well
look$ like another excuse for gordeous george to be AWOL

as an MP - he's just not there
check it out
 http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=George_Galloway&mpc=Bethnal+Green+%26amp%3B+Bow&display=everyvote



sorry, as a hackney grassroutes activist , who spent years thinking Diane Abottt was crap -
at least she turns up for around half the the votes - rather than twice a year like george

seeems Respect have short changed us
gx

Munter! Are you for the parliamentary road to equality, justice and freedom then? George doesn’t appear to have any illusions about parliament; it’s just one of the tools of the ruling class, didn´t you know, which they use pass Neoconservative and Neoliberal laws.

I just don’t think George G. has the illusions in parliament that you have Munter, that’s all. It’s a matter of record that the SWP trend in Respect has never been deluded by a parliamentary road.

I dont know if you are typical of the London based middle class, lifestyle, grassroots activist who believe themselves to be an indigineous people - but many postings on this site seem to malign George and Respect. .

Don’t you realise that you are just doing the work of the ruling class and the state if now formly controls. Of course one or two of you will, that´s normal, but Indymedia UK appear to have an anti socialist editorial policy.

Socialist forces and policy are the main threat to the power of the ruling class which has been massively boosted by Neoliberalism becasue that was what neoliberaliam was designed for - to put the a ruling class firmly back into power, and to give a failing capitalist system a boost.

The capitalist system is no better off now than it was since the crisis of the 1970´s because neoliberalim has failed on this front, however, it has put a ruling class firmly back in power. This nouveau ruling class has incorporated the capitalist class . You could say neoliberaism has effected a counter revolution of sorts over the last 20 years. They are much wealthier now - and the rest of us are much poorer or dead- and they are apparently back in power. But their position is precarious. United we can blow them away.

So, if you want, carry on trying to disunite the emergence of any serious opposition - just like the daily mail. Help them turn into facists, when they accept neoliberalisn doesn´t work. Os that what IM is for? I really am beginning to wonder.

My advice is to not do the work of the real enemy, the ruling class and their agents, try and unite the opposition.

With unity we can just huff and puff and blow their house down. With new liberalism falling apart by the seams around the world, we need to support the Iraqis against the illegal invasion and support the anti-US neoconservative movement, or more broadly the anti-neoliberal movement and give capitalism a kick in the teeth from which it will never recover.

That’s what George, Respect, and many other groups and movements are doing. Why are many Indymedia posters opposed to these people? Why do they seek to divide movements?

Thank you Clandestino i could not put it better. I thought I was on my won for the last few weeks.Socialists of the world unite!

The attack on George Galloway is not an attack on Goerge but an attack on the whole world wide ant-war movement. History is full of this sort of attack by the ruling establishment on the leaders of the progressive, socialist and workers movements (recent examples Cindy Sheehan in the USA, Tony Ben when he stood for the Deputy Leadership of the Labour Party, Arthur Scarkill as leader of the mienesr stike {and all his perdictions have come about and were true, and even Martin Luther King when he condemned the Vietnam War, etc] - united we stand, devided we fall (which is their aim - so dont help them!!).


Neil Williams

"Don’t you realise that you are just doing the work of the ruling class and the state if now formly controls" Clandestino

"Those who go out of there way to knock George Galloway for no god reason at this time are lining up with Bush/Blair/ CIA/ MI6 etc to discredit not just George but the whole world wide anti-war movement" Neil Williams

"The attack on George Galloway is not an attack on Goerge but an attack on the whole world wide ant-war movement" Neil Williams

It always really worries me when people use the argument that you can't make a certain criticism because you'd be objectively helping the government/right/MI5/whoever. On occasions this seems to be an easier argument to make than proving the criticism is wrong in the first place. So I'm allowed to congratulate Galloway when he does something well (i.e. his senate speech) but I'm not allowed to point out when I think he's made himself look an idiot...

Out of interest, is there allowed to be any criticism within Respect of Galloway or would this be seen to be objectively assisting those who are pro-war as well? I'm hoping there is intra-party criticism, otherwise the levels of true party democracy in Respect must be dreadful (although if you can criticise Galloway from within Respect but not from outside it you leave yourself open to accusations of elitism and being hypocritical).

Anyway, if you can please let myself and anyone else outside Respect know when we're allowed to criticism Galloway then it would be much appreciated. Sandwiched between Respect's projected aspirations for growth and the everlasting war on terror I suppose we may never get a chance to criticise Galloway until he finally pops his clogs and we get Respect's version of the 1956 Conference (perhaps Lindsey German could play Kruschev?)

I think you may be right that, to a certain extent, Galloway is used as a tool to attack the anti-Iraq war movement as a whole. However, the important question to ask is why the anti-Iraq war movement is in the position that the movement can be attacked through just one person? What questions must be asked of the movement as a whole and, in particular, Respect as a result of this situation developing?

The SWP/Respect don't believe in the parliamentary route, but Galloway is quite happen to take a wage and expenses from the taxpayer. And as for his record in voting at westminster the man is a disgrace.
George Galloway is not the anti-war movement, he's a hustler pure and simple. Look how he and Hitchens battered each other at that ridicolous talk, then afterwards they got done to the serious business of selling books.
Also look how he used expenses from the Mariam Appeal to finance expensive trips to Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, Romania, France and America. You can access the records through the House of Commons website.
I've defended the man many times in the past but now I'm not so sure. He always seems to have his hand out looking for money.
The intelligence services consider Galloway as a 'steam valve'. These silly gladiatoral TV contests serve to help create the impression that this is the anti-war movement, whilst ignoring the real activists like Cindy Sheenan and Rose Gentle who weekly get out on the streets and do real protest.
The Galloway soup opera is becoming a bore.

Trish and Leamy, I dont fully understand your comments, but I have tried to extract your criticisms of George G.

1) As an MP, he takes money from the state.

2) He earns money from other sources; mainly from journalism, TV and Radio appearances. I believe he earned a few bob from some lectures in the US recently, too.

3) Some people believe he personifies the Anti-war movement (would that be you two, or others)

4) George is somehow deflecting the publicity spotlight on himself, away from more deserving Anti-war activists.

5) George helped found and is a member of Respect. Respect is a bad party/organisation (Expalin why, perhaps).

So.

Is there any more?

Hi Clandestino,

Cheers for the reply.

Don’t really think I’ve actually criticised Galloway in this (or the other) thread all that much. My original point was that I think he looked an idiot for missing the vote the other night – I know you’ve got a different point on this one and I think perhaps the argument has moved on a bit since then.

My main point in my most recent post was that there seems to be a) an unwillingness among Respect to admit any criticism of Galloway, and b) a strong willingness to accuse anyone who criticises Galloway of objectively helping the government or those on the right.

What I think is important is the fact that Respect supporters accuse anyone who criticises Galloway of objectively helping the right. Accusing people of helping the right-wing is a very serious accusation that should not be made lightly and, in this instance, is wrong on a number of points. Firstly, it tends to be bunched up with the patronising assumption that, for the good of the left, anyone not in Respect should be looking to unify with it. Secondly, it implies a strange notion of the truth, in that if you have a genuinely held criticism you should keep it quiet. Thirdly, it raises one man as above criticism simply for the fact he is being attacked by right-wing forces. Fourthly, it reduces everything to a black versus white issue in exactly the same way George W Bush does. Either you support Galloway and keep all your criticisms quiet or you are objectively of the right (for Respect, as for Bush, there is no middle ground). Fifthly, it raises questions about the extent of Respect’s internal party democracy (see earlier post).

I think the only comment you made that might refer to me (although it may be aimed at Tish and not me in which case apologies) is that “some people believe he personifies the Anti-war movement”. To clarify my point. Originally Neil commented that those who attack George Galloway are lining up with the right wing to attack not only Galloway but also the whole anti-war movement and that attacking Galloway helps discredit the “anti-war movement”. My question was solely whether Neil’s recognition that the anti-war movement can be discredited by one man might lead to a reconsideration of repeatedly pushing Galloway as a “leader of the anti-war movement” (as Galloway himself rather arrogantly referred to himself).