selection Committee were provided, of which the most significant was Appendix D. I also learned from the East Ward Chairman, David Woodhead, how the other candidates had responded to the question about standing with others. This is a suitable point at which to present the Appendix and responses.
FALSE INFORMATION
Appendix D: Group Leader's Statement about the Conservative Group
This was written by John Dymoke and dated 24th November 1975. It contained a number of statements which were contrary to what the Group had agreed. For example, it was said that an object of the Group was "to secure unanimity and concerted action in Council in ‘matters of Group Policy’". It was then stated that after two-thirds of those present and voting in favour of declaring a decision of the Group to be ‘a matter of Group Policy’:-
all Group Members are expected to vote in the Council in accordance with the Group's policy, unless there are is an overwhelming reason of conscience or local pressure which prevents a member from doing so.
This was taken from the first Draft of the Rules, which had been thrown out by the Group. Moreover, the following had been added to the rejected wording:-
This does not mean that an individual Councillor is precluded from stating his opinion on the matters concerned. In contrast to the Labour Party, members are not expected slavishly to adhere to ‘matters of group policy.’ Nevertheless it should be made clear to ALL POTENTIAL CANDIDATES that the Group expects Members
i to be LOYAL to the Group and its' policies;
ii to keep protests within the Group, if at all possible;
iii to inform the Group at Group meetings if possible (or otherwise one of the Officers of the Group) of the member's intention to vote against or abstain from voting on a subject which has been declared a matter of Group policy. Notice of such an intention should be given in time for the matter to be discussed within the Group or otherwise with the Group Officers to ensure full understanding of and mutual respect for the position of both parties.
The statement continued with the comment that "a Council with a lot of Independents or no political control will never be in a position to control COUNCIL POLICY and OPERATION, as it should be". This was coupled to an exhortation to members about attending Group Meetings. All of these ‘ifs and buts’ were personal addenda by the Group Leader, John Dymoke.
Clearly, the Selection Committee, none of whom were privy to Group matters, had been provided with information which was was quite contrary to the letter and spirit what the Group had agreed.
IMPROPER QUESTION?
It was from David Woodhead, who was present as Chairman of the East Ward Conservatives, that I learned how others had answered the question “Do you have any reservations about standing with any other potential candidates?”. This question was not among those suggested by the Party Agent and David Woodhead referred to it as 'improper'. John Dymoke, Keith Wood and Ken Jenkins said they would not be prepared to stand with me at all. Mike Harrison said he would not stand with me in the same Ward. John Dymoke and Mike Harrison added that I was “not a Conservative”.
KEEPING IT LOW KEY
In the late evening of the 7th January 1976 (no doubt after I had strained the parsnip liquor) there was an Emergency meeting of East Ward Conservatives to discuss the letter just received from the Party Agent. David Woodhead, Ian Wood and myself were present and perhaps one or two others. By the end of the meeting some possible courses of action had been examined on which further thought was required before firming up.
It is worth stating at this point that the East Ward Conservatives had acted throughout in the lowest possible key. It had not been myself but other Conservatives from outside East Ward who had first expressed in public their misgivings about the Conservative boundary proposals. Despite one journalist's comment to the contrary I had never said that the Conservative proposal was unfair to Labour nor did I support Labour's proposal - the scheme I drew up in conjunction with East Ward Conservatives was worked out from first principles, based solely on numerical and community considerations. I had not ‘gone public’ against the widely circulated and dreadful statement put out in the names of Wood, Curl and Harrison. I had deliberately refrained from raising East Ward concerns at an ‘open’ General Purposes Committee meeting and had instead given voice along with colleagues to the ‘closed’ Harpenden Branch. My one public utterance on the matter, at the Enquiry, had been as moderate as it had been possible to be. Consistent with this line, I and David Woodhead had no thought of making what had happened known to the Press.
UNWANTED PUBLICITY
With all this in mind, it can be imagined how dumfounded I was when the following morning Peter Green of Herts Advertiser phoned to ask me about my being ‘dropped’ as a candidate for the District Council. I was very cagey in responding to his questions until he quoted David Woodhead or the Party Agent on the matter. I thereupon gave him a ‘holding’ statement, which reflected the actual position.
I discovered later how the Herts Advertiser had been informed. Ian Wood, the member of the East Ward Conservative committee who had been present at the Emergency meeting on 7th January, was also Group Accountant for a newspaper Group which included the Herts Advertiser. I must have known this for I see I have an earlier diary entry that I entertained Mike Daniell, Editor of Herts Ad, and Ian Wood to lunch at Birklands Management Centre. This would undoubtedly have been in connection with Management courses, including the obtaining of projects for Diploma in Management Studies students. However, although I knew the connection, in no way did I think that an accountant would act in an editorial capacity with one of the newspapers. What happened was that immediately after our emergency meeting and without any inkling on the part of David Woodhead and myself, Ian Wood rang the Editor of Herts Ad and told him what had happened.
The story broke the following day, 9th January 1976, on page 2 of the
Harpenden Advertiser in an article by Peter Green headlined “COUNCILLOR IN
SHOCK AXEING BY TORIES”. Starting with the phrases "Flare-Up at Boundaries
Statement" and “row among Conservatives broke out yesterday”, Peter Green
stated that I had lost the chance of contesting my Harpenden East seat and
that I was considering standing as an Independent against the selection
committee's replacement, Sydney Vass.
David Woodhead was quoted as saying “It's not really a case of Vass versus Beck ...(but)... a case of the people who dislike his expression of an independent view winning the day”. Later in the article, Peter Green said I would not be drawn on whether I would stand as an Independent and I was quoted as saying that “This is something which has to be looked at very closely. Information has to be gathered, facts looked at, and then a decision made”. The Party Agent was then quoted as saying that there was no reason not to include Mr. Beck among the candidates - there were reasons for including the others. On the question of my standing as an Independent, John Seller apparently said that “If he were to pursue that course of action it would fully justify the committee's verdict in not selecting him in the first place”. The article continued:-
But Mr. Woodhead, who is considering whether he will now continue as East Ward chairman, said: “In no sense would I say that the selection committee's verdict was justified.” Mr. Beck's wish to state his own views at the Boundary Commission hearing was sanctioned by a majority of three votes at a Harpenden Conservative branch meeting, said Mr. Woodhead. The boundary issue was clearly linked with the selection committee's verdict. “This is the main single element of the situation,” he said.
WELCOME SUPPORT
Along with many verbal messages of support and expressions of dismay, I was delighted to get handwritten letters from two fellow Councillors, both representing St. Albans Wards, which were penned on the day the story broke. I could never be sure how other Councillors viewed me - my past history generated a constant undercurrent of anxiety which the letters did much to dispel.
One letter was from Liberal Councillor Rita Powesland. She wrote:-
I have not seen the local paper yet but only heard with disgust and astonishment of the actions of the Harpenden Conservative Councillors. They have shown themselves in their true colours, I'm afraid and I feel it will damage their party and the Council image more than they may realise.
I have sat on Committees with you and listened to you speaking in the Council chamber. Also, I naturally know of your interest and effectiveness in other spheres. I have always regarded you as a fairminded intelligent Councillor with great interest and ability. Even though I am of another political group, I would regard it as a great loss to the Council if you did not stand again. I do hope you will continue as long as possible up to the election time, despite any outside pressure. Also I do hope you will stand in some capacity at the next election in the Summer. You have represented your people well and I am sure all fair minded moderate people who know of your ability will be behind you. As an individual I and I am sure others would be only too willing to contribute to the inevitable expense this could involve. I am so sorry too for the distress this must have caused your family.
I think the “other spheres” must have referred to the Community Health Council activities. I replied to Rita Powesland as follows:-
Thank you very much for your letter. It gave quite a boost to my morale! It is not going to be easy over the next few months but I shall carry on as normally as I can and I will be helped in this by your generous expression of goodwill.
I have not yet decided to stand as an independent though I am very much inclined toward it. Sheila and I are prepared to spend the necessary money (thank goodness there is an upper limit!) but your kind offer of a contribution will be borne in mind.
The action of the Harpenden Branch was due to a minority of Councillors who unfortunately hold sway at the present time. There are many moderate Conservatives and I very much hope that what has happened to me and what I do in the future will lead them to overcome the highly undesirable pressures that are upon them.
Once again, thank you very much for writing and being so supportive.
The other morale-booster was from Conservative Councillor Rodney Moss:-
As one of the most recently elected councillors, and therefore to some extent on the periphery of events, I was very surprised to learn of your failure to be re-adopted.
Of course I was aware of the altercation regarding the boundaries but I did not realise that the problem was anything but temporary.
Although our association has been short, I would personally like to express my regret at the decision, for even during this short time I have learned to respect your views especially on matters relating to Health.
I do hope common sense prevails in the end and this unfortunate incident is forgotten but should it not my sincerest best wishes for the future.
My reply to Rodney Moss made one or two additional points:-
I very much appreciate your writing to me and making such kind remarks. I do not yet know what I shall be doing in the future. I only hope that what has happened so far will not be used to increase any further the dictatorial and intolerant style within the Conservative Group (and Association). It is my fervent hope that the example made of me will have the opposite effect to that intended and encourage Conservatives with views of their own to ensure that they can be expressed without acrimony.
In my view, since the District Council was formed there have been sustained pressures to restrict freedom of speech - even to the point where it would be difficult now to express a compassionate point of view without being labelled “Socialist”.
Once again, thank you very much for your kind action in writing to me and in return may I express my very best wishes to you in your future activities.
Rita Powesland left politics and became a J.P. some years ago. Rodney Moss continued on the Council then had a spell off the Council, I think due to business activities. He returned again but recently he also left politics to become a J.P.
LETTERS TO THE PARTY
The copy of my reply to J. Seller, the Party Agent, is undated. The text is:-
In reply to your letter of 7th January regarding my non-selection as a candidate for the District Council elections, I am not so much disappointed for myself as I am at the behaviour of a few of my fellow Councillors and Officers of the Association. I am sure you will appreciate that under the circumstances I cannot accept the invitation to stand for the Parish Council.
On 12th January 1976, David Woodhead wrote to C. Grenside:-
I shall resign as chairman of East Ward at the branch meeting on Tuesday 13th January, which I hope to attend. I should like you to read the following to the meeting, or give me an opportunity to do so.
Events of the past few weeks, including the selection committee's decision on candidates for the District Council, have left me fundamentally out of sympathy with the views of a small but dominant cabal within the group of Conservative councillors.
It is not a matter of personalities. It is not just a matter of the difference of opinion over the East Ward boundary, which has been exaggerated to the point of obsession by the irrational and hysterical reaction of a minority of councillors.
The really important issue concerns the freedom of individual expression. This is basic to the integrity of local government, to the standards which electors have a right to expect of it, to the calibre of those wanting to serve in it and, not least, to the frequently proclaimed, but apparently less frequently practised, Conservative defence of individual freedom.
Nowhere have I encountered such small-minded pettiness as has been exhibited in the past few weeks. Intolerance, dogmatism and authoritarianism has been displayed recently which would be worthy of the extreme Left.
It is sad that this branch allows over-mighty councillors to dictate to it, even to the extent of submitting to the terms on which they will deign to offer themselves as candidates.
This subservience had its most laughable consequence at the November branch meeting with the passing of the craven resolution addressed to the two councillors who petulantly resigned from the branch committee. A finer piece of nonsense and illogicality it would be hard to imagine. It managed to suggest that the branch at its October meeting was not quite compos mentis.
Yet everyone there was perfectly aware of the issue which was being voted upon and accordingly confirmed Councillor Beck's right to make his reservations on the Batford boundary known to the local inquiry a week later. They knew, too, that no vote of confidence was involved.
The branch seems to accept that these same councillors are entitled to dictate their views of who is and who is not a Conservative. I do not.
Harold Beck is an outstandingly dedicated and hard-working councillor with a record of service to the community and to his ward and party of which he can be proud.
If there is no room for him within the Conservative group on St. Albans District Council, then there is no room for many moderate and intelligent Conservatives as party workers in East Ward.
BRANCH BACK TO NORMAL
On 12th January there was a meeting of the Harpenden Branch of the St. Albans Conservative Association. I did not attend but, in a note, David Woodhead told me there was formal ratification of the candidates. Three voted against, including David Woodhead, who read to the meeting his letter of resignation from East Ward chairmanship. The relevant Minutes are:-
3a Mr. Gray announced that Councillor K. Jenkins and Councillor K. Wood had withdrawn their resignations as a result of the Motion passed at the last meeting. This announcement was warmly welcomed.
3c Mr. D. Woodhead made a statement to the meeting which took the form of a letter sent to the Chairman, which he resigned as Chairman of East Ward. His letter outlined his reasons for taking this step. Miss Washington-Gray expressed her regret at Mr. Woodhead's decision.
5c Before announcing the candidates selected, Mr. Grenside read a letter from Mr. Tarry (Chairman of the Selection Committee). Mr. Grenside announced that all existing Councillors, except for Councillor H.V. Beck, had been selected, and Mr. S.J. Vass had been chosen to fill this vacancy. Altogether 14 potential candidates had been interviewed. Mr. Gray proposed and Mr.M. Dorton seconded that these decisions should be adopted.
A discussion followed in which the procedure followed during the selection of candidates was explained. Mr. Walker told the meeting that he felt that the rejection of Councillor Beck as a candidate would result in the Party losing his seat in East Ward; and that the decision implied a vote of no confidence in Councillor Beck, East Ward and the East Ward organisation; he was considering his own position and what action he would recommend to the Ward Committee. Mr. Gray said how much he regretted this feeling.
A vote was taken on the Motion to adopt the decisions of the Selection Committee: 10 in favour, 3 against. The Candidates present did not vote.
11d Mr. Seller pointed out that the Selection Committee would undertake the selection of candidates for the Parish Council. He reported that he had written to the three candidates not selected to stand for the District Council asking them if they would stand for the Parish Council.
THE BECK ISSUE
On the 16th January 1976 there was what became known among local friends and the family as the ‘Beck’ issue of Harpenden Advertiser! Apart from the candidacy story I was sought after for a quote on several community issues so that, in all, my name appeared in 6 items:-
TORY RESIGNS OVER ‘SACKED’ COUNCILLOR by Peter Green. This reported David Woodhead's resignation as Ward Chairman and he was quoted as saying that “it was over Councillor Beck's case”, because Councillor Beck opposed the Conservative backed council proposals to a Boundary Commission hearing last October. Then, incredibly, John Dymoke was quoted as saying that:-
anyone who wanted to make representations to the hearing was entitled to do so. I have no complaint about him so doing at all, making any representations he wanted to make.
The article went on to say that “Councillor Beck ..... said his experience was different” and then quoted me on the early morning phone call in which I was warned by Councillor Dymoke. I was then quoted on the assurances I would need on Councillors' freedom of speech before I would accept another Conservative seat, that I had not yet decided whether to stand as an Independent, about the encouraging messages I had received and that if I decided to go independent it would be the community who will back this, rather than a political party.
Two of the other items arose out of my being Chairman of the CHC. In Consumers diagnose a health poser by Alan Gayfer, I spoke of three vacancies in the 30-strong CHC membership. In Hospital faces doubts over future by Vivien Grayson, I responded to questions about the possible closure of Harpenden Memorial Hospital following a statement by the Area Health Authority.
Then, in District man poses question over ban in Church Green, I referred to the consultation process concerning a proposal for a ban, even on Sundays, on parking near St. Nicholas Church after I had found that the planning people of the Council did not know that churchgoers made intensive use of parking spaces on the Sabbath.
Another item was Names in the News - Harold drinks to a vintage year! by Alan Gayfer. This was about my winemaking. There was one picture of me making notes on my Blackberry 1974 and another pouring a glass of sparkling hawthorn. I described my off-cut wines, produced from the tail ends of bottles of all sorts of wines put together, filtered and left to mature. I was quoted as saying "You get the most interesting flavours".
The coverage by the Herts Advertiser, which was received by St. Albans people, including most Councillor colleagues representing St. Albans Wards, had the Peter Green article and a short item headed Great wines from Chateau Harold.
ERROR ADMITTED, CORRECTION BLOCKED
On 19th January 1976 there was a meeting of the Conservative Group of the District Council. I prepared carefully, making notes on what had transpired and the points I wanted to put forward. I also phoned the Head of Local Government at Conservative Central Office, by then a Mr. Allen, about the question on the willingness to stand with others - he had never heard of it and thought it must be rare.
When I was able to raise the matter, I told the Group that I was attending the meeting at the request of the East Ward committee to try and clear up confusion about the Group and particularly about Matters of Group Policy. Addressing myself to the Group Leader (and Chairman of the meeting), John Dymoke, I said that the Selection Committee in Harpenden had been provided with a statement about the Rules of the Group regarding Matters of Group Policy, initialled by himself. I said the Group Rules on which his statement was based were not those adopted by the Group but were Draft Rules which the Group had rejected. I went on to say that he, the Group Leader, had also made his own personal additions to the rejected Rules. I asked that he circulate a copy of the statement he had provided to the Selection Committee, together with a copy of the Rules the Group had adopted. It was pointed out that the Party Agent was supposed to have had the proper Rules printed. I asked that his statement and the Group Rule about Matters of Group Policy be made an Agenda item for discussion at the next meeting. I said I would expect him to make amends.
According to notes made immediately after the meeting, John Dymoke made light of the whole matter. He said we all know what we mean by Group Policy. He had then admitted that the Rules he had used did have “Draft Rules” written thereon and that he had got them from Ken Jenkins, adding that he always said he was a poor Secretary. Ken Jenkins was present and there was some uneasy mirth at this remark. John Dymoke also said he supposed we could discuss it at the next meeting but Keith Wood was very quick to block discussion on the discrepancies - he said the new Group should decide. He was referring to the Conservative Group after the election, of which I would not be a member even if, contrary to his expectation, I were to be elected as an Independent..
The whole item was Minuted as follows:-
Councillor Beck asked the Chairman if he would agree to supply all members of the group with a copy of the Group Rules that he had supplied to the Association. He agreed to do this with the help of John Seller.
WARD MEETINGS - FORMAL AND INFORMAL
On 2nd February 1976 there was a formal meeting of the East Ward Committee of the Harpenden Branch of the Conservative Association at 51 Station Road, the home of Peter and Carol Cox. Nine members were present, including Peter Cox, Chris Grenside and myself. The Minutes record that:-
David Woodhead took the Chair. He outlined the difficulties which had led to his resignation as Chairman and proposed that Ian Wood be elected in his place. This was seconded and adopted. . . . . .
Frank Walker expressed extreme disquiet at the method of selecting candidates for the Ward
As Chairman of the Harpenden Branch, Christopher Grenside was asked to make it known to the officers of the Branch of the extreme disquiet felt by the East Ward over the recent method of electing its representatives, which they felt was yet another action taken by the Branch without consultation at sub-branch level.
After the Committee proceedings had ended, an informal meeting of the East Ward Committee took place at 6 Manland Way, attended by all except Christopher Grenside. The Minutes state:-
This meeting was informal to try and determine the branch's role in the light of Harold Beck's decision to stand at the next election as an Independent Candidate.
Harold Beck signified that he had made up his mind to stand and that he had also made up his mind to stand as an Independent candidate. There was discussion at an earlier meeting and now, as to whether Harold Beck might have a better chance of success if he styled himself Independent Conservative, and although many were in favour of that description he came down irrevocably on the side of standing as an Independent. He then outlined his position as he was then able to see it.
. . . . He suggested that as far as members of the East ward were concerned there were five options open to them.
1 Total commitment to the official Conservative line.
2 Partial commitment to the official Conservative line, but also supporting himself.
3 Total commitment to himself.
4 A low key Official campaign giving some support only.
5 No help to either Conservative or Independent candidate.
There was a long discussion on what the branch might do and opinion varied from total commitment to Harold Beck only, to the more general view that it would be a mistake to break off all connection with the official Conservative Association by going against all their candidates.
Frank Walker suggested that when the time came the Ward would issue a press announcement setting out its general acceptance of the Conservative candidates, but its intention of also supporting a fourth (the Independent candidate). This suggestion seemed to have general acceptance and the details of such an announcement were to be left to a future meeting. Harold Beck signified that he would be running committee rooms from his house for himself. The involvement of the East Ward branch in his campaign organisation would be left to the members individually. . . . . . details . . . . . to be decided at a later time.
Harold Beck wished to make an early announcement as to his intention to stand, but the majority felt that a later announcement would increase the element of surprise and be in his favour. However, the likelihood is that he will announce his intention before 10th March. Nominations close on 12th April.
I did not attend the meeting of the Conservative Group of St. Albans District Council on the 6th February 1976. Following the meeting on 19th January no provision was made for the Group to discuss the discrepancies in the Rules so there was no reason for me to attend.
THOUGHTS AS A CHRISTIAN
Something of my thinking on the matter of Independent and Party politicians may be gleaned from a letter of mine published in the Review on 12th February 1976. By way of background, Jim Naisbitt, a Lecturer on the Hatfield site of the Polytechnic, had written Letters to the Editor putting forward the view that Christians in politics should be Independents. My response was published under the heading “Party political system works - if it isn't abused”. Among other things I expressed doubt that government by independent Christians would serve the public any better than does the present party system. I cited in support my experience on Cambridge Christian Council at the time of Suez. I went on to comment that there were many Christians active in the three main parties and that, despite their diverse views on particular issues, some underlying attitudes and values get communicated and were embodied in political decision-making - this was perhaps the best way to bring Christian influence to bear on the political scene. I concluded:-
The party system should not in my view be condemned. ..... It is the abuse of the party arrangement that gives rise to the very understandable misgivings expressed by Mr. Naisbitt.
There can, for example, be scope for independent minds within the parties. A local party organisation can, however, be so dominated by party zealots of limited and rigid viewpoints that some of the essential principles of the party as a whole are suppressed.
Mr. Naisbitt advocated that Christians should stand as Independents so that they are free to speak on behalf of those who elect them. It so happens that I am considering taking just this course of action with regard to the District Council elections in May. This is not, however, due to the failure of the party system as such but is rather because of the abuse of it here in St. Albans.
Another indication of my thinking at the time can be obtained from my reaction at a lecture given by Robert Runcie, Bishop of St. Albans, at St. George's School, Harpenden, on 10th February 1976. Interestingly, the theme was ‘realism’ and this was related to the recruitment of clergy. In the ensuing discussion I commented that sometimes a Christian should let himself be ‘blown about a bit’ to determine God's will for him, rather than ‘plump’ for what seems obvious. The background to this comment was, of course, that many of the ‘signals’ I had received including some connected with the Church, seemed man-made and designed to serve secular purposes.
PARTY COMMUNICATIONS
The AGM of the Harpenden Branch of the St. Albans Conservative Association was held at the Conservative Club, Harpenden, on 13th February. I attended the first part of the meeting but I am not sure if I stayed for the item on the adoption of candidates for the District Council elections or for the address by the M.P., Victor Goodhew. The Annual Report 1975 was presented by the Chairman, Chris Grenside. The only passage which related to the turbulence in the Branch was:-
We welcomed David Woodhead as Chairman of the East Ward Sub Branch early in the year, and he has expended a lot of his time and energy in building up this sub Branch. I most heartily congratulate him on his achievement. Unfortunately last month, due to reservations which he had over the selection of this year's District Council Candidates, he found it neccessary to resign as Chairman, but he remains on their Committee.
On 25th February 1976 David Woodhead and I went to see Gurney Mercer, President of the St. Albans Conservative Association at his home in Flamstead. The purpose of the meeting was to let him know what had occurred within his Association with a view to him taking corrective action. Accordingly, I prepared a history of events, with diagrams showing the relationships between Council, Group, Association, Branch and other parts of the Constituency organisation.
I first heard of Gurney Mercer around 1963 from Ray Burnett, the M.D. of Marconi Instruments. Gurney Mercer was M.D. of Mercers of St. Albans, which made chronological instruments, but apart from being neighbouring M.D.s in the instrument industry, in which I was at that time very active, Ray Burnett and Gurney Mercer sat on the same St. Albans Bench together as magistrates. Not only that, both were on the Governing Body of Hatfield Polytechnic.
David Woodhead and I spent two hours with Gurney Mercer, making the case that the decision not to re-adopt me as a candidate had been unfairly arrived at and was giving effect to a threat made when the Ward declined to abandon a position which had been properly arrived at within the Association, namely the making of a statement to the Boundaries Commission Enquiry. At the end of the meeting we thought we had made good progress with the President. However, we cannot have relied on any significant development so far as my candidature was concerned for preparations continued, unpublicised, to fight for a seat in East Ward as an Independent.
7d