THE I.L.P.

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 123, 20 November 1935, Page 15

THE I.L.P.

NO "SECOND CHANCE"

LABOUR PARTY'S DECISION

NATIONAL CONFERENCE

The Labour Party Conference at Brighton recently made its first business after the civic and local welcomes the sending of an illuminated address to Mr. Arthur Henderson "upon his resignation from the secretaryship of the Labour Party after twenty-three years' service in that office," says the "Manchester Guardian." The chairman's address followed. Mr. Ben Green (Hemel Hempstead) moved the reference back of the section of the report of the National Executive Committee which dealt with the support given by the National Council of Labour to the boycott of German goods and services. He protested against the party's association with the World Non-sectarian AntiNazi Council, and said: "I have had experience of what the Jews suffer in Germany as a direct consequence of the racial boycott outside Germany. It makes conditions in Germany very much harder." There was no seconder for his motion. In reply,to a question about the scheme which is being formulated for old-age pensions payable at sixty, Mr. Arthur Greenwood stated that actuaries had been asked to present a full report on the possibilities both of contributory and of non-contri-butory schemes. THE IX.P. Mr. Garnet (secretary of the Birmingham Labour Party) moved back a paragraph in the annual report in which the executive declared "that membership of the Independent Labour Party or the Independent Socialist Party is incompatible with membership of the Labour Party, and that such persons are ineligible as individual members of the party, as delegates to the party locally or nationally, or as candidates for Parliamentary or local government elections." Birmingham, he said, wished to make it perfectly clear that they had no sympathy whatever with the attitude adopted by the I.L.P. during the last two or three years. Birmingham would not take up this position on another occasion. But they wanted the I.L.P. to have a little breathing-space. After all, there was a difference between the position of the I.L.P. and the Communist Party. The Communist Party was formed in opposition to the Labour Party and had never been in the party, but the I.L.P. had been the driving force in the building up of the Labour Party. They wanted a second opportunity for the I.L.P. Was experience not teaching them something? They had given the Communist Party the best possible adver* tisement and they were now going to give the I.L.P. a similar advertisement. Mr. Duke (Holderness) seconded. "At the present time," he said, "you are killing the interest of the rank and file of the Socialist movement. If Keir Hardie were here today he would be ashamed to think that the I.L.P. was outside the Labour movement." ("Hear, hear" and laughter.) Mr. George Hardie, brother of Keir Hardie, heatedly denied the assumption that Keir Hardie "would be standing with the group that is causing disruption everywhere and standing against solidarity." . ' THE REPLY. Mr. G. R. Shepherd (national organiser) submitted that the Executive Committee, in giving consideration to this matter, wanted to leave the door open to the I.L.P. to come back into the fold on the same terms and conditions as other affiliated organisations. The paragraphs referred to persons. Without declaring the I.L.P. ineligible, as it had done in the case of the Communist Party, the Executive Committee felt it ought to lay it down that, so long as the LL.P. remained outside the ranks, membership of that body and of the Labour Party was incompatible. "We do not believe that the doors of our party should be open to people who want to come in merely for the purpose of changing its policy," he declared. The motion to refer back the paragraph was overwhelmingly lost. Mr. A. Campbell (Guildford) called attention to the Executive Committees statement in the report that it had been unable to comply with the request of the League of Youth for power to discuss policy at its conferences and to register opinion on party policy by resolutions. Was there any good reason why they should not be allowed to do this, he asked. There should be recognition of the fact that the League of Youth was called, upon to play a full part in the work of the party and it should be entitled to demand the right to have some part in the discussion of the policy of the party. (Applause.) Mr. Eastwood (Bolton), seconding, said the women's sections had the right and privilege for which the League of Youth was asking. THE SAME RIGHTS. j Mr. Shepherd said it would be easy to create the impression that the Executive had opposed young men and women discussing party policy. AH young men and women of sixteen, years and over who joined Ihe party had the same rights and privileges as men and women of sixty years and over. They could go into their local parties and discuss policy there. What was more, they could take part in the discussions on policy which eventually came to the floor of the conference. The application of the League of Youth was not merely to discuss policy but that it should be granted opportunities to discuss and decide upon principles of party policy at its various conferences. "We think that the place for deciding policy is not in. sections of the movement; it is on the floor of this conference, and, before it comes here, in the divisions."

Mr. Shepherd concluded by expressing the appreciation of the Executive of the work of the -League. On a vote it was decided that the paragraph should not be referred back.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood moved a general resolution on unemployment affirming that the Government's policy of tariffs, quotas, levies, and subsidies designed to protect industrial interests without regard to the wages and conditions of labour or to the interests of the consumer held no hope of a solution, and calling for a policy of international economic co-operation and the public ownership and control of the basic industries and services. The resolution further protested

against the Unemployment Assistance Act and the Government's treatment of the unemployed. Mr. Greenwood said: "Important as the international situation may be, no Labour conference can ignore the plight of the unemployed in our midst, we are still faced with the fact that unemployment is one of the gravest of our national problems." "A STRAIGHT DEAL." Mr. Sidney Layers (Chester-le-Street) said that there was no blinking the fact that the unemployed would be expecting a straight deal from the Labour Party at the next election. If the next Labour Government did not deal plainly with the unemployed he was afraid it .would be the end of the ii ab°ur jfarty- Speaking of the state ol the distressed areas he said that when the Government allowed the Durham Education Committee to take control of Hawlish Hall the first thing discovered was that the young men admitted suffered from malnutrition. J-ney had no clothes and they had to . ,*gl uen the J<ation of a man and a tS- £ a, use of their malnutrition. Miss Ellen Wilkinson, in speaking on trie resolution, made some criticism also of the executive committee's report on local government and ttfe depressed areas which accompanied it and which has already been summarised in the "Manchester Guardian." The report proposes conferences of iocal authorities in the depressed areas to concert measures of reconstruction. Miss Wilkinson was doubtful about the value of such conferences to deal with an urgent problem. She thought the executive's recommendations represented some of the best work that had been done, but felt that the emphasis had been put in the wrong place. There was more need of central direction than of leaving things to the local authorities, and initiative could hardly be expected from a large body of authorities. DISAPPROVED. She wanted to join issue with Mr. Ernest Bevin, who at the Trades Union Congress offered to support the Government if it would devote a minimum 01 twenty millions to these areas. It was no use trying to solve this problem by outbidding other people. There was a tendency to consider the queshon of the distressed area is still a question of inquiry, consideration, and committees. "When are we going to stop consideration and tell the people of this country that we know?" le m "*«»• . "There is. not a thing about the distressed areas that is not d^r +^ eady- How many «"* indexes thera are on which each one of the inhabitants is registered no one can count We have to stop talking! shafc tOT?° me ludI ud Say th** thinS «m«i !If We d 0 not db something tte Zhf ?S willj:ome and tek! the lead m a direction we would nortV\°V gS- This is m excellent report, but it does need drive." Mrs. Ayrton Gould spoke of the way re-employment was being used to depress f urthe r the already appalling S^fSM the ™»Ploy«L Many of boastlrt 00'? 00 Peo^ the Government boasted of, she said, were worse off and were being forced to work for the ]uY emles: She found many instances of men in Lancashire with five of six children getting 23s or 25s a week. These men could not get any assistance because they were working iuu time. Miss Susan Lawrence replied to the tet 3 ThG QUeStion of the means test had again been raised, she said. Tho partyjiad affirmed and must continue to affirm that it was against any xoi m of means test. The resolution was carried.