IN THE wake of the riot at the Campsfield immigration detention centre, the Prison Service has announced plans to concenirate all 700 asylum seekers in the UK into just six facilities by the end of Sentamber.
Shockingiy, the five new contres will be within prisam seekers are not corvetes criminals.
the writish governmeni currently noids 700 immigration detaiches withoul independent legal safeguards or mile ca the leroti of their detention. triggering widespread hunger strikes and the recent riot al Campsfieid House.
The sination at the Kidlington, Oxford. facility is explained on page eight of the Liberation! supplement in this Sucislist Outlook.
Asylum seekers from 41 separate holding places will be concentrated at Campsfield and prisons at Rochester, Kent (200 places); Birringham (65); Holloway, London (30); Haslar, Portsmouth (165); and the new private prison at Doncaster (30).
Claude Moraes, of the Joint Council for the Welfare oi Immigrants, said "We deniore the underiying thinking which signals the lono-term use oi prison for these asylum seekers who have not been convicted of any criminal offence.
Concentraied into these brutal new centres, asylum seekers will need the kind of solidarity that the Campaign to Close Campsfield has given.
Anli-racist organisations and local black communities must turn every one of these concentration centres into a new 'Campsfield' - maximising the opposition to the racist British state. Dispute Battling against legal straitjacket: NATFHE strikers tion against Unemployment Campaign in France will be invited to an SMTUC meeting in an attempt to capitalise on that ordanisation's call for a European-wide campaign in defence of the 35-hour week.
French demo
The French campaian recentiv organised a five-leg march across France demanding a 35hour week with no loss of pay to fight unemployment, which culminated in a 40,000-strong Paris demonstration on May 28.
A further decision was to back the lobby of the TUC July 5 conference (see article page 2) in protest at the presence of the CBI and government ministers.
SOCIALIST OUTLOOK No. 65, 25 June 1994, Page 6 In the wake of the call from the Socialist Campaign Group Supporters Network (SCGN) Conference to the Socialist Campaign Group (SCG) to stand a candidate in the contest, Socialist Outlook's Helen Shaw spoke to KEN LIVINGSTONE SO: Why did you decide to try to stand? KL: I thought we were in a different position after SCGN activists conference in Manchester. When 350 people vote by at least ten to one, some said twenty to one, for the SCG to stand I thought the least we should dewould be to announce that we were going to try to get the nominations.
I wasn't greatly optimistic that it would be possible but / thought at least we ought to try and and seize the opportunity while doing that, because of the media attention, to raise the issues of taxation, military spending and capital flows out of the City of London. It was a chance to push the issues and to try and firm up the other candidates. SO: When you stood down, some on the left were critical because they believed you should have waited until the deadline and then made political capital out of the undemocratic riomination rules. But now it seems that Margaret Beckett needed the nominations. Is that why you withdrew when you did? KL: It became clear that if I stood I was going to take away votes which would stop Beckett.
There was a pool of people on the left, 17 from the SCG, who were supporting Beckett. Any erosion of those votes - she only had to lose eight - and she wouldn't have been able to stand.
My worry was that people might have put in nominations for me and not been allowed to change their nominations if the Campaign group withdrew. it was getting very close.
The SCG might not have taken a decision late on the Wednesday night and then vou had less than 24 hours to track down people get them to withdraw nominations and put them in again. It seemed a recipe for disaster. I think the SCG would have got a lot of odium in the movement if we'd ended up not having me and not having Beckett as well. Livingstone: "I think there are differences between Beckett and Prescott" along with many of the SCG MPs but others on the left perceive no real difference between her and Prescott. Can you explain why? What the differences are if there are any? KL: I think there are differences. Margaret Beckett was a member of the Campaign Group since its inception in 1982-83 until the Benn leadership challenge to Kinnock in 1988.
She also indicated quite clearly that she wasn't happy with the OMOV proposals at last year's Party conference and she has kept her links open to members of the SCG.
We are not rebuffed by her, she is open to conversation in away that many in the shadow cabinet are not. And she is the one who has taken up the issue of secondary picketing. It is clear that whilst they're quite close together Beckett is sliahtly to the left of Prescott.
Equally I don't think we should judge Margaret Beckett any more harshly than we judge Tony Benn. Once you take the decision to take a place on the front bench you're bound by collective responsibility. She took that decision, Tony Benn's taken it in the past.
People outside always think it would be better if they resigned and fought courageously from the back benches but - and this comes out in Tony Benn's diaries- he thought he was those things were said... next Labour government. ing to be a crisis'. rich. "We actually spelt out how to raise over £20 billion to start to pay for our programme, but it involves taking on the City of London, the military and the rich"
MPs do? Benn/Heffer. SO: It was good for the left that KL: I think it is also a stage in the struggle for the heart and soul of the We've put down a marker to Blair and any of the other candidates saying how are you going to pay for your programme? There can be no excuse for them getting in and saying 'we hadn't anticipated the problems' or 'there's goWe actually spelt out how to raise over £20 billion to start to pay for our programme, but it involves taking on the City of London, the military and the SO: What can the left do now to make those policy issues part of the debate? What should the SCG KL: We should never expect more than the SCG can deliver. They didn't unanimously support Eric Heffer in 1983, people like Tony Banks voted for Neil Kinnock and so on. In 1988, with the leadership challenge we lost a number of members of the SCG and not all who stayed then voted for Two years ago when Bernie Grant and myself stood only half of the group supported us. They had all sorts of odd If anything we've ended up with a greater degree of unity - 17 members for Beckett, another five for Prescott, and five either nominated Denzil Davies or didn't nominate anyone. So if Beckett does well I think we will get a lot of the credit. When Benn stood in 1988 people said it was hopeless, and it was, but it was a chance of reassuring people in the party that there was still socialism on the agenda. Bernie and myself were told we'd been humiliated and it was a waste of time that we stood two vears ago. But if we hadn't stood and been eliminated under the ridiculous 20 per cent rule, it wouldn't have been reduced to 12.5 percent, and Tony Blair would have been elected unopposed - because neither Beckett nor Prescott would get the 54 needed any more than Bernie and I could. The fact you had this ridiculous situation of the Labour machine persuading Blair supporters to nominate Prescott just to make sure there was a challenge does bring us back once again to raising the issue of the very undemocratic nomination rule. I don't see any reason why we need more than the five per cent we used to have. SO: You referred to the SCGN conference. Do you welcome the development of the network? KL: I think its important because its very easy for Members of Parliament to end up cut adrift from anything happening outside and just becoming parliamentarians. We used to have very active constituencies but for most of us now our constituencies are much less active than they were even where we've got left MPs.
The SCGN is a forum we can consult outside parliament. The SCG would never agree to be bound by it but it does act as a spur and a pressure. I think it had that effect this time.
If the activists conference hadn't called for a contest I wouldn't have made the effort to get the nominations and wouldn't have had the high profile for those few davs. And i think it was a reminder to members of the SCG that they are not just there on their own.
I think the leadership issue helped to make it a much larger conference than previously. Suddenly there was a fight on and people rallied round.
What's also been amazing is the letters and phone calls that have flowed in during the last week. The number of letters i've had from people saying if you get elected leader l'll rejoin the party is particularly depressing. I have to say if