The Village of the Year competition is a celebration of English middle-class rural life, a world of civility, kindnesses freely given,  roses around the door and perfectly trimmed privet.  But even this harmless throwback to 1930’s England is not insulated from the winds of the culture wars.

... In 2005 outsiders of a different kind are influencing the decision-making process.

As entry forms drop through letter boxes, parishes around Britain have reacted with anger and indignation after discovering that the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has added its own set of questions.

The gentlefolk who run the parish councils in competiting villages have reacted angily.  “Smacking of political correctness”, and one chairman.  “Agenda-ridden rubbish from the liberal Left in north London,” said another.  “The Government has not the faintest idea how the countryside works,” said Peter Singleton, chairman of Witley parish council in Surrey.  Members of Hambledon parish council in Surrey considered the entry form at its meeting last week and decided not to enter.  Julia Hebden, chairman of Barton Stacey parish council, Hants, observed pithily: “If villagers were to welcome travellers into their community then they would probably not win Village of the Year.”

The competition is sponsored by a fuel company, Calor, with the government department responsible for rural affairs, Defra, strictly a junior partner.  Commercial considerations, therefore, apply.

Horrified by the disdain of a thousand retired colonels Andrew Ford, Calor’s corporate affairs manager, admitted that the question about travellers should not have been included.  Villages would not be marked down if they stated they would not be made welcome.  Indeed, the question could be disregarded altogether.  He said, “We are well aware of the problems some communities face from the unwelcome intrusion of travellers and it was never our intention to alienate villages from taking part.”

Defra, which is offering a prize of £250 to the overall winner, said the question had been a “clerical error”.  Their spokesman said, “We agree that ‘political correctness gone mad’ should have no place in judging the success of a rural community in a competition like this.

So that’s one small victory for the forces of reaction.  It does, though, leave open the question as to where ‘political correctness gone mad’ should have a place.