Article 3 by Harold Beck : Published in The Review, Thursday, 22 April1976

The fight for democracy in East Ward

HAROLD BECK, standing as an Independent candidate in the coming council election, tells how he was ousted by local Conservatives for stepping out of line

THE East Ward boundaries issue had its origins nearly two years ago when the Boundaries Commission requested district councils to draw up proposals for their future ward arrangements, to take account of building developments, population changes and new boundary criteria.

In the St Albans district, one of the most drastic changes proposed was to East Ward, Harpenden, according to which the Westfield area and one third of Batford was to be incorporated with Roundwood to form a new North Ward while the remainder of Batford together with an enlarged area around Station Road would become the new East Ward.

This radical adjustment was put forward by the Conservative Association, with very little local consultation, and it needed little political knowledge to realise that it would give safe Conservative seats where previously the electorate had been fairly evenly balanced.  The Labour Party organisation also drew up a proposal which was to leave East Ward roughly as it is.

The first public discussion of the East Ward boundaries issue took place at a Harpenden Parish Council meeting.  A charge of gerrymandering was levelled at the advocates of the Conservative proposals and this apparently found sympathy among some Conservative members of the parish council and gave rise to the statement that the Conservative proposals had "sickened decent Tories."  The parish council sent both the Conservative and Labour proposals to the St Albans District Council as having equal merit.

On the district council, a working party was set up to examine proposals for ward boundaries for the whole of the district.  In addition, the council's Conservative majority group endorsed the Conservative proposals and made them a "matter of group policy", i.e. the local government equivalent of the three-line whip, to vote it through.  Moreover, Conservative councillors were under strong pressure not to raise queries nor be drawn by Labour or Liberal arguments at the relevant Council meeting, so that the Conservative proposals would have a smooth passage.  So it transpired and the Conservative design of the East Ward boundaries was sent to the Commission as the district council proposal.  The Boundaries Commission then published a statutory notice inviting individuals and organisations to comment on the proposals.

The next key event in the saga was the submission to the Harpenden Conservative East Ward branch committee of a statement on the boundaries issue for circulation in East Ward.  Criticism of the Conservative proposal had received considerable Press coverage and a great deal of adverse comment was being made by residents of East Ward, including Conservatives.  The statement was to counter the criticism and had been drawn up by the three Conservative members of the district council working party, namely Councillors Wood, Curl and Harrison.  The branch committee felt that the statement was couched too much in "slanging match" terms and the East Ward representatives at the meeting (David Woodhead, Frank Walker and myself) were requested to redraft the statement setting out the issues and justifying the Conservative proposals more objectively.

When the East Ward representatives examined the statement in detail they found they could not support some of the basic arguments contained in it.  In particular they could not agree that the division of Batford between two wards was justifiable.  At about this time the Boundaries Commission published their draft proposals which in the case of East Ward was identical to that proposed by the Conservatives through the district council.  The Commission accompanied their proposals with copies of the written comments they had received and invited all concerned to make further representations at an informal inquiry to be held in St Albans.

The representatives had endeavoured to get the Conservative Association to modify their scheme but had been thwarted at every turn.  Accordingly, it was suggested that the matter might be raised by myself at a meeting of a committee of the council which was considering what line to take with regard to the informal inquiry.  The representatives felt it appropriate to obtain the views of an East Ward colleague, Councillor Harrison, before finally deciding on this course of action.

To give some idea of the sensitivity of some branch committee Conservative members to the three-line whip of group policy, the consultation with Councillor Harrison took place by phone at about 10pm one evening and before 8am the next morning the group leader, Councillor Dymoke, was on the phone to me, warning of the serious view that would be taken if I departed from group policy.  And Councillor Harrison had not reported me direct to the group leader but had informed Councillor Wood!

In view of the near hysterical reaction it was decided not to make representations through the committee but rather that branch support should be sought for a statement on behalf of East Ward direct to the Commission's inquiry.  After a full discussion the branch supported the making of the proposed statement by nine votes to six.  The principal opposition to the making of the statement came from Councillors Wood and Jenkins.

There was then a great deal of activity to prevent the statement being made, including a meeting to see if the branch vote could be overturned or other ways found, including the threat not to renominate me for the May election.  The inquiry was held on October 30 last and I made the statement that Batford should be retained as a unity.

There then occurred a most extraordinary series of events. Councillors Wood and Jenkins wrote resigning from the branch committee and intimated that they would not stand for a Harpenden ward at the next elections.  The branch committee at its next meeting, packed by a posse from St Albans Conservative Association who with the help of the branch president virtually took over the meeting, resolved that if it had known what the implications were at the time, the vote in support of the statement being made would have gone the other way.

On receiving news of this resolution Councillors Wood and Jenkins withdrew their resignations.  In the midst of all this Councillor Dymoke, in solemn terms, reported me to the group for breaking a group rule in not letting him know that I was going to make a statement to the Boundaries Commission.  Considering that he had been informed through another councillor (without my consent) and in fact he had got in touch with me and also he had been present at the meeting where the discussion was on nothing else but my making the statement, he could hardly claim to be uninformed.  Furthermore, it turned out that the rule I had transgressed was one of the group's unwritten rules.

My own instinct during all this was to "cool it."  I had fulfilled my purpose in making representations on behalf of East Ward and thought it best to help the quite unwarranted emotions that had been generated to die down.  However, it was not to be.  When the selection was made for nomination as Conservative candidates for the May district council elections the Harpenden selection committee was briefed to:

1.       Test candidates' loyalty to the Party.

2.       Query candidates support for the group, and

3.       Question candidates whether there was any other candidate whom they had reservations about standing with.

Regarding loyalty, a hard-line attitude was taken and so far as group support was concerned, highly misleading information was supplied to the selection committee about the group's rules so that the committee could not come to a valid conclusion.

Finally with regard to standing with other candidates, I know how I answered (which was that I had no reservations) but it is probable that others stated that they would not stand with me, and so usurped the position of the selection committee by putting themselves in the position of selecting by applying the same kinds of pressures as had been evident on the branch committee.

Thus East Ward views were over-ridden, unlike other parts of the district where the wards made their own selection.

I never imagined in the most jaundiced moment that I would have such a fight for freedom within the Conservative Party.  Apart, however, from the question of freedom of speech the whole saga is a demonstration of one of the major problems of the age - the manipulation of the good-hearted many by the clever few.  I hope this account of it will alert the electorate in general to this danger to democracy.