SPGB Meetings (1946)

Party News the March 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

Watford Wobblers! (1907)

From the May 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The article by Comrade F. Hesley in the last issue is to the point. It serves to emphasise statements we have often made in our local reports as to the condition of inextricable muddle and (to us) transparent make-believe in which our local opponents are floundering.

Such opponents ! List to the initials of some of the organisations in which they are enrolled : S.D.F., I.L.P., F.S., L.R.C., L.C., T. & L.G., S. & L.E.C., L.L., W. & D.P.A., W.H. & H.C.

I fear I have only given a few. But omissions are pardonable. They grow so rapidly. This week’s list will probably be incomplete next week.

They are all engaged in setting the working-class house in order, these opponents. And all of them have different notions of the way to do it. Because all of them have different ideas as to what the disorder is. Therefore it is hardly surprising if the working-class house remains untidy. Is it ?

But all of them have a common epithet for use against us. It is an epithet coined by their leaders to cover their lack of argument. It is their only argument against us. It is—impossiblist!

When we say, “dear friends, you are on the wrong track,” they say—impossiblists ! When we offer to prove they are making a confusion and calling it an order, they reply—impossiblists ! When we urge them to consider a more excellent way they cry out upon us—impossiblists !

It is the common tie that binds them together. Yet they are not grateful to us for providing them with it. Quite the contrary. I suppose they feel that it isn’t a very strong argument after all.

Hesley has reported the muddle at Hyndman’s meeting. He has indicated the confusion into which a simple question can throw them. This doesn’t surprise me. I know ’em. I’m only surprised that they didn’t call him “impossiblist.” Perhaps they were so confused that they couldn't even think of that.

Let me augment Hesley’s article by a further instance. This time it will be a case indicative of our opponents’ high standard of veracity. Or perhaps it is only a low standard of memory. The reader can judge.

Writing in the Watford Critic for April, G.T.H.K. refers to the results of the recent Urban District Council Elections thus : “Remember this is the first occasion of a Socialist candidature for the Urban District Council in either of these wards. Both Mr. Drew and Mr. Judge in the King’s Ward . . . ran as plain Labour candidates last year without mention of Socialism.”

Notice that “is.” The italics belong to G.T.H.K. He is quite certain about it. This is the first time.

And observe the Misters. They make assurance doubly sure. They were not Socialist candidates. Therefore they are not Comrades Drew and Judge. Only Misters. Surely this is the first time.

Let us see. And remember that, the Watford Critic is the local organ of the S.D.F.

This is from the Critic for March, 1906: “King’s Ward will be contested in the interests of Labour by two of its finest exponents. . . . They are consciously working hard and continuously in the sacred name of a down-trodden humanity. In this they have a fixed purpose and will be no trimmers.”

On this I will ask two questions. Can any but Socialists be among the finest exponents of the interests of Labour ? Can any but Socialists work hard for down-trodden humanity without, consciously or unconsciously, trimming? I pause for G.T.H.K’s reply.

The Critic again. April, 1906: Drew and Judge “are avowed Socialists and members of a militant Socialist organisation—the I.L.P.”

Now G.T.H.K. Is that true? If so, this is not the first occasion of a “Socialist” candidature. If not, where were you last year to allow the statement to pass unrepudiated ?

Shall I tell you where you were ? You were organising the election work of Drew and Judge. You, a member of the S.D.F. then, as now ! And you were introducing your comrades Drew and Judge at a public meeting as two able exponents of Socialism whom you were very happy to support !

Now, what’s your game? Yes ! yes ! I know I’m an “impossiblist,” but what’s your game ? Is it that you want to obscure the fact that as compared with last year’s results your party’s candidates were this year snowed under ? Or what ?

Is your point that although Judge and Drew were Socialists they did not run as such ? If so you stand confessed as the champion of fraudulent candidatures. And if your present view is that such candidatures are wrong and harmful, why are you associated with an organisation that is to-day working with the parties responsible for such candidatures ?

I pause for some more replies. When I get them I shall have a little more to say. If I don’t get them I may still have a little more to say. And I think G.T.H.K. will be interested in that little more.

Anyhow, this is the local position. It is synchronised in the case cited. A condition of mess, muddle, and make-believe. Of paltering piffle and prevarication. Of contortion and confusion confounded.

And when we say this sort of thing is stupid and stultifying we are “impossiblists.” When we say that in a multitude of organisations there is no virtue, we are “impossiblists.” When we say the truth must be spoken and not burked or blinked, we are “impossiblists.” When we say that Socialism is the only remedy for working-class ills, that to advocate less at any time is futile and disappointing and dangerous, we are “impossiblists.”

Well! well! we are the “impossiblists.” The S.D.F., I.L.P., F.S., etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum are the “possiblists.” So must it be. But I should like to hear G.T.H.K’s explanations, I’m sure they would be helpful.

B.R.

Apostles of Confusion. (1907)

From the April 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The last strains of the “Marseillaise” (it’s all right, Mr. Editor, this is not a tale of the French Revolution)—the last strains of the “Marseillaise” were being sung when two comrades of the Watford Branch and myself entered Clarendon Hall, Watford, on the evening of Friday, February 22nd. We found an audience of about 300 assembled to hear addresses by Hyndman and Gribble (of Northampton) on Social-Democracy. The meeting was being held under the auspices of the Watford S.D.F., I.L.P., Trades Council, and Labour Church.

To make speeches that would suit such a mixture of psuedo-Socialists, “Labour” men .and reformers as were here gathered together would tax the capabilities of the best S.D.F. speaker, and that is saying much. Anyway, Hyndman and Gribble tried, and whether they succeeded in tickling the ears of their audience or not, they certainly never gave a clear exposition of Socialist principles. At least, that was our opinion, but then perhaps we are “too scientific.” As we took our seats, the chairman, Mr. Gorle, who proclaimed himself the only working-class representative on the local bodies, was reading apologies for non-attendance from Lord Hyde and other class-conscious individuals.

The chairman then made a short speech intimating that an S.D.F. candidate would be run for the County Council. Gribble was called upon and proceeded to speak on “Social-Democracy and the Present Political Situation.” After a few preliminary remarks (including the usual compliments to Hyndman) he assured us “that it was never more necessary than it was to-day for Socialists to work along the straight path,” a remark that called forth loud “hear, hears ” from the S.P.G.B. men.

He then traced the evolution of the Socialist movement in England. He stated how the S.D.F. had fought alone for many years; told us how the I.L.P. came into existence as an independent political party only, but gradually evolved until it differed but slightly in its principles from the S.D.F. He told us of the desire for fusion that grew up in the two parties, of the vote taken and carried by a large majority, but did not tell us why the leaders refused to carry out the mandate of the members.

Briefly scanning the events that led to the formation of the L.R.C., he tried to make clear the S.D.F. position in regard to that, body. He said “it was a policy of friendly criticism and advice.” We (the S.P.G.B.) know where that policy has led.

He then told us how disappointed he was at the past year’s work of the Labour Party, and proceeded to criticise its members. He dwelt with bitterness upon those “Socialists” who opposed the adoption of a Socialist programme. The speaker complained of the way the decisions of the Labour Conference had been set aside by the Executive body, and of the way in which, after Quelch and others had by superhuman efforts managed to make the trades unionists swallow an “Universal Suffrage” resolution, the Labour members had disregarded that vote, and had allowed individual members a free hand to support or oppose any measure they liked during the coming session.

“They,” he said, “think that they alone are the Labour Party, and that the thousands behind them in the country are a mere nothing,” and he grew sarcastic about Shackleton’s withdrawal of the Old Age Pension amendment upon Mr. Asquith pointing out that it was a censure upon the Government. Then finishing up with the statement that the workers should put their trust in Socialists and disregard everything except the establishment of a Socialist Republic, Gribble sat down.

All this was very interesting. It might have been news to the audience, but it was merely what we had predicted come to pass.

Is Gribble’s feeling toward the Labour Party the feeling of the S.D.F.? Did his remarks please or offend the members of the local branch ?

As regards the S.D.F. as a body, we know that they occasionally utter a few criticisms of the Labour Party but all the time are supporting it. As regards the local branch, it is their duty either to repudiate Gribble or to repudiate and oppose the local Trades Council, I.L.P., and Labour Church.

But we know they will not do either. They will play the old game of being “all things to all men,” and nothing of any real value to the working-class movement.

The chairman then introduced the principal speaker of the evening, Mr. H. M. Hyndman, who started his speech by saying, as he usually does, that he never worked but lived upon those who did. We had heard this before, but the audience had not, and cheered in the usual way. It always fetches ’em.

The speaker then went on to show the desirability of certain reforms, dealing at length with the question of Free Maintenance. “After years of agitation,” he said, “we have at last got in the thin end of the wedge.” Afterwards in answer to a question, he admitted that this much desired reform would only produce better wage-slaves for the capitalist. He enlarged upon the benefit of Better Housing and Old Age Pensions. In stating that the opposition to Socialism arose largely from ignorance, he said that he had sufficient faith in humanity to believe that, did but the governing classes only know what benefits would accrue from Socialism, notwithstanding their desire to dominate others, they would join the Socialist movement !

And so his speech proceeded, “boxing the compass” politically, industrially and ethically, hinting vaguely at revolution, dealing in detail with useless reforms, but never giving his audience any real insight into scientific Socialism.

After the collection, questions were called for. Comrade Wilkins asked the speaker how he reconciled his statement that the capitalist class would welcome Socialism when they saw what benefits would come, with his supposed belief in the Class Struggle and the Materialist Conception of History as expounded by Karl Marx.

Mr. Hyndman answered that no reconciling of statements was needed, that although he believed in the Class Struggle, he believed that when the capitalists recognised the advantages of Socialism they would welcome it. Yet previously in his speech he had quoted Marx in agreement with his contention that, however much peaceful revolutions are expected, history always proves the expectations false ; that force is the deciding factor.

We sent up two other questions. One: was he in favour of economic organisation of the workers on a class basis, and if so could the present trade unions be altered to such ? To this he replied that the outlook in the trade unions from a Socialist standpoint was hopeful, and seeing that many of their officials were S.D.F. men the future should see a more Socialist position taken up. The other question was: The Watford S.D.F. claimed to be revolutionary Socialists : if they believed what Gribble said to be true, would not the proper attitude to be taken up towards the Labour Party, both locally and nationally, be one of hostility ?

But he would not have it. He could see the red light. “He wanted no rift within the lute” in Watford. So he said it was not his business. He left it to the local branch. He had never been a “Labour” man.

Of course it was not his business. Had he supported Gribble against the “Labour” crowd what a position the comrades would be in with an election coming on ! It would not have paid. “We are willing,” he said, “to work with those who go a little way with us and thus try and bring them in touch with Socialism.” And this is what Hyndman has spent twenty-five years of his life for.

. . . . . . . . . . .

Afterwards, when I had bidden my friends “good-night,” and braced myself for my four-mile walk home along the moonlit country lanes, the pity of it all came to me.

With machinery and industrial organisation rendering larger masses of men superfluous; with the intensity of production lowering man’s vitality; with the position of the workers becoming more precarious and the struggle for existence becoming keener ; with all the degeneration, poverty and hunger, with all the horror—there is no other word—of capitalism, yet they have no other message for the workers than this.

For two whole hours, having before them three or four hundred men, probably open to receive the truth, they had told them half truths that are worse than lies. Men who, properly guided, might have become members of a sound Socialist party, were deliberately led into the disappointing wilderness of reform.

What can one think of it?

Does Hyndman know the futility of these reforms he advocates ? Does he know he is misguiding the workers ? Has he not learnt the lesson that years of struggling for these things with no avail should have taught ? Can he not see that even if they were of any use the very best way to get them would be by the revolutionary method ? Does he not perceive that by side-tracking the working-class movement in this way he is delaying the day of the wage-slaves’ emancipation ?

If he does not see, then he is a blind leader of the blind, and should not be listened to. If he does see, then he is wilfully misdirecting the precious energy of the workers and should be exposed. Whichever way it is, we of the S.P.G.B. know our duty and are prepared to do it. We may be dogmatic—so is Science. We may deal with persons sometimes : but the act of any man that rivets the chains tighter upon the limbs of the workers is too tragic in its consequences to be lightly passed over. We may be small in numbers, yet we know that our efforts are exposing the misleaders of the working class and are teaching those principles that will help to bring about the abolition of capitalism in the quickest and surest way.

F. Hesley

Blogger's Note:

The Watford Branch member of the SPGB mentioned in the report of the meeting, Tom Wilkins, was the last living founder member of the SPGB when he died in 1970 at the age of 89. As his linked obituary states he was better known as 'Tom King', adopting the pseudonym during the First World War.

There is no record of a F. Hesley in the early SPGB records, so it was possibly a pen-name.

SPGB Meetings (1948)

Party News from the April 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

SPGB Meetings (1954)

Party News from the October 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

Classic Reprint: At the conscientious objectors tribunal (1964)

A Classic Reprint from the August 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Devine Comedy of the Watford Tribunal

Dramatis Personae

Lord Clarendon – Chairman.

Mister Hudson – Clerk to the Council.

Mister Longley – Draper.

Mister Clarke – House Builder.

Mister Solomon – Photographer.

Mister Gorle – Solicitor, Conscriptionist, Labour Leader and acquainted with the King of the Belgians.

Crowd of N.C.F Men, Comrades, Constables and attendants.

————–

The Bushey and Watford comrades did in the month of March appear before the local Tribunal with the now familiar result.

The chairman was the Lord and the Military Representative, symbolically enough, was on the left hand of the Lord. A Draper sat next to a House Builder and a Solicitor next to a Professional Photographer.

To the right of the Lord’s chosen people were portraits of two old-time councillors done by a Bushey painter, who, when he has no commissions from local legislators, will condescend to paint angels for church windows. These pictures were as interesting to artists as pathology is to humanitarians. No cantankerous sentiment could be detected on their placid faces, for when the local man took up his brushes there was no European War and all the Conscientious Objectors had been robbed of their telescopes and books and burned and decapitated many centuries ago.

But I must not digress now for I am come to the point when the Lord spoke. I had arrogantly suggested on my appeal paper that what was valuable and precious in Art and Science and Literature had emanated from intellectual research; and that militarism either supported or created all those things hostile to a free and secure existence. Before I came to these chosen of the Masters I had suggested that intellectual progress and military pursuits are antagonistic. Then when the Lord asked me if I was a Quaker I saw that my policy and sentiments still remained misunderstood, so I rose to explain that I had accepted the communistic principles of Karl Marx, and consequently believed that the world could not progress towards a beautiful ideal of society or a scientific one until the nations federated on an amiable basis. But while these words were yet unspoken the Solicitor, with prophetic acumen and godly insight, denounced them as “Propaganda”, while the Chairman said he was there to “elicit facts and not listen to speeches”.

This last indiscreet sentence must now pass as ignorance. This is the more lamentable as had it read, “elicit facts and not listen to the evidence” it would have passed with the public, not as bias and illiteracy, but as a decisive, rich, and becoming paradox. I had further evidence to show that the literature of Greece had done more for humanity than the wars of Greece; that Van Tromp, with all his magnificence did not do so much for Holland as Rembrandt and Discartis; that the Spaniards’ best day was not when the Armada was loosened but when Valasquez took up his palette. The Lord waved me down. How could I rise from my insignificance? I only had on my side the lessons of ancient decapitated scientists and charcoal heretics while the Tribunal were greatly inspired and strengthened by the methods of Torquemada. Their actions taught me that the man with estates was in the place of Democracy; the Camera Man in the place of the Artist; the Attorney in the place of the Economist, and the Draper of Bodies in the place of the Humanitarians. Before the Tribunals the appellant with artistic ideas is dismissed, the man with rheumatism postponed, and the wine merchant exempt from military service. Then after having stopped me speaking in my own defence one had the temerity to ask if I objected to bloodshed.

Our comrade Russ sat next before the Tribunal and his case was dealt with in the same clean and aristocratic spirit. They “elicited” genealogical facts about his grandmother and partly forgotten brothers; details which are most valuable to any analysis of scientific ideals or the individual conscience. But while on the side of lineage the examination was most wise and thorough, there are three small points to which the Tribunal was inexcusably indifferent. I admit that a consideration of the forgotten details would in no way have altered the result of the trail, for in all cases the conduct of the Tribunal showed great forethought and preparation. In no instance can I remember a hasty and spontaneous injustice being done to the appellant, for the Socialists were only dismissed after careful consultation with the versatile Labour Leader, while the Religionists were dismissed only after the Chairman’s chat with the Christian member. The first of these three unconsidered trifles in Russ’s case was that he wore a black scarf of crepe-de-chine, which should have been noted by at least one member of the Tribunal for its photographic possibilities; the second, that sometimes in the summer he slept in the open at night, which should have been elicited and condemned by the Builder; the third, that as a Socialist he would not fight in a capitalist war, which should have been considered by all, as in this assertion, all were alike equally implicated and condemned. But if we review the matter with a milder and less intolerant mind we will understand that if Russ did not know what parts of his Marxian economics were a heritage from his grandmother, his own statement of International Faith is, in the ten or twelve eyes of the Tribunal, robbed of half its value. But the trial ended well, for, as he declared he would not do medical work and assist the wounded, the Tribunal considerately gave him non-combatant duties in which he will only have to help the injured.

When our comrade Hudson sat next in the chair the modern God filled his pipe and the Clerk read the appeal. It was a reiteration of the communists’ ideal of Wealth Production. The Lord asked what denomination he belonged to. Now with myself, as I have a pale face, there was some pertinence in the Quaker question, but with Hudson it is different. He is not sickly or peevish; there is not a trace of suffering on his face. It would have been more relevant to have asked the noble Lord if he was the only support his wife had or ask a poet if he sold matches. Our comrade replied that he was an atheist. The Christian Draper sniffed. A man here who would not submit to Kitchener and denied the authority. “You are one of them who resent all kind of control then, eh?” he said. “Not all control”, our comrade replied, “only such as you have.” The Chairman was indignant to hear a youthful idealist give such a retort to a shopkeeper who has sold the best linen within a farthing of a shilling in the town; to a man who has distributed more bibles and advertisements and subscribed to more church organs in a year than the applicant would do in fifty years. In these days of heresy and commerce one can forgive a taunt to God, pass over a slight to Kitchener, but what Chairman of what Tribunal can pass over an Internationalist’s insult to a homely employer. He cautioned our comrade and later dismissed the case.

The next judgement was to be upon our comrade Wilkins. He too was an Internationalist. Had the first been the only one of the day the idea could have been discredited and regarded as isolated Quixotism and futile faith. The poor, bewildered master of the show moreover learned that this Socialist was a Monist. “What is a Monist?” Alas! My Lord, you have given Oxford over to ignominy; the hallowed pile is desecrated. In the past, we were told, much damage and havoc was done with the jaw-bone of an ass, but it was infinitesimal compared with that done to the gray and hoary university with the jaw-bone of our Tribunal Lord. Alas! Poor Chairman, you came, you told me, to “elicit facts” but you remain to complete your education. Although comrade Wilkins explained on his appeal paper that he could more effectively assassinate Rothschild with a new ideal or a new economic law than with an old hatchet—although unlike an Indian God he did not wear a necklace of human bones or a girdle of human skulls, they still enquired whether he was prepared to take life. He replied that he did not believe in the sacredness of the individual existence, only in the sacredness of humanity, and would therefore help to establish Socialism by the ballot if possible but by force if force was essential. “We dismiss your case, Mister Wilkins.” As the lordly judge spoke his loyal mouth pennies to the Escutcheon. “You may appeal to the County Tribunal”, he said. “To the County Press Gang”, our comrade retorted with such truth and emphasis that it became quite inaudible to the Newspaper Correspondent.

There was a long hush. The last of the pearls had been cast before the Tribunal.

The Draper demanded that the room should be cleared of the public. This was assented to by the Labour Leader, and endorsed by the Lord.

No one moved.

Then in this Earthly Paradise the Provincial God’s still, small voice with a slight Oxford accent, said “Let there be police”, and there were police. But this latter day Lord’s behests are not so instantaneously obeyed as formerly, for his wand is only a telephone and his angels wear thick-soled boots.

So there was still time left for further heresy and the “Red Flag” was sung, and just as it ended the Constables entered the room and faced the perplexed Tribunal and those pigment Councillors on the walls, whose pensive eyes are fixed on the distant utopian Watford when each of the ten thousand inhabitants was docile and diligent and none had dreamed of Marxian Economics.

H. M. M.

(Reprinted from the Socialist Standard, May, 1916)

Watford Branch Report. Labour Misleaders and the Local Elections. (1905)

Party News from the April 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since our last report two or three more labour organisations have been born, while some of the old ones have died or lapsed into moribundity. At any rate we never hear of them. Altogether we have now not more than a dozen bodies (mainly composed of very much the same people) all convinced that something really ought to be done for the working man but none very clear as to what should be done. Thus we had the organ of one body crying out upon the local Council that could not find anything better than a few hours in the gravel pits for the unemployed, and gravely suggesting that the Council ought to set them to work putting sand on frosty roads! (It is only fair to add that we have had at least 3 days upon which the roads were in a bad condition through frost).

Thus again the I.L.P. after threatening public meetings which are never held takes its courage in both hands and suddenly rushes into public life with a revolutionary proposal to obliterate the betting news in the public reading room. After which, flushed with the success of their maiden effort, they hold a public meeting upon the unemployed problem—this being the thing at the moment—and secure the services of an estimable and reverend lecturer, who admitted that he did not know much about the unemployed, or that he was expected to speak upon the unemployed, and who confined himself to relating his experiences among the poor dear fellows in the Belgium Labour Colonies or Penitentiaries—who have such a splendid time of it (according to the reverend gentleman) with their reading-rooms, smoking rooms, and other luxurious conveniences that the authorities have to dig a deep and wide trench all round the colony to prevent them running away !

And now the Trades Council are contesting the Urban Council elections and working-class support is asked for because the other candidates have no programmes worth talking about. A few short months since the Trades Council were running their candidates with no programme at all, and only adopted the present attenuated apology for a programme because their hands were forced by those who now form the Watford Branch of The Socialist Party of Great Britain. And these are the good and earnest but ill-informed and misguided folk who believe that they are remedying the evils under which the workers suffer ! And they seem to think that in a multiplication of societies is much wisdom. Instead of which of course it is a potent cause of working-class confusion.

How can the workers understand unless the issues are kept clear ? And how can the issues be kept clear when half a score of organisations persist in poking their petty programmes between the eyes of the workers and the real cause of the workers’ condition. What the workers of this town want in common with the workers of every other town, is a plain statement of the position as it affects them and clear reasons why nothing but Socialism will suffice. And there is no organisation in this district other than the Watford Branch of The Socialist Party of Great Britain presenting this plain statement and these clear reasons. All the others are engaged in deluding the workers into the belief that something less than Socialism will avail.

And so we ask that those whom this paper reaches in Watford before the elections take place shall refuse support not only to the capitalist candidates of the Tradesmens’ Association, but also to the Labour candidates of the Trades Council. The former cannot help the workers and don’t propose to. The latter, with their programme (!), are equally impotent. There is nothing for the workers of Watford to do in this or any other election other than to organise their forces for the capture of the Urban Council and all other political machinery, not with the object of securing a few absolutely inadequate and entirely useless reforms, but with the object or using their power to the best advantage by concentrating directly upon the only change that will affect them, viz., the transfer of the means of life from out the hands of those who at present control them (the capitalist class) into the hands and the control of the whole people. Join the Watford Branch !

Worker's Prosperity in 1961 (1961)

Watford, High Street 1961 (Photo credit, Francis Frith)

From the June 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The town of Watford, in Hertfordshire, is claimed by its Press to be one of the most prosperous in post-war Britain. One local weekly claims for it the distinction of being the second most prosperous town in this country—second after Coventry, in fact. Whether this held good after the motor car recession is not clear.

The sort of criteria applied are the number of vacancies at the local Labour Exchange, wage rates offered, enquiries for juveniles leaving schools. Income Tax returns, rents of shops, increase of population and, logically enough, price of house room either in rent or mortgage repayments. Unfortunately, this “prosperity” brings many unpleasant and disagreeable results.

In some ways, it is a miniature of what is happening on a national scale in Great Britain these days. A demand for labour raises its price. Higher wages bring workers from lower priced areas. And so Watford market resounds on Saturdays to the lilting song of the Celt, the guttural voices of the Clyde, the broad accents of the East Coast, and, to be sure, Mick and Pat, who never had it so good in “Ould Oireland.”. By the same token, a further 50,000 West Indians are coming to Britain this year, not as tourists looking at ruins,. but workers seeking jobs.

The employers, through their Government, can easily control this foreign emigration—turning it on, or off, as required, like a tap. They have always done so, as when Campbell Bannerman’s Liberal Government in 1906 boasted that any Jew landing at London docks with £15 in his possession might remain here, or when the successive American Governments at the turn of the century admitted emigrants by the million.

It is not quite so easy to keep them all at work once admitted, as all the historical cases show. The result of this in Watford is that Boom Town No. 2 is bursting at the seams. Although some employers, in their extremity, are making special provision for housing their workers, the unskilled (and paradoxically enough, even skilled building workers) are finding accommodation hard to get.

All this has prompted a local scribe to gently but firmly disillusion the large number of Easter Brides (and Grooms) about their chances of a roof in “prosperous” Watford. The local newshawk has taken the trouble to collect the facts.

So you want to rent a house? he says. Forget it!

“Mum and Dad never had the problem young couples in Watford today have to face. Before the war, there were houses galore for renting.” I haven’t let a house in years,” one agent told me. Even if one did come on to the market the rent would be at least £5 a week.”

So that’s out. There are a few houses—but they are all for sale only. Advances on mortgages are granted only to applicants in permanent and secure employment. ‘‘Watford’s terraced properties have priced themselves out of all proportion to their actual values. Houses built for £800 at the turn of the century are now offered for anything between £1,900 and £2,900, and they sell ” (Watford and West Herts' Post.)

The local writer goes on to say:

  To get the house, Bob [our hypothetical homebuilder] would have to afford weekly repayments of almost £5 a week, and sign a cheque for almost £400 to cover deposit and legal fees. . . .
  Another house advertised this week is a good semi-detached home in North Watford with garage space. The price: £3,750. . . . A £400 deposit would mean a loan of £3,350. . . . Repayments on this loan would work out at about £24 15s. a month. And how much would the legal and building society men want from you in fees ? Just under £100.
  What about interest on loans? That is the crippling thing these days. So many young Watford couples fail to realise just how much they will eventually pay for the house of their dreams. Borrowing only £2,500 on that terraced house Bob and Sylvia would, during those 20 years, repay the staggering total of £4,560. Almost double what they originally borrowed.
  With a loan of £3.500 and repayments of £24 a month, the couple, with this ball and chain firmly shackled to them, would pay back to the Building Society in 25 years the perspiring, hair-raising sum of £7.200. So do not think the Building Society is doing you a favour in lending you the money. They get it back with gold-plated interest.

What has our kindly press adviser to suggest? “If you are determined to live in this price-inflated piece of the country, then my advice to you is to live with Mum, live in two rooms, anywhere you can call home and save “ like blazes.”

But what are the harsh facts? Just as sellers seek the highest price—buyers chase the lowest, and there may be those who hope that new towns and estates will supply their need. Unfortunately for them the facts are these. At least 4,000,000 dwellings in this country today are over 75 years old. At least 10 million dwellings will be due for replacement in the next 25 years, to keep up with depreciation. That would require 400,000 houses a year. The Government post-war target was 300,000 a year. This has been dropped, and is not reaching anything like that figure today.

The present position is that slums are growing faster than rebuilding is taking place. Not only does this apply to slum dwellings, but to slum offices and slum industries as well . . . “At the present rate of building the indications are that the total of inadequately housed people will substantially increase over the next 25 years.” [Franklin Medhurst. Town and Country Planning Dept., Manchester University. Guardian. March 24th, 1961.]

The choice before the married worker is a very limited one. He can either pay up to £6 a week repayments, which includes £3 a week interest—or move further afield where rent and mortgages are lower. Then, if he wants the higher wages, he must pay fares, or run a car and spend time in monotonous travelling. Alternatively, he can live with Mum.

Horatio

Watford Branch Report. (1909)

Party News from the September 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since last there appeared a report from Watford the various reform parties here have been improving their game of political gymnastics, adding much to the confusion of the working class. A brief report of their doings will be strictly in order at the present juncture.

About six months ago a change took place: a small section of the S.D.P. who had got tired of the juggling their organisation indulged in, left, and joined the Socialist movement, namely, the S.P.G.B. Others who had got tired in then- fight for reforms have retired from the political arena fed up—an end the reformers generally come to. A third section, the professional jugglers, now wondered what they were to do to be saved. Well, they decided to let the S.D.P. die and have a queer burial, and it was so. Now for inspiration to bring about an external change. Ah! they said, we’ve got it. Socialist unity is what is wanted; let us form a Socialist society that will organise the Socialists of Watford under one banner. They called a conference of the various organisations in the town, including the S.P.G.B.

Needless to say, we replied pointing out the absurdity of calling a conference together to form an organisation to unite the Socialists of Watford when they were already united in the Watford Branch of the S.P.G.B.

Nevertheless, either with good or bad intentions (and it matters not which to us), a Watford Socialist (sic) Society was formed with about twenty members. Its business, the secretary stated, was to preach Socialism and nothing but Socialism. Have they done so?

The first active part they took in the political field was to support candidates at a local election who ran on the ordinary reform program— fair wages, right to work, municipal houses, etc., definitely stating that their interests were not party interests, thereby ignoring the class struggle. Well, they got defeated; and the secretary of the society, asked what he thought of the result, said, “All I have to say is that it shows the futility of running a Liberal as a Socialist.” Thus was it confessed that the first political fight they took part in was in support of a Liberal.

Next they decided to run open-air meetings and this is where the unity comes in. Their first speaker was Mr. Wilson Temple, of the Wimbledon Socialist Society (birds of a feather), who was speaking for an hour or more on the futility of advocating reforms and the necessity of preaching Socialism. When he had finished his address one of our comrades asked him, if his position in regard to reforms was as he stated, why was he speaking for and assisting an organisation whose members believed in and preached reform. He replied by saying that “The Watford Socialist Society do not advocate reforms,” whereupon our comrade told him that he was afraid he did not know much about the organisation he was speaking for. This state was fully borne out by the chairman of Mr. Temple’s meeting, who said “I must say, friends, that I am not in agreement with the speaker’s attitude with regard to reforms.” Oh! WHAT UNITY!

Since the meeting referred to was held they have had other speakers, chiefly S.D.P. members, three of whom have spent the whole of their addresses in advocating reforms such as Adult Suffrage, Right to Work, and all the other nostrums. Thus do they prove that it is only an external change that has taken place; a change in name only. It is the old stuff under a new name. We have never been deluded on this matter. We know that the preaching of Socialism and Socialism only is left to the S.P.G.B., for it is not reasonable to expect figs to grow on thistles. Therefore the comrades of the Watford Branch are keeping the principles of Socialism to the front here, preaching from the basis of the class struggle, the overthrow of Capitalism and the establishment of the Socialist Republic. Leaving the palliation of Capitalism to the W.S.S’s., the Liberal Party, the I.L.P., the Tories, the S.D.P., and all other supporters of the capitalist class. For as Mr. A. J.Balfour said, “ the best antidote to Socialism is social reform.

Watford Branch

A Thousand Years Hence. (1922)

From the December 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Your party will be all right about a thousand years hence. What the people want is something now, something practical." Thus was I advised by a Labour friend of mine, when discussing the Watford Municipal Election. So that I felt the very least I could do was to suspend my thousand year effort for an evening and go and listen to the people who were “going the same road as myself, but doing something practical on the way." I am glad I went. I will tell you, as nearly as I can recollect, what they said.

The first speaker informed us he was not much good at the “speechifying business," but he hoped to improve in time. We could see by referring to their Election Address that Labour stood for more houses. The housing shortage was a scandal as well as a disgrace. And they wanted lower rents, too. Also more open spaces for the children to play in. And many other things. But above all they wanted everyone’s vote next Wednesday. (Applause.) The next practical man hesitatingly informed us that, like the previous speaker, he had not the gift of the gab. He briefly and haltingly read the items in the Address that he and Labour stood for, and assured us before abruptly sitting down, that although (like the previous speaker) he was not much good at the speechifying, he was much better at debate. The third practical man suffered, it seemed (like the previous two speakers), from the defect that he was no good at the oratorical business. But he knew what was wanted. What the town was crying out for was more houses, lower rents and more allotments. He and his wife found that if the end of the week found two shillings in their joint possession, they counted themselves amongst the fortunate. Therefore an allotment was a necessity. It enabled them to live on his meagre earnings. True it took all his spare time, and meant much hard work, but he was prepared to give that. Liked it, in fact. Another thing we wanted was a Municipal Market. The building of this would relieve the unemployed problem. It would also give the small trader a better chance. It would reduce the cost of living, by making competition keener, a thing that was good for everybody. And so on. Anyhow, don’t forget to give us your vote next Wednesday. The next speaker made no apologies. He had the gift of the gab—and very little else. A well-groomed appearance and a hatred of the S.P.G.B. are comprised in the latter. In three sentences he was purple-necked. Someone (“Why doesn’t he come and say it to my face?") had described him as a Bolshevik and a disrupter of the British Empire. "If that is repeated in your hearing, gentlemen, tell them that when the call came in 1914, to rally in defence of our rights and liberties, I just took out the old khaki (it had been there twenty-three years, gentlemen) and joined my old unit, and travelled many thousands miles to fight for King and Country.” (Loud applause.)

He eventually left this subject and turned to the Housing Question. We were thrilled to learn first, that he also had an allotment, situated in the Public Park. What had this to do with the Housing Problem? Listen. He had been horrified and disgusted, and also ashamed to take his daughter through the park on a Sunday evening, when the grass was dotted in all directions with couples engaged in courtship. The provision of ample housing accommodation would enable these young couples to either get married, or do their courtship in the privacy of their parents’ houses. (Loud applause.) After an engaging solo upon the trumpet, entitled “What I have done for you,” this fiery revolutionary sat down. The next speaker shared the prevailing epidemic, and was bereft of the gift of the gab. He was, however, in favour of a wider High street. Visions of distracted women with prams, doing their shopping in a High street filled with homicidal motor ’buses, were held up as good and sufficient justification for giving him our votes next Wednesday. We turned from this harrowing picture to listen to his successor, who regaled us with a list of the Trade Unions, Federations, Councils and Societies, of which he was a member. He particularly stressed the fact that he had been a member of the Hearts of Oak for twenty-three years, so that he was eminently the person to look after the interests of friendly society members. Eight women had signed his nomination paper. Who could doubt after that, that here was the man Watford was crying out for. Therefore next Wednesday, etc., etc,!

The last speaker, a thirty years' member of the Ancient Order of Foresters, an old Trade Unionist and a keen Co-operator, told us that the recent incorporation of Watford as a borough was as much the reward of Labour efforts as anyone’s. We were told that the immediate results were practically nil, but it was a necessary step towards becoming a County Borough. Arrived at this last dizzy eminence, we were assured that we should be able to have our own policemen and other advantages. The poor old Housing Question was again soundly thrashed, although his plea for more and still more houses seemed rather discounted by the tales he told us of numbers of families being ejected from existing houses because they could not pay the rent.

Yes! I am glad I went. I know what to tell my Labour friend when next we meet. I shall tell him that should ever a doubt arise in my mind of the correctness and stability of the S.P.G.B., one visit to their meeting would restore my faith. If these are the men who are going our way, they have a long way to go to catch up. Most of them have turned into taverns along the wayside, and whilst partaking of very small noggins of  "something now,” have given up the prospect of attaining something worth having. After listening to an evening of problems and policies and programmes, and after ruminating over previous programmes years and years ago, it is good to sit down and reflect on the crystal clear position of the Socialist Party.

The only thing wrong with the poor is their poverty. They are poor because they are robbed. They are robbed because the rich own the earth and the fulness thereof. The poor have to hire themselves to those who own the means of living. The price of their hiring is called a wage, and is based upon the cost of keeping dusty death at bay. This is their sole share of the wealth they produce. They can alter this state of things whenever they like by taking possession of their means of livelihood. The armed forces would, if possible, prevent them. The armed forces, however, are established, maintained and controlled through Parliament. The workers elect the Parliament. Therefore, to control the armed forces and to alter the basis of society; to become masters of their means of living, the workers must capture the political machine. If they widen all their High Streets, cover Great Britain from shore to shore with alternating patches of allotments and houses, turn all their towns into boroughs, abolish rates altogether, and achieve all the splintery planks in their Labour programme, they will have “got something now,” but they will not achieve Socialism. And until Socialism is attained, the workers will remain poor; poor because they are robbed. Capitalism is based upon the robbery of labour. “Labour” believes in its palliation; Socialism in its abolition. That’s all.

Peter Quince.