strike for 24 hours. One of the main complaints was the handcuffing of detainees being transported to hospital.
Nor have protests by immigration detainees been con fined to Yarls Wood. Everywhere that refugees have been locked up and criminalised, they have tried to organise and fightback- from Campsfield Detention Centre near Oxford to Rochester prison in Kent.
We may not have seen a "sans papiers" movement in Britain like that in France, but that certainly does not mean that asylum seekers here and not developing their own methods of struggle.
What it does mean is that others involved in the movement to defend asylum seekers do have the responsibility to try to allow the space for more Gordon Morgan The ballot on transferring Glasgow's housing stock from the Council to a Housing Association in hock to major banks is underway and voting closes in early April. At the beginning of March a tenant survey from the No campaign and an independent survey both concluded tenants would overwhelmingly (80%) vote No against the transfer if the same resources were made available to each option. It was clear that most tenants were confused and undecided how to vote. Even those who had decided to vote for the transfer largely accepted that it was privatisation and in a majority of cases, felt coerced by the council and the government. Since the beginning of March there has been a blizzard of pro-transfer material issued to tenants. A video has been sent to each house extolling its virtues, hundreds of billboards have been used to promote the yes vote, special supplements to free and paid press have been produced. The cost must run to millions.
The underlying object of this propaganda is to say to voters no warn vame voreve or else you will not get your houses improved." Because of the appalling condition of their houses many may succumb to this pressure, however, they will not like doing so. A week after the ballot started, it is unclear which way the vote will go. The level of subsiay Deine promised -around f2.000 million - is astronomical. The Vote no campaign's main contention is that it would cost at least of €500 million LESS if the council retained the stock.
To the argument that the money is not there we pose the following scenario. Next June, at the council and Scottish Parliament elections. Labour has said it has the money to do up your houses. The money is still there despite your No Vote. Labour is now saying they won't give it to you, because you didn't do what they said. Labour is asking you to vote for them. Get real -the money will be made available whatever the vote. Early indications are that votes cast are equal for and against. A large percentage of those who have not yet voted say they will vote No, however, many feel it is a foregone conclusion. However I personally feel the vote can still be won by the No camp. Even if the ballot is won for them, it is clear that Labour will not repeat this exercise. Edinburgh has decided against removing council tenure. The cost of this ideology is now been made clear to the Labour establishment. Those voting Yes under coercion may vote against Labour next year. Bankers, the real winners, do not vote. The SNP has also come under pressure. The Glasgow Association of the SNP and 3 Glasgow MSPs support the No vote. The SNP Housing Spokesperson and vice spokesperson have publicly broken from policy and face motions seeking their removal. The only party consistently opposing the transfer has been the SSP If the vote is No this will send shivers through Labour, and the SSP will campaign for funds to be delivered to the Council as if the vote had been Yes - housing must be improved. If the vote is Yes, many people who felt pressured to vote that way will react in next year's elections by voting SSP.