Young Socialists' "discussion" documents

The discussion documents presented by the N.E.C, for the Young Socialists! National Conference have emerged, After the bludgeoning received by the patient at Blackpool a sedative has been prescribed. Only organisational resolutions have been allowed ‘and two major debates have been scheduled to run on the papers: "Rebuilding Britain" and "Industrial training for Youth." "Rebuilding Britain" balances chunks of turgid prose reminiscent of a White Paper for the E.S.N. and vigorous, with-it campaign slogans from last year's election leaflets, We are told that "The New Britain will be one offering everyone the chance to live more abundantly."" The blue-print for this radical upheaval in capitalist society is indicated, together with the far-reaching reforms undertaken, "«seseethe trade section of our U.S. Embassy now operates from New York, not Washington D.C." and “Agricultural grants to crofters have been stepped up by £75,000 a year." The "Public Ownership" section sets out boldly "The further extension of public ownership will play a crucial part in the achievement of the Government's economic and social aims,"* We are bumped down to reality in the very next sentence which articles the extension: "Only by taking the major firms into public ownership will the Government be able to. ensure that. this" (sic) "virtual monopoly industry will serve either the public interest or the interest of steel production itself." The change from the general to the particular comes suddenly, After genuflections to the Post Office and the Railways the section peters out. The document on the "Industrial Training for Youth"t enables observers to get an impression of why these pamphlets have been prepared. There is nothing wrong fundamentally with giving Conference documents to debate, NALSO has often used this method; the difference being that individual clubs or NALSO EC write the documents and that the conference can vote on them. It’ is well known that the general problem of apprenticeships has been of interest to the Young Socialists, but instead of discussion this conference is channelled into the side-waters of discussing a marginal aspect of the problem. The document itself, coming as it does so soon after Crosland has imposed at least’6 mogiyshast on further education expansion and, in some areas, an actual re/a ion in expenditure, does not inspire respect. The reality clashes a little ohviously with such high flown platitudes as "The Govern= ment believes that human needs and economic necessity, both ignored for so long by the previous adminstration, present an irrefutable case for immediate action," In 1918 it was decided that day release should be given to all under 18. The 1956 White Paper called for a 100% increase in day release and five years later an 11% increase was found. The solution to this was compulsory release, or block release, so that this educational opportunity did not remain the whim of a philanthropic employer. The 1964 Act still refused to apply compulsion and the Labour Party did not divide the House, all of the document records and white-washes. At best these two publications are a disastrous mistake and at worst a deliberate provocation to the Young Socialists who are angry enough at the virtual disbandment of their movement.