THE BURDEN OF HEAD OFFICE

THE Party is going through a bad period. Ostensibly, through lack of money, it is deferring tasks and cutting down on propagamda activities that are crying out to be undertaken. There is the new edition of Questions of the Day to be published, other pamphlets have been written; provincial propaganda, the hiring of halls, publicity and election campaigns are all held up, awaiting funds. When somebody asks (as more and more are doing) why one of these activities can't be lannched or expanded, the inevitable answer is. “we can't afford it".

But let's take a look at what we can afford. We are the proud owners of nine rooms at Clapham. The Party, whose only justification for existence is the spreading of socialist propaganda, kids itself that these shackles on its limbs are both necessary and desirable.

Do you remember a circular sent out by the New Premises Fund Organisers just before we bought 52 Clapham High Street? It said: , “ In more suitable rooms, the large amount of work needed to be done in our organization can be done more quickly and more efficiently." And just after we moved in, the Premises Committee joyously wrote (S.S., Nov. 1951), “ In the past, the S.P.G.B. has been handicapped in its organization by unsuitable premises . . . We were fortunate to find more suitable premises . . . The premises,

we believe, will serve a long-felt want as a centre of social life for members and friends." Such was the enthusiasm for No. 52 that not even seven months of living with her could damp the ardour of her supporters, though her extravagant tastes were becoming obvious.

More recently, a writer in Forum (Dec.) thought that " the overwhelming majority of the membership like and want the sort of facilities offered by the present (or similar) premises." Yes, to some it still feels good to be married to old Jezebel; but now the honeymoon period is over, let us make a few comparisons with our irresponsible bachelor days at Rugby Chambers.

Crowning Irony

First, it is said that Party work can now be done more quickly and effieciently. More quickly?—presumably because there is room for more helpers. But there aren't more helpers! The fact is, more members used to crowd into the 1,200 sq. ft. of Rugby Chambers on, a Tuesday than do into the 3,000 sq. ft. of No. 52. More efficiently? Maybe the subcommittees find it easier to work in? On the whole, the reverse is true—and the crowning irony is the Premises Committee's admission that their work was made difficult because some of them live on the other side of London!

Then, Rugby Chambers was "unsuitable". You couldn't hold public meeting there. Nor can you at No. 52—where it's not the landlord

that stops you but the public. But, at least, we acknowledged the fact at Rugby Chambers, and held good indoor meetings at the T.U. Club, Leicester Square. Now what happens in that big room at H.O.? There are the E.C. meetings, a class or two and a forum—hardly ever is the audience bigger than the old E.C. room at Rugby Chambers could have held.

A centre of social life? A.P. summed it up as a club in Clapham. However welcome the socialist cup of tea and game of darts, such considerations should not be ranked as activities of the Party for which premises are required.

There Are Other Premises

The chief defence of No. 52 is that " it was the lesser of two evils". But it can hardly be maintained that there was no other property to be found. If we could buy a place for £4,000 and £10 a week running expenses (yes, that's what it costs) then smaller premises would have cost proportionately less. And, in fact, while No. 52 was being bought, I submited details of seven rooms in good repair at Chalk Farm for £3,000 and about £6 a week —but unfortunately they were sold in the interim.

In the last year or so, more property has come on to the market, and it is cheaper. Though it might be hard to sell No. 52, we could assuredly buy a smaller place that would be perhaps £4 a week cheaper to run. Or it is now quite possible that we could rent some rooms at less than £10 a week, thus freeing our whole purchase price.

What sort of place should we look for? I suggest it should be reasonably central (which Clapham is not); about half the floor space of No. 52, i.e. a bit bigger than Rugby Chambers; and in good repair. The only work for the Party in which a socialist builder or decorator can take a pride is helping to propagate socialist ideas.

As I see it, we need lose none of the facilities at No. 52, except possibly the canteen and the rare full-to-capacity meetings in the hall. True, we should probably be overcrowded on a Tuesday evening. However, we could survive that. And there wouldn't be a spare room for whoever fancies he needs one—but this is a luxury the Party can well do without.

Party Finances

Many members hold the mistaken view that wc can increase Party income by the amount that we increase prices of literature, dues stamps, etc. They fail to see the problem of finance as a whole. Thus the raising of H.O. dues from 2d. to 4d. means on paper increasing receipts from £450to £900 p.a. In fact, however, dues receipts at 2d. have been just over £300—and the Party will be very lucky to get an extra £300. But this will affect donations, so the net gain may be less than £200. It is not that members have a fixed amount to give the Party, but that paying Peter often robs Paul.

To make the S.S. 66.., for example, would increase income only at the cost of losing readers. But a reduction in expenditure has no such drawback. If we save £200 a year on HO, it is a real economy, not a false one. If on the other hand, we close the gap at no 52 by increased dues, it will only be at the expense of other funds.

Only by reducing H.O. expenditure will we gain real benefit from increased dues, some of which can be earmarked for propaganda. Of course, some say we should raise money – by a mortgage or other loan. But this is no solution since there is still the liability to repay. Even a substantial donation would only ease matters temporarily.

Until we can widen the circle of our contributors, we are faced with the necessity of cutting expenditure where it will do least harm to our propaganda. It is not the shabby offices that are a disgrace to the Party, but the shabby propaganda. We must cut our losses at No. 52.

S.R.P.