UK Politics

[Janny]

JP: We're joined now from his count in Bethnal Green and Bow by George Galloway. Mr Galloway, are you proud of having got rid of one of the very few black women in Parliament?
GG: What a preposterous question. I know it's very late in the night, but wouldn't you be better starting by congratulating me for one of the most sensational election results in modern history?
JP: Are you proud of having got rid of one of the very few black women in Parliament?
GG: I'm not - Jeremy - move on to your next question.
JP: You're not answering that one?
GG: No because I don't believe that people get elected because of the colour of their skin. I believe people get elected because of their record and because of their policies. So move on to your next question.
JP: Are you proud -
GG: Because I've got a lot of people who want to speak to me.
JP: - You -
GG: If you ask that question again, I'm going, I warn you now.
JP: Don't try and threaten me Mr Galloway, please.
GG: You're the one who's trying to badger me.
JP: I'm not trying to badger you, I'm merely trying to ask if you're proud at having driven out of Parliament one of the very few black women there, a woman you accuse of having on her conscience 100,000 people.
GG: Oh well there's no doubt about that one. There's absolutely no doubt that all those New Labour MPs who voted for Mr Blair and Mr Bush's war have on their hands the blood of 100,000 people in Iraq, many of them British soldiers, many of them American soldiers, most of them Iraqis and that's a more important issue than the colour of her skin.
JP: Absolutely, because you then went on to say "including a lot of women who had blacker faces than her"
GG: Absolutely right, absolutely right. So don't try and tell me I should feel guilty about one of the most sensational election results in modern electoral history.
JP: I put it to you Mr Galloway that Nick Raynsford had you to a T when he said you were a "demagogue".
GG: Sorry?
JP: Nick Raynsford. You know who I mean? Nick Raynsford. Labour MP?
GG: No, I don't know who you mean.
JP: Never heard of him.
GG: I've never heard of Nick Raynsford, no.
JP: What else haven't you heard of?
GG: Well, I've been in Parliament a long time...
JP: He was a Parliamentary colleague of yours until very recently.
GG: Well, most of them just blend one into the other, Jeremy, they're largely a spineless, a supine bunch.
JP: Have you ever heard of Tony Banks?
GG: Yes I have, yes.
JP: Right, Tony Banks was sitting here five minutes ago, and he said that you were behaving inexcusably, that you had deliberately chosen to go to that part of London and to exploit the latent racial tensions there.
GG: You are actually conducting one of the most - even by your standards - one of the most absurd interviews I have ever participated in. I have just won an election. Can you find it within yourself to recognise that fact? To recognise the fact that the people of Bethnal Green and Bow chose me this evening. Why are you insulting them?
JP: I'm not insulting them, I'm not insulting you
GG: You are insulting them, they chose me just a few minutes ago. Can't you find it within yourself even to congratulate me on this victory?
JP: Congratulations, Mr Galloway.
GG: Thank you very much indeed. [Waves, removes microphone]


I think the issue was more the fact that George Galloway is a... well, he's pretty ghastly. I find it distressing that he is clearly more concerned with himself than anything else. One of his proudest achievements is being 'right about the war'. Who gives a damn? What's it matter whether he's right or wrong? It it really were that important to him wouldn't he care more the social and politcal ramifications than whether he can say that Labour are spineless and he was right to get out.

Of course it's still pretty noble to go out of your way to fight for a seat with a big Muslim population and use the Jewish heritage of your opponent.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

george galloway is a good man, and a good politician, to say he is ghastly just shows the right wing political rhetoric that is so ever present, and it saddens my heart to see britain's youth so corrupted by thatcher-blairism

[sun-star]

You think it's the sign of a good man to exploit racial tension to gain publicity for his vanity project party? That's what Robert Kilroy-Silk does, and you'd never call him 'good'. Galloway targeted that seat because he knew that the racial and ethnic makeup there, and Oona King's vulnerability as a Jewish woman, could be played upon for his own gain. Certainly, Paxman needs to get off his high horse and not go after every interviewee like he wants to destroy them, but that doesn't mean Galloway was right. Don't let yourself be blinded by the fact that you agree with him.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by sun-star

You think it's the sign of a good man to exploit racial tension to gain publicity for his vanity project party? That's what Robert Kilroy-Silk does, and you'd never call him 'good'. Galloway targeted that seat because he knew that the racial and ethnic makeup there, and Oona King's vulnerability as a Jewish woman, could be played upon for his own gain. Certainly, Paxman needs to get off his high horse and not go after every interviewee like he wants to destroy them, but that doesn't mean Galloway was right. Don't let yourself be blinded by the fact that you agree with him.

Can you give examples of this anti-semitism? Seriously; it's news to me.

What isn't news is "Gorgeous" George's propensity for self-publicity. Such has been his style since he was MP for Hillhead in Glasgow. However, I'm not sure you can disregard his ideas on the basis of his personality. People didn't vote for Veritas, but they did for Respect.

As for that interview, it was the high point of Paxman's largely onanistic input to the election coverage. These days the only purpose he seems to serve is to muddy the waters with blatant abuse. Unfortunately Boris came to his rescue by trumping his abuse with a new personal best in the buffoonery stakes.

[Janny]

Ok, I'll brush over the Boris bashing, but the reason Respect got votes and Veritas didn't is because Respect is party that stood on one popularist issue. Veritas is a party that stood on some vague 'hey, we'll tell the truth' promise. Kilroy gets lampooned on shows like Dead Ringers. Galloway just very occasionally gets mistaken for Saddam Hussein.

Frankly, they're both wildly in love wioth themselves - but don't pretend that Galloways first concern is the loss of Iraqi life.

[The Gaffer]

OK, I've read up about it and it seems the anti-Semitism extends to an incident with egg-throwing at a jewish memorial by some people who may or may not have voted for Respect. Oh, and Tony Banks said it was racist.

An interesting letter in Saturday's Grauniad from a British-Bangladeshi who voted for Galloway. This person said that they voted King out, not because she was black, female or Jewish (they'd voted for her in 1997 and 2001 after all) but because she chose to put her own career, cosying up to Blair, before representing the views of her constituents over the Iraq war.

Whatever you think about Galloway, parliament will be less dull with him in it.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Can you give examples of this anti-semitism? Seriously; it's news to me.

I'm not saying Galloway himself is anti-semitic, but I think his comment about people 'with darker skins than hers' (though a journalist raised the race issue first: see this) comes across as a Jew/Muslim comparison. Also, I do wonder why he chose that particular constituency, rather than the Scottish one he used to represent - there were plenty of white male Blairites in marginal constituencies who supported the war (including my own MP - who was, unbelievably, re-elected )

People didn't vote for Veritas, but they did for Respect.

Ain't that the truth. Did Kilroy-Silk lose his deposit in the end, or not?

Does anyone else think Tony Blair really made a mistake in announcing he'll step down before the next election, but not setting a date on it? I'm sure the handover to Brown won't be as acrimonious as the Conservative leadership contest, but everything he does now will be treated as an end-game and there's already all kinds of speculation from within the PLP. He's a lame duck (that's a great expression). Surely this is the last thing a government with a reduced majority needs right now.

[Janny]

For those who listen to the Now Show, he's a duck with an ASBO, confined to his pond the area surrounding in immediate walking distance.

Something rings a bell about resigning and not setting a date on it... has he done it before? :O What I am hopeful of is that it will now take a public failure for Mr Blair to step down. He's not going to push ID cards through, so it might just be the EU referendum. Frankly, I'd be quite pleased if that became a referendum on his premiership - not that 'No' will need it, there seems to be a pattern that when the campaigns get underway and people are actually told what a 'Yes' would entail, they seem to be against it. Take the stunning success of the Frech yes campaign, which almost crippled itself by telling the truth.

Aaaaanyway. I'm probably bieng naive to think that Mr Blair will resign at any point that looks like he was forced into doing it.

Oh, and Kilroy got 6%. Just enough. Bah.

EDIT - That's what I meant to say: A letter by an ethnic-minority member claiming to have rational support for left wing politics was printed in the Guardian?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

If you believe that the only way forward fro government in the UK is proportional representation, as I do, please sign my petition!

Bring PR to Britain

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by sun-star

I'm not saying Galloway himself is anti-semitic, but I think his comment about people 'with darker skins than hers' (though a journalist raised the race issue first:

Exactly. In the light of which I think his rhetorical point is valid.

Clearly, that constituency was chosen tactically, because of its vulnerability, but I disagree that this is on racial grounds. He won it because he shared the views of more of his electorate than King did, not because they prefer their MPs white, Scottish and Christian. They also ran a very vigorous "on the ground" campaign.

I think he was deselected as an MP when he was kicked out of the Labour party.

Originally Posted by janny

EDIT - That's what I meant to say: A letter by an ethnic-minority member claiming to have rational support for left wing politics was printed in the Guardian?

As opposed to being reported in the Times, Telegraph, Mail, Express, BBC, ITN, etc where of course you will see the views of these communities represented on a regular basis

Originally Posted by sun-star

Does anyone else think Tony Blair really made a mistake in announcing he'll step down before the next election, but not setting a date on it?

On balance, no. There's so much speculation that it makes sense to state your broad intentions. Political weather can change so quickly that it would be silly to put a date. I'd originally thought he would go this summer (he didn't have the look of a man that had just won a record third term as Labour prime minister), but now I'm not so sure.

On the PR question, this would of course mean coalition government for the rest of time. That might be OK, though I would be worried about any government's ability to push through a co-ordinated programme of reform.

[Janny]

Yes, the switch to PR is bizarrely unsettling in the sense that you see that you won't be able to go back. One government binding future governments? What's that remind me of... the EU constitution! :O

I think the more pressure on Mr Blair, the less likely he'll go. He seems pretty stubborn.

And on the topic of PR, the leader in the Independent yesterday was absolutely atrochous. I mean, the page was devoted to a (subtly and probably unintentionally) misleading diagram and the story had nothing in it. The passive sentences were flying around, the stats were half missing and the quotes were wildly unattributed...

[The Gaffer]

So, did anyone hear about George Galloway' showdown with the Senate Committee investigating corruption in the oil-for-food program? Great coverage in the Grauniad, as you'd expect, but I didn't get TV or radio news.

Some choice extracts:

He entered the hearing room with guns blazing, telling journalists his inquisitors were "crazed", "pro-war", "lickspittles" of the president, and predicting he would turn the tables on them. "I want to put these people on trial. This group of neo-cons is involved in the mother of smokescreens," he said.

"I know that standards have slipped in Washington in recent years, but for a lawyer, you're remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice," he told Norm Coleman, the Minnesota Republican who chairs the senate investigations committee..

"I met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him," Mr Galloway went on. "The difference is that Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns, and to give him maps the better to target those guns."

Can't help feeling "Gaun yersel', big man".

I wonder how this was covered in the US?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

damn you! i was going to be the first to comment!!

i admire his courage, his strength and most of all his indefatigibility

joking aside, i believe he exonerated himself superbly, and put in a very scathing attck on an injust system whilst he was at it, well done to the best mp from this entire country

[The Gaffer]

Yes, though not sure he's the best MP!

An interesting perspective on the "clash of political cultures", with our adversarial, "get it right up ye" style coming up against a more reverential approach in the US. I often think this applies to Congress too: how would Bush cope with Prime Minister's question time? It's even evident in the design of the building, with the infamous red lines on the House of Commons carpet to keep the sides more than two sword-lengths apart.

I wonder how this is perceived in the US itself.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

the difference in political styles couldn't have been more evfident, i noticed it when i watched the report on the news, the us senators seemed to be stunned more than anything, yet that was quite reserved, considering what goes on in the house of commons

[Janny]

Me being on study leave, I heard it all on BBC radio and saw the BBC TV news summery. If you saw the news only, you got a very unrepresentaive story of how it was.
He was feisty, yes, but he didn't defend him successfully. The reason he went there was to exhonerate himself. The senators still believe his dealing to be suspect. I don't know if they are or not, but they might have been more convinced had he dealt with their issues and not been evasive and abrasive. Besides that, he refused to answer serious press questions - calling that Bristish journalist a 'Trotskyite' (beautiful irony...) and picked on of the very few anti-war senators to accuse of supporting the war. He adopted the 'everything is immoral, thus my immorality is irrelevent' defence and I don't think it worked. The Charity Commision in the UK is going to study his accounts, the senators still believe he is guilty. Not exactly an astonishing victory... apart from the platform it gave him so spew popularist (not a criticism here, but a fair adjective) opinions. He's won a great deal of support among the anti-war lobby and in the Arab world - the accuracy of his facts are irrelevent - to that extent it was a victory.

Personally, I get the feeling he hasn't really done anything wrong, but his appearence did nothing to convince me of that. However, I don't think it is impossible that he actually lied to that committee, which would be very serious. But he'll be okay. He may be convicted, he may be imprisoned, but no-one believes that the US holds fair trials (much unlike pre-invasion Iraqi trials...) so he will remain as ever popular. And that's all that really matters.

Who cares if he lied about having contacted the committee to ask to stand before them?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by janny

calling that Bristish journalist a 'Trotskyite' (beautiful irony...)

actually he called hitchens a former trotskyist, indicating turning back on beliefs and principles

[Janny]

But more importantly, it was a device to prevent him answering a difficult question. Just like he accused Sen. Carl Levin of supporting an illegal war to avoid answering if he'd received illegal money.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

despite the fact that he had just answered that question of course?

i am of course referring to the moment when he said that he could not possibly know from which part of a businessman's empire a donation came from...

[Janny]

As I say, that's what the Charity Commision is going to investigate.

I think you're right - his answer must be somewhere in here...

Carl Levin: Mr Galloway, could you take a look at exhibit number 12. Now, you're not alleging here today that the document is a forgery, I gather?

GG: Well, I have no idea.

CL: But you're not alleging …

GG: I'm saying that the information insofar as it relates to me is fake.

CL: Is wrong?

GG: It's wrong.

CL: But you're not alleging that the document …

GG: Well, I have no way of knowing, sir. It would have been nice to have seen it before today.

CL: All right. Would you let the sub-committee know, after you've had it in your possession long enough, whether you consider the document a…

GG: Yes, although there is an academic quality about it all, because you've already found me guilty.

CL: Would you submit to the sub-committee, after you've had a chance to review

this document, whether or not, in your judgment, it

is a forgery? Will you do that?

CL: If Mr Zureikat's company paid a surcharge or a kickback to the Iraqi government in order to obtain an allocation of oil, would that trouble you?

GG: Well, if it turns out from your own testimony that practically everyone in the world, and especially the United States, was paying kickbacks …

CL: … If, in fact, Mr Zureikat's company paid a kickback to the Iraqi government in order to obtain this allocation, would you be troubled? That's my question.

GG: It's a good question. Here's my answer. I opposed the oil-for-food programme with all my heart, not for the reasons that you are troubled by it, but because it was a programme which saw the death of a million people, most of them children in Iraq

CL: I know other things trouble you, but can you just give us a straightforward answer? You've given us a long explanation of other things that trouble you. Now I'm asking you whether that troubles you.

GG: … Well, please, Senator. You supported the illegal attack on Iraq. Don't talk to me about illegality …

CL: Sorry about that, I didn't. But that's beside the point … You're wrong on your facts.