Re: Question Time : Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:43 pm  

DaveO wrote:

I think the accusation of opportunism isn't linked to his opposition of the war in Iraq but whether he hangs his coat on some cause in an opportunistic way. He can be as consistent as he likes on that but it is whether or not you believe he is sincere about the causes he claims to support.

If he was a good MP he'd have kept the Bethnal Green seat which he didn't.

1. Galloway gave away a cushy career in the Labour Party because he stuck by his principles. He fought to stay in the LP but lost and was expelled. As the LP's campaign manager he was guaranteed a safe seat wherever he wanted. His decision to risk his political career and reputation was a massive risk...quite the opposite of opportunist.

2. He didn't lose his seat in Bethnal. He chose not to contest it, preferring (wrongly as it turns out) to try and expand his base into neighbouring Poplar & Limehouse.
In any case it's simply not true that 'good' MPs don't always keep their seats, and it's certainly true that some pretty rotten ones stay in for decades.

It is simply ridiculous to assert that Galloway's unbending adherence to causes that he has championed for decades, both in and out of the Labour Party can be construed as either insincere or opportunistic.

Re: Question Time : Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:26 pm  

Chief Stinkwort wrote:

This is typically sloppy criticism of Galloway. Whether you like his policy or not there is no way it can be described as 'on the hoof'. Right or wrong, he is at least very consistent.

Yes, sloppy is right, it wasn't "on the hoof" about policy at all.
What I meant was that he only has to toe his own line so he has much more freedom of expression.

Re: Question Time : Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:46 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Yes, sloppy is right, it wasn't "on the hoof" about policy at all.
What I meant was that he only has to toe his own line so he has much more freedom of expression.

True, but he had to follow the courage of his convictions and risk his career to earn that right.

The sad shame is that there aren't more principled and outspoken politicians in the mainstream parties. They all toe the party line over war and austerity. None of them therefore have anything to say other than following the leadership governed concensus.

It is this sad indictment of the major parties that, IMO, led to the mass disillusionment that allowed Galloway to win so easily...even in predominantly white middle-class wards in Bradford.

[DaveO]

Re: Question Time : Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:55 pm  

Chief Stinkwort wrote:

1. Galloway gave away a cushy career in the Labour Party because he stuck by his principles. He fought to stay in the LP but lost and was expelled. As the LP's campaign manager he was guaranteed a safe seat wherever he wanted. His decision to risk his political career and reputation was a massive risk...quite the opposite of opportunist.

2. He didn't lose his seat in Bethnal. He chose not to contest it, preferring (wrongly as it turns out) to try and expand his base into neighbouring Poplar & Limehouse.
In any case it's simply not true that 'good' MPs don't always keep their seats, and it's certainly true that some pretty rotten ones stay in for decades.

It is simply ridiculous to assert that Galloway's unbending adherence to causes that he has championed for decades, both in and out of the Labour Party can be construed as either insincere or opportunistic.

He IS an opportunist because he campaigns in one way only and that is as a protest against the incumbent Labour MP or as he did in Bradford in a vacant usually Labour seat. IMO the issues he uses to fuel his protest campaigns have a happy knack of appealing to certain sections of the voters in the kind of constituencies he chooses to contest. I doubt we will ever see him test himself in anything other than a Labour area. He picks his fights in any area he thinks he can win which to me is as opportunistic as you care to get.

If he swans off abroad like he did when MP for Bethnal Green he won't remain popular in Bradford for long either.

As an aside one of the things I can't stand is when any party parachutes an MP into an area they have never lived in. Galloway looking for seats up and down the country to contest is no different.

Re: Question Time : Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:17 pm  

DaveO wrote:

He IS an opportunist because he campaigns in one way only and that is as a protest against the incumbent Labour MP or as he did in Bradford in a vacant usually Labour seat. IMO the issues he uses to fuel his protest campaigns have a happy knack of appealing to certain sections of the voters in the kind of constituencies he chooses to contest. I doubt we will ever see him test himself in anything other than a Labour area. He picks his fights in any area he thinks he can win which to me is as opportunistic as you care to get.

If he swans off abroad like he did when MP for Bethnal Green he won't remain popular in Bradford for long either.

As an aside one of the things I can't stand is when any party parachutes an MP into an area they have never lived in. Galloway looking for seats up and down the country to contest is no different.

Anyone would choose the ground they stand on if possible. Do you think the Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet don't carefully select the seats in which they stand. In this sense they are all every bit as opportunist as Galloway.

Although he frequently attacks the Tories and LibDems Galloway stands for what he believes are old Labour values, It is natural therefore that he choose to fight on Labour ground, but you clearly haven't seen anything of his Bradford campaign which took up not just the war and austerity but also the bankers, the media, NHS, student and local issues.

Certain sections of voters? This is just plain ridiculous. Galloway won hands down, even in predominantly white middle-class wards, and got 95% in the very diverse 'University' ward.

Where would you have wanted him to stand...Exeter perhaps, maybe Ripon...trouble is he wouldn't have got many votes there. They didn't have an election to stand in.

Re: Question Time : Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:17 pm  

Chief Stinkwort wrote:

El Barbudo wrote:

Yes, sloppy is right, it wasn't "on the hoof" about policy at all.
What I meant was that he only has to toe his own line so he has much more freedom of expression.

True, but he had to follow the courage of his convictions and risk his career to earn that right.

The sad shame is that there aren't more principled and outspoken politicians in the mainstream parties. They all toe the party line over war and austerity. None of them therefore have anything to say other than following the leadership governed concensus.

It is this sad indictment of the major parties that, IMO, led to the mass disillusionment that allowed Galloway to win so easily...even in predominantly white middle-class wards in Bradford.

We're talking about the same cat-impersonating, Saddam-fellating George Galloway here, right?

Re: Question Time : Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:31 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

We're talking about the same cat-impersonating, Saddam-fellating George Galloway here, right?

Not very smart by your standards Rock God.

The cat stuff was stupid, naive and egotistic, however:

Galloway met Saddam twice; once to solicit money for charity and once to try and persuade him to give up his weapons. For over 30 years Galloway was prominent in protests against Saddam whilst British, American and French politicians were meeting him regularly to sell him weapons and military expertise.
Even after his last meeting with Saddam, Galloway described him in the national press as a 'brutal dictator.'

The 'Saddam-loving' myth is part of the demonisation of Galloway by the establishment who know that if you sling enough poop some of it sticks. Look beyond the crap though and you see that you're only being told half the story.

Re: Question Time : Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:45 pm  

Chief Stinkwort wrote:

Rock God X wrote:

We're talking about the same cat-impersonating, Saddam-fellating George Galloway here, right?

Not very smart by your standards Rock God.

The cat stuff was stupid, naive and egotistic, however:

Galloway met Saddam twice; once to solicit money for charity and once to try and persuade him to give up his weapons. For over 30 years Galloway was prominent in protests against Saddam whilst British, American and French politicians were meeting him regularly to sell him weapons and military expertise.
Even after his last meeting with Saddam, Galloway described him in the national press as a 'brutal dictator.'

The 'Saddam-loving' myth is part of the demonisation of Galloway by the establishment who know that if you sling enough poop some of it sticks. Look beyond the crap though and you see that you're only being told half the story.

Whatever he said about Saddam will never mitigate what he said to Saddam. The video is there on youtube, and it's not remotely ambiguous.

Re: Question Time : Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:58 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

Whatever he said about Saddam will never mitigate what he said to Saddam. The video is there on youtube, and it's not remotely ambiguous.

...which is much more heinous than selling him poison gas and missiles, then training him to use them of course.

Re: Question Time : Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:07 pm  

Chief Stinkwort wrote:

Rock God X wrote:

Whatever he said about Saddam will never mitigate what he said to Saddam. The video is there on youtube, and it's not remotely ambiguous.

...which is much more heinous than selling him poison gas and missiles, then training him to use them of course.

No. No, it is not. But it does cast more than a little doubt on your view of Galloway as 'principled' and 'having the courage of his own convictions'.