Originally posted by DelmerI suspect this is why the Galloway hearing came as a real shock to the Americans. There is a decorum and respect for high office in the US which those of us from more vigorous democracies find a little strange. In a Westminster style democracy, a leader has to face questions from even the most junior backbencher and a leader who can not face his critics alone - as Tony Blair can and frequently does - would have no respect.We see an attack like this on the actions of our government as the most important part of our democracy.
Another rhetorical question, I assume. When Mr. Galloway rises to Prime Minister status perhaps he can arrange a debate with the President of the USA.
You seem to expect the Presidentof the US can only debate those who hold equally high office and can ignore anyone else as being beneath his dignity. I don't expect Bush has ever faced a tough critic like Galoway - I don't think Americans want to face up to what a weak and confused thinker they have elected.
Originally posted by steerpikeGive me a break, Red. What makes you think Galloway came as a shock to anyone in America? We're quite familiar with arrogant, bombastic, pretentious, loud-mouthed, ill-mannered, shallow, foreign politicians.
I suspect this is why the Galloway hearing came as a real shock to the Americans. There is a decorum and respect for high office in the US which those of us from more vigorous democracies find a little strange. In a Westminster style democracy, a leader has to face questions from even the most junior backbencher and a leader who can not face his critics al ...[text shortened]... on't think Americans want to face up to what a weak and confused thinker they have elected.
The President can debate who he wishes, but we're not paying him to debate political underlings. Send over the Great Auk from your vibrant democracy and perhaps a debate can be arranged.
Originally posted by DelmerAnd when exactly was the last time George took some tough questions on his foreign policy? Or are elections the only time you ask tough questions of your President?
Give me a break, Red. What makes you think Galloway came as a shock to anyone in America? We're quite familiar with arrogant, bombastic, pretentious, loud-mouthed, ill-mannered, shallow, foreign politicians.
The President can debate who he wishes, but we're not paying him to debate political underlings. Send over the Great Auk from your vibrant democracy and perhaps a debate can be arranged.
Why send our Helen when George is already over there?
What interests me is the exact nature of Galloway's relationship with the SWP within Respect after this venture. The SWP like to have it both ways: to enjoy and deny political hegemony within front organizations (for example Stop the War), and Respect is obviously the latest example of this. The problem is, with Galloway's personal popularity now becoming as critically important to Respect's electoral success as Robert Kilroy-Silk's is for Veritas and formerly to UKIP, just how are they going to react to a non-fellow-traveller and Old Labour parliamentary socialist attaining this level of popularity within their latest toy?
Originally posted by steerpikeLast time i saw him take some tough questions was before the election when Irish RTE interviewer Carole Coleman asked him a few toughies and he bumbled his way through them.
And when exactly was the last time George took some tough questions on his foreign policy? Or are elections the only time you ask tough questions of your President?
Why send our Helen when George is already over there?
I doubt she will ever be let interview him again 😉
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0624/primetime.html
Click on the Carole Coleman link, 3rd one down.
EDIT: The whitehouse actually lodged a complaint with the Irish Embassy after this interview..
Originally posted by AmauroteYes, I'll be watching this with interest too, not least because it will have an effect on how the SWP behave within the SSP.
What interests me is the exact nature of Galloway's relationship with the SWP within Respect after this venture. The SWP like to have it both ways: to enjoy and deny political hegemony within front organizations (for example Stop the War), and Respect is obviously the latest example of this. The problem is, with Galloway's personal popularity now becoming ...[text shortened]... d Old Labour parliamentary socialist attaining this level of popularity within their latest toy?
I can't really speak for the position in England, but in Scotland the SWP did not have control of the anti-war coalition, and they're a small faction within the SSP.
Galloway's personal position here has always been ambigious. Even while he was in the labour party, he ploughed his own furrow - Dewar referred to him as a traitor during the 1990s. He's always been respected by the non-labour left - if he'd stood again in Glasgow, the SSP may have decided to not oppose him.
I think the position is different from KilroySlik though. There's more to Respect than just Galloway. The socialist alliances have built local structures over recent years, and this is just their latest attempt to come together.
Originally posted by RedmikeInteresting, Mike - I'm an outsider so you as an activist will know much better, but it seems as if Respect is a much shallower movement than the SSP, and much more likely to be an evanescent, opportunistic organization. Then again, people have been saying the same thing about the SWP for years, and love them or hate them, they're always there on the fringes of the trade union movement or inducting middle-class kids on the campuses. We may laugh at the spectacle and their slightly patronizing view of the working-class, but give them their dues, they're always there, recruiting, recruiting, recruiting - you can't really gainsay their durability.
I think the position is different from KilroySlik though. There's more to Respect than just Galloway. The socialist alliances have built local structures over recent years, and this is just their latest attempt to come together.
Originally posted by AmauroteI think respect are at the stage the SSP was about a decade or more ago.
Interesting, Mike - I'm an outsider so you as an activist will know much better, but it seems as if Respect is a much shallower movement than the SSP, and much more likely to be an evanescent, opportunistic organization. Then again, people have been saying the same thing about the SWP for years, and love them or hate them, they're always there on the frin ...[text shortened]... e always there, recruiting, recruiting, recruiting - you can't really gainsay their durability.
The SSP was formed out of the anti poll tax movement, Respect from the anti-war movement.
Scottish Militant Labour (the fore-runner of the SSP) got Tommy Sheridan and some other councillors elected, Repsect get Galloway elected.
I think Respect still have a long way to go to bring the left in England together. I understand that there are still some socialist alliances keeping away from Respect (because of fear of the SWP, presumably) and there's still the SLP. I also think they should leave Wales alone, like they've committed to doing in Scotland.
I agree about the SWP in general though. They're a pain in the a*se sometimes, but at least we're all in the same tent now.
From their point of view, they're stuck in the SSP, and they're stuck in Respect. They've a bit of influence in the SSP, and hopefully as Respect grows they'll end up as a large faction without control.
The approach of the former Militant and the SWP comrades are almost complementary - the mili's just stick to working class estates and the SWP get a clear run at the universities.
Galloway is a good orator and politician, obviously intelligent and very canny, but his morals are a little suspect.
He refused to sign a motion condemning human rights abuses in Bangladesh, and has campaigned for the release of Tariq Aziz, accused of numerous crimes against humanity and of personally shooting prisoners, on the grounds that he is a "political prisoner".
EDIT: He refused to sign a motion condemning human rights abuses in Burma. In Bangladesh he just spoke out about being against human rights abuses before he went, pledged to take them to task when he visited, then kept quiet about it while he was there.
I'm a little confused by the Tariq Aziz story. Wasn't he simply objecting to Azis being held without charge or trial as opposed to calling for a release? He is friendly with him, but the nuance here is pretty important.
The Bangladesh stories were classic legedermain - by canvassing indirectly in Bangladesh, he probably secured the narrow plurality he needed to capture Bethnal Green. Oona King was out-manouevred on that score at least, and she's no slouch when it comes to campaigning.
I'm not sure about links to the Tariq Aziz story (the rebuttal to the charges of crypto-Ba'athism came in the mainstream press a few days ago, before the Sub-Committee coverage), but there's a link to the Bangladesh visit here:
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/571/respect.htm
Although to be honest, I was following it mainly through the coverage in Private Eye over the last few weeks - he seems to have given a commitment to condemning abuses, and then mysteriously forgotten it when he arrived.
Originally posted by RedmikeHere is Galloway's online petition calling for the release of Aziz:
I don't know anything about either the Bangladesh or Tariq Aziz issues - do you have a link I could look at?
http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=10543&s2=21
Here is a link where Galloway tells Al Jazeera that the suspected war criminal is an "eminent diplomatic and intellectual person" being held illegally in a Baghdad prison:
http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=11130&TagID=2
Thanks for the link, Varg, but it still raises questions, maybe you can clarify: although the fact that he has signed a petition calling for Aziz's release, it then qualifies it by stating that he is objecting not because he believes him to be innocent, but because he has not been formally charged and additionally because he believes that he will not receive a fair trial. The one palpable hit Levin had on him at the Sub-Committee came at the end where he admitted to being on friendly terms with Aziz and having met him many times, but that doesn't necessarily make him a Ba'athist.
Originally posted by RedmikeThe are alot of initials here:
[b]I think respect are at the stage the SSP was about a decade or more ago.
The SSP was formed out of the anti poll tax movement, Respect from the anti-war movement.
Scottish Militant Labour (the fore-runner of the SSP) got Tommy Sheridan and some other councillors elected, Repsect get Galloway elected.
I think Respect still have a long way to go to bring th ...[text shortened]... les alone, like they've committed to doing in Scotland.
I agree about the SWP in general though.
SSP, SWP, SLP:
I presume some S's refer to Scottish but others refer to socialism.
Is socialism still a dirty word for the electorate at large?
Perhaps you would be more succesful if yoou rebranded yourself the Caring Sharing Party. Or even RESPECT!