Galloways Angry Constituents

by Rosa Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:22

Im no fan of Galloway for a whole host of reasons (his stalinism, his doubiously financed extravagant lifestyle, his support for fundamentalist groups etc.) and I think his decision to star in Big Brother was extremely ill-judged but this report omits an important fact: the 'protests' and 'campaigns' being organised against him in his constituency are nothing more than a thinly disguised and opportunistic attempt by New Labour to undermine Galloway.

Now there's only one thing worse than a corrupt oppotunistic politician and thas a whole party of opportunisitic corrupt war-mongering politicians.

by pat c Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:26

indeed.

but is there any evidence that it is new labour who are behind these protests?

it certainly isnt new labour whiich is causing galloway to miss commons votes. he missed one vote on the 90 day detention bill because he was speaking at a €13 a head lecture in the helix.

by pat c Fri Jan 13, 2006 13:50

hmm. it looks as if there is some labour involvement in protests in his constituency but hes left himself open for it. we should not forget that galloway chose to target a black jewish woman when he decided on which constituency to stand in.

*******************************************
Minister starts Galloway petition

A petition accusing MP George Galloway of egotism for entering the Celebrity Big Brother house is being launched by a Cabinet minister. Chief whip Hilary Armstrong will start the petition in Mr Galloway's Bethnal Green and Bow constituency.

It says the Respect MP has shown a "shameful lack of respect" for his constituents by going on the show.

But Mr Galloway says it is good for politics and his party says his office is working as usual.

Full story at link.

by Rosa Fri Jan 13, 2006 16:12

You're forcing me to defend Gorgeous George, which is a most unpleasant task. I have no truck with George and his SWP groupies nor the Respect 'cobble-ition' but I think it is fair to point out that New Labour are a far far greater enemy of the working class than George and his friends. I hardly need tell you Pat that New Labour is, for the moment, the party of choice of the British capitalist class and also the most important pro-imperialist party in Britain.

In any case Galloway's reason for standing in Bethnal Green is much more likely to do with the Respect strategy of targeting areas where there was a large Muslim population than anything to do with Oona King.

Im intrigued at the idea that Oona King lost her seat because she was targeted as a Black/Jewish woman rather than the fact that she is an ardent supporter of Blairs/Bushs slaughter of Iraqis and New Labour's assault on the working class. Just because she is Jewish or Black does not exempt her from serious criticism or make her automatically progressive. I find the Respect/SWP strategy of allying with muslim community 'elders' who then 'deliver' a voting block reprehensible (its a practice perfected by New Labour in other parts of Britain) and agree with the view that socialists should seek to organise muslim workers directly not through reactionary 'elders' but engaging in this type of backward communalist politics is not the same as encouraging anti-semitism. Socialists should be very careful that they do not fall into the trap of defining people by their ethnicity or religion, so yes Ooona King deserved to be kicked out and good riddance (even if she was replaced by a chancer like George), and yes, Ariel Sharon is a war criminal but Rosa Luxembourg was the greatest and most humane revolutionary of the 20th century and Amira Hass is one of the bravest and most principled journalists in the world. Their 'jewishness' (whatever that means) has no bearing on any of this.

by pat c Fri Jan 13, 2006 17:22

i take your points on board. maybe it was the constituency he was most likely to win in and maybe oonagh wasnt the nicest of people. but....

galloway may not have played on the fact that she was a black jewish woman but some of the islamic clerics and elders did.

by Rosa Fri Jan 13, 2006 17:29

Which would you prefer. A state under the power of New Labour or one run by Respect?

by pat c Fri Jan 13, 2006 18:21

give me new labour anyday. i have no desire to see an unholy "trotskist"/islamic fundamentalist alliance in power. you think you've seen secret police? how about the cheka plus religious police?!

now you only gave me an either or choice there.

by The Real Rosa Fri Jan 13, 2006 18:33

Once again an imposter tries to hijack my moniker and distort my views. I (the original Rosa poster) did not post the last comment by 'Rosa'. This has happened a number of times. Can IMC editors verify, if possible, that I am the original poster and that the last Rosa comment is by someone else trying to sow mischief.

I would never pose such a childish 'either/or' question because, as a libertarian socialist, I would not wish to condemn people to live under either rampant capitalism or a bizarre leninist/fundamentalist alliance. But of course this is just an abstract red herring because while Britain is, and probably will be for the forseeable future, governed by New Labour, theres as much chance of Respect ruling anything as there is of Pat C joining the PDs.

by pat c Fri Jan 13, 2006 18:49

"theres as much chance of Respect ruling anything as there is of Pat C joining the PDs."

dunno, they've asked me to stand in dublin central. if elected i will be minister of state with special reponsibility for state security (puts his dzherinski uniform on) ;)

by The Real Rosa Fri Jan 13, 2006 18:51

Heres a link to a comment on Galloway/Big Brother by Socialist Resistance, the paper of the ISG, a relatively small socialist group working inside Respect, which is affilaited to the USFI/4th International. They're a decent non-sectarian bunch, in my experience, but far too willing to pander to the SWP's messing, though they seem to have got the message in recent months.

http://www.socialistresistance.net/Big%20Brother.htm