C2I 3
WARD SUPPORT
On 2nd March, the East Ward Committee met at 51 Station Road. The Minutes, written by Ian Wood, were as follows:-
Present: Mrs. Chipperfield, H.V. Beck, P. Cox, F. Walker, I. Wood, D. Woodhead.
Harold Beck reported on the meeting he and David Woodhead had on Wednesday 25th February with the President of the St. Albans Conservative Association, at which the circumstances culminating in selection of Councillors and the manner of that selection was detailed. It was felt that he sympathised with our point of view and said that he would take up the matter with Messrs. R Gray and C. Grenside to generally enquire into the situation and with a view to making improvements to avoid a future repetition.
Harold Beck explained the essential difference between his suggestions for the boundary changes and that of the main Conservative line. The difference was essentially the treatment of part of Batford - a change which was arguably more logical and would probably not have shifted the voting power.
Harold Beck circulated his proposed Press Release announcing his intention to stand as an Independent candidate in the District Council elections. He advised that his maximum permitted expenditure was £91. There are obvious difficulties in getting the expenditure below this level.
The official East Ward view, which is also to take the form of a press release, was agreed in principle. David Woodhead will circulate this at the next meeting, when timing will be agreed. It was also decided that the statement should be included in the delivered election literature, and Harold Beck was seeking guidance as to how the cost of reproducing it would affect the total election expenses.
The meeting concluded with a consideration of names which the East Ward would put forward as nominations for the forthcoming Parish Council Elections. It was decided that we should nominate for all seats and the following five were agreed.
Mr. A. Hunt, Mr. S. Vass, Mr. D. Woodhead, Mr. F. Walker, Mrs. Chipperfield
I. Wood would take these nominations to the selection meeting held the following day.
It was agreed that another meeting comprising the same people who attended this one would be held at 6 Manland Way on 15th March at 8.15 ..... to discuss reaction to H. Beck's Press Release.
In fact all but one of the names put forward by East Ward at the meeting on 2nd March 1976 were accepted. The exception was David Woodhead.
PRESS RELEASE
I had discussed a Draft of the Press Release at the East Ward committee meeting on 2nd March. I found the two-hat approach in writing the statement quite intriguing. The statement was as follows:-
Harold Beck to stand as an Independent
Harold Beck, Conservative Councillor for East Ward, Harpenden, on St. Albans District Council will be standing as an Independent at the District Council elections on May 6th.
Councillor Beck, 51, of 6 Manland Way, Harpenden was not reselected as a Conservative candidate after he had suggested a modification to the Conservative proposals for the new East Ward boundaries at the Boundaries Commission enquiry last October. The Boundaries Commission has not yet announced its findings and the May elections will take place on the basis of the present boundaries. Instead of the Beck, Harrison and Wyborn line-up of the last election in June 1973, the new line-up will be Harrison, Wyborn and Vass.
Personal statement by Harold Beck:-
“I have given careful consideration to the question of standing as an Independent. It won't be easy but I have decided to stand so that members of the public can express their views on some vital issues in local government. I have been greatly encouraged by expressions of support and agreement - from members of all political persuasions - at the stand I took, in the face of quite extraordinary pressures from some local Conservative officials and a minority of Harpenden Councillors, over the East Ward boundaries question. Some of the issues which I hope will be ventilated during the coming elections are the loyalties and freedom of speech of Councillors as well as the openness of local government and the part that the community can play in it”.
The Conservative Party organisation in Harpenden is different from the rest of the St. Albans District. In Harpenden major decisions are made by a Branch Committee on behalf of all the Wards whereas elsewhere the Wards can make their own decisions. “The Harpenden arrangement resulted in the views of Conservative workers in East Ward being blocked - not merely disregarded - both on the boundaries question and about the election nominations” said Harold Beck.
“I have had several offers of help with the election campaign but I could well do with more”
I took the Release to the Herts Advertiser on 4th March 1976 and
the following day the Harpenden issue of the paper carried a report by Peter
Green, with the banner headline “Snubbed councillor to make lone stand”.
The coverage reflected the content of the Press Release except that my point about help in the election campaign was omitted and there was a Beck vs Vass element introduced, which was reinforced by the concluding section of the report:-
Councillor Keith Wood, political chairman of the Harpenden Conservative branch, said that Councillor Beck's decision to go Independent justified Mr. Vass's selection. “If Councillor Beck stands as an Independent, he cannot be a terribly good Tory,” said Councillor Wood.
The Herts Advertiser had a truncated version of the text which had appeared in the Harpenden Advertiser, under the heading “Rebel Tory in election”. This item is what the St. Albans Councillors would have seen and it led to many warm expressions of support from them and others, including some Conservatives, when I attended the annual Mayoral Reception & Dinner at the City Hall, St. Albans, that evening. The atmosphere struck me as very good.
GROUP SILENT, WARD COMMUNICATIVE
I sent my apologies for absence from the meeting of the Conservative Group of the St. Albans District Council meeting on 8th March. I was still a member of the Group, received Agendas and Minutes of its meetings and continued to be seated among the Conservatives at Council meetings. The only item that would have justified my attending a Group meeting, namely one that would have facilitated discussion of the misrepresentation and unauthorised development of the Group Rules, was still missing. Clearly, Keith Wood’s delaying tactic was being followed.
From the 6th to the 31st March, East Ward Conservatives delivered by hand to subscribing East Ward Conservatives the following letter from the East Ward Committee:-
You may have seen the statement in the Harpenden Advertiser of March 5th that Councillor Harold Beck will be standing as an independent in the District Elections to be held on Thursday 6th May, 1976. As he was elected as a Conservative Councillor in 1973 you may be wondering why he is making this stand.
The East Ward Conservative Committee supported the nomination of Harold Beck as one of their prospective candidates for the District Council elections. Unfortunately, the Conservative candidates in Harpenden are not chosen by the ward committees, but by the Harpenden branch as a whole. The East Ward representatives were outvoted in the selection process, and, as a result, Harold Beck was not selected as an official Conservative candidate.
The Committee are under the impression that the majority of the members support Harold Beck's views on the issues which have caused his non-selection. These include his proposals on the ward boundaries and the right of a councillor to express views contrary to those of his fellow Conservatives without undue pressure being put upon him. The latter view is, we understand, the most common Conservative view in other districts.
Notwithstanding, the East Ward Committee members stress that they remain loyal Conservatives and will therefore take their normal part in the Conservative election campaign. In view of the past support for Harold Beck, however, the committee are very anxious to ascertain members' views on this situation before the commencement of the election campaign. A committee member will therefore be calling on you in the next few days to ascertain your own views.
PRESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS
On 11th March 1976 Gurney Mercer, President of St. Albans Conservative Association, wrote in response to the representations of 25th February:-
I have now had an opportunity to make some further enquiries about the matter you raised when you came to see me with Mr. Woodhead.
The unhappy affair seems to be divided into two parts, one being the alarms and excursions within the Harpenden Branch and the other the conduct of the Selection Committee. Although they both concern me it is the latter about which I feel it necessary to express a judgement as opposed to an opinion. I believe that the selection procedure was carried out fairly, that those taking part had every opportunity to comment on the procedure both before and during the event, and that the Chairman was justified in asking a question about the candidates views about serving with other candidates because of representations which had been made to him from a wider source than Harpenden alone.
On the other matter I can only express an opinion which I have already done to the chairman, that the Harpenden organisation would greatly benefit from really becoming part of the St. Albans Division instead of a ‘mini-constituency’ leading to a sort of family feud of which this episode has been a typical example.
Finally I will not comment on your relationship with your colleagues. I am sure both sides firmly believe they are in the right. I can only hope as a result of this business everyone has a better understanding of the others point of view.
Under the agreed procedure, the Chairman of the Selection Committee, Norman Tarry, could ask the Officers of the Group in case of doubt, namely Ken Hill as Deputy Leader and Frank Hulley as Secretary. I like to think I was on good terms with both - so did the Chairman go outside his remit? Were the representations which were said to have been made against me ‘laid on’ by those clearly determined to get me out - and were they actually members of the Group or members of the Association who were not District Councillors? As I wrote to David Woodhead, “What a response! It raises all sorts of new questions”. I replied to Gurney Mercer as follows:-
With regard to your letter of the 11th March I feel I must comment, on behalf of David Woodhead as well as myself, that it cannot be regarded as an adequate response to the matters we placed before you.
From time to time over the years since the 1976 Appeal I have encountered Gurney Mercer in several different contexts. The occasion which stands out most is an interview for appointment as Dean of a School in Hatfield Polytechnic, which took place on 13th December 1982. By this time, Gurney Mercer had become Chairman of Governors of the Polytechnic and was chairing the Appointment Committee for the post. In the course of the interview he brought up our “previous encounter in another activity” and asked how they could be sure that I would not ‘go it alone’ again if they gave me the Dean appointment. It was an impossible question to answer. I did not get the job. A few days later I saw the Director of Hatfield Polytechnic, John Illston, about the interview. In answer to a comment of mine about the Party political matter raised by Gurney Mercer, John Illston said he wished Mercer had not introduced it.
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
On 12th March 1976, a letter was published in the Harpenden Advertiser concerning some remarks Keith Wood had made about me in the previous week's issue. The following reply by Keith Wood was published in the Herts Advertiser of 19th March and headed “Totalitarian taunt is unfair”:
I am surprised that one of your correspondents should take exception to my comment that an independent candidate standing in opposition to Conservatives “cannot be a very good Tory” (Herts Advertiser, March 5). Isn't it self-evident that one either opposes or supports Conservatives and one cannot sensibly do both at the same time? As your correspondent says he knows nothing of the subject, I can perhaps help by telling him briefly the procedure for adopting the Conservative candidates.
A sub-committee was formed of Harpenden branch officers and equal representation from each Harpenden ward, under the chairmanship of the St. Albans Constituency chairman to ensure impartiality. The sub-committee interviewed each potential candidate and made its choice, I understand, by secret ballot. The chosen names were then recommended to the full branch committee and following their endorsement, the final decision was made by the annual meeting, open to all members of the association. Potential candidates, even if also branch officers, of course, took no part in the selection.
Only one unsuccessful “applicant”, has decided to stand in opposition. The others, as have all in previous years, have accepted that not everybody could be chosen and intend to continue to work for the Conservative cause. Can the process I've described really be described as “autocratic” or “totalitarian rumblings”?
Replies by both David Woodhead and myself were published in the Herts
Advertiser of 26th March.
David Woodhead's was given the heading “Tories and selection procedure”:-
Councillor Keith Wood's account of the procedure for selecting Harpenden's Conservative candidates for St.Albans District Council elections (Letters, March 19) is far from complete. I wish that the process had been half so pure and straightforward! The full story, I believe, would have to include the covert campaign conducted by a minority of Harpenden's Conservative councillors against Councillor Harold Beck after he had dared to express reservations about the proposed new boundaries for Harpenden's East Ward. This dangerous independence of mind was too much for the autocrats in the party.
The selection process really began after Councillor Beck had stated his views to the Boundary Commission local inquiry in October. It became clear to me then that certain councillors would use every means at their disposal to ensure that Mr. Beck was not readopted - despite the fact that Harpenden Conservative Branch had endorsed by nine votes to six his right to make his statement as a representative of the ward involved. As a member of the selection committee, I know as well as Councillor Wood what tactics were used. At present I am happy to respect the confidential nature of the selection committee's proceedings. But it would be another matter if others mislead the electorate by errors of omission in their accounts of the events leading to Mr. Beck's non-election.
As you have previously reported, I resigned in January as chairman of East Ward Conservatives in protest at Mr. Beck's non-selection and the dogmatism and intolerance which lay behind it. I am delighted that Mr. Beck is to stand as an Independent in East Ward, which he has served with conspicuous dedication for the past three years as one of its three District Council Conservative representatives. It is to be hoped that moderates in all parties who believe that their councillors should be more than rubber stamps will support him.
Unfortunately some Councillors merely pay lip-service to the principles of freedom of expression, respect for strong personal convictions and the proper representation of local interests. Their attitude is more akin to the extreme left.
My letter, published under the heading “Machiavellian?”, was:-
Over three centuries ago, a distinguished St. Albans resident, Francis Bacon, described an observation by Machiavelli on the behaviour of politicians along these lines:
“Virtue itself a man should not trouble to attain but only the appearance thereof; for the reputation of virtue is an advantage but the practice of it is an impediment”.
I was reminded of this saying when reading Councillor Wood's letter rebutting the charge of totalitarian behaviour. What a picture of uninvolved innocence Councillor Wood paints! And how far from the truth this really is! Councillor Wood well knows that were irregularities in the selection process. To give one example, the Harpenden Selection Committee were supplied with highly misleading information about the district council Conservative Group. The background to this is that another Conservative body known as its L.G. Election Committee, had specified that the selection committee should question candidates about their support for the group. The accuracy of the information supplied was therefore of great importance.
When, after the selection had been made, I asked the group to examine the misrepresentation of its views, who was instrumental in blocking discussion? Councillor Wood! And who is influential in the Election Committee which specified the question in the first place? - its chairman, Councillor Wood! A dominant minority of Conservatives has been exhibiting increasing totalitarian tendencies and the remaining members of the party are not in a position to do anything about it.
The authoritarian behaviour adversely affects councillors in all parties whose wish is simply to serve the community. One of the main reasons I will be standing as an Independent, is to try to reverse the trend by bringing out the main issues for public discussion.
ALL IN VAIN?
On 31st March 1976 the Local Government Boundary Commission wrote to the Council saying it was disposed to accept the Assistant Commissioner's proposals (i.e. the Conservative proposal which had become the Council's proposals) for the ward boundaries. Thus it seemed that the whole battle had been in vain. But the issue never was primarily about the boundaries. It was much more basic, namely keeping election promises as well as behaving democratically and with integrity within the Party.
Nominations to stand for the May 1976 elections had to be lodged with the Council about three weeks beforehand so by the end of March I was busy getting my assentors, designing the election literature, recruiting helpers and carrying out many, many other tasks. The full story of the successful fight to become elected as an Independent has yet to be told but one feature of the campaign which should be presented at this stage arose from the East Ward Conservative election manifesto. When this was distributed it lent point to the struggle. David Woodhead picked this up and wrote to the local papers:-
“It is important that the voice of the East Ward should be heard,” says the Conservative candidates' (1976) election address in Harpenden East Ward. Ironically, these words were originally written in the 1973 election address by Harold Beck, now the ward's Independent candidate. In fact, he wrote most of that address, to which the present one bears a remarkable resemblance!
Since he was elected three years ago, Councillor Beck, true to the intention of his statement, has tried to make the voice of the ward heard. But what has happened? Attempts were made to silence him and to stifle that voice. They failed - but he was dropped as a candidate.
Perhaps the ward's voters would like to ask themselves: is this what is meant by “the voice of the East Ward” being heard? Doesn't it sound rather hollow now? Are other East Ward councillors - or councillors elsewhere in the district - to be subject to similar threats and sanctions?
Many East Ward electors have complained to me over the past few days about what they consider to be excessive party political pressures in local government and the need for individuals of calibre rather than regimented party hacks. They are not impressed by zealots imposing Westminster-style party discipline because they do not think this necessarily serves the community interest.
Certainly in East Ward they have been given every reason to believe that only an Independent will be genuinely free to serve those interests without suffering undue party pressure.
ELECTION Success
The full story of my standing as an Independent is yet to be told. Summarising, with the help of Ward Conservatives and many friends, a vigorous campaign resulted in my becoming, in 1976, second in the poll for three seats - exactly the same as I had been in the 1973 Election, when I stood as a Conservative. In the 1979 Election I topped the poll but in 1983, at the time of a General Election, I had all three Parties against me, competing for only one seat. I lost that election and never stood again.
SUMMARY COMMENTS
This paper has described my direct, ‘hands on’ experience of one political Party about three decades ago. The Party was taking part in a great democratic process but democracy within the Party was sadly lacking. Zealots within the Party ignored those decisions by the Party as a whole if it did not suit them. There was also such poor communication within the Party that one key committee could be misinformed about what had been decided in another important Party grouping.
The 1973 reorganisation of Local Government greatly encouraged the flow of information from the Councils to the public, especially via the media. Many of the Councillors brought up under the old system at first protested about the greater openness but in due course came to accept it. However, numerous decisions of the Council and its Committees were really taken in the majority Party Group, which was closed to other parts of the Party organisation as well as to the public.
What was needed, and what came about as a result of my 'transgression', was a much greater flow of information between the Party and the public. There was strong criticism by the Party when one of my supporters revealed to the local Press the numerical result of the Harpenden Branch vote on my giving evidence to the Boundaries Commission Enquiry but that was precisely what was needed to convey an accurate picture of what was happening.
The experiences I have described relate solely to a local Conservative Party organisation but from odd remarks at the time from fellow-Councillors who were in the Labour Party I would guess similar problems were being experienced in that sector of the political scene.
The important question now is :-
Do these undesirable features still exist today in any of the three main Parties?
7d