Respect And More Respect For George Galloway’s Parties
WITH Saddam Hussein deposed, George Galloway is the world’s foremost moustachioed politician.
Never one to rest on his laurels, Galloway is now the MP for not just one party but two parties. As the Independent’s headline attest: “Respect off conference agenda as Galloway party splits in two.”
Galloway is the Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow. And the party he launched three years ago is holding its annual conferences. Two. At the same time.
At Westminster University, Regent Street, a hall will be opened for the Respect Party’s annual conference, chaired by a Mr John Rees. Over in Bishopsgate, Galloway will be speaking at Respect Renewal.
To avoid confusion, we will refer to Mr Rees’ party as Respect Due and to Mr Galloway’s party and Nuff Respect.
November 9th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Galloway - wanker
November 9th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Galloway- Free thinker
November 9th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Free-loader more like.
Galloway is a smug, self-satisfied, self obsessed, odious waste of space.
Yes, I guessyou could say I,m a fan - not.
He was an embarassment to Labour and Scotland.
November 9th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Would you prefer someone like Thatcher then? Tony Blair? Hitler? I’m not mocking you, just trying to ascertain where you’re coming from, and of course your opinion is valued by me. No problem mate… I’m not trying to wind you up or disrespect you- So long as we’re clear on that
November 9th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Galloway is neither the problem nor the solution. He’s not a pawn, he is a loose cannon who fires off against whatever is put in front of him.
Like all the others, he’s a wannabe celebrity - he’d rather be on all fours in front of Rula Lenska that really putting his opinions on the line. He’d rather get a few claps on Question Time and write a book than stand up for real change.
November 10th, 2007 at 1:04 am
Andrew, how can you be on Galloway’s side? He’s a lazy politician who likes making speeches but can’t take a debate - which is why he always ends up splitting from parties.
He sucked up to Saddam and I expect if Hitler had announced he was a Marxist and the Jews were all rich capitalists Galloway would be right by his side - for the photo-ops.
People like him killed socialism - Kier Hardie would be spinning in his grave.
November 10th, 2007 at 3:03 am
I have an in-built liking for the underdog. Thatcher I think you will find killed Socialism. Unions had power until she eroded it. Red Ken, Scargill et al weren’t having their phones tapped by MI5 for nothing. They feared a Soviet style workers takeover. Did you see miners being assaulted? I did. Why? For wanting to continue their honest livings. Thatcher on the other hand had her own ideas. Did you see the communities suffer? I did. What do you define as socialism? Public owned steelworks, Bus services, Train services, vehicle manufacturers, coal mines, gas works, Telephone networks, Postal services… Yes, we used to have it all until Thatcher came along and sold them to her chums. What are the remnants which we still have? Hospitals and Schools. Barely. Wow, great! Vote Conservative!! (or new labour) If you want to have a pop at anyone for (continuing in) destroying Socialism these days, look no further than our friend Gordon Brown. He’s a relic from the real Labour party who ought to know better. Tony Benn, where are you when we need you? He’s the last great surviving brain we have in this country
November 10th, 2007 at 3:11 am
Andrew, Thatcher didn’t kill socialism she cleared the corpse.
Don’t you remember the 1970s?
Tony Benn is a public schoolboy fraud - quite sweet, totally useless. Stop being such a sucker for publicity seekers.
November 10th, 2007 at 3:14 am
Andrew
And to add to that - my Dad had his phones tapped and was followed by MI5, starting in 1969 - well before Thatcher.
November 10th, 2007 at 3:37 am
Yeah I remember the 70’s. “Power (cuts) to the people!! Tony Benn is the voice of reason, don’t knock him. I agree on almost everything he stands for
http://www.ak13.com/article.php?id=101
November 10th, 2007 at 3:47 am
But if he ran the country Andrew, how much would be different? Almost nothing, I guarantee you.
You can take the boy out of Westminster, but you can’t take Westminister out of the boy (that’s the school, not the parliment - I had a boyfriend who was a public school boy Marxist - Harrow - he wasn’t even aware of what a power-loving snob he and his trustafarian mates were).
November 10th, 2007 at 3:56 am
Ideology and intellectualism comes from education as well as experience. At least Tony has a standpoint from which he opposes exploitation of people. That is admirable coming frm someone who could just think of himself. He’s against NATO and the EU. I think given the chance to put things right he would. The trouble is, a lot of Socialists have died off, and the younger generations are greed based. When you are up against ill educated, media hypnotised people with an un-natural desire for materials, do you really think anyone would sacrifice their (very slim) chance of “success”? Instead the many suffer so the few can succeed because of this delusion.
November 10th, 2007 at 4:01 am
Andrew,
I read the article you posted. There’s no doubt Tony’s a nice man, but there’s two obvious problems,
1. His belief that the people at the bottom all want the same thing.
2. His belief that capitalist imperialism is the only war-mongering force in the world - tell that to the Hungarians who had the Soviet tanks crush their autonomy in 1956, or the teachers that were slaughtered by their students during the Cultural Revolution in China.
November 10th, 2007 at 4:09 am
I’ve covered 1 already. 2 is correct these days. Marxist ideology actually states that it will “embrace capitalism” eventiually which it has. And I must point out that I do not support Russia or China, we are talking about Socialist Britain, nothing so Northern as Russia or China if we keep going in that magnetic direction. It’s too cold anyway as Hitler found out to his disappointment.
November 10th, 2007 at 4:09 am
Andrew
I agree there’s too much greed in the world, but I think it’s better to tame capitalism and make it more charitable and responsible - rather than go down the same road that led to totalitarianism the first time. Rigid minds loath compromise, but it’s the only humanist solution.
November 10th, 2007 at 4:14 am
“The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments
of production, by the immensely facilitated means of production draws
all even the most backward nations into civilization… It compels
all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeoisie
mode of production; it compels them to introduce what they
call “civilization” into their midst, i.e., to
become bourgeoisie themselves. In one word, it creates
a world in its own image.” - Karl Marx
November 10th, 2007 at 4:16 am
Nationalism (and tribalism) is still a war-mongering force in most of the world - not that most of us notice. Marxism is still lingering in the background of a few disputes. Islamic imperialism is a real entity, though I doubt it’s that much of a threat.
If we’re just talking about Socialist Britain though, I’ve lived under a Socialist council all my life (it’s ruled fairly solidly since the 1930s) - it’s cosy, but dull. Are you sure that’s what you want?
November 10th, 2007 at 4:24 am
I would far rather everybody have a sense of purpose, dignity, a decent education, healthcare, public services and a common desire for community and for everyone to possibly not earn as much than for “Elitists” to take advantage, and for the majority to suffer.
I live alone in a 5 bedroom house. I know that’s not right when you have families living in a small flat or even in a bedsit. It can’t be argued that I took advantage of anyone through my own hard work and denial, so that is my only reason for having no guilt in that respect.
There are two policemen living on my street, one of which lives in a Two bedroom flat. I don’t even have to go to work due to my own calculating capacity…. That’s Capitalism for you. The mentally strong are worth more than the mentally weak. Is this fair?
November 10th, 2007 at 4:26 am
Sounds like the bourgeoisie are the Devil. I think that’s probably been the problem Marxism has had all along - it’s demonisation of a class of people and the way it attributes them with a diabolical ability to dominate and replicate (which incidentally is exactly how the Tzars of Russia felt about the Jews)
If people live in groups, they have to be organised - even if it’s the tribal elders and a bunch of families. If you want something different and the times don’t support it, I can understand that it’s frustrating - but what do you want to do about it - have a genocide aimed at the middle-class? What then? Happiness reigns forever?
November 10th, 2007 at 4:38 am
I think Cuba in fairness is a very good example of a Socialist utopia type of revolution. They even renumerated the casino owners etc. instead of taking them. America dug it’s heels in so they just seized most of the rest. Nobody was beaten to death by angry mobs, they were tried in a competent court and dealt with in a civilised way unlike Russia in 1917. Cuba has one of the best healthcare systems known, barely any serious crime and this is just through an agriculture economy, and a sense of belonging and identity. I think it’s a shining example really, and the 50’s wasn’t that long ago really. Fidel stuck to his to ideology after a failed attempt, two years in Jail and he made another stand and succeeded… This is the calibre of Man that wins through. He could have quite easily have given up in fear for his own liberty, but had the moral fibre and the desire for a better life for his people
November 10th, 2007 at 4:39 am
Andrew
What are you doing living alone in a 5-bedroomed house?
I don’t know what your area is like. I live in Scotland, a combination of Presbyterianism and Socialism means it’s never been acceptable up here to approve of a large gap between the rich and the poor (our millionaires hide or leave). There are loads of organisations you can join (through the Churches and the government and charities) to help out the disadvantaged.
Our big problem is the economy is stagnating and a sense of purpose is a tricky thing - I don’t know many people who have one unless they’re careerist, or they love meeting new people, or they have some crusade they want to inflict on others.
November 10th, 2007 at 4:48 am
Cuba?
It has a King pretending to speak for the people.
Gay men were put in Labour camps to make them men.
The only reason the people accept the poverty is because they’re terrified of America and that gives them something to focus on.
I know a lot of Westerners think that if we weren’t so painfully aware of our own individuality we’d be happy - that’s why we join movements, and take up Buddhism and all the rest - but I think it’s a delusion. The Calvinists weren’t happy in Geneva (pure protestantism is a form of proto-socialism and in those days the Catholic Church was an Empire) and we wouldn’t be happy in Cuba.
November 10th, 2007 at 4:50 am
I live in North Wales by the Sea where all the pensioners come to retire, it’s usually a conservative council but the Welsh Nationalists plaid cymru have won recently
They’re a bit watered down but are trying their best to be fair to them.
Sense of purpose is what car you drive, football team you support, or clothes you wear these days, and yes you are correct in the career comment…
Fairly sad. The way to change ideas is to appeal to people’s common sense. Without popular support there is no way of having social revolution or any revolution of any type. The bribe of the fantasy of wealth is what motivates people to ignore his starving Brothers, or to starve himself. Wealth to me is having a conscience and an understanding. Understanding of anything and everything, but how many people can truly be bothered to learn, want to learn, have the opportunity to learn? That’s where it all begins. Don’t forget love too! All revolutionaries must be motivated by love and justice- Why else are we at Anorak? It exists, but is fragmented
November 10th, 2007 at 4:53 am
In fairness to Fidel he gave people the opportunity to leave after the revolution if they did not wish to remain, although he was a bit naughty promising elections which never materialised… but hey, that’s nothing new.
November 10th, 2007 at 5:09 am
Andrew
Your heart’s in the right place, I’m not entirely sure about your head.
I think I’ve been corrupted by my English course - I don’t know why, none of the other students are bothered - but it’s the way a drama can’t exist without an antagonist and humans get listless and bored without drama.
A friend who is in advertising told me that consumerism was about triggering the hunting instinct - maybe I’m worried that if people aren’t buying crap they’ll be lynching each other?
November 10th, 2007 at 5:14 am
Andrew
I’ve never lived under a Conservative council. Neither have my parents. I think the Liberals held it in my Grandparents’ day and before them the Tories only held it because almost no one had the vote, but that was in about 1900.
November 10th, 2007 at 5:24 am
Nobody ever said my head was in the right place… Flattery doesn’t do it for me anyway!
I’m not Cuban so wouldn’t want to live there, and I’m not a hardcore communist either, let’s not get it twisted ha! Consumerism is nonsense really isn’t it though. It’s inherently boom-bust by nature. Productivity without consumerism drops, then unemployment rises, interest rates rise, house prices fall… who picks up the pieces? The people with money of course, buying everything up. It’s a scam. If you understand it and play it you can “succeed” Of course on the face of it nobody’s bothered. Apathy is taught at Schools. In my School people were bred to operate lathes and other menial tasks, the same as nearly every other state school in the 70’s/. And yes people’s hunting instinct still exists powerfully so. Go to any nightclub, the Young Men want a shag, if they don’t get it, they want a fight. Now we’re also getting in to the realms of gender role frustrations too. Men are no longer hunters, women are often more “successful” in this respect… we could go on discussing every single sexual social economic aspect of life until Anorak ran out of bandwidth. ~Poor Anorak…
November 10th, 2007 at 5:28 am
Andrew
It’s nice having a chat about stuff that matters though.
November 10th, 2007 at 5:32 am
It beats talking about those fucking McCann’s any day of the week! So, what the hell are we doing up at 5:31AM on a Saturday Morning? Maybe it’s the time when the real shit is going on! Wake up everyone!!! No, on second thoughts… don’t. please don’t. It’s nice to have a break from someone popping in being abusive (you twat!)
November 10th, 2007 at 5:33 am
Consumerism is a boom-and-bust scam - like I say though, I’m worried about what primal horrors are lurking in our psyches that would make a sense of community a bad idea.
I live next to a field where three witches were burned in the 1600s - it doesn’t make me optimistic.