David Cameron is facing a little local difficulty as the genteel tranquillity of the Cotswold town of Woodstock is riven by bitter political infighting.
So intense is the feud that three of the Oxfordshire town’s 16 councillors have resigned and two of the dissidents have now written to Cameron, their local MP, to complain about the “vicious adversariality” of parish politics.
One of those who has quit as a result of the “toxic” atmosphere is Emma Jay, whose husband Peter used to be Britain’s ambassador to Washington.
In a resignation letter circulated to fellow councillors two weeks ago, she wrote: “It is well known that parish councils tend to be filled with people with not enough else to do, who are rather pleased with the sound of their own voice and sure of the rightness of their point of view.
“Woodstock is no different. But Woodstock is blessed in addition with a few councillors with some more dangerous traits: an extraordinary degree of control-freakery, an enthusiasm for conspiracy theories, caucus meetings and gang voting, and a relish for stirring, rows and schism.
Advertisement
“All the councillors originally joined with all good intentions. Yet somehow, because of the baleful influence of these few councillors, the place is toxic. I cannot bear any more of it. With my blood pressure to consider, I don’t need the grief. I quit.”
Last week Jay declined to name the councillors against whom she had directed her ire while her husband, who remains a serving parish councillor, said diplomatically: “I’m going to be really boring. I don’t want to say anything at all.”
A key source of the local unrest is an argument over why the council agreed to spend up to £1,950 to obtain a wedding licence for a second room in the town hall. It turned out that the mayor’s parlour, where weddings normally take place, was to be unavailable because of the Woodstock literary festival in which the town’s mayor, Jill Dunsmore, is involved.
The ensuing row led to a complaint to the local standards panel, which concluded there was insufficient evidence to justify a full investigation.
However, the simmering feud deepened when the council decided to increase the rent charged to the bowls and tennis club.
Advertisement
In January a local businesswoman, Victoria Edwards, resigned from the council, claiming matters as minor as the installation of a loft ladder for the town hall attic were the subject of interminable squabbling. She is currently discussing possible legal action against one or two councillors.
“Woodstock is like a mad hatter’s tea party. There are lots of cliques and petty vested interests . . . The way I describe it is The Vicar of Dibley with nasty bits thrown in,” she said.
Dunsmore, a Conservative party stalwart and acquaintance of Cameron, said she regretted the resignations of Jay and Edwards but did not wish to comment on the former’s resignation letter.
Of the initial row over the mayor’s parlour licence — which also led to the resignation of councillor Anthony Glees — she said: “The application for the second wedding licence was conducted by an entirely proper process.”
The matter has, however, not ended there. Edwards and Glees have written to Cameron questioning the abolition in the new Localism Act of local standards boards, which regulate the conduct of councillors.
Advertisement
“In a council like Woodstock, where in the past there have been as many vacancies as candidates, it is all too easy for the same group of people to dominate local affairs, in some cases for very many years,” they wrote.
“In our view a lack of transparency can enable groups of councillors not just to avoid the scrutiny of the electorate by seeming to manage affairs far better than they actually do but, as in Woodstock, promote a culture of vicious adversariality which means that younger people, new residents and those reflecting a wider diversity of professional and non-professional backgrounds will not wish to push themselves forward for election.”
In a personal reply, Cameron wrote that standards boards, introduced by Labour following the Nolan report into standards in public life, had failed to enhance the reputation of local politics.
“Labour’s regime did not increase standards in public life, rather it undermined them,” the prime minister wrote. “It fuelled an explosion in malicious and unfounded complaints against councillors — many of them made by fellow councillors.”
His comments have, however, failed to placate those who believe the council to be a terrible advertisement for his “localism” agenda.
Advertisement
“The council is not really fit for purpose. All it is fit for is putting up the Christmas lights,” said Edwards.