Galloway poses new problems for Labour

[Andalublue]

Can you actually identify who these 'Far Left sympathizers' are? Because according to,

Linda Smith, Respect's national chair at the time of the split, has claimed: "The sectarianism and ‘control freak’ methods of the SWP have led us to a situation where Respect is irretrievably split."[46] The SWP has attributed the split to a shift to the right by George Galloway and his allies, motivated by electoralism (placing election-winning above other principles). This, say the SWP leadership, led to attacks on the SWP as the most prominent left group in Respect

Respect Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May be not as Left as you think?

Dont agree with what?



"Nobody will argue it is a growing and increasingly radicalized part of society"???

The election of Galloway, proves nothing of the sort. Was the incumbent Pakistani not 'radical enough', is that what your thinking? Surely we cant have a Pakistani being a non-radical, can we?

Paul

Great post, and even better sig line. I'd forgotten that quote. It was always one of my favourites from the great man; truly one of my political heros.

 

[Djoop]

Yes, he's an idiot and no friend of gay Iranians, or LGBT people generally. That does not mean he's an Islamist. On the doing business with Islamists, he's made a lot of money (c. $10 million) by winning libel cases against papers who claimed to have 'exposed' his business dealings with ME figures and regional governments. If you've got the evidence to make the charge stick, good luck and congrats. Personally, I reckon he might well be receiving gifts from dodgy Arabs and Persians, just like about half of the US congress and a third of Westminster.

I've got no evidence other than his weird statements. I mean, assuming he's not an islamist, why would he defend the Iranian regime? Maybe you could help me out with a reasonable explanation for that.

And what do you make of this .. hobby:

George Galloway may be on his fourth wife, but if our maths is right he has had five wedding ceremonies and may have had only two divorces. This needs explaining. According to reports, he married his second wife, Amineh Abu-Zayyad, in an Islamic ceremony when separated from his first wife (Elaine Fyffe) and then held a civil ceremony after the decree absolute came though.

How many wives does George Galloway have? | Politics | The Guardian

 

[gunner]

I'm sure to your Far Left mind this makes some sense to you. It makes none to me.

OK I'll simplify. Can you illuminate who these Far Left type(s) are? better still quantify? Did you understand the implications of a split within Respect in 2007? A clue was in the previous link....I'll help, did you pick up where it "suggested he was only interested in electionism" (have a re-read of what the common consensus (from the European posters) about Galloway being an 'opportunist' etc)).

FACT: The people elected a known terrorist sympathizer who counts Islamic Jihad and Hamas among his friends and who has openly advocated for the destruction of Israel.

I'm afraid I share the views of my fellow Europeans in condemnation of Galloway's ME stance, your point?

And you and your ilk

And who would that be?

want to write this off as some sort of protest vote against the evil government that is tired of handing out money to people - regardless of their ethic background - who believe the goverment owes them a living and who wouldn't work under any circumstances.

It usually takes a few pages, for the prejudices to come to the surface. So the people of Bradford have had the audacity to hold their politicians to account for the economic decline of a City,

"The grossly unfair financial settlement that Bradford received from the Coalition government (8.8% budget reduction or £129 per head of the population) and the absence of a viable economic and investment strategy merely re-entrenched the idea that the Conservative and Labour candidates were representing a Cabinet of the South and for the South".

And the appeal to women,

"The emergence of women as an electoral force in this by-election cannot be underestimated. In this respect Bradford Muslim Women Council's call to women to exercise their vote without fear or favour, was instrumental in the political awakening of many Muslim women in this by-elections. While the Galloway campaign proactively targeted women in local community and women's centres, Labour made a tactical mistake of ignoring this vital constituency".

George Galloway's victory: two views from a Bradford household | UK news | guardian.co.uk

Have a read of the full article, it may be of interest.

Enjoy Galloway. You deserve him.

He does not represent my ward, thanks all the same.

Paul

 

[Gardener]

Come on, Gardener that's below you.

You stated quite directly that you were pleased that he was elected. If my pointing out this fact is below me, then perhaps I should go even lower in order to discover why you are really pleased. This might take some time since it is based upon the psychology of group identification and the various fallacious mechanisms people utilize when addressing cognitive dissonance.

I'm not sure how many times one has to say one dislikes the beneficiary of the protest but understands and even applauds the fact that the establishment has received a blow.

And every time you indulge in this fallacious reasoning, I will point out that it is a textbook example of the maxim regarding the enemy of your enemy being your friend.

You can continue to falsely present my argument as supporting Galloway and supporting Islamism and we'll leave the debate there.

There is nothing in the least bit false in a statement that your being pleased with his election supports him as well as his politics. The only problem here is that you want it both ways -- you want to show your support while offering insincere denial that you don't.

Alternatively, you could address this question: Given the alienation and dissatisfaction of very large swathes of the population with the iniquity, inequality and corruption of the current political establishments in both your country, my home country and my adopted country, why is it surprising that people turn to extreme, idiosyncratic or just plain demagogic alternatives in order to register their protest?

Because they are irrational, poorly educated, reactive and highly resentful.

Whether or not you accept that Galloway is an Islamist or an Islamist apologist, can we just park the truck in the space marked, "We all hate Islamism" and leave it there?

Your continued denial of who he is and what he represents indicates to me that you have buzzed right past that space at a couple hundred klicks. You need very much to stop and actually park, instead,

I really don't need telling how horrible Islamists and the Iranian state are to gay people, for the hundredth time. I held that opinion long, long before I encountered you or DP.

Evidently you do, because you say you are pleased that he was elected.

The issue we're debating here is whether Galloway's bi-election success was about a protest vote against the British political establishment and ruling class, or about a vote for Islamism. I think all sane observers would err towards the former interpretation.

The actual debate is between those who know who he is and what he represents and those who offer nothing but apologia and doublespeak in their attempts to deny who he is and what he represents. If some of you British posters would start dealing with your cognitive dissonance, maybe we could get somewhere, but as long as the need to conform outweighs the need to think, then we won't.

 

[Wiggen]

OK I'll simplify. Can you illuminate who these Far Left type(s) are? better still quantify? Did you understand the implications of a split within Respect in 2007? A clue was in the previous link....I'll help, did you pick up where it "suggested he was only interested in electionism" (have a re-read of what the common consensus (from the European posters) about Galloway being an 'opportunist' etc)).




I'm afraid I share the views of my fellow Europeans in condemnation of Galloway's ME stance, your point?



And who would that be?



It usually takes a few pages, for the prejudices to come to the surface. So the people of Bradford have had the audacity to hold their politicians to account for the economic decline of a City,

"The grossly unfair financial settlement that Bradford received from the Coalition government (8.8% budget reduction or £129 per head of the population) and the absence of a viable economic and investment strategy merely re-entrenched the idea that the Conservative and Labour candidates were representing a Cabinet of the South and for the South".

And the appeal to women,

"The emergence of women as an electoral force in this by-election cannot be underestimated. In this respect Bradford Muslim Women Council's call to women to exercise their vote without fear or favour, was instrumental in the political awakening of many Muslim women in this by-elections. While the Galloway campaign proactively targeted women in local community and women's centres, Labour made a tactical mistake of ignoring this vital constituency".

George Galloway's victory: two views from a Bradford household | UK news | guardian.co.uk

Have a read of the full article, it may be of interest.



He does not represent my ward, thanks all the same.

Paul

I'd be happy to share my view of what constitutes a Far Left philosophy, at least as it pertains to international affairs. Frankly I don't much give a damn what Eurolefties think of their domestic policies, although I'm pretty sure it involves taxing the hell out of those who work and giving it to those who don't, no questions asked.

The Far Left is invariably anti-American and certainly anti-Israeli. The only question generally is which one they hate the most. Usually it's America, but if they have a strong streak of anti-semitism running through them - which some do - it is Israel. They are strongly in favor of despotic regimes in the world, as long as they aren't places like Saudi Arabla, which has decent relationship with the U.S. The more anti-US the regime, the more they are liked - which is why they are so insensed about the poor Palestinans yet don't much appear to give a damn about the mass murder of Syrians - at least not judging by this forum.

I could go on but there's no point in it really. You understand fully what the Far Left is all about.

By the way, its nice that Muslim women in Bradford get to vote - a fairly unique occurence for Muslim women. I expect Sharia Law will take care of that nonsense.

 

[Meathead]

May be not as Left as you think?

Great post, and even better sig line. I'd forgotten that quote. It was always one of my favourites from the great man; truly one of my political heros.

Michael Foot is your hero and you're not as left as some think?! Really? If Foot had beaten Thatcher the UK would essentially be Greece today, but without the sunshine.

 

[mbig]

Victimhood. The most popular card among Western Muslim voters (and Islamists)

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
DAVID AARONOVITCH
From: The Australian April 02, 2012

...If solidarity with oppressed Muslims abroad was part of the Galloway appeal, such fellow feeling did not extend to the people of Homs. As it did not to those taking such risks for democracy in Iran - a country for whose state propaganda outfit, Press TV, Galloway has in his time done much service.

So what did matter? Why have Bradfordians wound up with the slate-voiced ***** of the Big Brother house as their member of parliament? Asked on radio about his victory and her party's defeat, Labour's Harriet Harman referred several times to the "particular problems" of the constituency but declined to specify what they were. It seems to me, however, that such circumspection is unnecessary.

Galloway, expelled by Labour in 2003, would not have stood in Bradford West had it not contained a very substantial Muslim population. In the general election of 2005, he fought and won the seat of Bethnal Green and Bow. The Muslim population there was about 40% and he won with 36% of the vote. In 2010 he stood in Poplar, East London, where the Muslim community represents more than 33%. There was no collapse in the Tory vote and Mr Galloway came third with 17%. He passed on the previous by-elections in this parliament, standing only in Scotland last May, where his party, Respect, achieved a vote of 3% (the Muslim population of Glasgow is about 3%, but most will have voted for other parties). Then along comes Bradford West, about 38% Muslim, according to the 2001 census.

So Galloway is a specialist targeter of British Muslim votes. The idea spread by his Respect colleagues that his main attraction was his anti-austerity stance doesn't bear even cursory examination. Indeed, in Bradford some of his appeal was couched in sectional and religious language unprecedented in the past 60 years of British politics. One of his leaflets began thus: "God knows who is a Muslim. And he knows who is not. Instinctively, so do you. Let me point out to all the Muslim brothers and sisters what I stand for."

Galloway claims to lead the decent, pious life: "I, George Galloway, do not drink alcohol and never have. Ask yourself if you believe the other candidate in this election can say that truthfully." While readers pick themselves up off the floor, I should add that those who have followed Galloway for years will smile at the omission of adultery from the list of vices he abjures. I should just add that almost no Galloway event or pronouncement is now complete without several invocations of Allah in some form.

But the Labour candidate, Imran Hussain, was also a Muslim. What he couldn't do, however, was what Galloway is so good at - rousing popular anger at the Establishment (of which Labour is inevitably part) and playing on a sense of grievance and victimhood that is particular to some Muslim communities. The reason Iraq, for instance, evokes a response but Galloway's backing for the killers of Muslims in Syria does not, is because it fits a narrative of Muslims being oppressed by outsiders. It creates an internal community solidarity that would otherwise be eroded by the modern condition of Britain.".."

And those Census figures are for 2001. I suspect/am sure the Muslim percentage even higher now.

 

[Andalublue]

You stated quite directly that you were pleased that he was elected.

Where? Links please. I certainly have never said that I am pleased he was elected. I said I am happy the political establishment received a slap in the face. I'm sure someone of your intelligence can see the difference.

If my pointing out this fact is below me, then perhaps I should go even lower in order to discover why you are really pleased. This might take some time since it is based upon the psychology of group identification and the various fallacious mechanisms people utilize when addressing cognitive dissonance.

Given that your original premise is flawed, this is irrelevant.

And every time you indulge in this fallacious reasoning, I will point out that it is a textbook example of the maxim regarding the enemy of your enemy being your friend.

It would appear that you believe the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" trope, as I have already repudiated it, quite specifically, twice in this thread.

There is nothing in the least bit false in a statement that your being pleased with his election supports him as well as his politics. The only problem here is that you want it both ways -- you want to show your support while offering insincere denial that you don't.

Here you have a semi-valid point. Valid because in giving the establishment a deserved bloody nose, this opportunist and self-publicist gets more of the oxygen of publicity that he craves, and I'd prefer that didn't happen. It's only semi-valid because you assume to know that my rejection of Galloway is insincere. That is untrue and I am the only person who can know this. You couldn't possibly know what's in my heart.

Because they are irrational, poorly educated, reactive and highly resentful.

That's your supposition. I think it's false and I question your ability to know what such motivation might be given that I suspect you've never visited Bradford and not followed the bi-election campaign. Please put me right if I am mistaken.

Your continued denial of who he is and what he represents indicates to me that you have buzzed right past that space at a couple hundred klicks. You need very much to stop and actually park, instead,

Clearly we interpret the career and campaigning of Galloway differently. I suspect I've followed it a little closer than you have. Perhaps not.

The actual debate is between those who know who he is and what he represents and those who offer nothing but apologia and doublespeak in their attempts to deny who he is and what he represents. If some of you British posters would start dealing with your cognitive dissonance, maybe we could get somewhere, but as long as the need to conform outweighs the need to think, then we won't.

I wouldn't accuse you of cognitive dissonance because I question whether you have any informed cognition of the British political system, debate and culture. It is not the same as the US and does not lend itself to easy labelling and black-and-white, us-and-them dualist thinking. It's a complex beast and I recognise that paradoxes are not easily explained away. I feel very torn about this issue and have tried to express those conflicting emotions. That you wish to portray that as me placing myself in the Islamist tribe is unfortunate, but sadly nothing new.

 

[Wiggen]

Victimhood. The most popular card among Western Muslim voters (and Islamists)

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
DAVID AARONOVITCH
From: The Australian April 02, 2012

the question I've always had for those muslims in the west who feel victimized by outsiders - and I agree with your assessment on this - is why bother coming here then? Not so much the U.S., but western Europe. They come to places that A) apparently vicitimize them and B) represent everything they hate in the world.

Peculiar, ain't it? Almost as peculiar as their outrage when they discover that the place they came to - whether the UK or France or Germany - is actually different from the place they left.

 

[mbig]

the question I've always had for those muslims in the west who feel victimized by outsiders - and I agree with your assessment on this - is why bother coming here then? Not so much the U.S., but western Europe. They come to places that A) apparently vicitimize them and B) represent everything they hate in the world.

Peculiar, ain't it? Almost as peculiar as their outrage when they discover that the place they came to - whether the UK or France or Germany - is actually different from the place they left.

Not that peculiar.
Despite fleeing oppressive Islamist systems, they bring their Islam with them.
Here/the EU they are Indulged by Guilty post-Colonial Leftist Multi-Cultis who eat that stuff up.
More so in Europe than the USA.
Hitch:
Londonistan Calling | Politics | Vanity Fair

 

[Andalublue]

Victimhood. The most popular card among Western Muslim voters (and Islamists)

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
DAVID AARONOVITCH
From: The Australian April 02, 2012

And those Census figures are for 2001. I suspect/am sure the Muslim percentage even higher now.

And yet he won 56% of the vote. Are you claiming that only Moslems voted for him?

 

[gunner]

I'd be happy to share my view of what constitutes a Far Left philosophy, at least as it pertains to international affairs.

That wouldn't be necessary, or relevant.

Frankly I don't much give a damn what Eurolefties think of their domestic policies, although I'm pretty sure it involves taxing the hell out of those who work and giving it to those who don't, no questions asked.

You don't give damn, because you don't really know what policies you're actually inferring about, it's called 'topical' ignorance and unfortunately you have it in spades.

The Far Left is invariably anti-American and certainly anti-Israeli.

Of course the far Left is anti-American, can you not see the obviousness of that statement? They would not be the far Left if they did not hate, with a vengeance, the most successful Capitalist nation in the world...:doh. So your point is, what?

I could go on but there's no point in it really. You understand fully what the Far Left is all about.

At least, that looks to make one of us

By the way, its nice that Muslim women in Bradford get to vote - a fairly unique occurence for Muslim women. I expect Sharia Law will take care of that nonsense.

How am I not surprised, it came as such a 'surprise' to you. I mean, why should i suspect you to have done a little research, on the complexities of the Bradford constituency voting patterns.

 

[gunner]

the question I've always had for those muslims in the west who feel victimized by outsiders - and I agree with your assessment on this - is why bother coming here then? Not so much the U.S., but western Europe. They come to places that A) apparently vicitimize them and B) represent everything they hate in the world.

You cannot possibly hope to grasp the answer to your questions, whilst clinging to the notion that Muslim equates too, a hermetically sealed homogeneous grouping. There are of those that hold those prejudices, but many that hold a dissimilar view, often the silent majority.

This was a documentary worth watching,


http://www.channel4.com/programmes/make-bradford-british/articles/sabbiyah

Paul

 

[Wiggen]

That wouldn't be necessary, or relevant.

Actually it is. I was asked to define Far Left. I did.

You don't give damn, because you don't really know what policies you're actually inferring about, it's called 'topical' ignorance and unfortunately you have it in spades.

No, I don't give a damn. I know that any society that has as many free loaders who think the world owes them a living is almost invariably Far Left in its philosophy.

Of course the far Left is anti-American, can you not see the obviousness of that statement? They would not be the far Left if they did not hate, with a vengeance, the most successful Capitalist nation in the world...:doh. So your point is, what?

I'm defining Euro-lefties. I was asked to do so and I have. Thanks for agreeing with me. It explains the election of a scumbag like Galloway so well.

At least, that looks to make one of us

Yes, that would be me.

How am I not surprised, it came as such a 'surprise' to you. I mean, why should i suspect you to have done a little research, on the complexities of the Bradford constituency voting patterns.

I didn't say it was a surprise to me. Trouble with reading comprehension? I said it made them unique among Muslim women in the world.

 

[Wiggen]

You cannot possibly hope to grasp the answer to your questions, whilst clinging to the notion that Muslim equates too, a hermetically sealed homogeneous grouping. There are of those that hold those prejudices, but many that hold a dissimilar view, often the silent majority.
This was a documentary worth watching,


Make Bradford British - People - Sabbiyah - Channel 4

Paul

Which of course explains the election of Galloway and this, following the London bombings:

UK: Many young Midland Muslims support suicide bombings new poll reveals

 

[Gardener]

Where? Links please. I certainly have never said that I am pleased he was elected. I said I am happy the political establishment received a slap in the face. I'm sure someone of your intelligence can see the difference.

Andy, Andy, Andy - -aren't you a little young to be developing such gaping holes in your short term memory? In post #65 your exact words were "I am pleased at the Bradford bi-election result".

Given that your original premise is flawed, this is irrelevant.

There is no flaw in my original premise. It's just that I am not such a blind, agenda driven ideologue that I am willing to look at a completely naked emperor and comment upon the resplendence of his clothing.

It would appear that you believe the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" trope, as I have already repudiated it, quite specifically, twice in this thread.

Andy, are you really suffering such confusion that you believe indulging in something is repudiating it?

You couldn't possibly know what's in my heart.

Andy, there being an entire continent and ocean that lies between us, perhaps we should avoid any discussion of the heart, otherwise the unrequited aspect of that which lies within our hearts might get the better of us.

That's your supposition. I think it's false and I question your ability to know what such motivation might be given that I suspect you've never visited Bradford and not followed the bi-election campaign. Please put me right if I am mistaken.

Ah -- indulging in the appeal to authority, I see, that authority based upon nothing but having visited the location in question. Should I assume here that you will henceforth limit all discussion to those neighborhoods you have actually visited? Pity that, because there is much in my own country worth discussing.

Clearly we interpret the career and campaigning of Galloway differently. I suspect I've followed it a little closer than you have. Perhaps not.

Another appeal to authority that has nothing to do with arguing the merits of his election.

I wouldn't accuse you of cognitive dissonance because I question whether you have any informed cognition of the British political system, debate and culture. It is not the same as the US and does not lend itself to easy labelling and black-and-white, us-and-them dualist thinking. It's a complex beast and I recognise that paradoxes are not easily explained away. I feel very torn about this issue and have tried to express those conflicting emotions. That you wish to portray that as me placing myself in the Islamist tribe is unfortunate, but sadly nothing new.

Once again, nothing but another weak appeal to authority. I have not placed you in the Islamist camp. I have pointed out the great fallacies in your dogmatic thinking, and have established that you are quite willing to support the election of one who most definitely does further the Islamist agenda as long as you can trick yourself into believing that it is more important to act out by sticking it to the man than it is to elect representatives that support certain values.

This monstrous creature supports the killing of gay people as long as the regime doing so is Islamist, and despite this, you say you are pleased he was elected. The specious reasons you give for your support of his election are not based upon who he is, but on what he is against, and since you are against some of the same things you are willing to overlook and even deny who he really is.

It's not that I am indulging in black/white thinking, but that I am thinking consistently rather than indulging in apologia. You might want to try it some time.

 

[Andalublue]

Andy, Andy, Andy - -aren't you a little young to be developing such gaping holes in your short term memory? In post #65 your exact words were "I am pleased at the Bradford bi-election result".

I haven't got time now to reply to your whole post, but I will just address this first point. It's terribly disingenuous of you to quote out of context. Had you quoted that whole paragraph you'd have the answer. I said:

However much I dislike the guy, I am pleased at the Bradford bi-election result. It's about time the establishment parties got a bloody nose.

Clearly not happy with his being elected, but clearly happy at the protest.

I'll adress the remainder anon, after my double shift.

 

[Gardener]

I haven't got time now to reply to your whole post, but I will just address this first point. It's terribly disingenuous of you to quote out of context. Had you quoted that whole paragraph you'd have the answer. I said:

Clearly not happy with his being elected, but clearly happy at the protest.

I'll adress the remainder anon, after my double shift.

You flat out stated that you didn't say something that you definitely did. That does not mean I am disingenuous for pointing it out, but that you were lying.

The fact you came up with a specious reason for saying what you said by no means indicates you didn't say it. It just means that you convinced yourself it was justified. The FACT remains that you said you were pleased with the election result. WHY you were pleased has no bearing upon whether or not you actually said it.

 

[Andalublue]

You flat out stated that you didn't say something that you definitely did. That does not mean I am disingenuous for pointing it out, but that you were lying.

The fact you came up with a specious reason for saying what you said by no means indicates you didn't say it. It just means that you convinced yourself it was justified. The FACT remains that you said you were pleased with the election result. WHY you were pleased has no bearing upon whether or not you actually said it.

And now you're indulging in the old "shift the goalposts" ruse. I repudiated your claim, in Post 129:

You stated quite directly that you were pleased that he was elected.

I was very clear that I was happy at the result, not that he was elected, but that the establishment received a bloody nose. I think I've proved that point beyond reasonable doubt. Now move on.

 

[Andalublue]

Now, on to the rest of your post.

There is no flaw in my original premise. It's just that I am not such a blind, agenda driven ideologue that I am willing to look at a completely naked emperor and comment upon the resplendence of his clothing.

We'll agree to disagree on your premise.

Andy, are you really suffering such confusion that you believe indulging in something is repudiating it?

I'm not confused at all. I don't concede that Galloway is an Islamist. He's an opportunist, contrarian who is disposed to pander to alienated communities for his own personal, populist political gain. He uses genuine and sometimes legitimate feelings of persecution of Moslems and outrage over western policies in the ME to further his own agenda, which is quite distinct from an Islamist agenda. It's dishonest and cynical but not a call for the creation of a pan-Islamic political union and the imposition of Sharia. That's my understanding of what Islamism is all about. He'd hate that given his philandering and serial adultery.

Andy, there being an entire continent and ocean that lies between us, perhaps we should avoid any discussion of the heart, otherwise the unrequited aspect of that which lies within our hearts might get the better of us.

Good. Then let's stop before we do something we'll both regret the morning after.

Ah -- indulging in the appeal to authority,

Let's dismiss this one straight away. Appeal to authority is an argument that suggests that one source is knowledgable about a subject and therefore all said authority's positions on a matter can be said to be true. I am not claiming that because I know my own home county better than you therefore everything I say about it must be true. Nor indeed am I saying that because you clearly don't know Bradford or Yorkshire, that everything you say is false. I am saying that you clearly don't know much about the area and the people about whom you are making comments and judgements, and that such comments should be judged in that light. I also invited you to correct me if that observation is incorrect. That is not remotely like an argumentum ad verecundiam. Check the wiki page on locigal fallacies and you'll see that I'm right.....now THAT is an appeal to authority. BTW, I don't trust wiki that much.

I see, that authority based upon nothing but having visited the location in question. Should I assume here that you will henceforth limit all discussion to those neighborhoods you have actually visited? Pity that, because there is much in my own country worth discussing.

Had I said that you were wrong and I was right because of that difference of experience, you may have a point. I didn't, so you don't.

you are quite willing to support the election of one who most definitely does further the Islamist agenda as long as you can trick yourself into believing that it is more important to act out by sticking it to the man than it is to elect representatives that support certain values.

I don't think he does support the Islamist agenda of world domination of Islam and the imposition of Shari'a.

Given that, I would say that yes, it is good that the political establishment receive a rebuke and a warning that they have failed and continue to fail their people to the point of betrayal. The politcal and economic system under which British, and much of western neo-liberal 'democracy' is bust and needs wholesale reformation. Economically it does not provide stability or prosperity for the great majority. I doubt that it can, and I am convinced that those that run it do not wish it to, provide an equitable and just society that values all contributions and allows social mobility irrespective of background and economic means. Politically it has abandoned democracy in favour of a plutocracy. It has been reining in liberty and becoming increasingly authoritarian, using the Islamist boogeyman and the threat of terror in order to restrict the liberties that centuries of popular activism and reform have brought.

So, is a little extra limelight for one opportunist, powerless reptile cheering some unpleasant groups from the sidelines a price worth paying for making a loud statement to the plutocracy that they are failing their own people? I suspect that you would say no, and I say yes. This does not make him my friend. It makes him a tool, in every sense of the word. Does that mean I am supporting him and all he stands for? No. Just no, and no again.

It's not that I am indulging in black/white thinking, but that I am thinking consistently rather than indulging in apologia. You might want to try it some time.

By seeing Galloway as an incarnation of the Islamist boogeyman you appear to be refusing to see any legitimate critique of the failed political system of the West in general and the UK in particular. That smacks me as an apologia for the political, military and industrial plutocrats. That ought to feel uncomfortable for any self-avowed liberal.

You appear to me to believe that Islamism is the number one threat to the safety, liberty and prosperity of the civilised world. In their illiberal and brutal attitudes to personal freedoms, the Islamists provide western politicians with a perfect exemplar of the 'other' of which we need to be spending away our prosperity to oppose. They give the military/industrial complex the perfect excuse for appropriating the wealth of our nations. They also provide an excuse for the corrupted political establishment to limit the hard-won liberty of our own societies.

People who genuinely believe in justice, liberty, tolerance and equity need to oppose both the illiberalism of extremism of both a political and fundamentalist religious nature and they need to oppose the illiberal, authoritarian inclinations of our burgeoning plutocracy. I see the threat of the latter as being more pervasive, more powerful and more threatening to our society and civilisation than the former. I want to see both threats defeated. I do not want to align myself with one in order that either tendency defeats the other and reigns supreme. A curse on them both.