Ben Lewis spoke to Marsha-Jane Thompson, SYN co-chair and one of the conference organisers

Looking back to the conference, how do you think it went?

I think it went extremely well, although it’s sometimes hard to tell from the chair. It got a really good write-up on various blogs and in the Morning Star – it’s good to see someone else confirming my opinion.

The exec will be meeting soon to progress what conference agreed and the website is currently being updated with all the motions passed. I think it was absolutely amazing that we got through all 19 motions and yet had so many contributions – there were 11 speakers on one of them.

John McDonnell’s speech was very well received, as were the contributions from Tony Benn and Katy Clark, and, of course, supporting John in his campaign for Labour leader is one of the main things SYN will be getting stuck into.

Were you pleased with the turnout?

For a founding youth conference it was very encouraging, given the current climate, where young people don’t tend to get involved with political parties, and I’m looking forward to building on this.

I was especially impressed with the number of women present. In our movement I’m so used to being one of very few or even the only woman at various events. Typically though, the men hogged the platform, speaking on all the motions – even the abortion rights and feminist motion – but I was pleased to see them supporting women’s rights in relation to these particular issues.

While we’re on the subject, just a quick plug – there is a Feminists for John meeting at 7pm on January 24 at Portcullis House – which SYN members will be actively involved in – Mary Partington has organised it and I will be chairing.

Some of the resolutions passed (open borders, socialisation) are actually a lot more radical than what the Labour left usually says. How do you view this?

It is a positive development – after all, another world is possible. And wouldn’t you expect the youth wing to be to the left of the rest of them?

In the run-up to conference, it was argued that Communist Students were wreckers, out to destroy the organisation. What did you think of the CS intervention on the day?

I’m not sure anyone argued CS were wreckers in the way you suggest. Valid concerns were raised that we would have to completely change the SYN constitution if your emergency motion had been passed. So I was pleased it was withdrawn. In the conference I think CS behaved themselves – although one person did insist on speaking twice in some debates, eh, Ben?

Overall I think the conference was handled in a comradely manner by all, building on all the things we agree on – which I must say is what we must do to organise effectively on the left.

You were once a member of Respect. Why did you leave?

I briefly thought Respect held some answers to the New Labour problem – but quickly found I was wrong. When I got further involved in trade union work I realised there were still significant numbers in the Labour Party who share my politics, so I joined Labour to help them in the struggle to win back our party. Unions should be pushing for Labour to implement union policy and indeed the policies of Labour Party conference itself.

SYN should win over disillusioned Respect members, as indeed it has – some others on our exec are also ex-Respect. But we can’t have people with dual membership, as we would cease to be the youth wing of the Labour Representation Committee.

It seems to me quite odd that it was only members of Respect that weren’t allowed to take part. As we both know, there were other groups present that didn’t get treated in this way. Why was this?

We did not explicitly ban Respect members only. SYN rules state that to be eligible for membership you cannot be a member of another political party that stands candidates against Labour. That’s why Respect members were not able to join – though they could attend as observers.

I know you thought this was simply an anti-communist witch-hunt, but I can assure you this was not the case – otherwise why would we have allowed members of Communist Students to stand for election to the exec and submit motions?

As co-chair, I strongly agreed with the position we had discussed at the steering committee, and the amendment carried at conference, to restrict our membership to those in the Labour Party and those who are not members of another political party that stands candidates against Labour – and I was pleased that Communist Students who are not members of Respect participated.

It seemed to me that the clear majority at conference were actually part of the organised left. This surely raises the greater question of how a higher form of united working class political organisation is to be achieved. What is your take on this?

I disagree. Although some members of the organised left were present, the majority were independent (for want of a better word) left trade unionists and students. Of the 20 members on the exec, only six are from the organised left. I think this shows what broad appeal SYN has.

We need to experiment with different ways of organising – and that’s what SYN is trying to do. Another world is possible – but only if we find new ways of engaging with disenfranchised and disillusioned youth.

Finally I would urge all readers of the Weekly Worker and members of Communist Students to join the Labour Party in order to vote for John McDonnell.