National Conference of the Labour Party Young Socialists reflected both the malaise of the party from the actions of the Wilson Government and the search for alternatives which the actions of [illegible] have produced. Numerically, the conference was the smallest ever: 150 delegates approximately. This represented under [illegible]% of the 538 branches the National Committee claimed in its annual report. [illegible] the size of the conference adequately reflected the low level of Young Socialist activity [illegible] areas. Notwithstanding this, the level of the speakers was high. The resolutions passed at conference could provide a firm basis for discussion within the Labour movement of an alternative programme to the Government.
Major motions were passed on the economy. Conference expressed its opposition to the solution of the economic crisis of capitalism through anti-working class measures. It noted in particular the rise in prices, increased rents and rates, cuts in social services and the effects of the 'squeeze' on wages, mortgages, etc. The National Committee was instructed to initiate a campaign for the nationalisation, under workers' control, of the big monopolies controlling the economy. The second motion, after analysing the Government's "retreat from the most minimal reformist programme", called for support for workers struggling "against restraint, higher rents and for an improvement in living standards and social services." A call was also made for a campaign against unemployment.
The debate on the N.E.C. discussion document on the social services centred around the large amount of evidence which has accumulated about the extent of poverty in Britain and the adequacy of the Government's response to this. The outcome was a composite motion calling for a social service programme based upon a massive increase in benefits with a minimum based on the cost of living, an end to the wage stop, a £15 minimum wage, work or full maintenance, a free health service, nationalised building programme and workers' and pupil's control of education.
In the debate on education the main controversy arose over the phrase in the main composite motion which called for the "introduction of democratically elected workers' representatives on the governing bodies of local and national educational administration." This motion was ultimately accepted. It was unfortunate that the Beeston and Stapleford resolution giving support to some of the main demands of the most advanced sections of the student movement had fallen.
In the trade union debate conference declared its [illegible] to legislation [illegible] their employers. It was noticeable that this was the poorest of the debates, and unfortunate that no mention was made in this context of any of the ideas associated with the workers' control campaign.
[illegible] debate [illegible] passed [illegible] to 74, was a composite over 300 words in length, embodying the following points: support the victory of the Vietnamese Revolution and the N.L.F.; a campaign to be organised for the provision of "medical, moral and material aid" to them; a demand for the withdrawal of all foreign troops; instructions to the Government to implement party policy to dissociating from American aggression and to admit N.L.F. representatives to Britain; support for the American "draft dodgers"; a declaration that "Young Socialist branches should give help to branches of the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign". The resolution ended by quoting Ho Chi Minh's advice to Western socialists: "The best help you can give to the Vietnamese Revolution is to make a revolution in your own country".
On the N.C.'s organisational report the delegates noted the intention to proceed with the production of yet another official Y.S. paper. On this occasion it is to have an editorial board appointed by the National Committee. It should be noted, however, that the N.C. remains a non-elected body and that the paper is to be subject to censorship by the National Youth Officer. Dissatisfaction with the organisation of the Y.S. was reflected by a large part of the report being referred back when votes were taken.
On the face of it the 1968 Conference would appear to have been marked by a series of victories for the left. But the question which hung over the whole conference and which recurred in nearly every debate was: what future has the Y.S.? The small number of articulate delegates who broadly supported Government policy, along with the majority of the National Committee, apparently gave it little hope. At times it was hard to believe that the chairman was at all concerned about the proceedings or the decisions taken - as if he realised that [illegible] fanaticism and sectarianism of [illegible].
Amongst the left two major strands of opinion emerged and their conflict was articulated in debate after debate. On the one hand [illegible] of REBEL/LABOUR WORKER proclaimed the death of the Young Socialists saying that members should turn outwards to tenants' organisations, industrial struggles, etc., and ignore the Labour Party. Supporters of MILITANT on the other hand gave it as their opinion that this was in many ways the best conference for years. Their spokesmen exuded the greatest optimism about the future which should lie in the Y.S. fighting for the programme contained in conference resolutions through their Labour Party Ward and Management Committees.
The truth lies somewhere in between and it was a tragedy that there were so few delegates able to articulate it. Those who called for the Y.S. to intensify their struggle in the Labour Party gave the impression that they had failed to notice the current decline in activity of that organisation. In particular, they seemed unable to appreciate its unattractiveness to youth. When it was pointed out that the energies of many young people were now going into such activities as the March 17th demonstration in Grosvenor Square, the latter was dismissed as a peripheral event on the political scene. But the proponents of withdrawal from the Labour Party commit the mistake of seeing the current decline as an inexorable trend. Notwithstanding the actions of the Government, nothing has happened in the last three years to enable us to say that the Labour Party has suddenly ceased to be the only mass working class party in Britain.
The future of the L.P.Y.S. in 1968 is by no means clear. It is safe to say, however, that if either of the above lines of action are followed to their logical conclusion next year's conference will be even smaller than this. Those of us in the Y.S. should seek in the coming months to build our branches on the broad basis of the policies decided at conference and seek every opportunity to advance those policies within the Labour Party and trade union movement. But we must also be conscious of the need to build a bridge to the masses of radical youth who are currently unwilling to commit themselves to consistent political struggle. Instead of carping criticism we should offer constructive support. Y.S. branches must participate in V.S.C., student activity, etc., to the full. In this way we can perform the absolutely essential task of bringing our overall political strategy to bear on the Consciousness of the most [illegible] the immense enthusiasm currently being generated in demonstrations and on the campuses to bear on the vital political struggle in the Labour movement.