# Galloway returns to Parliament in sensational win in Bradford West - Labour/Coalition  smashed



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 30, 2012)

The full result (with vote share and change since 2010 in brackets):

George Galloway (Respect) 18,341 (55.89%, +52.83%)
Imran Hussain (Lab) 8,201 (24.99%, -20.36%)
Jackie Whiteley (C) 2,746 (8.37%, -22.78%)
Jeanette Sunderland (LD) 1,505 (4.59%, -7.08%)
Sonja McNally (UKIP) 1,085 (3.31%, +1.31%)
Dawud Islam (Green) 481 (1.47%, -0.85%)
Neil Craig (D Nats) 344 (1.05%)
Howling Laud Hope (Loony) 111 (0.34%)


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 30, 2012)

Galloway promised to work with Green MP Caroline Lucas and pledges Respect candidates in every seat in Bradford and across West Yorkshire and neighbouring areas in the forthcoming local elections


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 30, 2012)

Turnout was a relatively high 51% (by comparison with by-elections in Labour held seats).  As well as winning around 75% in some of the asian dominated wards, Galloway is said to have outpolled Labour in white working class areas too.  Labour MP on Sky News claims that it's a celebrity vote due to his Big Brother appearance and nothing to do with Labour's policies or useless opposition to the Coalition.


----------



## petee (Mar 30, 2012)

poor show by the loony party there


----------



## Sweetpea (Mar 30, 2012)

petee said:


> poor show by the loony party there


Which one?


----------



## petee (Mar 30, 2012)

fair enough!


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 30, 2012)

Whatever you think if Galloway, you have to acknowledge that he's the comeback kid.


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 30, 2012)

that is pretty impressive


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 30, 2012)

fucking hell.

"The Bradford Spring"


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 30, 2012)

For fuck's sake.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 30, 2012)

Give it a few years and the horrible cunt will be let back into the Labour party as mayoral candidate for West Yorkshire.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 30, 2012)

Hark the sound of Christopher Hitchins turning.


----------



## elfman (Mar 30, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Give it a few years and the horrible cunt will be let back into the Labour party as mayoral candidate for West Yorkshire.


 
West Yorkshire doesn't have a Mayor? There are ones in Bradford, Leeds, Kirklees, Wakefield etc though.


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 30, 2012)

elfman said:


> West Yorkshire doesn't have a Mayor? There are ones in Bradford, Leeds, Kirklees, Wakefield etc though.


i think thats a different kind of mayor


----------



## Belushi (Mar 30, 2012)

Welcome back George


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 30, 2012)

elfman said:


> West YYorkshire doesn't have a Mayor? There are ones in Bradford, Leeds, Kirklees, Wakefield etc though.



Yes, I'm futuregazing to a time when regional mayors are installed, and every single fucker who betrayed Labour for the sake of identity politics is given the Ken treatment.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 30, 2012)

Oh well, if the hoary old story about News International screwing OnDigital can suddenly develop new legs then perhaps Galloway's Oil For Food governance  might attract interest again.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 30, 2012)

Oh fuck off maurice - I am no galloway fan but he won fair and square becasue he actaully bothered to speak for what the voters cared about - the wars in the middle east and by offering genuine opposition to the violent austerity measures being shoved down people's throats.
And accusations over the oil for food thing was a blatent smear job by the same people who claimed Saddam had WMD - with similar levels of substance.
Go and cry over your signed Tony Blair photos.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 30, 2012)

Has anyone got a copy of Galloways manifesto for Bradford. i can't seem to find an up to date one for Respect anywhere.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 30, 2012)

Well said Kaka, its worth it if only to see the reaction it provokes in Maurice - just serves to remind me of the sort of sneery cunt that infests Labour politics nowadays.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 30, 2012)

haha awesome  not a fan of gg's politics at all but this is gona be interesting


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 30, 2012)

Fisher Gate returns to Urban in we only sing when we win sensation


----------



## JimW (Mar 30, 2012)

It's clear that it's UKIP who are the real winners here with their impressive one percentage point rise


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Mar 30, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Fisher Gate returns to Urban in we only sing when we win sensation


 
oh come on give him this moment to shine! after all the shite that has been shovelled on him in the past


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 30, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Has anyone got a copy of Galloways manifesto for Bradford. i can't seem to find an up to date one for Respect anywhere.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Mar 30, 2012)

GG is trending first on Twitter. It's worth reading the responses. There's a lot of WTF? Er? What?


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 30, 2012)

That is pretty impressive. Not only an outright majority, but 10,100 votes clear of Labour. Labour absolutely trounced there! I'm not fan of Gorgeous George (he was my MP when I lived in Glasgow), but that's given me a laugh this morning.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 30, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> haha awesome  not a fan of gg's politics at all but this is gona be interesting


 
He's the lefty Boris Johnson


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Mar 30, 2012)

Ha! Excellent result, I dunno what he stands for but its one in the eye for cunts. Tbf, if this shock result was a far right candidate we would be receiving this this much less favourably.


----------



## joevsimp (Mar 30, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> That is pretty impressive. Not only an outright majority, but 10,100 votes clear of Labour. Labour absolutely trounced there! I'm not fan of Gorgeous George (he was my MP when I lived in Glasgow), but that's given me a laugh this morning.


 
has anyone else recently represented three different seats that widely spread?


GG you bastard, you've made me late for work with all this *shakes fist*


----------



## chilango (Mar 30, 2012)

It's pretty astonishing...and emphatic.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 30, 2012)

Fisher Gate's victory dance.  

I quite like gg. Solely for how he tortured the clueless fucks in the senate (?) over the saddam oil links fiasco. It's all over youtube for anyone unfortunate enough to have not seen it.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 30, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> - I am no galloway fan but he won fair and square becasue he actaully bothered to speak for what the voters cared about - the wars in the middle east and by offering genuine opposition to the violent austerity measures being shoved down people's throats..



So TUSC can look forward to a series of stunning victories in May then? Is this the start of the upturn?


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 30, 2012)

Smokeandsteam said:


> So TUSC can look forward to a series of stunning victories in May then? Is this the start of the upturn?


 
I would like to see Nigel Irritable on Big Brother


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 30, 2012)

It's worth him winning just to see the rest desperatly flap about coming up with excuses


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Must say I don't think many saw this coming, certainly not on this scale.   What are the demographics of the Bradford West constituency in relation to Bradford as a whole?  What is the local council like?  I'd be interested to know more about how they turned in a vote like this.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 30, 2012)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It's worth him winning just to see the rest desperatly flap about coming up with excuses


 
One labour bod - possibly thier losing candidate - put it down to him being famous having been on big brother. Er... I dont think _that _embrassment was a vote winner for georgei boy somehow.


----------



## killer b (Mar 30, 2012)

Marvellous. Wish id put a tenner on it now.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 30, 2012)

It's been the biggest ever loss for bookies in a by-election. They didn't see it coming either....


----------



## flypanam (Mar 30, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> I would like to see Nigel Irritable on Big Brother


 
He'd smash it cos IRL you couldn't meet a nicer bloke. True story. But I'm pretty sure he's busy with the anti Household charge campaign at home. A campaign which from what I read is doing really well out of 1.6 million homes only a third have registeredand less have paid.

Anyhow GG done good.


----------



## JimW (Mar 30, 2012)

killer b said:


> Marvellous. Wish id put a tenner on it now.


Just popped over to Socialist Unity to see the comments and some lucky punter had him at 25-1!


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 30, 2012)

flypanam said:


> He'd smash it cos IRL you couldn't meet a nicer bloke. True story. But I'm pretty sure he's busy with the anti Household charge campaign at home. A campaign which from what I read is doing really well out of 1.6 million homes only a third have registeredand less have paid.
> 
> Anyhow GG done good.


 
There is a small queue of posters who would welcome the opportunity to test your theory out of what he is like IRL


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 30, 2012)

JimW said:


> Just popped over to Socialist Unity to see the comments and some lucky punter had him at 25-1!


 
33-1 at Ladbrokes and tipped by Political Betting


----------



## JimW (Mar 30, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> 33-1 at Ladbrokes and tipped by Political Betting


Said they stopped taking bets late on yesterday, so presume he was coming in fast. Did you get a bet on?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 30, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> I would like to see Nigel Irritable on Big Brother


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 30, 2012)

Fuck.


----------



## IC3D (Mar 30, 2012)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It's worth him winning just to see the rest desperatly flap about coming up with excuses


Dodgy postal ballots?


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 30, 2012)

joevsimp said:


> has anyone else recently represented three different seats that widely spread?
> 
> 
> GG you bastard, you've made me late for work with all this *shakes fist*


His roots are even further north: he came up through the Labour Party in Dundee, where he stood but didn't win, and then became a Dundee cllr.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 30, 2012)

"All dignified people in the world, whether Arabs or Muslims or others with dignity, are very proud of the speech made by president Bashar al-Assad a few days ago here in Damascus. For me he is the last Arab ruler, and Syria is the last Arab country. It is the fortress of the remaining dignity of the Arabs, and that's why I'm proud to be here." - guess who


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 30, 2012)

JimW said:


> Said they stopped taking bets late on yesterday, so presume he was coming in fast. Did you get a bet on?


 
No , I honestly thought that at best he would finish second but that in reality he would be dead meat. He was 1-6 to finish third yesterday and the returns were so slight I backed Schalke to beat Bilbao instead , which was a loser.

Might be tempted to have £20 on meeting a nicer bloke than  Nigel irritable  though


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 30, 2012)

IC3D said:


> Dodgy postal ballots?


 
Surely not?


----------



## coley (Mar 30, 2012)

IC3D said:


> Dodgy postal ballots?


Bet on it.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 30, 2012)

IC3D said:


> Dodgy postal ballots?


 
Postal ballots are increasingly the key to getting the vote out. All parties focus on it.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 30, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> "All dignified people in the world, whether Arabs or Muslims or others with dignity, are very proud of the speech made by president Bashar al-Assad a few days ago here in Damascus. For me he is the last Arab ruler, and Syria is the last Arab country. It is the fortress of the remaining dignity of the Arabs, and that's why I'm proud to be here." - guess who


 
*Von: *b.shaaban@mopa.gov.sy
*Reply-to: *b.shaaban@mopa.gov.sy
*An: *buthainak1@hotmail.co.uk
*Betreff: *Fwd: IMPORTANT - private and confidential
*Datum: *Sat, 14 Aug 2010 06:03:38 +0300 (_14.08.2010 05:03:38_)
Your Excellency Dr Bouthaina Sha'aban
Special Advisor to President Bashar al Asad
President of the Syrian Arab Republic
Your Excellency, dear Dr Sha'aban

I hope this letter finds you well. Please be assured of my warmest fraternal greetings always. I am writing on behalf of Viva Palestina whose world-wide family of solidarity organisiations and registered charities will soon be setting out for beseiged Gaza again with our fifth convoy of aid. You will recall the outstanding assistance afforded us in Syria on previous occasions over the last period. I am writing once again to ask for Syria's co-operation although I do not doubt it for one moment. *Syria is as I have often said is the last castle of Arab dignity*. My only regret is to have to ask for your help again.
This convoy sets out simulataneously on September 18th 2010 from London, from Casablanca and from the Gulf. The London and Gulf columns of vehicles would like to converge on Latakia and sail from there to Al Arish. The Casablanca column hopes to join us in Al Arish and we hope all three columns - hundreds of vehicles strong - will enter Gaza through Rafah without hinderance.
The aid on board the vehicles will be 50% medical equipment and 50% educational, construction and other aid. The organisers of the convoy are Viva Palestina UK, Viva Palestina USA, Viva Palestina Arabia, Viva Palestina Malaysia, Viva Palestina Ireland, the Turkish NGO IHH,the International Committee to break the Seige on Gaza, Kia Ora - the Viva Palestina sister organisation in New Zealand, Viva Palestina Australia, Viva Palestina South Africa, Viva Palestina Spain, Viva Palestina Italia, and Viva Palestina France.
It is intended that the vehicles and passengers should sail to Al Arish on board the Mavi Marmara, which as you know is owned by IHH. If His Excellency the President Bashar al Asad and his government can accept this proposal in principle perhaps you could nominate partner organisation(s) and individuals with whom my colleagues could liaise about the practical details? The liaison from our side would be Mr Kevin Ovenden and Mr Zaher Birawi of Viva Palestina UK (as we believe 2 is enough).
In any case please convey my respect and my admiration to His Excellency the President.

With all good wishes
George Galloway​


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 30, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Postal ballots are increasingly the key to getting the vote out.


 
Several times, sometimes.


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 30, 2012)

Given his attendence record at paliament as an MP this thread title might be a bit misleading.


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 30, 2012)

His attendance record in parliament is extremely good.  You may be talking about his voting record - which reflects that he's not whipped.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

I salute galloway's indefatigability. But I wonder if he'll find his way to parliament from bradford, he seemed to get lost a lot of the time on the short trip from bethnal green to whitehall


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Mar 30, 2012)

Protest vote imo.
Voters displaying there thoughs on the current political environment.
Had it been a Home Counties seat then UKIP would have got in.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 30, 2012)

If Labour could now just put its petty grievances aside and unite under George they'd have a landslide victory over the coalition next election.


----------



## mk12 (Mar 30, 2012)

Apparently he mentioned the fact he didn't drink on his leaflets. I wonder why.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 30, 2012)

I like Georgeous George Galloway.. good luck to him.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Mar 30, 2012)

A Dashing Blade said:


> Protest vote imo.
> Voters displaying there thoughs on the current political environment.
> Had it been a Home Counties seat then UKIP would have got in.


 
like in bethnal green in 2005?


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 30, 2012)

Wouldn't get too carried away with al this as the previous highest turn around in a by election was the Bermondsey one in 1983 when voters decided to elect Simon Hughes with over a 50% swing.

Looking at the candidate lists for that by election good to see Fran Eden( great name btw)  standing for the RCP.  incidentally she was against the RCP position of calling for a ballot in the miners strike.

Also four far right candidates.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 30, 2012)

mk12 said:


> Apparently he mentioned the fact he didn't drink on his leaflets. I wonder why.


 

God knows who is a muslim


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> *Von: *b.shaaban@mopa.gov.sy​*Reply-to: *b.shaaban@mopa.gov.sy​*An: *buthainak1@hotmail.co.uk​*Betreff: *Fwd: IMPORTANT - private and confidential​*Datum: *Sat, 14 Aug 2010 06:03:38 +0300 (_14.08.2010 05:03:38_)​Your Excellency Dr Bouthaina Sha'aban​Special Advisor to President Bashar al Asad​President of the Syrian Arab Republic​Your Excellency, dear Dr Sha'aban​​I hope this letter finds you well. Please be assured of my warmest fraternal greetings always. I am writing on behalf of Viva Palestina whose world-wide family of solidarity organisiations and registered charities will soon be setting out for beseiged Gaza again with our fifth convoy of aid. You will recall the outstanding assistance afforded us in Syria on previous occasions over the last period. I am writing once again to ask for Syria's co-operation although I do not doubt it for one moment. *Syria is as I have often said is the last castle of Arab dignity*. My only regret is to have to ask for your help again.​This convoy sets out simulataneously on September 18th 2010 from London, from Casablanca and from the Gulf. The London and Gulf columns of vehicles would like to converge on Latakia and sail from there to Al Arish. The Casablanca column hopes to join us in Al Arish and we hope all three columns - hundreds of vehicles strong - will enter Gaza through Rafah without hinderance.​The aid on board the vehicles will be 50% medical equipment and 50% educational, construction and other aid. The organisers of the convoy are Viva Palestina UK, Viva Palestina USA, Viva Palestina Arabia, Viva Palestina Malaysia, Viva Palestina Ireland, the Turkish NGO IHH,the International Committee to break the Seige on Gaza, Kia Ora - the Viva Palestina sister organisation in New Zealand, Viva Palestina Australia, Viva Palestina South Africa, Viva Palestina Spain, Viva Palestina Italia, and Viva Palestina France.​It is intended that the vehicles and passengers should sail to Al Arish on board the Mavi Marmara, which as you know is owned by IHH. If His Excellency the President Bashar al Asad and his government can accept this proposal in principle perhaps you could nominate partner organisation(s) and individuals with whom my colleagues could liaise about the practical details? The liaison from our side would be Mr Kevin Ovenden and Mr Zaher Birawi of Viva Palestina UK (as we believe 2 is enough).​In any case please convey my respect and my admiration to His Excellency the President.​​With all good wishes​George Galloway​


wtf is that supposed to prove? That he's good at his job of getting supplies to Gaza?

Don't be so naive, Maurice. Detest him if you want, but detest him for real reasons, not this nonsense.


----------



## JimW (Mar 30, 2012)

I've been drinking in the Last Castle of Dignity for years now.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 30, 2012)

Just making it clear that his cosying up to Assad wasn't a one-off. His affection for a certain kind of Middle Eastern strongman is one of the good reasons to detest the man, anyway.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 30, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Oh fuck off maurice - I am no galloway fan but he won fair and square becasue he actaully bothered to speak for what the voters cared about - the wars in the middle east and by offering genuine opposition to the violent austerity measures being shoved down people's throats.
> And accusations over the oil for food thing was a blatent smear job by the same people who claimed Saddam had WMD - with similar levels of substance.
> Go and cry over your signed Tony Blair photos.


Yep, and if nothing else his win is good for seeing the labour arseholes crying into their breakfasts.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 30, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Just making it clear that his cosying up to Assad wasn't a one-off. His affection for a certain kind of Middle Eastern strongman is one of the good reasons to detest the man, anyway.


 
Well yes, in common with most MPs I'd imagine.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Just making it clear that his cosying up to Assad wasn't a one-off.


Was that 'cosying up' or someone who's good at his job using language he knows works to get something done? Reads like standard diplomat-speak arselicking to me.

If he had been writing on his own behalf, you would have a point, but he wasn't.


----------



## coley (Mar 30, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Postal ballots are increasingly the key to getting the vote out. All parties focus on it.


Calls for an investigation within 48 hrs....any takers


----------



## coley (Mar 30, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> His attendance record in parliament is extremely good. You may be talking about his voting record - which reflects that he's not whipped.


He should be


----------



## Firky (Mar 30, 2012)

Made me laugh when I was reading the BBC website this morning. He's still a politician though and "if voting changed anything blah blah..."

Still be interesting how the main parties re-act to this.

10,000+


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Was that 'cosying up' or someone who's good at his job using language he knows works to get something done? Reads like standard diplomat-speak arselicking to me.
> 
> If he had been writing on his own behalf, you would have a point, but he wasn't.


Did you read the quote Barney provided on the previous page? He was a consistent supporter of baathism for many years.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

Two reactions: 1) coalition shitting it over the potential for anti-cuts/pro-NHS candidates to do well - esp the decapitation strategy. 2) Common ground for a broad Left movement swinging back to primarily working within established parliamentary lines in run up to 2015.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 30, 2012)

Any other groups expecting similar anti-big two (and LD) swing in elections future should remember that they don't have the visibility and talent for oratory that Galloway has. He's a known, national, quantity.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 30, 2012)

Winning a shock byelection victory in Bradford is rather like making love to a beautiful woman.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

3) Lib-dem/tory vote in urban areas is in big trouble


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Any other groups expecting similar anti-big two (and LD) swing in elections future should remember that they don't have the visibility and talent for oratory that Galloway has. He's a known, national, quantity.


Did people vote on the basis of that visibility and oratory though? How many people saw or heard him?


----------



## past caring (Mar 30, 2012)

So where's old JHE this morning? Still crying in his cornflakes?


----------



## Balbi (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Did people vote on the basis of that visibility and oratory though? How many people saw or heard him?


 
Given his tactic of holding big public meetings, his massive bloody battle bus arrangement - i'd say he got seen and heard more than his opponents. Labour ran a leaflet and door knocker campaign. Galloway went to see and talk to people, playing to his strength.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> 2) Common ground for a broad Left movement swinging back to primarily working within established parliamentary lines in run up to 2015.



That straw will undoubtably be clutched firmly.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 30, 2012)

I suppose you have seen this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17558159
Galloways acceptance speech.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Given his tactic of holding big public meetings, his massive bloody battle bus arrangement - i'd say he got seen and heard more than his opponents. Labour ran a leaflet and door knocker campaign. Galloway went to see and talk to people, playing to his strength.


Is that why people voted for him though? Because they saw him? Surely the labour doorstep campaign would see just as many if not more people - esp given the existing labour on-the-ground network.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Two reactions: 1) coalition shitting it over the potential for anti-cuts/pro-NHS candidates to do well - esp the decapitation strategy.


 
I certainly agree with this point


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

Smokeandsteam said:


> That straw will undoubtably be clutched firmly.


I wonder who was on the phone to GG first - Rees or Smith?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 30, 2012)

Rees


----------



## Balbi (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Is that why people voted for him though? Because they saw him? Surely the labour doorstep campaign would see just as many if not more people - esp given the existing labour on-the-ground network.


 
Maybe would see them, but not be as electrifying to people as a meeting, either public or in houses as Galloway was doing. Reminiscent of the New Hampshire primary campaigns for President. That and his message was bang on with what people cared about in Bradford.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Rees


 


> At one stage, tempers became so frayed that - according to one online account - Galloway told SWP supporters to 'fuck off, the lot of you'.



His finest hour


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Wouldn't get too carried away with al this as the previous highest turn around in a by election was the Bermondsey one in 1983 when voters decided to elect Simon Hughes with over a 50% swing.


thats Simon Hughes who is still the MP there thirty years later....


----------



## Balbi (Mar 30, 2012)

That'd be the campaign where Hughes deployed deplorable tactics as well.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> thats Simon Hughes who is still the MP there thirty years later....


 
I was trying to make the point that the whilst the shock to the established parties may bring a smile the winning candidate in both  doesn't .
In any case the Lib Dems later developed a political profile nationally. Respect's is limited to ethnic composition


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

did the shock to Labour bring a smile back then?? Really?

Also, early indications strongly imply GG got a significantly higher proportion of the vote on Bradford than he ever did in Bethnal Green.

Still a one off, of course


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Mar 30, 2012)

interesting comment



> GPforhire ‏ @GPforhire
> Not surprised George Galloway won Bradford West. He promised to sort out NHS dentistry in Bradford (there isn't any).


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder who was on the phone to GG first - Rees or Smith?



The immediate conversation will focus on running Salma Yaqoob against Liam Byrne for elected mayor of Birmingham no doubt.


----------



## coley (Mar 30, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> I was trying to make the point that the whilst the shock to the established parties may bring a smile the winning candidate in both doesn't .
> In any case the Lib Dems later developed a political profile nationally. Respect's is limited to ethnic composition


And he plays heavily on an anti war stance esp promising to stand against a non existent threat by the UK against Iran


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 30, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Looking at the candidate lists for that by election good to see Fran Eden( great name btw) standing for the RCP. incidentally she was against the RCP position of calling for a ballot in the miners strike.


 
is this for real? And if it is, is a revival of the RCP name the next phase of fabulous furry freak Frank Füredi's cunning plan?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

coley said:


> And he plays heavily on an anti war stance esp promising to stand against *a non existent threat by the UK against Iran*


Really? The UK has made no aggressive noises against Iran?

Sure, Galloway's support for Baathists is more than questionable, but I'm not surprised he's getting votes on his anti-war stance. It's a genuine stance, after all.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 30, 2012)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The immediate conversation will focus on running Salma Yaqoob against Liam Byrne for elected mayor of Birmingham no doubt.


 
I saw her speak with Galloway in Brum years ago. She might do it, I think - but after this, they'll go all out to stop her.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

A whole city might be a tougher prospect?


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 30, 2012)

mk12 said:


> Apparently he mentioned the fact he didn't drink on his leaflets. I wonder why.


 
The inevitable shahadah and consequent muallaf status can now only be months away.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 30, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> is this for real? And if it is, is a revival of the RCP name the next phase of fabulous furry freak Frank Füredi's cunning plan?



He was on about the Bermondsey by election where Simon Hughes got elected. Fran Eden was the RCP candidate


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> A whole city might be a tougher prospect?


Look what they're up against, though. A labour party that started two wars and increased inequality when in office, and that is now a joke in opposition, still toeing the line that millionaires create wealth, etc, etc.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 30, 2012)

Smokeandsteam said:


> He was on about the Bermondsey by election where Simon Hughes got elected. Fran Eden was the RCP candidate


 
Ah right, I thought I might have got it wrong. OK, move along folks, nothing to see here.


----------



## JHE (Mar 30, 2012)

mk12 said:


> Apparently he mentioned the fact he didn't drink on his leaflets. I wonder why.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> *did the shock to Labour bring a smile back then?? Really*?
> 
> Also, early indications strongly imply GG got a significantly higher proportion of the vote on Bradford than he ever did in Bethnal Green.
> 
> Still a one off, of course


 
Yes, never been in the Labour party and never voted for them.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Look what they're up against, though. A labour party that started two wars and increased inequality when in office, and that is now a joke in opposition, still toeing the line that millionaires create wealth, etc, etc.


 
My impression of Bradford is that it's relatively homogeneous with a white w/c and a muslim community - Brum is much more diverse, and therefore whatever campaigning methods GG used in Bradford might not travel. . .

Added to that is the fact that Birmingham's a good larger than Bradford, as well.


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Yes, never been in the Labour party and never voted for them.


 

in that election, the fact that Tatchell was Labour was almost coincidental,


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 30, 2012)

JHE said:


>


 
Fucking hell! Does anyone how GG handled religous/sectarian issues when he was active in Scottish politics in the old days?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Mar 30, 2012)

I can't think of one new single Labour Party policy from the last two years - not even a shit one!


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> Fucking hell! Does anyone how GG handled religous/sectarian issues when he was active in Scottish politics in the old days?


 
No one has actually confirmed that that leaflet is true yet. It might very well be, but, other than the notorious racist poster who posted it here, its only appeared on one Labour party blog, so could well be completely fabricated (and distributed in a 'white' ward to get exactly the effect it has here!)


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 30, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> Ah right, I thought I might have got it wrong. OK, move along folks, nothing to see here.


 
I did have a plan to relaunch the  RCP a few years ago with some people on another board but it never happened


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 30, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> I did have a plan to relaunch the RCP a few years ago with some people on another board but it never happened


 
"Another board", eh?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

That is shameless. (If true!)


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> in that election, the fact that Tatchell was Labour was almost coincidental,


 

Far from it, if you remember Tatchells selection over the old Labour guy ( I think he stood as Real labour or something) was headline news. Tatchell had a far higher profile than this Labour candidate in Bradford.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That is shameless. (If true!)


 
I think it was Jonny Favorite who was against it


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 30, 2012)

It seems ti imply that the labour party put forward a muslim who drank.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 30, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Maybe would see them, but not be as electrifying to people as a meeting, either public or in houses as Galloway was doing. Reminiscent of the New Hampshire primary campaigns for President. That and his message was bang on with what people cared about in Bradford.


 
The key issues in my view are

Is Galloway a recognisable outspoken apolitical protest vote against the entire political class, that is accepted, just like the BNP or UKIP, or a leftwing protest vote?

Or is he seen as almost exclusively a protector/champion for the Muslim community and the values of its self apointed leaders?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 30, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> I think it was Jonny Favorite who was against it


 
I still think the British Workers Party was a goer.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 30, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> It seems ti imply that the labour party put forward a muslim who drank.


 
There are lots of Muslims who drink - even in Bradford, I'd wager.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> No one has actually confirmed that that leaflet is true yet. It might very well be, but, other than the notorious racist poster who posted it here, its only appeared on one Labour party blog, so could well be completely fabricated (and distributed in a 'white' ward to get exactly the effect it has here!)


 
I agree that we have no evidence it is true - but would Labour put forward a letter alledging their own candidate engaged in haram practises?


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 30, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> ...Or is he seen as almost exclusively a protector/champion for the Muslim community and the values of its self apointed leaders?


You know the muslim elders said to vote labour and the voters ignored them, yeah?


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 30, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I still think the British Workers Party was a goer.


 
Careful now, you might find yourself in a sticky situation. . .


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Far from it, if you remember Tatchells selection over the old Labour guy ( I think he stood as Real labour or something) was headline news. Tatchell had a far higher profile than this Labour candidate in Bradford.


uhh, i think we're talking at cross purposes here...

The old Labour guy was a homophobic bigot, standing as a homophobic bigot. Tatchell did have a far higher profile than whoever last nights candidate was, but he was profiled as the poofter candidate, rather than a Labour candidate.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 30, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> Careful now, you might find yourself in a sticky situation. . .


 
or the British and Irish Workers Association.. which later became the Meanwhile Historical Society.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:
			
		

> Look what they're up against, though. A labour party that started two wars and increased inequality when in office, and that is now a joke in opposition, still toeing the line that millionaires create wealth, etc, etc.



That is coasting in the polls right now, 4 consecutive 10 point leads. What might help 'respect' would be low turnout.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The key issues in my view are
> 
> Is Galloway a recognisable outspoken apolitical protest vote against the entire political class, that is accepted, just like the BNP or UKIP, or a leftwing protest vote?
> 
> Or is he seen as almost exclusively a protector/champion for the Muslim community and the values of its self apointed leaders?


 
You can be certain that if the former is happening at all, the political class will want to spin it as the latter for all they're worth.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

DexterTCN said:
			
		

> You know the muslim elders said to vote labour and the voters ignored them, yeah?



This had been alleged by sky - does anyone here know for sure?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 30, 2012)

I would imagine the Labour candidate would have a strong group of community leaders behind him, but there are probably enough in Bradford West for Galloway to get more than a few as well.


----------



## magneze (Mar 30, 2012)

BBC reported the same.

Today programme interview with Salma Yaqoob was bizarre. Ended with the interviewer grilling her about whether British troops should be attacked in Afghanistan.


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 30, 2012)

I don't know 'for sure' of course, I've picked it up from one of the news sites this morning but checking my history is pointless, I've been to dozens and dozens.

He has an interview on sky news at one pm.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 30, 2012)

coley said:


> Bet on it.


 
Poor bet. A couple of hundred, maybe a thousand, but there's no way you could mobilise 10% of the population of a constituency (Galloway's majority is 10,000 and change, the population of the constituency is just over 97,000) on postal votes alone. You may loathe Galloway (I do), but attributing his victory to a degree of ballot-rigging that's actually impossible to organise is just sour grapes.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 30, 2012)

He'll get full pages in most Sundays this week. Like a cat in a shaft of sunlight


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> You know the muslim elders said to vote labour and the voters ignored them, yeah?


Which ones? The 'Muslim Council of Great Britain' is often trotted out by the BBC and others as some kind of official spokesgroup for Islam in the UK. It is no such thing, though. Islam is not Catholicism.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

DexterTCN said:
			
		

> I don't know 'for sure' of course, I've picked it up from one of the news sites this morning but checking my history is pointless, I've been to dozens and dozens.
> 
> He has an interview on sky news at one pm.



I've heard it too, but I also heard that the first respect victories were won in the teeth of the elders which turned out to be wrong. Just after classification.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:
			
		

> Which ones? The 'Muslim Council of Great Britain' is often trotted out by the BBC and others as some kind of official spokesgroup for Islam in the UK. It is no such thing, though. Islam is not Catholicism.



In the mosques, the imams.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 30, 2012)

Saddam must be absolutely still in his grave.


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I've heard it too, but I also heard that the first respect victories were won in the teeth of the elders which turned out to be wrong. Just after classification.


ties in with the Guardian article from a couple of days ago, especially around 'Bradree'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...bradford-west-byelection?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:
			
		

> ties in with the Guardian article from a couple of days ago, especially around 'Bradree'
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...bradford-west-byelection?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487



Ta. Interesting that this time he seems more to be the benificiary of splits in the Muslim community (class splits even)....


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 30, 2012)

Yes...many of the reports suggest an increase in young muslim women voting, primarily for gg.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 30, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I still think the British Workers Party was a goer.


 
years ahead of its time, as was the slate to run in the EU elections.

I think some of the ex Marxists for Griffin lot are still around as well.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 30, 2012)

magneze said:


> BBC reported the same.
> 
> Today programme interview with Salma Yaqoob was bizarre. Ended with the interviewer grilling her about whether British troops should be attacked in Afghanistan.


 
Nicky Campbell asked more about same sex marriages than anything else


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Harriet Harman is using her time in Yorkshire to learn the lessons of Bradford by....going to the ballet


----------



## coley (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Really? The UK has made no aggressive noises against Iran?
> 
> Sure, Galloway's support for Baathists is more than questionable, but I'm not surprised he's getting votes on his anti-war stance. It's a genuine stance, after all.


I think the words galloway and genuine are a good example of an oxymoron


----------



## Santino (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Harriet Harman is using her time in Yorkshire to learn the lessons of Bradford by....going to the ballet


Would you rather she went and bought another sausage roll? Or perhaps went to a cloth cap and whippet fair?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

coley said:


> I think the words galloway and genuine are a good example of an oxymoron


You don't think he's genuine in his opposition to British military action of recent years? I do.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

a) yes  and b) I'd rather that they actually listened to what voters in places like Bradford were saying and why they rejected Labour so decisively


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> a) yes  and b) I'd rather that they actually listened to what voters in places like Bradford were saying and why they rejected Labour so decisively


She's going to be at the ballet all day and night, then? Or is it just an evening's relaxation after a day's work?

Sorry, I hate this kind of rubbish. If she likes ballet, she should go to the ballet.

Also, you really don't think she already knows full well why labour were rejected?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 30, 2012)

coley said:


> I think the words galloway and genuine are a good example of an oxymoron



Same as you, but without the oxy.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

I've no problem with her liking ballet per se - it's more the pretending to give a shit about the people of Bradford I have a problem with


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I've no problem with her liking ballet per se - it's more the pretending to give a shit about the people of Bradford I have a problem with


What, you have a problem that she isn't pretending to give a shit? Sorry, I don't follow now. Either she's ignoring them or she's only pretending to give a shit?

Why bring up ballet?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Ha, even pretending to give a shit would a start of sorts. At the moment she's ignoring them whilst claiming to represent their interests.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Ha, even pretending to give a shit would a start of sorts. At the moment she's ignoring them whilst claiming to represent their interests.


At the moment, not appearing to ignore them would involve acknowledging, for instance, that the wars she supported were wrong, and that the economic policies she supported were wrong. This is a systemic problem the whole of the labour party has at the moment. They are discredited.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Yes - but they could except that, call for with withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and set out a clear alternative to neoliberal austerity.


----------



## coley (Mar 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Poor bet. A couple of hundred, maybe a thousand, but there's no way you could mobilise 10% of the population of a constituency (Galloway's majority is 10,000 and change, the population of the constituency is just over 97,000) on postal votes alone. You may loathe Galloway (I do), but attributing his victory to a degree of ballot-rigging that's actually impossible to organise is just sour grapes.


I wasnt, just a suggestion that the others may prove to be 'poor losers' and any suggestion of vote rigging will be used to explain their poor showing


----------



## coley (Mar 30, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Same as you, but without the oxy.


aye, I wondered who would be first with that wonderfully original riposte


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Yes - but they could except that, call for with withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and set out a clear alternative to neoliberal austerity.


Who's 'they'? Harman can't do that, not with her record. I had a tiny bit of sympathy with David Milliband the moment he was caught berating Harman for clapping his brother's mealy-mouthed half-apology for Iraq. She's discredited by her own appalling record, as is the entire labour leadership.


----------



## coley (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You don't think he's genuine in his opposition to British military action of recent years? I do.


No, I honestly think he is totally cynical and exploited the anger and resntment of the Muslim population, IMOA


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Yes - but they could except that, call for with withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and set out a clear alternative to neoliberal austerity.


 
Structurally, I'm not sure that they could to be honest.

I would think that they've been too thoroughly captured by neo-liberal capitalist interests to do more than posture a bit.

To stick a cherry on top of a pile of neo-liberal dogshit and tell us that it's tasty and totally different to the cherry-less pile of neo-liberal dogshit the Tories are offering.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I've no problem with her liking ballet per se - it's more the pretending to give a shit about the people of Bradford I have a problem with


Maybe you and the LRC can put enough pressure on her to make her give a shit, then we'd be rolling, if people like that gave a shit - that would be great. I don't know why or how so many leading labour politicians don't give it a shit - must be pure bad luck, that's all i can think of.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

coley said:


> No, I honestly think he is totally cynical and exploited the anger and resntment of the Muslim population, IMOA


He did exploit their anger and resentment, yes. And he was able to do that as a result of a consistent record of opposing UK military action over the past decade. I don't doubt that he is genuine in that opposition. It would be rather extraordinary if he weren't.


----------



## Riera (Mar 30, 2012)

Serves Labour right for being a bunch of weak-kneed neolib cunts. The Tories did badly too.


----------



## Meltingpot (Mar 30, 2012)

For those who like him (and I for one loved the way he stuck it to those American senators, which was probably his high point); how much constituency work will he do this time round though? That was a large part of his problem last time in London, he just wasn't there when the daily grind of an MP needed doing.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He did exploit their anger and resentment, yes. And he was able to do that as a result of a consistent record of opposing UK military action over the past decade. I don't doubt that he is genuine in that opposition. It would be rather extraordinary if he weren't.


 
Indeed the issue is that he is able to cynically exploit that anger and resentment because of his genuine opposition.


----------



## mk12 (Mar 30, 2012)

From the Guardian: "and the Liberal Democrats lost their deposit after netting 4.59% of the votes – down 7% on the 2010 general election result."


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

Seems to me that his victory can in large part be put down to local issues - resentment at the labour councils stitch ups in favour of their preferred networks in resource allocation or licensing or whatever - GG mobilised anger at that rather than any wider anti-war stuff. Anti-war stuff would gain him a level of residual support, but not to this level, not to 50% of the vote.


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

that is nice isnt it - Labour vote falls 20%, coalition vote falls 30% (from a lower base as well).  Cracking


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Anti-war stuff would gain him a level of residual support, but not to this level, not to 50% of the vote.


anti-war stuff gave him a base to work from, it meant he was 'trustable' by (a lot of) the voters


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> anti-war stuff gave him a base to work from, it meant he was 'trustable' by (a lot of) the voters


Yep, I agree. I don't doubt that local issues were crucial to his winning, but he is a credible anti-labour candidate because he opposed labour's wars.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> anti-war stuff gave him a base to work from, it meant he was 'trustable' by (a lot of) the voters


Absolutely, but that wasn't - as far as i can tell from here - the mobilising issue. There's clear lessons here in what were the mobilising issues and how they were worked despite the seats demographic anomalies - lessons that undermine the oh no we must vote labour and work to get a labour victory whilst working to change labour bollocks so prevalent since may 2010.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I've no problem with her liking ballet per se -


Really? If she'd gone to the cinema instead, or a football match, would you have brought that up?


----------



## Balbi (Mar 30, 2012)

Fawkes is reporting, and stirring, the obvious anger between the leadership, Iain McNicol and the campaign team in Bradford. There was no expectation management, just denial all round.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Fawkes is reporting, and stirring, the obvious anger between the leadership, Iain McNicol and the campaign team in Bradford. *There was no expectation management*, just denial all round.


I get the impression that they, and most other people, genuinely didn't think they would lose.


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

No one thought Galloway would win (probably not even Galloway), but they seem to have paid absolutely no attention to what people were telling them on the ground. They were still thinking they'd won up till 11 last night!


----------



## Balbi (Mar 30, 2012)

Hmmm, then this - with it's point amongst the bad writing - implies otherwise....

http://labourlist.org/2012/03/bradford-debacle-galloway-is-right-labour-must-listen/



> It was clear that something was significantly wrong. Household had been marked off as Labour- household, not individuals. And they were voting, but not for us.


 
 I think they knew a week or so ago, but decided to keep schtum.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Mar 30, 2012)

It will be interesting to see if new-labour respond (as they have done for the last couple of decades) with the usual "if we do well in an election / poll it endorses our policy of getting more right-wing; if we do badly in an election / poll,it shows we're not getting right-wing enough fast enough" approach.

Or whether they might just finally get the message.

Although given the last 20 or so years, it's only a very faint hope.

 



mk12 said:


> From the Guardian: "and the Liberal Democrats lost their deposit after netting 4.59% of the votes – down 7% on the 2010 general election result."


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

Balbi said:


> I think they knew a week or so ago, but decided to keep schtum.


 
Ah, well maybe they knew more than they made out. What could they do, though? What can Labour ever do at the moment?

Thing is, I don't buy this 'not listening' stuff particularly. I think they are fully aware of how a lot of people feel. They've lost any intellectual integrity. Their policies have no principled base to them. That's the problem. It is still the party that Tony Blair made.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 30, 2012)

And, i'd say, they simply got their campaign strategy wrong - played it as a safe seat, rather than a marginal. Viewed Tories as the big threat, dismissed the independent. My local Tories got hammered five years ago because they viewed Labour as a threat - the Lib Dems monstered the council elections, got four years in power and then got turfed out for Tories last year. Wrong strategy means you lose, regardless.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

GG now relegated to third largest swing after Hughes and Winnie Ewing (SNP) 38% swing from labour in 1967.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

Balbi said:


> And, i'd say, they simply got their campaign strategy wrong - played it as a safe seat, rather than a marginal. Viewed Tories as the big threat, dismissed the independent. My local Tories got hammered five years ago because they viewed Labour as a threat - the Lib Dems monstered the council elections, got four years in power and then got turfed out for Tories last year. Wrong strategy means you lose, regardless.


How much difference does it make, though? This kind of strategy talk always strikes me as if it treats the majority of people as rather stupid. What kind of strategy would have worked better, and why?


----------



## Balbi (Mar 30, 2012)

By assuming that people who voted for you locally, against a different slate of candidates - fighting a standard leaflet, door knock, occasional public meeting and photo op campaign - will vote for you again in very different circumstances, you are treating the majority of people as rather stupid. Labour did that. They believed themselves to be relatively comfortable.

Galloway worked harder, used the demographics better in the right areas, hit the issues bang on the nose, and tagged all three major parties with Iraq and Afghanistan. He didn't assume he'd got votes in the bag already.


----------



## N_igma (Mar 30, 2012)

Can anyone tell me what faction rules the roost in Respect these days?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Seems to me that his victory can in large part be put down to local issues - resentment at the labour councils stitch ups in favour of their preferred networks in resource allocation or licensing or whatever - GG mobilised anger at that rather than any wider anti-war stuff. Anti-war stuff would gain him a level of residual support, but not to this level, not to 50% of the vote.


 
Local issues like the sort of stuff mentioned here?



> Walking around Bradford West last week, it was clear many of those planning to vote for Galloway were jumping ship from Labour. No wonder the Conservative candidate – a local businesswoman, Jackie Whiteley – told the Guardian she was happy Galloway was in the race. She hopes he will take Labour votes. He's already nabbed their staff. One of Galloway's campaign managers, Naweed Hussain, switched sides 10 days ago, despite having done the same job for Singh over three general elections. He was fed up, he said, with Labour "bypassing democracy" in the seat it has held since 1974.
> 
> Singh is Sikh, having won over all colours and creeds in the multicultural constituency. But to succeed in the Bradford Labour party these days, said Hussein, you needed roots tracing back to Mirpur, a poor area of Kashmir, where around 70% of Bradford Pakistanis hail from. "Bradree" is a word you hear whispered a lot in Bradford at the moment. Loosely meaning "family", this Urdu word denotes a hierarchical system of clan politics where leaders are chosen on their connections, rather than their talents.
> 
> ...


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...lloway-bradford-west-byelection?newsfeed=true


----------



## cemertyone (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> GG now relegated to third largest swing after Hughes and Winnie Ewing (SNP) 38% swing from labour in 1967.


 
Did anyone hear that total wanker Keith Vaz..on the radio this morning..what a fucking tool..
describing GG victory as being "not representitive of where the labour party vote is at"..
and all said in the best Mayfare accent you ever heard...
There living in cloud cockoo land...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

N_igma said:


> Can anyone tell me what faction rules the roost in Respect these days?


There are no factions anymore - did you miss the big split end of 2007?


----------



## IC3D (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Seems to me that his victory can in large part be put down to local issues - resentment at the labour councils stitch ups in favour of their preferred networks in resource allocation or licensing or whatever - GG mobilised anger at that rather than any wider anti-war stuff. Anti-war stuff would gain him a level of residual support, but not to this level, not to 50% of the vote.


Don't think that would count for the high turnout, young voters etc, I think a lot could be said for his activism and reams of yootube rants and of course 'the grace of God' not forgetting the the grace of God or the grace of God Uk's first Islamic MP George Galloway


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

Balbi said:


> By assuming that people who voted for you locally, against a different slate of candidates - fighting a standard leaflet, door knock, occasional public meeting and photo op campaign - will vote for you again in very different circumstances, you are treating the majority of people as rather stupid. Labour did that. They believed themselves to be relatively comfortable.
> 
> Galloway worked harder, used the demographics better in the right areas, hit the issues bang on the nose, and tagged all three major parties with Iraq and Afghanistan. He didn't assume he'd got votes in the bag already.


Yes, fair enough. 'Why didn't you vote for our donkey? It had a red rosette and everything.' Yes, that is treating people as rather stupid.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Local issues like the sort of stuff mentioned here?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...lloway-bradford-west-byelection?newsfeed=true


Bingo!


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Absolutely, but that wasn't - as far as i can tell from here - the mobilising issue. There's clear lessons here in what were the mobilising issues and how they were worked despite the seats demographic anomalies - lessons that undermine the oh no we must vote labour and work to get a labour victory whilst working to change labour bollocks so prevalent since may 2010.


I'd be interested in hearing more about the campaign and what issues really did mobilise people.  But by-elections have a dynamic of their own.  Part of Galloway's own rhetoric is directed to Labour ("vote Respect and show Labour what they should be doing" stuff).  I don't see how it's a scaleable model.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

IC3D said:


> Don't think that would count for the high turnout, young voters etc, I think a lot could be said for his activism and reams of yootube rants and of course 'the grace of God' not forgetting the the grace of God or the grace of God Uk's first Islamic MP George Galloway


I think local issues are pretty much always the key to hight turnout, esp in by-elections.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Bingo!


 
Seemed to be some potential class dimensions there too though ...


> I want someone who can sort out this city's schools – we're 145th out of 155 in the league tables – rather than someone who will spend his time sorting out restaurant and taxi licences for his friends


 
Source above.


----------



## Mitre10 (Mar 30, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> For those who like him (and I for one loved the way he stuck it to those American senators, which was probably his high point); how much constituency work will he do this time round though? That was a large part of his problem last time in London, he just wasn't there when the daily grind of an MP needed doing.


 


Quite:

At the other end of the table George Galloway, the only MP for the far-left Respect party, is rated the worst-value MP. He turned up for only one in twenty votes, far fewer than any other MP, yet claimed £136,000 in expenses.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/5105863/Best-and-worst-value-MPs-revealed.html


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I'd be interested in hearing more about the campaign and what issues really did mobilise people. But by-elections have a dynamic of their own. Part of Galloway's own rhetoric is directed to Labour ("vote Respect and show Labour what they should be doing" stuff). I don't see how it's a scaleable model.


Is that you Harriet? Of course you wouldn't because you are exactly the sort of person whose been coming out with oh no we must vote labour and work to get a labour victory whilst working to change labour bollocks.


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

Mitre10 said:


> Quite:
> 
> At the other end of the table George Galloway, the only MP for the far-left Respect party, is rated the worst-value MP. He turned up for only one in twenty votes, far fewer than any other MP, yet claimed £136,000 in expenses.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/5105863/Best-and-worst-value-MPs-revealed.html


voting in parliamentary divisions (that the government have almost been guaranteed to win) is only one, comparatively small part of an MPs job tho


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Seemed to be some potential class dimensions there too though ...
> 
> 
> Source above.


Indeed. Well perhaps - perhaps - this might teach labour that you don't get people to vote for you simply by putting up a candidate from the same ethnic group/religion as them.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> voting in parliamentary divisions (that the government have almost been guaranteed to win) is only one, comparatively small part of an MPs job tho


Indeed, and one MP is rarely in a position to do anything via a vote -though i believe GG fucked one vote up - PTA? Or something


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2012)

How much did he use the 'communalist' approach to his victory? his election flyer read like a religious sermon with added eastern politics, no mention about domestic poverty, cuts, etc,

bet the SWP are smarting now though, having left Wespect...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2012)

treelover said:


> How much did he use the 'communalist' approach to his victory? his election flyer read like a religious sermon with added eastern politics, no mention about domestic poverty, cuts, etc,
> 
> bet the SWP are smarting now though, having left Wespect...


 
Was that confirmed as actually being his election flyer yet?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Is that you Harriet? Of course you wouldn't because you are exactly the sort of person whose been coming out with oh no we must vote labour and work to get a labour victory whilst working to change labour bollocks.


 
How is this qualitatively different from him beating Oona King in Bethnal Green?  Yes it's an upset.  But it doesn't suggest that we're about to see Labour implode.


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Indeed, and one MP is rarely in a position to do anything via a vote -though i believe GG fucked one vote up - PTA? Or something


there as the one..... something around the 56 days without charge doodah, cant remember precisely what offhand


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> How is this qualitatively different from him beating Oona King in Bethnal Green? Yes it's an upset. But it doesn't suggest that we're about to see Labour implode.


Who said that it did?

No, maybe you're right - maybe there are *no lessons here* for those in labour and none for those seeking to oppose the cuts and so on from outside labour. None at all.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> there as the one..... something around the 56 days without charge doodah, cant remember precisely what offhand


Anyway, if you want parliamentary cretinsm, vote for parliamentary cretins.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Who said that it did?


OK, how is it a scaleable model


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> OK, how is it a scaleable model


I edited in a bit to the post above:



> No, maybe you're right - maybe there are no lessons here for those in labour and none for those seeking to oppose the cuts and so on from outside labour. None at all.


 ​


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> OK, how is it a scaleable model


How is what a scaleable model exactly? Attacking labour on a local class issues? Attacking labour on how they operate locally and nationally? Attacking labour on the people who now run them and whose interests they reflect to the detriment of the wider population? That sort of model?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

I'm not saying there are no lessons.  But I don't see that it follows that TUSC or whatever are going to follow it up more broadly


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I'm not saying there are no lessons. But I don't see that it follows that TUSC or whatever are going to follow it up more broadly


Who said they were? What is wrong with you? What lessons? For who?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> How is what a scaleable model exactly? Attacking labour on a local class issues? Attacking labour on how they operate locally and nationally? Attacking labour on the people who now run them and whose interests they reflect to the detriment of the wider population? That sort of model?


 
You can do all those things - and it might have some effect.  But unless you're in a position to mobilise some alternative then a Labour vote is still going to be the only way of punishing the Tories and LDs for those in England.  Now, how does GGs win make this more likely outside of areas with similar demographics?


----------



## IC3D (Mar 30, 2012)

Quite robust in an aggressive interview on Sky at the mo


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Who said they were? What is wrong with you? What lessons? For who?


Even Galloway has an eye on changing the Labour party - that is still a strategically central project unless you can plausibly suggest that it's possible to build a genuine electoral alternative on a national or semi-national basis.


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

IC3D said:


> Quite robust in an aggressive interview on Sky at the mo


I always forget, till I have to watch it for any length of time, just how vile Sky is.  All last night was 'queues at petrol pumps to beat the strike' - despite there not actually being any bloody strike.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> You can do all those things - and it might have some effect. But unless you're in a position to mobilise some alternative then a Labour vote is still going to be the only way of punishing the Tories and LDs for those in England. Now, how does GGs win make this more likely outside of areas with similar demographics?


For gods sake, the lessons are in how mobilising local/community support against labour incumbents can be effective, that a labour vote is not to be so arrogantly assumed to be yours forever (that attitude you also display), and that people do care about issues and are prepared to (maybe in minimal ways, maybe not) act on them despite traditional loyalties if approached properly. You manage to turn this into _vote labour - we're not the tories? _Fucking hell.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Even Galloway has an eye on changing the Labour party - that is still a strategically central project unless you can plausibly suggest that it's possible to build a genuine electoral alternative on a national or semi-national basis.


Even Galloway, the labour party member for 40 years and former labour party MP wants to change the party that expelled him and kicked off war he made it his mission to oppose? Even he wants labour to change? Blimey. I must now vote and join labour then after this revelation.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Even Galloway has an eye on changing the Labour party - that is still a strategically central project unless you can plausibly suggest that it's possible to build a genuine electoral alternative on a national or semi-national basis.


It's not possible without _challenging_ labour that's for bloody sure.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> You can do all those things - and it might have some effect. But unless you're in a position to mobilise some alternative then a Labour vote is still going to be the only way of punishing the Tories and LDs for those in England. Now, how does GGs win make this more likely outside of areas with similar demographics?


What is the point in getting rid of the tories if what you get is New Labour? Better to spoil your ballot paper, imo.

There is another way to look at this, which is that if you vote for Labour, you show the tories that you're not really all that opposed to what they are doing.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

GG stormed out of interview with C4 news (the 7 version).


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2012)

He is about to do a victory tour around Bradford, he is not going to be a shrinking violet..

btw postal votes, are they concentrated in certain areas, demographics, etc? is so,  what are the reasons, it is important...


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

aah, and yet another making pathetically racist innuendo


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

It's irrelevant anyway. He won by something of a landslide. It wasn't postal votes wot won it.

Also, if it is true that he got something like 3/4 of the Muslim vote, that means he must have got at least 40 percent of the non-Muslim vote. It wasn't even the Muslims wot won it for him.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> GG stormed out of interview with C4 news (the 7 version).


 
They asked him whether he composed his music in the shed again


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's irrelevant anyway. He won by something of a landslide. It wasn't postal votes wot won it.
> 
> Also, if it is true that he got something like 3/4 of the Muslim vote, that means he must have got at least 40 percent of the non-Muslim vote. It wasn't even the Muslims wot won it for him.


That depends on who turned out.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That depends on who turned out.


Conservative estimate based on the fact that Muslims are about 36% of the electorate. Assuming they turned out in significantly greater numbers, they might have been perhaps 50% of the vote. That would give Galloway 35% or so of the non-Muslim vote, based on big assumptions - hard to see how he got less than that, and quite probably got more.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

38% i think and significantly greater numbers would surely push well past 50%


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> aah, and yet another making pathetically racist innuendo


 
appalling comment

I ask it because i would like evidence one way or the other, I don't want whole groups voting on the say so of family heads, etc, in fact i think its great that young women in bradford are refusing to kow tow to them, I've heard this is now happening in other cities, emancipation is great...;


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 30, 2012)

Whenever the bnp are doing well (for the bnp) folk on here say it can yank the mainstream parties to the right. Can the opposite then be true with a respect win?


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

even if he did only get muslim votes (and LABOUR were saying last night that that wasn't the case by a long chalk), the fact that they would have had to get 67% of ALL muslims would be quite astounding


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

treelover said:


> appalling comment


yes, yours was.  I expect agricola, cobbles and JHE to come out with that racist rubbish, and to pathetically then backtrack and go 'ooh, its not _me_ saying that,I'm only asking/reporting.'  Leaping to assumptions to support their own racism


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2012)

'The big question now is whether what happened was a one off, arising from an unrepeatable combination of the right candidate in the right constituency at the right time, or something that is generalisable.It is too early to give a definitive answer. Sociologically speaking, there are numerous Bradford Wests that Labour has taken for granted far too long. But there are a limited supply of candidates with the charisma and profile evidently possessed by Galloway, and a limited supply of by-elections in which they can compete.
Last night’s outcome does not offer proof that a run of the mill leftwing activist, backed largely by Trotskyist groupings and a few trade unions, could repeat the performance. It does not disprove the contention, either.

The sight of those who fell out so badly during the Respect split of five years ago kissing and making up will be amusing for the rest of us to behold. But the prospect of two, three, many Bradford Wests emerging from the next general election still seems something of a long shot.'

http://www.davidosler.com/2012/03/bradford-west-one-off-or-turning-point/#more-4113

Anyway, on Dave Oslers blog, not another realignment of the far left, count me out this time...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Whenever the bnp are doing well (for the bnp) folk on here say it can yank the mainstream parties to the right. Can the opposite then be true with a respect win?


No, the best it can do is make people aware that the options are not simply tory/labour. The frame is firmly fixed now - this has no impact on the frame at all. It'll be viewed as special local conditions - see articul8's hackery on this already.


----------



## chilango (Mar 30, 2012)

treelover said:


> appalling comment
> 
> I ask it because i would like evidence one way or the other, I don't want whole groups voting on the say so of family heads, etc, in fact i think its great that young women in bradford are refusing to kow tow to them, I've heard this is now happening in other cities, emancipation is great...;


 
Hmmmm....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

Alright, call it 40% for ease. If all of those turned out, that would mean just 10/60 non-Muslims turned out. If he did get 75% of the Muslim vote, that would give him 30/50 of the vote just from that, so 60%, roughly what he did get. So a 100% Muslim turnout would give Galloway all the votes he got. So I suppose we should wait to see what the Muslim turnout was - if such a thing is measured. If it was up over 80%, then that would mean he didn't receive that many votes from elsewhere. If it's under 70%, then he did. A 25% non-Muslim turnout would mean a 75% Muslim turnout, btw. But I would suspect that this being a by-election rather than a local election would mean a slightly higher than 25% turnout - even that gives Galloway 1/3 of the non-Muslim vote, though.

/stats nerd


----------



## chilango (Mar 30, 2012)

"The Muslim vote" ? C'mon people...you should know better than this.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

chilango said:


> "The Muslim vote" ? C'mon people...you should know better than this.


It is something both Labour and Galloway thought was important. But this result does show that even on conservative estimates, a lot of people voted for Galloway across the divide. And it _is_ a divide in places like Bradford. It's stupid to deny this.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 30, 2012)

chilango said:
			
		

> "The Muslim vote" ? C'mon people...you should know better than this.



Well it isn't completely divorced from it. Bethnal Green and now Bradford? Both areas with large Muslim communities.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2012)

I'm not clear on the degree to which imaginary sky-pixies were involved in this result.

Do we know if that alleged Galloway flyer with a bunch of God nonsense in it was real or fake yet?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

It's not a question of sky pixies. It's a question of pretty separate communities with agendas that are also to a certain degree separate. It would appear that local government cronyism, which the Labour candidate personified, was a particular issue for the Muslim community (and in the case of somewhere like Bradford, I think it is legitimate to talk of a separate Muslim community).

(Call it 'Pakistani community' if you prefer, or even 'Kashmiri community'.)


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

I don't think salma yaqoob or any other ruc candidate could repeat galloway's succrss; what limits the ruc like what limits the bnp - even if people want to support them - is the lack of credible candidates. Who else is in the ruc? There was, as well as the reaction against tory/lib dem policies a sizeable personal vote in bradford.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> I don't think salma yaqoob or any other ruc candidate could repeat galloway's succrss; what limits the ruc like what limits the bnp - even if people want to support them - is the lack of credible candidates. Who else is in the ruc? There was, as well as the reaction against tory/lib dem policies a sizeable personal vote in bradford.



Salma Yaqoob does have a profile in the city and ime generally comes over well in the local media. She got a decent vote in the last GE too. Other than that agree entirely with this and what Treelover posted above. 

But the result does make another leftie realignment inevitable as they seek the magic formula of credibility via magic rather than hard graft.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

Leftist-alchemists


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Salma Yaqoob does have a profile in the city and ime generally comes over well in the local media. She got a decent vote in the last GE too. Other than that agree entirely with this and what Treelover posted above.
> 
> But the result does make another leftie realignment inevitable as they seek the magic formula of credibility via magic rather than hard graft.


What vote did she get? She comes across very well in the media, ime. Good votes don't count for much, though. It's seats that count.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Leftist-alchemists



The correct formula is complex. I'm waiting for the 39th Step to relaunch the RCP myself.


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What vote did she get? She comes across very well in the media, ime. Good votes don't count for much, though. It's seats that count.


second to labour, trailing by 3,799 votes. Yaqoob's 12,240 votes was an increase of 13.9%, with an 11.7% vote swing from Labour to Respect.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What vote did she get? She comes across very well in the media, ime. Good votes don't count for much, though. It's seats that count.



She came second to Labour in Sparkbrook, an inner city seat dominated by corrupt Labour for years. Iirc she got about 30% of the vote in a straight Labour/Respect fight. The other parties were wiped out.  Whilst the seat does have a large Muslim population it's possibly more mixed than Braford West.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> second to labour, trailing by 3,799 votes. Yaqoob's 12,240 votes was an increase of 13.9%, with an 11.7% vote swing from Labour to Respect.



Possibly more accurate figures than my addled guesswork.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 30, 2012)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The correct formula is complex. I'm waiting for the 39th Step to relaunch the RCP myself.


 
Stretches to fit


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

Smokeandsteam said:


> She came second to Labour in Sparkbrook, an inner city seat dominated by corrupt Labour for years. Iirc she got about 30% of the vote in a straight Labour/Respect fight. The other parties were wiped out. Whilst the seat does have a large Muslim population it's possibly more mixed than Braford West.


 I'd hope to think that people voted for her based on more than just her religion. It's rather odd how socialism and Islam have become conflated with Respect.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'd hope to think that people voted for her based on more than just her religion. It's rather odd how socialism and Islam have become conflated with Respect.


RESPECT made that pretty hard to do. We still have GG last night shouting the victory was to Allah. How the hell do you think those non-muslims you've been trying to establish voted for him would view that?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

I'm not defending Galloway or Respect. However, on the couple of occasions I've seen Yaqoob speak in the media, she hasn't played on her religion at all. Doesn't mention it as far as I can tell - she has far more compelling things to talk about.


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2012)

odds on GG will only be in the constituency for a few weeks, then it will be off to the middle east...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not defending Galloway or Respect. However, on the couple of occasions I've seen Yaqoob speak in the media, she hasn't played on her religion at all. Doesn't mention it as far as I can tell - she has far more compelling things to talk about.


This is RESPECT - it's how they operate. I've not once heard her not mention her religion - and there's a gap between mentioning your religion and why people vote for you.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> This is RESPECT - it's how they operate. I've not once heard her not mention her religion - and there's a gap between mentioning your religion and why people vote for you.


Ok. tbh I don't know enough about it to comment further.


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not defending Galloway or Respect. However, on the couple of occasions I've seen Yaqoob speak in the media, she hasn't played on her religion at all. Doesn't mention it as far as I can tell - she has far more compelling things to talk about.


 
yes, and its interesting she hasn't defected to NL where she would be guaranteed a shadow post...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

treelover said:


> yes, and its interesting she hasn't defected to NL where she would be guaranteed a shadow post...


She would not be! Besides she seems more classical lib-dem.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 30, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Stretches to fit


And may God have mercy on our souls.


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

well, she was offered two safe seats, endorsed by the MP who was standing down.  She'd have done well, being a classical lib-dem is hardly a block on doing well in the modern labour party


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not defending Galloway or Respect. However, on the couple of occasions I've seen Yaqoob speak in the media, she hasn't played on her religion at all. Doesn't mention it as far as I can tell - she has far more compelling things to talk about.


 
Someone, either on here or on A.N. Other board said that she never used to wear the hijab before going into politics. And when I saw her speak in Brum she really didn't mention religion at all, apart from saying that suicide bombing was a really bad idea.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'd hope to think that people voted for her based on more than just her religion. It's rather odd how socialism and Islam have become conflated with Respect.



Yeah, this is what interests me about her. She avoids the shite that Galloway trots out (forgive the pun) and her interviews in Birmingham do focus on anti cuts/bread and butter stuff. Where she stood has a large black and white population and as I said is possibly more mixed than where GG won.

But ultimately Respect and Islam are tangled together and there's no way back.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> Someone, either on here or on A.N. Other board said that she never used to wear the hijab before going into politics.


Hmm. Well I did think that - that she wears the hijab of course effectively means that she has already mentioned her religion before she even speaks.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> well, she was offered two safe seats, endorsed by the MP who was standing down. She'd have done well, being a classical lib-dem is hardly a block on doing well in the modern labour party


I'm sure she's very capable - but there's no way she'd be hoofed into the shadow cabinet after two years - what's her speciality?


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> Someone, either on here or on A.N. Other board said that she never used to wear the hijab before going into politics.


 
no, she was (supposedly) very 'westernised.  until the war started and there was a rise in islamophobia, when she felt 'drawn back' to her religion.


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2012)

'staggering result really. Respect turned out their vote on the most bizarre campaign: “re-open the odeon, built westfield, make the council accountable, stop wars, and by the way you’ll go to hell if you vote labour cos he’s a drinker”

post on Oslers site..


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I'm sure she's very capable - but there's no way she'd be hoofed into the shadow cabinet after two years - what's her speciality?


Chuka thingy has some minor role already.  Its possible.  And I daresay she'd be given a speciality is she joined a party where she had to be everything that GHeorge wasnt


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> no, she was (supposedly) very 'westernised. until the war started and there was a rise in islamophobia, when she felt 'drawn back' to her religion.


By a gob in the face. Which her islamist business family already felt.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> Chuka thingy has some minor role already. Its possible. And I daresay she'd be given a speciality is she joined a party where she had to be everything that GHeorge wasnt


He's being groomed - and in parliamentary terms he's very good.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> By a gob in the face. Which her islamist business family already felt.


 
You mean someone spat in her face? Literally?


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> He's being groomed -


 
If only lustbather were here to respond to this one.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> You mean someone spat in her face? Literally?


I believe that's what she said. Let me check.



> Born in 1971, at university she studied biochemistry and psychology and she met her husband, Aqil, at the age of 24.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> no, she was (supposedly) very 'westernised.  until the war started and there was a rise in islamophobia, when she felt 'drawn back' to her religion.



This is true, and she was offered a safe seat as partof a deal with Nu Labour in the City. 

She is defo Classic lib-dem too, very good way of capturing her politics and approach. 

Byrne is a) a total shit and b) never in the city and not respected in it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> Chuka thingy has some minor role already. Its possible. And I daresay she'd be given a speciality is she joined a party where she had to be everything that GHeorge wasnt


He's a new labour creep, though. So basically what you're saying is that she could have had a career as a new labour creep if she had wanted.

She gets a tick for rejecting that at least.


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2012)

Anyone been over to the 'most popular left wing blog' or Newmanland?(socialist unity)

though have to give the Cardinal his due, he has been doing a very good job with the Carrileon dispure


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So basically what you're saying is that she could have had a career as a new labour creep if she had wanted.


Yup, thats the one!

But she actually had some _principles_, the fucker


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> For gods sake, the lessons are in how mobilising local/community support against labour incumbents can be effective, that a labour vote is not to be so arrogantly assumed to be yours forever (that attitude you also display), and that people do care about issues and are prepared to (maybe in minimal ways, maybe not) act on them despite traditional loyalties if approached properly. You manage to turn this into _vote labour - we're not the tories? _Fucking hell.


 
By-elections have a logic of their own - people know they are electing a single candidate rather than a government and know that they can use them to send a symbolic message.   General elections are altgother different.  And its the next general election that will determine the overall frame - and that frame means Labour are the only game in town, sadly.  Now if this success were to shown to be repeatable - and waves of Respect, TUSC and/or other councillors were elected in the locals that would start to suggest something else is going on.  But that's one hell of a big *if*.

As for hackery fucking hell, I'm about as far away from it as its possible to get whilst still making the case for staying in a party.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 30, 2012)

To be fair to Yakoob I think the fact that she hasn't jumped to Labour (especially after Respect was wiped out almost everwhere) is a testament to her genuiness.

I agree that she seems to be a natural Libdem but I think it's the sort of Libdem who would since the coalition be more at home in Labour/Progress


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> By-elections have a logic of their own - people know they are electing a single candidate rather than a government and know that they can use them to send a symbolic message. General elections are altgother different. And its the next general election that will determine the overall frame - and that frame means Labour are the only game in town, sadly. Now if this success were to shown to be repeatable - and waves of Respect, TUSC and/or other councillors were elected in the locals that would start to suggest something else is going on. But that's one hell of a big *if*.
> 
> As for hackery fucking hell, I'm about as far away from it as its possible to get whilst still making the case for staying in a party.


Again, you reduce the lessons down to elections and their effect on labour. I don't believe you are capable of learning a lesson. And if you don't think that you're a hack then your chutzpah is now beyond parody. Odd how your posts echo those of the paid hacks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

I don't understand, though. If labour had won this by-election by a landslide, what would that have done in terms of where labour are? You don't move labour away from where they are by voting labour, do you?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't understand, though. If labour had won this by-election by a landslide, what would that have done in terms of where labour are? You don't move labour away from where they are by voting labour, do you?


You join and apply pressure through voting labour then getting dissapointed then leaving then joining again determined to change it. Have you not been keeping up with articul8's little strategic communiques?


----------



## past caring (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Have you not been keeping up with articul8's little strategic communiques?


 
It is like cockers minus the self-awareness and wit.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

...and texting.

Let's remember that all cockers had was his self-awareness and wit.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> No one has actually confirmed that that leaflet is true yet. It might very well be, but, other than the notorious racist poster who posted it here, its only appeared on one Labour party blog, so could well be completely fabricated (and distributed in a 'white' ward to get exactly the effect it has here!)


 Can't tell from the scan, but any 'official' leadlet would need the imprint of the election agent (or something similar?) on it.  If it is genuine - as in something that was really _*distributed*_ - it looks like it  would be a nod and a wink thing with inbuilt deniability for GG.


----------



## past caring (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Let's remember that all cockers had was his self-awareness and wit.


 
That was my point.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 30, 2012)

past caring said:


> It is like cockers minus the self-awareness and wit.


 
Cockers's self awareness and wit



> Sadly that's true. Political cynicism doesn't get us anywhere at the end of the day. ]


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

past caring said:


> It is like cockers minus the self-awareness and wit.


 
As the old Ted would say, you lot are the cretinous ultra-left twats on the fringes of the labour movement.  Now to quote Galloway, fuck off the lot of you


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 30, 2012)

past caring said:


> That was my point.



For those not in the know, could someone explain who cockers is/was. Also, where did he go?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

Smokeandsteam said:


> For those not in the know, could someone explain who cockers is/was. Also, where did he go?


He was a hyped up juvenile hard-trotskyist on here years ago. Workers defence squads disarming the police type. Union politics probably - possibly student politics. Better than work.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 30, 2012)

Return of the mac


----------



## past caring (Mar 30, 2012)

Smokeandsteam said:


> For those not in the know, could someone explain who cockers is/was. Also, where did he go?


 
Iraq (International Brigade). Don't know if he ever made it back.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> As the old Ted would say, you lot are the cretinous ultra-left twats on the fringes of the labour movement. Now to quote Galloway, fuck off the lot of you


You see, I would describe the Labour party as on the fringes of the Labour movement. That's the tragedy of the whole thing - there's nothing ultra-left about being to the left of the Labour party.

If you are a mild-mannered social democrat who believes in a mixed economy, you're to the left of the Labour party.


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> He was a hyped up juvenile hard-trotskyist on here years ago. Workers defence squads disarming the police type. Union politics probably - possibly student politics. Better than work.


he knew his Unison stuff okay. Unfortantely for him he also tried to show he knew about every other unions internal goings on, which often led him somewhat awry


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You see, I would describe the Labour party as on the fringes of the Labour movement. That's the tragedy of the whole thing - there's nothing ultra-left about being to the left of the Labour party.
> 
> If you are a mild-mannered social democrat who believes in a mixed economy, you're to the left of the Labour party.


That's totally wrong. The labour movement comprises the labour party and the unions.  No matter what they're doing. That's it. Or have you another labour movement in mind?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That's totally wrong. The labour movement comprises the labour party and the unions. No matter what they're doing. That's it. Or have you another labour movement in mind?


And the Labour party represents the unions in a meaningful way? By supporting a strike every now and then perhaps?


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

by not openly opposing a strike, every now and then - I think you mean


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And the Labour party represents the unions in a meaningful way? By supporting a strike every now and then perhaps?


It doesn't matter - this is what constitutes the historical labour movement. This is what people mean when they say labour movement - as that hack above did.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 30, 2012)

Cockneyrebel was the one who saw dual power where everyone else only saw the odd anti-war demo, is that right?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> Cockneyrebel was the one who saw dual power where everyone else only saw the odd anti-war demo, is that right?


He did, but Rebal Warrior was the one who saw a meeting in london - a social forum - as the start of dual power.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It doesn't matter - this is what constitutes the historical labour movement. This is what people mean when they say labour movement - as that hack above did.


And the Labour party is on the fringes of that. Or did I miss the big demonstration against the cuts that they organised?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Union politics probably


 
Not sure if he's still active in that...


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2012)

Can't see the party of Bryne, Wicks, Flint, Cooper, Blunkett, Field, learning any lessons from this truly massive defeat, though it will be interesting to see their excuses, etc..

'Labour is for the workers; not those avoiding work
*by Peter Watt*
Gulp, here goes. I think that if the reports that Liam Byrne, with the full support of Ed Miliband, is to shortly announce a change in approach to benefits policy are correct, then he is spot on.
Over the last 30 years Labour has moved from being seen as a party that supports labour, working people, to being seen as a party of welfare dependency supporting those who do not work.'
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2012/01/04/labour-is-for-the-workers-not-those-avoiding-work/

oh, read this defence of welfare reform by Peter Watt(known to some on here) appalling...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And the Labour party is on the fringes of that. Or did I miss the big demonstration against the cuts that they organised?


The labour party is on the fringes of something that it is a 50% component of? Look, it doesn;t matter how shit you think labour is - this is what the term means - the unions+labour. This isn't a made up term. Do you have another labour movement?


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> He did, but Rebal Warrior was the one who saw a meeting in london - a social forum - as the start of dual power.


 
Ah yes, the pilotless drone himself. Good times, good times.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The labour party is on the fringes of something that it is a 50% component of? .


Yes. Pathetic, but true. They don't represent the interests of union members in any meaningful way, so they are on the fringes of any movement to support them.


----------



## Belushi (Mar 30, 2012)

Thats nonsense tbf lbj.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

What, that the Labour party don't represent (and by that I mean actively promote) the interests of union members? They may be supposed to. But they don't.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes. Pathetic, but true. They don't represent the interests of union members in any meaningful way, so they are on the fringes of any movement to support them.


That's why the unions give them millions. Because they are on the fringes. Is this the first time that you've ever come across this term or something? You know all times where you go oh i didn't know that, this is one one of them. This is what the labour movement historically refers to - the unions+labour.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That's why the unions give them millions. Because they are on the fringes. Is this the first time that you've ever come across this term or something? You know all times where you go oh i didn't know that, this is one one of them. This is what the labour movement historically refers to.


I know that. You've missed my point. But anyway, I'll leave it.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What, that the Labour party don't represent (and by that I mean actively promote) the interests of union members? They may be supposed to. But they don't.


Who gives a fuck, that's not what we're talking about.


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2012)

One thing I do like is near universally people posting on blogs preface Purnell with 'odious' !


----------



## Belushi (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What, that the Labour party don't represent (and by that I mean actively promote) the interests of union members? They may be supposed to. But they don't.


 
Whether you think they do or not really isnt the point


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I know that. You've missed my point. But anyway, I'll leave it.


You've made no point beyond you blundering in and not understanding the historical use of a specific term.


----------



## JHE (Mar 30, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> It seems ti imply that the labour party put forward a muslim who drank.


 
According to the gossip, yes. On Tuesday, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee stuck its little oar in on the side of al-Respeq with the following commentary:


> Thirsty Imran Hussain (hic) likes his refreshments; and campaigning in this unseasonally good weather is thirsty work indeed.​The Bradford councillor is Labour's new hope in the Bradford West seat, being contested by Respect's powerhouse George Galloway.​A bi-election has been called following the incumbent, Marsh Singh's announcement that he is to stand down due to health reasons.​If Hussain can't get his Labour colleagues to help him out canvassing, he might have to rely on his trusted pals John E Walker and Jackie Daniels to give him a hand.​Make no mistake, George Galloway is giving Hussain a real run for his money. Respect and Labour are neck and neck and Respect have the capacity to deliver a historic blow to Labour's strangle-hold in Bradford. In fact, George could end up giving Imran “both barrels” (but not the barrels Imran was hoping for).​The constituents of Bradford West have a clear choice between the councillor who represents the party that thinks it has a right to rule in the Northern seats, that started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that brought the economy crashing down around our ears, or the candidate who is a tee-totaller and has consistently shown he has the courage of a lion, who has taken on the Zionist scourge, who and is a defender of Muslims and Bradford West's last hope.​


​http://www.mpacuk.org/story/260312/bottoms-imran-hussain.html​​Imran Hussain might be a shit. I don't know. He might be a piss-head. I don't know, but MPAC's little missive is so cringe-inducing, it makes GGG's letter to Muslim voters, in which he plays the same game he played in the East End, look almost dignified.​


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You've made no point beyond you blundering in and not understanding the historical use of a specific term.


The word 'tragedy' was intended to convey the irony of an institution set up to represent the labour movement now being on the fringes of that movement. But never mind.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

Yeah, it's me.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

How many posters here avoid the lowest common denominator P&P position of "know-it-all" keyboard warrior Cassandra who talks in the abstract about community organising and rank-and-file militancy but spend most of their time agreeing with other "know-it-all" keyboard warrior Cassandra who talk in the abstract about community organising and rank-and-file militancy?

Who argues a case and doesn't just capitulate to the easy-but-impotent board consensus?  Even where I disagree them I respect people who do that.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> How many posters here avoid the lowest common denominator P&P position of "know-it-all" keyboard warrior Cassandra who talks in the abstract about community organising and rank-and-file militancy but spend most of their time agreeing with other "know-it-all" keyboard warrior Cassandra who talk in the abstract about community organising and rank-and-file militancy?
> 
> Who argues a case and doesn't just capitulate to the easy-but-impotent board consensus? Even where I disagree them I respect people who do that.


 
A martyr and warrior. Blessed are we to even read your posts.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

Who does he remind me of a bit?


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 30, 2012)

I wonder if the Anarchist Federation had the same line as they did in Scotland when he stood  -'No vote for Galloway'


----------



## past caring (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Who does he remind me of a bit?


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2012)

'For Labour to lose Bradford is significant for a whole number of reasons. it’s good and hopefully a sign of political maturity, that many who crashed on the beaches of Respect around the split are talking again and trying to rise to the enornmous tasks ahead. GG back in Parliament can only aid a renewal of the left, particularly outside of the Westminster circus.'

from post on SU from SWP'er

ah, the rapproachment begins, once more as farce?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Past caring and Butchers:


----------



## BigTom (Mar 30, 2012)

I know this discussion was a page or two back, but Salma Yaqoob retired as a councillor last year due to ill health (afaik genuine), I don't think she'll be standing for mayor.


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

they've both got more hair than PC.....


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'For Labour to lose Bradford is significant for a whole number of reasons. it’s good and hopefully a sign of political maturity, that many who crashed on the beaches of Respect around the split are talking again and trying to rise to the enornmous tasks ahead. GG back in Parliament can only aid a renewal of the left, particularly outside of the Westminster circus.'
> 
> from post on SU from SWP'er
> 
> ah, the rapproachment begins, once more as farce?


 
Lest we forget




			
				Galloway said:
			
		

> fuck off the lot of you


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

BigTom said:


> I know this discussion was a page or two back, but Salma Yaqoob retired as a councillor last year due to ill health (afaik genuine), I don't think she'll be standing for mayor.


Cheers for that Tom, that might well kybosh a Byrne challenge. Anyone decent about?


----------



## past caring (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> they've both got more hair than PC.....


 
You managed to find a backside to fit inside those leather strides yet mate?


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

I have!

Its not mine tho, funnily enough....


----------



## BigTom (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Cheers for that Tom, that might well kybosh a Byrne challenge. Anyone decent about?


 
to stand as Mayor? I don't think so, there were a couple of other respect councillors, there's at least one TUSC candidate this time and there is a group called "communities against cuts" that are standing 2 council candidates (this comes from Stirchley and Cotteridge Against the Cuts who are a really, really good campaign group around the south west of Birmingham, and are standing candidates for election).
Someone might emerge from those groups, I'd go for someone from "communities against cuts" simply because as a group they have done really well in their area - but I don't think that'd work across the whole city.  At least they can say that they've saved local facilities from being closed though.

I really hope Byrne doesn't get it, fucking arsehole that he is.  Like someone said though, he's got no local visibility, I keep on forgetting he's a Birmingham MP.


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2012)

Btw, the green vote was a disaster, doesn't bode well for the May elections...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

GG walkout - he said 'from the left', she (oxbridge)missed it, started bad - not really a walkout.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 30, 2012)

BigTom said:


> I know this discussion was a page or two back, but Salma Yaqoob retired as a councillor last year due to ill health (afaik genuine), I don't think she'll be standing for mayor.



Yeah, that's true but at the time she was getting shitloads of hate mail/threats from the far right and from islamo nutcases and Respect had imploded.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> I have!
> 
> Its not mine tho, funnily enough....


 
*voms*


----------



## BigTom (Mar 30, 2012)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Yeah, that's true but at the time she was getting shitloads of hate mail/threats from the far right and from islamo nutcases and Respect had imploded.


 
ah ok, I couldn't remember what the ill health was, just that she left for genuine reasons as opposed to using "ill health" as a euphamism for "I did something naughty I don't want to be revealed" or "I pissed off the wrong person".


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 30, 2012)

looks like the interviewer was just trying to cunt him a bit and he wasn't having it. Not on his big day.


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2012)

Anyone scanning how the far right is viewing it?, fair few appearing on CIF with 'ominous powellian' warnings...

I suspect it will encourage them to set up their own parties, as the EDL is doing, there was a poll last year(by searchlight) that suggested over 50% of people would vote for the F/R if they abandoned racism, violence..

not sure about the poll, but its a hard sell for the fascists to abandon their core beliefs...


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Christmas come early for the EDL (good Christians that they are)?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 30, 2012)

no, the EDL will just continue to die on its arse slowly


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Christmas come early for the EDL (good Christians that they are)?


Yeah, they should stick with labour multi-culturalism.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 30, 2012)

BigTom said:


> ah ok, I couldn't remember what the ill health was, just that she left for genuine reasons as opposed to using "ill health" as a euphamism for "I did something naughty I don't want to be revealed" or "I pissed off the wrong person".



I think it was taking its toll for sure, so she might not fancy going through it again on a bigger platform. What started this was a discussion about credible candidates from the left and if she stood I think she would be, and Byrne is such a wanker I hope she does tbh.


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> GG walkout - he said 'from the left', she (oxbridge)missed it, started bad - not really a walkout.




she made an arse of herself. I hate it when journos make me have sympathy for George.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Salma Yaqoob does have a profile in the city and ime generally comes over well in the local media. She got a decent vote in the last GE too. Other than that agree entirely with this and what Treelover posted above.
> 
> But the result does make another leftie realignment inevitable as they seek the magic formula of credibility via magic rather than hard graft.


I accepy sy has a fair profile in brum: but take her out of there to somewhere like eg leicester and I doubt she'd do so well


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> I accepy sy has a fair profile in brum: but take her out of there to somewhere like eg leicester and I doubt she'd do so well



Of course, but we are talking about a credible challenge from the left to Byrne for the elected mayor of Birmingham.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah, they should stick with labour multi-culturalism.


You think Galloway is challenging liberal multiculturalism with his identity politics?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> You think Galloway is challenging liberal multiculturalism with his identity politics?


Nope, you are both promoting it. Oh look, articul8 is about to find about the AYMs - vote labour will be the conclusion.


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2012)

*Glad I don't live in Birmingham, imagine having that twat in power in your city, much worse than Boris!*


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 30, 2012)

imposs1904 said:


> she made an arse of herself. I hate it when journos make me have sympathy for George.


 
Have to say - GG describing the three main parties as three cheeks of the same arse made me laugh quite  a lot.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> A martyr and warrior. Blessed are we to even read your posts.


 
Yes, blessed is the indefatigable one.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

appropriate thread to use that phrase - but don't care for the association


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> appropriate thread to use that phrase - but don't care for the association


 
Tough shit.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You join and apply pressure through voting labour then getting dissapointed then leaving


Yes, I thought it might be possible to create a Socialist Alliance outside the party, and saw Stop the War/Respect emerge, and even at the height of Blair's unpopularity it wasn't possible to create a viable alternative.  I don't see any evidence of why it should be possible in circumstances when *on a national basis* Labour can position itself as the only alternative to the hated coalition.   Yes there's unhappiness with Labour, and this is hefty defeat.  But it is one by-election.  

Can someone please explain why this won't be just another "defeat of Oona King" moment?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Yes, I thought it might be possible to create a Socialist Alliance outside the party, and saw Stop the War/Respect emerge, and even at the height of Blair's unpopularity it wasn't possible to create a viable alternative. I don't see any evidence of why it should be possible in circumstances when *on a national basis* Labour can position itself as the only alternative to the hated coalition. Yes there's unhappiness with Labour, and this is hefty defeat. But it is one by-election.
> 
> Can someone please explain why this won't be just another "defeat of Oona King" moment?


Indeed, nothing here but victory for labour. Nothing


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Yes there's unhappiness with Labour, and this is hefty defeat. But it is one by-election


 
Harriet, been trying get you all day...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> GG walkout - he said 'from the left', she (oxbridge)missed it, started bad - not really a walkout.


----------



## moochedit (Mar 30, 2012)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Of course, but we are talking about a credible challenge from the left to Byrne for the elected mayor of Birmingham.


 
The haven't had the referendum on having a mayor yet. Is Brum likely to vote yes ? (not seen any polls)


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

harman said:
			
		

> _Yes there's unhappiness with Labour, and this is hefty defeat. But it is one by-election_


How fucking lazy can you get?


----------



## BigTom (Mar 30, 2012)

moochedit said:


> The haven't had the referendum on having a mayor yet. Is Brum likely to vote yes ? (not seen any polls)


 
voted no last time, but the yes campaign is far, far more visible than the no campaign this time.  I've not seen any polls either.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 30, 2012)

moochedit said:


> The haven't had the referendum on having a mayor yet. Is Brum likely to vote yes ? (not seen any polls)



Vote on whether to have one is on 3rd May with the election in, I think, November. The last poll I saw had a majority in favour. Though another one had 59% unaware that there was a referendum taking place.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Indeed, nothing here but victory for labour. Nothing


how is it different from Bethnal Green.  Galloway can whip up an anti-Labour mood to further his own profile.  Where's this going?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

The prof (three years ago damning GG's sectarianism) now winning it against sectarianism.Like a junky with a foil bag


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> how is it different from Bethnal Green. Galloway can whip up an anti-Labour mood to further his own profile. Where's this going?


What do you mean how is it different?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> how is it different from Bethnal Green. Galloway can whip up an anti-Labour mood to further his own profile. Where's this going?


Tactical thought, you're known for that.That you don't know tells hacks like you


----------



## coley (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He did exploit their anger and resentment, yes. And he was able to do that as a result of a consistent record of opposing UK military action over the past decade. I don't doubt that he is genuine in that opposition. It would be rather extraordinary if he weren't.


No, I think he has identified a sure fire means of gaining support in a key area and exploited it to the hilt, IMOA


----------



## jakethesnake (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Yes, I thought it might be possible to create a Socialist Alliance outside the party, and saw Stop the War/Respect emerge, and even at the height of Blair's unpopularity it wasn't possible to create a viable alternative. I don't see any evidence of why it should be possible in circumstances when *on a national basis* Labour can position itself as the only alternative to the hated coalition. Yes there's unhappiness with Labour, and this is hefty defeat. But it is one by-election.
> 
> Can someone please explain why this won't be just another "defeat of Oona King" moment?


Because the Labour Party can't even provide effective opposition against the open goal of the current government. They can't provide effective opposition because they hold, more or less, the same neo-liberal voodoo economics beliefs. People are waking up to this and will vote accordingly when given the opportunity, ie, not for the three main parties.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Labour has had embarrassing by-election upsets before without the roof crashing in.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Labour has had embarrassing by-election upsets before without the roof crashing in.


It's all fine - vote labour. Cheers H.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Of course, but we are talking about a credible challenge from the left to Byrne for the elected mayor of Birmingham.


no reference to that in my post or your earlier reply: the hazards of not being at the internet when i'd like to be


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Labour has had embarrassing by-election upsets before without the roof crashing in.


like one of the bourbons they forget nothing and they learn nothing


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Labour has had embarrassing by-election upsets before without the roof crashing in.


 
Has it had an upset involving a 37% swing to the left before?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

that isn't what I said - I'm not even planning to vote Labour myself in the GLA elections!  But I can't imagine voting anything else at the General.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Has it had an upset involving a 37% swing to the left before?


are you predicting this will be repeated across the country?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> that isn't what I said - I'm not even planning to vote Labour myself in the GLA elections! But I can't imagine voting anything else at the General.


so you wouldn't inflict them on us in london but you would across the country

what sort of a position is that?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> are you predicting this will be repeated across the country?


 
That isn't what I said


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> that isn't what I said - I'm not even planning to vote Labour myself in the GLA elections! But I can't imagine voting anything else at the General.


I'm in the labour party v i think you should join the labour party. I'm not voting labour btw. Strong message.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I'm in the labour party v i think you should join the labour party. I'm not voting labour btw. Strong message.


it's like 1997-2010 never happened. fuck 1752, give us back our 13 years.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 30, 2012)

It's worth pointing out that in Scotland galloway only got 3% of the vote, beacuse in Scotland there is already a viable left-of-labour alternative for people to vote for, the SNP. In England this massive political vacuum still exists, and Galloway was able to exploit that.

If a clown like Galloway can do it then there's just no excuse for the left. There's a massive potential for some left-wing populism right now, and it's a mood that that Labour would rather crush than build. It's right there for the taking if you ask me.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> That isn't what I said


Is this your first interaction with a8


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Is this your first interaction with a8


 
Can't recall to be honest.

I do think it's interesting that we're seeing so much denial from both PR wings of the neo-liberal party though, about the uncomfortable implications of the (apparent) fact of a 37% left swing.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> so you wouldn't inflict them on us in london but you would across the country
> 
> what sort of a position is that?


I totally understand people voting for an alternative.   I will do so myself.  What I can't see is this developing into a national alternative to Labour at a General Election.  The electoral system is one key factor here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> It's worth pointing out that in Scotland galloway only got 3% of the vote, beacuse in Scotland there is already a viable left-of-labour alternative for people to vote for, the SNP. In England this massive political vacuum still exists, and Galloway was able to exploit that.
> 
> If a clown like Galloway can do it then there's just no excuse for the left. There's a massive potential for some left-wing populism right now, and it's a mood that that Labour would rather crush than build. It's right there for the taking if you ask me.


if he was able to really exploit it he wouldn't have been standing in bradford, he'd have won in poplar.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> There's a massive potential for some left-wing populism right now, and it's a mood that that Labour would rather crush than build. It's right there for the taking if you ask me.


 
Where that is the case I'll be on the side of those building not crushing.  But I think Labour can and must start to shift to the left


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I totally understand people voting for an alternative. I will do so myself. What I can't see is this developing into a national alternative to Labour at a General Election. The electoral system is one key factor here.


let's put it this way. after everything that happened under the wilson and the callaghan administrations, after everything that happened under blair and brown, after everything that labour has done in local government: what possible fucking reason can there be to vote for them? and saying that 'they aren't the tories' is not a reason to vote for them: that little baby went out the window within a hundred days of blair getting elected.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I'm in the labour party v i think you should join the labour party. I'm not voting labour btw. Strong message.


Campaign for a Labour party worth voting for


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Campaign for a Labour party worth voting for


for fuck's sake 

people have been on about that for at least the last 22 years. if so many people have tried, and failed, then what makes you think you'll succeed where better funded and organised and attempts have foundered?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> let's put it this way. after everything that happened under the wilson and the callaghan administrations, after everything that happened under blair and brown, after everything that labour has done in local government: what possible fucking reason can there be to vote for them? and saying that 'they aren't the tories' is not a reason to vote for them: that little baby went out the window within a hundred days of blair getting elected.


 
No, I don't think that's true.  There isn't anywhere near enough difference between Labour and the Tories.  But if you're saying it makes no odds whether Cameron and Osborne get back at the next election I beg to differ.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Campaign for a Labour party worth voting for


 
Christ


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> No, I don't think that's true. There isn't anywhere near enough difference between Labour and the Tories. But if you're saying it makes no odds whether Cameron and Osborne get back at the next election I beg to differ.


it does make a difference, of course it does. between someone like ed balls who tries to make out he's your mate while he shafts you and someone who's at least honest about being a cunt.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> for fuck's sake
> 
> people have been on about that for at least the last 22 years. if so many people have tried, and failed, then what makes you think you'll succeed where better funded and organised and attempts have foundered?


 
UNITE is very well placed to use its dominance of Labour's funding to bring influence to bear.  Neoliberalism is discredited amongst wide sections of the Labour vote - who want an alternative to austerity.  

People have been talking about developing left of Labour alternatives since the 30s (at least).  What makes you think you'll succeed where better funded and organised and attempts have foundered?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> it does make a difference, of course it does. between someone like ed balls who tries to make out he's your mate while he shafts you and someone who's at least honest about being a cunt.


 
So you'd rather have Osborne.  You must have been well-chuffed at a Thatcher government then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> UNITE is very well placed to use its dominance of Labour's funding to bring influence to bear. Neoliberalism is discredited amongst wide sections of the Labour vote - who want an alternative to austerity.
> 
> People have been talking about developing left of Labour alternatives since the 30s (at least). What makes you think you'll succeed where better funded and organised and attempts have foundered?


i'm not looking to develop a left of labour electoral alternative.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> So you'd rather have Osborne. You must have been well-chuffed at a Thatcher government then?


are you thick or something? i said they're both wankers, only one of them pretends to be your mate. a labour government's a bit like being mugged by someone who makes out they're helping you whereas a tory government's like being mugged by a bully. which would you prefer?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm not looking to develop a left of labour electoral alternative.


ah, OK...so your strategy is for armed proletarian insurrection?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> ah, OK...so you're strategy is for armed proletarian insurrection?


before we get there i'll settle for smaller goals, like proper english tuition


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2012)

'http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/30/george-galloway-bradford-west'

Young Lanre's view on the victory in the Guardian, some on here (well two of you) might find his conclusions 'racist'


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Christ you're quick - I had that edited in seconds


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2012)

Just to check, because nobody objected when I said it above.

Do we really think this is a 37% swing_ to the left_ from Labour?

After all, despite some of the rhetoric, Labour were the ones running a Pakistani candidate with strong connections to the local old boy networks. So I'm not at all convinced that identity politics was what won it for GG (as the Torygraph seems to want to claim) and there does seem to be a certain amount of anedotal evidence that people were voting for GG and against the local old boy network on something not a million miles from class issues, end to austerity policies, privatisation etc.


----------



## chilango (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> (Call it 'Pakistani community' if you prefer, or even 'Kashmiri community'.)



I think that would be a more valid starting point...


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/30/george-galloway-bradford-west'
> 
> Young Lanre's view on the victory in the Guardian, some on here (well two of you) might find his conclusions 'racist'


galloway's a cunt, end of. and there's no way he'll do bradford any favours, he'll leave it a worse place than he found it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> UNITE is very well placed to use its dominance of Labour's funding to bring influence to bear.


Why doesn't it, then? Why does Labour systematically disregard the interests of the unions that fund it, that it is supposed to represent. A labour leader speaking at the TUC conference is as likely to be booed as cheered, no? Why is that? As far as I can tell, as soon as people move from the unions into labour to become politicians, they mostly cease to act in the interests of the unions.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Christ you're quick - I had that edited in seconds


i don't piss about.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Do we really think this is a 37% swing_ to the left_ from Labour?
> 
> After all, despite some of the rhetoric, Labour were the ones running a Pakistani candidate with strong connections to the local old boy networks. So I'm not at all convinced that identity politics was what won it for GG (as the Torygraph seems to want to claim) and there does seem to be a certain amount of anedotal evidence that people were voting for GG and against the local old boy network on something not a million miles from class issues, end to austerity policies, privatisation etc.


populist opportunism - a bit of identity politics where it helps ("I don't drink") a bit of a left swerve for another audience


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't piss about.


It's customary to begin sentences with capital letters though


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> It's customary to begin sentences with capital letters though


It's customary to end sentences with a full stop. Buy hey ho.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> It's customary to begin sentences with capital letters though


what, like you in post 398?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> populist opportunism - a bit of identity politics where it helps ("I don't drink") a bit of a left swerve for another audience


 
... and that accounts for a 37% swing to the left does it?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> populist opportunism - a bit of identity politics where it helps ("I don't drink") a bit of a left swerve for another audience


No lessons for your party - no lessons for anyone.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> ... and that accounts for a 37% swing to the left does it?


NO lessons, it's not scaleable.


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/30/george-galloway-bradford-west'
> 
> Young Lanre's view on the victory in the Guardian, some on here (well two of you) might find his conclusions 'racist'


Why?  It quite explicitly rejects the idiotic argument put forward by 'some'

"The real decisive move was securing the services of Naweed Hussain, the former campaign manager of Marsha Singh, who knew the location of Labour's weak spots and what the pressure points were for voters in Bradford West."

The article severely lets itself down with the third to last paragraph:
For all the talk of a Bradford spring, Iraq and the West Bank, is Galloway actually going to muddy his hands at the stalled Westfield shopping centre site which has left a huge hole in the city centre? Is he going to bother himself with the fight over the city's Odeon cinema or battle to get the city's main library up and running again?

At least two of which GG has already spoken out on.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why doesn't it, then? Why does Labour systematically disregard the interests of the unions that fund it, that it is supposed to represent. A labour leader speaking at the TUC conference is as likely to be booed as cheered, no? Why is that? As far as I can tell, as soon as people move from the unions into labour to become politicians, they mostly cease to act in the interests of the unions.


They are under an illusion that people's ideas of unions are mirror images of tabloid headlines from the late 70s - you need to win the "middle ground" by pissing off your own supporters.  Blair's terrible autobiog doesn't have a good word to say for unions, period.  The unions thought they had to suck it up as the price of not having the Tories shafting them even more.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> ... and that accounts for a 37% swing to the left does it?


"swing" is a bit misleading - it's a least in part about differential turnout.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> populist opportunism - a bit of identity politics where it helps ("I don't drink") a bit of a left swerve for another audience


 
How do you account for the fact that Galloway also trounced Labour in all the majority white wards in the seat as well as the majority Muslim ones? Did he appeal to the "idenity politics" of white voters in Bradford by claiming he's never drank alcohol in his life?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> How do you account for the fact that Galloway also trounced Labour in all the majority white wards in the seat as well as the majority Muslim ones? Did he appeal to the "idenity politics" of white voters in Bradford by claiming he's never drank alcohol in his life?


that'll be electoral fraud *taps nose*


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

No, that's where his left swerve will have served him.  More to the point is why Labour voters stayed at home.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> "swing" is a bit misleading - it's a least in part about differential turnout.




this is getting fucking desperate


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> "swing" is a bit misleading - it's a least in part about differential turnout.


no it isnt. turnout was down a surprisingly small amount. Whether some (usual) labour may have stayed at home, that still leads to a swing, an actual swing, of 37%


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> No, that's where his left swerve will have served him. More to the point is why Labour voters stayed at home.


51%'s quite high for a by-election, isn't it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> They are under an illusion that people's ideas of unions are mirror images of tabloid headlines from the late 70s - you need to win the "middle ground" by pissing off your own supporters. Blair's terrible autobiog doesn't have a good word to say for unions, period. The unions thought they had to suck it up as the price of not having the Tories shafting them even more.


So Labour since Blair have betrayed the unions, then? And more importantly betrayed union members? They are funded by them, yet do not even pretend to represent them any more?

What is the point of supporting a party that has betrayed the principles on which it was founded?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Not everyone who voted Galloway was previously Labour.  And not all the votes "lost" by Labour went to Galloway.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> They are under an illusion that people's ideas of unions are mirror images of tabloid headlines from the late 70s - you need to win the "middle ground" by pissing off your own supporters. Blair's terrible autobiog doesn't have a good word to say for unions, period. The unions thought they had to suck it up as the price of not having the Tories shafting them even more.


Who are?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> not all the votes "lost" by Labour went to Galloway.


Just most of them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Not everyone who voted Galloway was previously Labour. And not all the votes "lost" by Labour went to Galloway.


they didn't go to eg the lib dems did they? or to the tories. so where did the previous labour votes go? can't all have stopped at home, surely.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> How do you account for the fact that Galloway also trounced Labour in all the majority white wards in the seat as well as the majority Muslim ones? Did he appeal to the "idenity politics" of white voters in Bradford by claiming he's never drank alcohol in his life?


You have figures for this?


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Not everyone who voted Galloway was previously Labour. And not all the votes "lost" by Labour went to Galloway.


you do know how swing is calculated, dont you?  the above sentence is, to be kind, irrelevant


----------



## nastybobby (Mar 30, 2012)

I lived in Bradford West for a long time and still regularly visit friends there. GG's victory isn't a massive surprise, he managed to mobilise a hell of a lot of [mostly] young people in the inner city areas. I was visiting a friend who still resides there on Tuesday and he remarked upon the fact that he looks to have had some major backing from those with the cash and the influence in the area.

Getting elected was the easy part! His position on the Afghanistan 'war' practically guaranteed it, but actually making a difference in what is a very deprived area will be somewhat more of a challenge. Bradford isn't as 'divided' a city as the media would have people believe, but it does have some 'difficulties' regarding its reputation. I hope he can improve his constituents lives, Bradford has been plagued by ineffective/incompetent MP's/Councils for far too long.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

nastybobby said:


> I lived in Bradford West for a long time and still regularly visit friends there. GG's victory isn't a massive surprise, he managed to mobilise a hell of a lot of [mostly] young people in the inner city areas. I was visiting a friend who still resides there on Tuesday and he remarked upon the fact that he looks to have had some major backing from those with the cash and the influence in the area.
> 
> Getting elected was the easy part! His position on the Afghanistan 'war' practically guaranteed it, but actually making a difference in what is a very deprived area will be somewhat more of a challenge. Bradford isn't as 'divided' a city as the media would have people believe, but it does have some 'difficulties' regarding its reputation. I hope he can improve his constituents lives, Bradford has been plagued by ineffective/incompetent MP's/Councils for far too long.


but he's a politician. they don't really do improving people's lives.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> they didn't go to eg the lib dems did they? or to the tories. so where did the previous labour votes go? can't all have stopped at home, surely.


Lots of people who wanted to inflict a defeat on Labour turned out and voted Galloway (including Tories), a fair % of Labour voters stayed at home, whilst another proportion switched.    A bit misleading to talk about "swing" in relation to GE figures.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Not everyone who voted Galloway was previously Labour. And not all the votes "lost" by Labour went to Galloway.


What's wrong with you? What lessons have you learnt?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Lots of people who wanted to inflict a defeat on Labour turned out and voted Galloway (including Tories), a fair % of Labour voters stayed at home, whilst another proportion switched. A bit misleading to talk about "swing" in relation to GE figures.


and your evidence for this is...?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What's wrong with you? What lessons have you learnt?


as talleyrand would say he's learnt nothing and forgotten nothing - a point i made on the last page i think


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

differential turnout is a regular feature of byelections - which is part of what makes them prone to "extreme" swings


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> as talleyrand would say he's learnt nothing and forgotten nothing - a point i made on the last page i think


you attributed it to the Bourbons on the last page


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Lots of people who wanted to inflict a defeat on Labour turned out and voted Galloway (including Tories), a fair % of Labour voters stayed at home, whilst another proportion switched. A bit misleading to talk about "swing" in relation to GE figures.


any evidence for the tories bit?  It actually seems unlikely, considering at the beginning of the campaign the tories were saying they thought Galloways candidature would help them win the seat.  In fact, what seems to have happened is there vote collapsed because they aren't very popular in working class areas, for some strange reason.

Thus there was a real, actual, properly led, swing of 37% away from the Labour Party, to Respect.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2012)

Some analysis of the different wards here: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2012/03/30/bradford-west-by-election-baston/


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> differential turnout is a regular feature of byelections - which is part of what makes them prone to "extreme" swings


fucks sake man, stop digging


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Lots of people who wanted to inflict a defeat on Labour turned out and voted Galloway (including Tories), a fair % of Labour voters stayed at home, whilst another proportion switched. A bit misleading to talk about "swing" in relation to GE figures.


Face it, the turnout was down a little on the GE, but not much, but it wasn't the other half of the electorate voting this time - those who didn't vote in the GE will largely not have voted again; those that did vote in the GE will largely have voted again, with a few stay-at-homes. So most of those who voted Labour last time turned out again this time, and unless they did something a bit strange and voted tory or libdem, most of them must have switched to Galloway.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> differential turnout is a regular feature of byelections - which is part of what makes them prone to "extreme" swings


Being round makes circles round. Thanks


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> any evidence for the tories bit? It actually seems unlikely, considering at the beginning of the campaign the tories were saying they thought Galloways candidature would help them win the seat. In fact, what seems to have happened is there vote collapsed because they aren't very popular in working class areas, for some strange reason.


 
[Muslim] Tories switching to a religious man who, god willing, will beat Labour - can't have happened 



> Thus there was a real, actual, properly led, swing of 37% away from the Labour Party, to Respect.


In order to prove that you'd need to demonstrate that there wasn't a differential turnout


----------



## discokermit (Mar 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> 51%'s quite high for a by-election, isn't it?


i think it is.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> [Muslim] Tories switching to a religious man who, god willing, will beat Labour - can't have happened
> 
> 
> In order to prove that you'd need to demonstrate that there wasn't a differential turnout


He won by such a large margin that he probably took votes from almost everyone. But he'll have taken by far the most votes from Labour. It's impossible that he didn't.


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> [Muslim] Tories switching to a religious man who, god willing, will beat Labour - can't have happened


so you dont have any evidence then.  the tories said they'd win the seat, they weren't giving up on it



> In order to prove that you'd need to demonstrate that there wasn't a differential turnout


no, i just need to look at the actual votes cast.  Which I have.  There was a swing of 37%.  YOur attempts to deny this demonstrable () fact are just making you look silly


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Face it, the turnout was down a little on the GE, but not much, but it wasn't the other half of the electorate voting this time - those who didn't vote in the GE will largely not have voted again; those that did vote in the GE will largely have voted again, with a few stay-at-homes. So most of those who voted Labour last time turned out again this time, and unless they did something a bit strange and voted tory or libdem, most of them must have switched to Galloway.


 
8,000 fewer people voted, and Labour was beaten by 10,000.  Is it unlikely that a good proportion of those 8,000 were Labour?


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

good god


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> no, i just need to look at the actual votes cast. Which I have. There was a swing of 37%. YOur attempts to deny this demonstrable () fact are just making you look silly


not at all - it's the use of a swing figure based on wholly proportional turnout that is silly from a psephological point of view


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> 8,000 fewer people voted, and Labour was beaten by 10,000. Is it unlikely that a good proportion of those 8,000 were Labour?


And no lessons to be learned. None.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

I'm not saying there wasn't a considerable swing away from Labour.  I'm saying that the 37% doesn't take adequate account of differential turnout


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

I thought you couldn't look more ridiculous than after AV, but look at you now. All grown up.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> And no lessons to be learned. None.


sure there are.  But those lessons are for Labour to speak to the concerns of Labour voters in areas like this.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 30, 2012)

Well done George, for making Labour party hacks everywhere as miserable as sin. Made my day.


----------



## Greebozz (Mar 30, 2012)

nastybobby said:


> I lived in Bradford West for a long time and still regularly visit friends there. GG's victory isn't a massive surprise, he managed to mobilise a hell of a lot of [mostly] young people in the inner city areas. I was visiting a friend who still resides there on Tuesday and he remarked upon the fact that he looks to have had some major backing from those with the cash and the influence in the area.
> 
> Getting elected was the easy part! His position on the Afghanistan 'war' practically guaranteed it, but actually making a difference in what is a very deprived area will be somewhat more of a challenge. Bradford isn't as 'divided' a city as the media would have people believe, but it does have some 'difficulties' regarding its reputation. I hope he can improve his constituents lives, Bradford has been plagued by ineffective/incompetent MP's/Councils for far too long.


 
Like what you say.

Also there is no great Muslim and Arab supporter in politics. He win Bradford (Shock)  A celeb parachuting in to boot.  Whats all the fuss.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He won by such a large margin that he probably took votes from almost everyone. But he'll have taken by far the most votes from Labour. It's impossible that he didn't.


 
Labour, Tories and Lib Dems all lost share according to that LSE blog I linked above.

Tory and Lib voter retention (which relates to turnout) was down even more heavily than Labour.

UKIP were the only other party to increase their share, but by so little as to be meaningless.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> 8,000 fewer people voted, and Labour was beaten by 10,000. Is it unlikely that a good proportion of those 8,000 were Labour?


Of course a good proportion of those were labour. How much of a proportion were labour voters from the last election who would have voted labour again, though? Some will not have voted because they couldn't be arsed, no doubt, but others will have not voted for other reasons. Maybe they couldn't be arsed but if they had been arsed, they'd have turned out and voted Galloway. It isn't right to assume that someone who voted labour last time but didn't vote this time is a 'stay-at-home labour voter'.


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I'm not saying there wasn't a considerable swing away from Labour. I'm saying that the 37% doesn't take adequate account of differential turnout


so, tell us the 'correct' figure, and your workings please, or accept that everyone else thinks you are clutching desperately at straws


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I'm not saying there wasn't a considerable swing away from Labour. I'm saying that the 37% doesn't take adequate account of differential turnout


Like the lib-dems said, the wrong damn people bothered to vote. There is something wrong with you.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I'm not saying there wasn't a considerable swing away from Labour. I'm saying that the 37% doesn't take adequate account of differential turnout


have you had a bump on the head?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 30, 2012)

I don't know how anyone can see this as anything other than a massive poke in the eye for Labour. It was fought on safe ground. Another left party took it, emphatically. 

As an aside, my housemate noted this morning how angry the Labour loser seemed to be. Reminded me of LibDem reactions to the AV vote. Just dismissive or angry, no attempt to look at WHY.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> sure there are. But those lessons are for Labour to speak to the concerns of Labour voters in areas like this.


Only lessons for labour. Says it all Harriet.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> so, tell us the 'correct' figure, and your workings please, or accept that everyone else thinks you are clutching desperately at straws


what straws?  It was a desperate night for Labour.  No denying that.  It wouldn't be possible to produce the kind of figure you're after without a detailed comparison of the filled electoral register.  But the idea that there couldn't have been a differential turnout from the GE is just plain daft.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

He really said:




			
				harriet harman said:
			
		

> _sure there are. But those lessons are for Labour to speak to the concerns of Labour voters in areas like this._


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> what straws? It was a desperate night for Labour. No denying that. It wouldn't be possible to produce the kind of figure you're after without a detailed comparison of the filled electoral register. But the idea that there couldn't have been a differential turnout from the GE is just plain daft.


What the fuck do you think  DIFFERENTIAL turnout means?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> what straws? It was a desperate night for Labour. No denying that. It wouldn't be possible to produce the kind of figure you're after without a detailed comparison of the filled electoral register. But the idea that there couldn't have been a differential turnout from the GE is just plain daft.


If only all those stay-at-home labour voters had known that a load of nutters would be bothering to vote for the first time and voting in Galloway, they would have turned out to vote.


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> what straws? It was a desperate night for Labour. No denying that. It wouldn't be possible to produce the kind of figure you're after without a detailed comparison of the filled electoral register. But the idea that there couldn't have been a differential turnout from the GE is just plain daft.


all the figures you need are available. turnout and actual votes. people who didnt vote _didnt vote_. you cant say anything about them, except _they didnt vote._. Hence, there votes, dont count!

We have the figures, we can calculate the swing. I make it 37%. And you?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

Do you think it means different?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

it means (in this instance) that Labour voters [at the last GE] were less likely to vote in the by-election than were voters from other parties (in 2010).  Why doesn't this hold?


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> it means (in this instance) that Labour voters [at the last GE] were less likely to vote in the by-election than were voters from other parties (in 2010). Why doesn't this hold?


Doesnt matter. Only the actual votes matter.  Everything else is irelevant.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> all the figures you need are available. turnout and actual votes. people who didnt vote _didnt vote_. you cant say anything about them, except _they didnt vote._. Hence, there votes, dont count!
> 
> We have the figures, we can calculate the swing. I make it 37%. And you?


No  you need a comparison of which people turned out to vote last night with which people turned out in 2010 broken down by party


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

Rubbish.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> Doesnt matter. Only the actual votes matter. Everything else is irelevant.


Of course it matters nob-end.  Did Labour voters decide to stay at home, or did they vote Galloway?  And in what proportions?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> it means (in this instance) that Labour voters [at the last GE] were less likely to vote in the by-election than were voters from other parties (in 2010). Why doesn't this hold?


Even if this is true, why, though? Could it be because the last MP had a considerable personal vote that predated New Labour, but people who were happy to vote for him could not bring themselves to vote for a ghastly New Labour horror with a long record of cronyism in local politics? What lesson does that serve?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> it means (in this instance) that Labour voters [at the last GE] were less likely to vote in the by-election than were voters from other parties (in 2010). Why doesn't this hold?


Does it? What is your understanding of differential.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> No  you need a comparison of which people turned out to vote last night with which people turned out in 2010 broken down by party


show us it then. or shut up.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Even if this is true, why, though? Could it be because the last MP had a considerable personal vote that predated New Labour, but people who were happy to vote for him could not bring themselves to vote for a ghastly New Labour horror with a long record of cronyism in local politics? What lesson does that serve?


 
Oh absolutely.  I'm not saying that this makes it any more excusable.  Labour has some hard questions to answer after this performance.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You have figures for this?


 
It was on twitter last night I'll go hunt some if you want? Infact it may well have been Salma Yaqoob tweeting live from the vote-count last night who said it, so maybe she's bullshitting, but it's pretty hard to imagine how they'd have won with a 10,000 majority if they didn't have accross-the-board support. If anything, I suspect the Muslim vote was the most split, between the Muslim Labour candidate favoured by the bigwigs in the asian community and Galloway. 

This does really show the stupidity of trying to homogenise the interests of Muslim voters in such a way, like there aren't wildly different grievances and concerns within that broad mass of people other than the fact that they're muslim.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Does it? What is your understanding of differential.


Essentially turnout on a different scale that doesn't draw proportionally from the electoral base of parties judged by previous voting behaviours.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Oh absolutely. I'm not saying that this makes it any more excusable. Labour has some hard questions to answer after this performance.


Thing is, they're not 'labour voters' then really, are they? Rightly or wrongly, there are people who vote for Simon Hughes, for instance, who would otherwise vote labour but like Hughes. If the last labour mp, as seems likely, had built up a similar level of personal support, if his replacement loses three quarters of them, are they still 'labour voters'? It seems complacent and wrong in the extreme to characterise people who did not vote as 'labour voters'. They have just shown for whatever reason that, at the moment at least, they are no such thing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> you attributed it to the Bourbons on the last page


no i didn't.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Thing is, they're not 'labour voters' then really, are they? Rightly or wrongly, there are people who vote for Simon Hughes, for instance, who would otherwise vote labour but like Hughes. If the last labour mp, as seems likely, had built up a similar level of personal support, if his replacement loses three quarters of them, are they still 'labour voters'? It seems complacent and wrong in the extreme to characterise people who did not vote as 'labour voters'. They have just shown for whatever reason that, at the moment at least, they are no such thing.


Yes I suppose so but from the point of view of the parties, they are people who on the basis of their previous voting intentions could be reasonably expected to vote the same way again.  Obviously people change their voting intentions.  But what we haven't established is the proportions of those who chose not to vote or couldn't be arsed, and those who actively went out and expressed a different voting intention.  And the reasons for both would contribute to the overall outcome.


----------



## where to (Mar 30, 2012)

has anyone got a source to support the claim GG won in every ward?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Oh absolutely. I'm not saying that this makes it any more excusable. Labour has some hard questions to answer after this performance.


Hard questions. Like what.


----------



## Athos (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I'm not saying there wasn't a considerable swing away from Labour. I'm saying that the 37% doesn't take adequate account of differential turnout


So what?  Maybe those who've voted Labour in the past didn't turn out to vote Labour on this occasion because they no longer believe the party has anything to offer.  And maybe people who have never been inspired to vote for Labour (or any other party) were inspired to turn out on this occasion.  Which ever way you look at it, it's a massive rejection of the Labour Party.  Labour lost a relatively safe seat by over 10,000 votes.  To a candidate from a party with no significant national presence, at a time when Labour's traditional support are being savaged by Tory and Lib Dem cuts.  You can't spin this as anything other than a failure.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Hard questions. Like what.


Like the reasons people chose either to vote against Labour or at least not to vote for Labour, at a by-election - and what would induce them to do so at a General Election?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Mar 30, 2012)

where to said:


> has anyone got a source to support the claim GG won in every ward?


 
it would be interesting to look at the breakdown ward by ward


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Athos said:


> So what? Maybe those who've voted Labour in the past didn't turn out to vote Labour on this occasion because they no longer believe the party has anything to offer. And maybe people who have never been inspired to vote for Labour (or any other party) were inspired to turn out on this occasion. Which ever way you look at it, it's a massive rejection of the Labour Party. Labour lost a relatively safe seat by over 10,000 votes. To a candidate from a party with no significant national presence, at a time when Labour's traditional support are being savaged by Tory and Lib Dem cuts. You can't spin this as anything other than a failure.


I'm not spinning - I'm just saying that two things could have contributed to a terrible result for Labour - 1) Labour voters voting Galloway or 2) Labour voters staying at home.

There's nothing extraordinary or controversial about this.  It just doesn't show up directly from swing figures based on proportionally consistent turnouts.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

> at a time when Labour's traditional support are being savaged by Tory and Lib Dem cuts


This is the key point, I think. If Labour were in office, it would be understandable, but they're not. A whole load of people in Bradford have shown one way or another that they do not feel represented by Labour. Roll on the next by-election in a labour 'safe' seat, I say, because I suspect that this goes way beyond narrow identity politics.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 30, 2012)

Lol, can't say i'm a fan of galloway's simplsitic anti-imperialism or his weird views on abortion and the like but at the same time i cant help thinking thats fucking awesome if only for the hysterical reactions of labour hacks


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2012)

Some info on the wards and relating (obliquely) to turnout here. If you follow the link there's an interesting table that I haven't figured out how to post on here.



> Turnout in the by-election was a healthy 50.8 per cent, a modest 14.8 percentage point drop since 2010 which compares favourably with most of the other by-elections so far this parliament.
> 
> A couple of columns on the table may need explanation. ‘Change on 2010 %’ is the straightforward percentage-point loss or gain from the 2010 general election. ‘Vote retention rate %’ is a less standard measure. It is the by-election numerical vote expressed as a percentage of that party’s vote in the 2010 election. Below 100 per cent means the party’s actual vote has fallen, which often happens in by-elections because turnout is lower.
> 
> ...


 
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2012/03/30/bradford-west-by-election-baston/


----------



## Athos (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Hard questions. Like what.


How, at a time of Tory/Lib Dem attacks on the poorest in society, did the Labour party make itself an irrelevance to working class voters.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> no i didn't.


alright page  13 then


----------



## where to (Mar 30, 2012)

Divisive Cotton said:


> it would be interesting to look at the breakdown ward by ward


one ward is 94% white, another 80-odd % white. if true that GG won these wards it would be very interesting. seems highly unlikely however.

also worth noting that these figures cited for ethnic breakdown in BW are now 10 years old, and the situation has likely changed significantly since then.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 30, 2012)

ALso Galloway is a fantastic speaker. Even if you end up applauding things you don't agree with


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Like the reasons people chose either to vote against Labour or at least not to vote for Labour, at a by-election - and what would induce them to do so at a General Election?


So, why bother - the answer is vote labour


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

what kind of Labour party is on offer though?   Or is one Labour politician only the same as another? John McDonnell the same as James Purnell?  Jeremy Corbyn the same as Frank Field?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> alright page 13 then


i said 'like one of the bourbons they forget nothing and they learn nothing'. that's not attributing it to someone; talleyrand said it of them.

you should hurry up and take those remedial english classes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

Athos said:


> How, at a time of Tory/Lib Dem attacks on the poorest in society, did the Labour party make itself an irrelevance to working class voters.


This is the nub of it, really. A8 liked this post, but if people had voted labour as he would have liked, such a question would not be posed. That's the bit I don't get. Labour do not oppose the cuts. They do not oppose very much, let's face it, and certainly don't propose anything worthwhile, so voting for them and in so doing telling them that you think they are doing the right thing doesn't work, does it? Surely if a8 thinks this, he should be encouraging everyone to vote against Labour.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> what kind of Labour party is on offer though? Or is one Labour politician only the same as another? John McDonnell the same as James Purnell? Jeremy Corbyn the same as Frank Field?


the first two sentences seem to bear no connection to each other.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 30, 2012)

If I'm not mistaken didn't they do really well in Thornton and Allerton, against everyone's expectations? Some have suggested it was Tories tactically voting against George Galloway. I'm sure that was one of the wards that kept popping up on my twitter feed last night.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is the nub of it, really. A8 liked this post, but if people had voted labour as he would have liked, such a question would not be posed. That's the bit I don't get. Labour do not oppose the cuts. They do not oppose very much, let's face it, and certainly don't propose anything worthwhile, so voting for them and in so doing telling them that you think they are doing the right thing doesn't work, does it? Surely if a8 thinks this, he should be encouraging everyone to vote against Labour.


 
i wrote this earlier on but I can't think of one single new policy Labour has come up with after spending two years in opposition. even if it is a shit new policy, not one


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 30, 2012)

It just shows what a joke labour has become when george fucking galloway can stand in a ward that he's never stood before (IIRC) and get a "shock" victory. And I am sorry articul8 but does this not prove, completely, emphatically wrong all the arguements you've been making the last two years about Labour and the futlity of trying to get a new party etc.

And no Im not saying that george galloway is some sign of a new workers vanguard lol. but it just shows how far removed labour are from being a credible party to many of its once solid voters.


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I'm not spinning - I'm just saying that two things could have contributed to a terrible result for Labour - 1) Labour voters voting Galloway or 2) Labour voters staying at home.
> 
> There's nothing extraordinary or controversial about this. It just doesn't show up directly from swing figures based on proportionally consistent turnouts.


You are spinning. 'Its bad, but not quite as bad as that figures indicates...'

The people that didnt vote labour, didnt vote labour.

You dont seem to know what 'swing' actually means. It has _never_ meant a simple, direct, transfer from Party A to Party B. There will be 'oscillations' along the way, some Tory to Labour (which there will have been, muslims who wouldnt vote for a sikh, people who just hate galloway), some liberal to respect, etc etc. But, after _everything_ has been counted, the _overall_ result is.........

A 37% swing from Labour to Respect


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is the nub of it, really. A8 liked this post, but if people had voted labour as he would have liked, such a question would not be posed. That's the bit I don't get. Labour do not oppose the cuts. They do not oppose very much, let's face it, and certainly don't propose anything worthwhile, so voting for them and in so doing telling them that you think they are doing the right thing doesn't work, does it? Surely if a8 thinks this, he should be encouraging everyone to vote against Labour.


 
As I said I plan to vote against Labour at the GLA elections!  But at the same time - whatever I might prefer - Labour is realistically the only alternative to a Con or Con/Dem majority government.  In view of this it's not a matter of indifference whether Labour can be made to listen or whether it persists in its irrelevance.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 30, 2012)

Also I heard Galloway won in Toller, which is the constituency of the Labour candidate and was supposed to be Labour's safest ward. it's a bit more ethnically mixed than say Manningham is.


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

Divisive Cotton said:


> i wrote this earlier on but I can't think of one single new policy Labour has come up with after spending two years in opposition. even if it is a shit new policy, not one


Now is not the time for actual policies, now is the time for...uhhhh....something else


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> As I said I plan to vote against Labour at the GLA elections! But at the same time - whatever I might prefer - Labour is realistically the only alternative to a Con or Con/Dem majority government. In view of this it's not a matter of indifference whether Labour can be made to listen or whether it persists in its irrelevance.


Presumably you would have voted against Labour in Bradford too? I can understand a personal vote for someone like Jeremy Corbyn, but otherwise, when else could it be right to vote Labour?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> As I said I plan to vote against Labour at the GLA elections! But at the same time - whatever I might prefer - Labour is realistically the only alternative to a Con or Con/Dem majority government. In view of this it's not a matter of indifference whether Labour can be made to listen or whether it persists in its irrelevance.


 
you're plannning to vote against your own party?? why? 

why the fuck are you still a member??


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> , after _everything_ has been counted, the _overall_ result is.........
> 
> A 37% swing from Labour to Respect


Swings are calculated on the basis of changes in vote share, they don't factor in differential turnout.  It's a massive defeat whichever way you look at it though.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

Articul8 is in the cameron seat


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> As I said I plan to vote against Labour at the GLA elections! But at the same time - whatever I might prefer - Labour is realistically the only alternative to a Con or Con/Dem majority government. In view of this it's not a matter of indifference whether Labour can be made to listen or whether it persists in its irrelevance.


the biggest difference between labour and the current administration is the personnel. aside from that, in all the ways that matter, they're exactly the same.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Articul8 is in the cameron seat


and he can have the cameron pasty for dinner.


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Swings are calculated on the basis of changes in vote share, they don't factor in differential turnout.


Yes they do.


----------



## manny-p (Mar 30, 2012)

I guess being the only politicians who is virulently against the Afghan war and the war on terror helped! Hate Galloway but I do admire his cuntishness in a strange way.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Swings are calculated on the basis of changes in vote share, they don't factor in differential turnout. It's a massive defeat whichever way you look at it though.


What are you arguing about? What lessons?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 30, 2012)

how the fuck are you in laboujr and yet still plan to vote against labour? surely part of the whole point of being in a party is to vote for it?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2012)

Here's GG's victory article and valediction on the Labour party 



> The Bradford spring. No matter how seemingly powerful, no corrupted, out-of-touch elite can last forever.


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/30/bradford-version-of-riots


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Swings are calculated on the basis of changes in vote share, they don't factor in differential turnout. It's a massive defeat whichever way you look at it though.


 
yeah but you won a council byelection in "leafy" sevenoaks - onwards, forwards!

http://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/labour-s-sevenoaks-consolation-1-3683281


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

Who didn't get courted?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> you're plannning to vote against your own party?? why?


 
I want to register my opposition to a) the national position on cuts as signalled by Ed Balls's "we'd keep the Tory cuts" speech and b) to the local Labour party's abject failure to resist the cuts, and it's insistence that closing half the libraries is in fact "the next stage in the exciting development of Brent's libraries".  



> why the fuck are you still a member??


This is a good question.   I do intend to vote for Ken Livingstone, both for the message it would send in the party, and the pledges he's making on cutting the cost of public transport.   But mostly because I want to work with other party members to try to insist that we listen to traditional Labour voters who want an alternative to the cuts.  And because I can't see an alternative to Labour being built unless the left has definitively thrown everything it possibly can at changing it.  

I hold the majority of Labour party activists and representatives in complete contempt.  And I'm a member!!


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2012)

Interestingly, he does claim to have won every ward.


----------



## binka (Mar 30, 2012)

where to said:


> one ward is 94% white, another 80-odd % white. if true that GG won these wards it would be very interesting. seems highly unlikely however.


why would that be highly unlikely? just had a quick look at his election leaflets and posters and it seems he was not only anti war but also came out very pro nhs and made a big issue of being against the cuts and tied that into how shit things were locally. i could easily imagine him appealing to large numbers of white working class voters


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I want to register my opposition to a) the national position on cuts as signalled by Ed Balls's "we'd keep the Tory cuts" speech


so in what way do YOU think labour are an alternative to the conservative / liberal democrat coalition at the next election?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 30, 2012)

george galloway just won a seat in bradford and there's no alternative to labour? ok galloway is a shit alternative but are you seriously trying to deny reality?


----------



## manny-p (Mar 30, 2012)

> The Bradford spring.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> Yes they do.


No, they really don't.  They factor in a drop in overall turnout and measure the respective transfer in voting behaviours as though they were drawn from a proportional section of those previously voting.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> george galloway just won a seat in bradford and there's no alternative to labour? ok galloway is a shit alternative but are you seriously trying to deny reality?


there is not a *national* alternative or anything like it.   Galloway has just proved he can buck the national picture.


----------



## manny-p (Mar 30, 2012)

"“An Important message from George Galloway
To voters of the Muslim faith and Pakistani heritage in Bradford West
A’Salaam o Aleukum
I have been increasingly angered by the dishonest and desperate efforts of the Labour campaign for Imran Hussein, to deceive you about your vote.
You should vote for him because he is a “Muslim” they say, and because he is of Pakistani background.
Leaving aside the wisdom of a Labour party running such a sectarian campaign in a constituency which contains thousands of people of many faiths and backgrounds, and in the name of the deputy leader of Bradford Council no less. Let us look at this more closely.
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:
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.
I, George Galloway, have fought for Muslims at home and abroad, all my life. And paid a price for it. I believe the other candidate in this election cannot say that truthfully.
I, George Galloway, tell the truth, stand up for the truth, in parliament, on radio, on television, in the face of all its enemies, without fear, however powerful they are. Even in the US Senete, by the Grace of God. The truth and Mr Blair’s New Labour are passing strangers.
I, George Galloway, hold Pakistan’s highest civil awards. The Hilal-i-Quaid-i-Assam for services to the restoration of democracy in Pakistan 30 years ago and the Hilal-i-Pakistand for my work for the freedom of Kashmir. What has the Labour candidate ever done for Bradford let alone Pakistan and Kashmir?
I, George Galloway, came to the side of the people of Palestine in their agony, tried to save the people of Iraq, now demand the immediate end of the war begun by NEW LABOUR upon the people of Afghanistan and I am leading the fight against a new war, this time with Iran.
And, with your support, and if God wills it, I want to give my remaining days in the service of all the people – Muslims, Pakistanis and everyone in Bradford West. I await your sincere judgement on this matter.
Wa’Salaam o Aleukum
GEORGE GALLOWAY"​​Is that genuine? Fuck sake if so. What a knobhead.​


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> so in what way do YOU think labour are an alternative to the conservative / liberal democrat coalition at the next election?


I'm saying Labour *could* and *must* offer an alternative, however inadequate it might be.  Not that it necessarily will.  But that's something to fight for/over


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I
> 
> I hold the majority of Labour party activists and representatives in complete contempt. And I'm a member!!


 
see that's an attiude i can't fucking understand, you're a member of a party but you are completely contemptuous of most people who are also activists in it?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I'm saying Labour *could* and *must* offer an alternative, however inadequate it might be. Not that it necessarily will. But that's something to fight for/over


Harriet is saying same right now on c4


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> No, they really don't. They factor in a drop in overall turnout and measure the respective transfer in voting behaviours as though they were drawn from a proportional section of those previously voting.


sigh...

the people that dont vote, dont vote.  stop tryng to count them.  you are plain wrong, everyone but you knows it.  hell, you know it really, you must!

If people stop voting for a party, they represent a swing away from that party, even if they dont vote for anyone else.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> see that's an attiude i can't fucking understand, you're a member of a party but you are completely contemptuous of most people who are also activists in it?


ask your comrades!


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> there is not a *national* alternative or anything like it. Galloway has just proved he can buck the national picture.


 
there's going to be an awful lot of that "bucking of the national picture" i woulda guessed ...


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 30, 2012)

How's the changing things from within going btw, articul8?


----------



## binka (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I'm saying Labour *could* and *must* offer an alternative


 
they wont. they'll keep quiet, win the election, then continue with the same policies


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2012)

[quote="manny-p, post: 11040471, member: 4897] <snip>​​Is that genuine? Fuck sake if so. What a knobhead.​​ 
[/quote]

I've yet to see it confirmed as genuine.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> there is not a *national* alternative or anything like it. Galloway has just proved he can buck the national picture.


In what way is this a justification for your don't touch labour plan?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Workers defence squads disarming the police


 
Beautiful, in theory.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

stephj said:


> How's the changing things from within going btw, articul8?


Well, he's been exposed


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> If people stop voting for a party, they represent a swing away from that party, even if they dont vote for anyone else.


I'm sorry, you don't understand how swing is calculated if you don't recognise it assumes that turnout effects all parties proportionately. You'd need a much more substantial psephological model to really factor in differential turnout.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Mar 30, 2012)

Just thinking about the current three parties.

Lib Dems / Tories have displayed total lack of any vision about where they want Britain's economy and society in the next ten or 20 years (yeah I know, Neo Liberalism and all that but, unlike previously, they are now going down this path because _they don't know what else to do_).

Labour - they now live in a total policy vacuum. There is nothing there - I don't even detect any chatter that is bubbling under the surface

What does this mean? It will mean a victory for the SNP in the coming referendum vote. They have a clear vision of a social democratic independent Scotland (I'm not stating that it is good or bad, just that they have a roadmap)

In Wales, will Plaid Cymru prosper under its now leadership? Quite possibly

In England? The far right? The far left? A mixture?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 30, 2012)

'Sado-Monetarist Austerity'

I'm nicking that


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

Push comes to shove - articul8 - on the other side. Red pepper, please be different harriet.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> 'Sado-Monetarist Austerity'
> 
> I'm nicking that


 
He nicked it from Doug Henwood, or the 'sado monetarist' bit anyway.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Mar 30, 2012)

can we stop this reclaim the labour party bunfight on this thread. 1993 called and asked for its discussion back


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 30, 2012)

Divisive Cotton said:


> can we stop this reclaim the labour party bunfight on this thread. 1993 called and asked for its discussion back


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 30, 2012)

manny-p said:


> Some stuff from GG


 
Yes it's real. Two things. Galloway's an opportunist prick who can play on the cultural loyalties like a violinist and that letter was sent out to muslim residents in the wards as a direct response to Labour phoning up households going "How can you vote for a non-muslim? Don't you know the Labour party candidate is a real muslim, as supported by x, y and z in the local community?"

Believe it or not Galloway's not the only one who's an opportunistic gobshite with low morals in this by-election. Labour were being even more "communalist" in their persuit of an imaginary muslim block vote than even Galloway was! The Tories only canvassed white wards the entire election, with really thinly veiled anti-immigrant leaflets, basically reducing themselves to trying to win over the residual BNP vote in these areas.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Push comes to shove - articul8 - on the other side. Red pepper, please be different harriet.


Fuck off - I'm just looking beyond today's headlines and pious hopes that Galloway has broken the dam for a flood of independents and socialists to flow through.   Allahu Akhbar!!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

Divisive Cotton said:


> can we stop this reclaim the labour party bunfight on this thread. 1993 called and asked for its discussion back


Not if this is what people are talking about no.


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I'm sorry, you don't understand how swing is calculated if you don't recognise it assumes that turnout effects all parties proportionately. You'd need a much more substantial psephological model to really factor in differential turnout.


utter, utter, rubbish. How has everyone else (apart from you, alone in the world) has managed to calculate it then?  The people who didnt vote, didnt vote.  It is as simple as that.

Tell me, what is the'normal' swing, and the 'differential' swing in the following case:
Election 1 has A winning 50%, B 30% and C 20%.  In the following election, A's vote precisely halves. B and C's remain exactly the same.


----------



## chilango (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Fuck off - I'm just looking beyond today's headlines and pious hopes that Galloway has broken the dam for a flood of independents and socialists to flow through.   Allahu Akhbar!!



Who's arguing that?


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Yes it's real. Two things. Galloway's an opportunist prick who can play on the cultural loyalties like a violinist and that letter was sent out to muslim residents in the wards as a direct response to Labour phoning up households going "How can you vote for a non-muslim? Don't you know the Labour party candidate is a real muslim, as supported by x, y and z in the local community?"
> 
> Believe it or not Galloway's not the only one who's an opportunistic gobshite with low morals in this by-election. Labour were being even more "communalist" in their persuit of an imaginary muslim block vote than even Galloway was! The Tories only canvassed white wards the entire election, with really thinly veiled anti-immigrant leaflets, basically reducing themselves to trying to win over the residual BNP vote in these areas.


an election communication without the required 'on behalf of's?  Most peculiar


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> Tell me, what is the'normal' swing, and the 'differential' swing in the following case:
> Election 1 has A winning 50%, B 30% and C 20%. In the following election, A's vote precisely halves. B and C's remain exactly the same.


 
Don't embarrass yourself.  You don't understand.  Fair enough - but don't inflict this bollocks about it not making any difference whose voters are staying at home on us ffs.


----------



## where to (Mar 30, 2012)

binka said:


> why would that be highly unlikely?


 
around 8 years of Respect election results suggest it would be highly unlikely.


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Don't embarrass yourself. You don't understand. Fair enough - but don't inflict this bollocks about it not making any difference whose voters are staying at home on us ffs.


 
I do understand. Everyone except you understands. Tell me what the swings are in the above case?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> an election communication without the required 'on behalf of's? Most peculiar


 
Not if your George Galloway!

Btw I'm not here to defend every thing Galloway does and says in order to get elected. I think any sensible left-winger knows well by now to keep their distance from Galloway, he's politcally poisonous.

The fact remains however, if a clown like Galloway can win, then what happens when sensible anti-war and anti-cuts candidates start campaigning in seats like these?


----------



## where to (Mar 30, 2012)

Divisive Cotton said:


> In England? The far right? The far left? A mixture?


 
very low turnouts.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 30, 2012)

treelover said:


> *Glad I don't live in Birmingham, imagine having that twat in power in your city, much worse than Boris!*


 
Better than Nick fucking Clegg to be fair.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> I do understand. Everyone except you understands. Tell me what the swings are in the above case?


This isn't even about "swings" - "swings" are calculated on the assumption of proportionally consistent turnouts.  I'm saying raw data about swings needs to be complemented by a more sophisticated model of how turnout is unevenly distributed.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

chilango said:


> Who's arguing that?


the TUSC press releases for a start


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Fuck off - I'm just looking beyond today's headlines and pious hopes that Galloway has broken the dam for a flood of independents and socialists to flow through. Allahu Akhbar!!


Yes, you are a seer - not tied.


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> This isn't even about "swings" - "swings" are calculated on the assumption of proportionally consistent turnouts. I'm saying raw data about swings needs to be complemented by a more sophisticated model of how turnout is unevenly distributed.


lol, starting to change your tune   It's a 37% swing


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> lol, starting to change your tune  It's a 37% swing


This is what I've been saying all along  that the swing figure is misleading


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 30, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> no, the EDL will just continue to die on its arse slowly


 
There was some EDL (like one loud one, his gopher, and another admirer who wasn't wearing the T-Shirt) in a pub in my home town the other week. Probably the proliest pub in a very proley town, yet most people were just rolling their eyes at what they saw as typical dickheads. And these are the sort of punters who pass as casual racist types.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 30, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/30/george-galloway-bradford-west'
> 
> Young Lanre's view on the victory in the Guardian, some on here (well two of you) might find his conclusions 'racist'


 
Why on earth would anyone think that was racist? Not getting you here at all tbh.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> the TUSC press releases for a start


Yeah, who on here?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

> _the EDL will just continue to die on its arse slowly_




_Galloway is a gift from God/Allah (delete as appropriate)_


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Mar 30, 2012)

labour's take on why they lost: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/the-no...ge-galloway-bradford-byelection-simon-danczuk



> In Labour circles George Galloway's byelection victory was greeted with complete and utter incredulity. I lost count of the number of tweets I read from people saying they simply couldn't believe he'd won. Activists were shocked, stunned, gobsmacked. But they shouldn't have been.
> 
> Byelections are furious, competitive affairs packed with high drama. It's always a bumpy ride and the golden rule is that playing safe is probably the most dangerous thing in the world. This was Labour's cardinal error.
> 
> Buoyed by Cameron's calamitous week of petrol and pasty mishaps, and the backlash from Osborne's disastrous Budget, we thought we could take our feet off the pedals and freewheel to victory. As soon as it emerged that Galloway was standing we should have known it was never going to be plain sailing.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 30, 2012)

That gaurdian article by Gorgeous is making me laugh. He is really in the vinegars



> A 5,000 Labour majority was transformed into a 10,000 majority for Respect – the same total vote for me as the outgoing MP had in a general election – winning across every ward in the constituency. It was the most spectacular byelection result in British political history.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah, who on here?


Frogwoman has been hinting at it none too subtly - the idea that the national trend will be bucked on a frequent basis from now on etc.  You have been drawing conclusions, while not necessarily electoral, are a bit more than this one result justifies


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> That gaurdian article by Gorgeous is making me laugh. He is really in the vinegars


the Bradford Spring


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

What have you learnt as a labour party member looking to return a labour vote articul8 from this?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Mar 30, 2012)

As anybody got any confirmation on this "win in every ward" claim? It's a quite a significant fact if true


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Frogwoman has been hinting at it none too subtly - the idea that the national trend will be bucked on a frequent basis from now on etc. You have been drawing conclusions, while not necessarily electoral, are a bit more than this one result justifies


Well, you need more than hints. You have none.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

Doesn't articul8 just make you want to vote labour?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What have you learnt as a labour party member looking to return a labour vote articul8 from this?


1) Labour needs to establish a clear difference on the cuts re the coalition
2) Labour needs to show that where it runs local councils it is resisting the cuts
3) Labour needs to demonstrate it understands the catastrophic nature of the Blair/Brown foreign policy by calling for withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan

etc.


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> This is what I've been saying all along  that the swing figure is misleading


rubbish.  it was that came out with the nonsense about 'differential' swing, floundering desperately. Sayng it wasnt really a 37% swing.

What you are trying to claim is nothing to with actual psephology, its a Labourite rationalisation about how the seat can be re-won.  If those 10,000 labour votes that disappeared went straight to Respect, you are going to have a harder job getting them back than if they just didnt vote. You are trying to put those ex-labour voters into some third camp, pretendng they are still labour voters who need turning out.  But they're not, they're ex-labour voters.


----------



## where to (Mar 30, 2012)

Divisive Cotton said:


> As anybody got any confirmation on this "win in every ward" claim? It's a quite a significant fact if true


 
is it actually possible to know for sure?  are votes counted separately in such a way as to give these figures?


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

Divisive Cotton said:


> As anybody got any confirmation on this "win in every ward" claim? It's a quite a significant fact if true


ward breakdowns dont tend to come out for a few days - and not necesarilly at all, its a council decision


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

I didn't say the swing wasn't 37% - I was saying raw swing data is misleading.  

Whether they voted Galloway or didn't vote - Labour needs these people back and can't rely on an automatic swing in their favour,.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Mar 30, 2012)

newsnight might be worth watching tonight

i presume they'll lead with it


----------



## moochedit (Mar 30, 2012)

Divisive Cotton said:


> As anybody got any confirmation on this "win in every ward" claim? It's a quite a significant fact if true


 
Do they release the ward results for parliamentary elections? i've never heard of them doing that before?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 30, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> He nicked it from Doug Henwood, or the 'sado monetarist' bit anyway.


 
Wasn't that one of Denis Healey's? It's what he called Thatcher's economic policy in her first term isn't it?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Mar 30, 2012)

where to said:


> is it actually possible to know for sure? are votes counted separately in such a way as to give these figures?


 
the candidates are given this information but it's not something that is given directly to the public


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

they dont officially release them, but they are all counted ward by ward, and recorded as such. So they tend to become available.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> 1) Labour needs to establish a clear difference on the cuts re the coalition
> 2) Labour needs to show that where it runs local councils it is resisting the cuts
> 3) Labour needs to demonstrate it understands the catastrophic nature of the Blair/Brown foreign policy by calling for withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan
> 
> etc.


Good for labour - the rest of us? The people you need to 'show'? To 'demonstrate'? PR cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> 1) Labour needs to establish a clear difference on the cuts re the coalition
> 2) Labour needs to show that where it runs local councils it is resisting the cuts
> 3) Labour needs to demonstrate it understands the catastrophic nature of the Blair/Brown foreign policy by calling for withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan
> 
> etc.


1) Isn't true
2) You're not
3) It can't

Good job


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

Just heard a classic on the radio. Bradford uni Labour party society leader:

'It was great to see so many students going out and voting. It doesn't matter who they voted for. Over time they will become more politically aware.'


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 30, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> There was some EDL (like one loud one, his gopher, and another admirer who wasn't wearing the T-Shirt) in a pub in my home town the other week. Probably the proliest pub in a very proley town, yet most people were just rolling their eyes at what they saw as typical dickheads. And these are the sort of punters who pass as casual racist types.


 

I'm in a w/c town of 15,000 (iirc). They've returned a tory so far on the right rump of the Conservatives unfailingly for near a decade. English Democrats and BNP pulled 1500 and change last election. It should be fertile ground for the EDL. Not a fucking hint of them. This is why they are all fleeing to existing far right orgs or parties. An embarrasing failure of a street movment defeated by lack of talent, state control on every demo and the propensity for member to be criminals.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Just heard a classic on the radio. Bradford uni Labour party society leader:
> 
> 'It was great to see so many students going out and voting. It doesn't matter who they voted for. Over time they will become more politically aware.'


Articlu8 will grind them down with no option but vote labour


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Good for labour - the rest of us? The people you need to 'show'? To 'demonstrate'? PR cunt.


You don't think people want an alternative to cuts, to war?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Just heard a classic on the radio. Bradford uni Labour party society leader:
> 
> 'It was great to see so many students going out and voting. It doesn't matter who they voted for. Over time they will become more politically aware.'


 
Yeah. People vote according to their 'awareness' and not according to their needs.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> You don't think people want an alternative to cuts, to war?


 
Yes. So that's an alternative to Labour, then.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> You don't think people want an alternative to cuts, to war?


No i don't. You have nothing.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 30, 2012)

false consciousness


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Yes. So that's an alternative to Labour, then.


it might be - but will that be on offer in a viable form at the next GE?  Where there won't be a danger of splitting the vote and helping the Con-Dems.  If so, great!  Count me in


----------



## manny-p (Mar 30, 2012)

> Yet in the early hours of Friday morning as he celebrated in the street with hundreds of young supporters, Galloway made a mistake which would tell any practising Muslim that he was not one of them: he invited them to join him at noon for a tour of Bradford on an open-top bus. It was only when someone called out "what about Jumu'ah?" that Galloway realised his victory parade clashed with Friday prayers. The tour was duly postponed until 2:30pm.


 
School boy error-Gorgeous George!


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> it might be - but will that be on offer in a viable form at the next GE? Where there won't be a danger of splitting the vote and helping the Con-Dems. If so, great! Count me in


 
The ConDems and Labour can fuck off equally. What's the alternative? A barely visible mandate for either.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> it might be - but will that be on offer in a viable form at the next GE? Where there won't be a danger of splitting the vote and helping the Con-Dems. If so, great! Count me in


 


> Where there won't be a danger of splitting the vote and helping the Con-Dems


Bing-fucking-go.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> The ConDems and Labour can fuck off equally. What's the alternative? A barely visible mandate for either.


You are indifferent whether Cameron, Clegg, Osborne and Pickles get back in or not?


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2012)

where to said:


> is it actually possible to know for sure? are votes counted separately in such a way as to give these figures?


 
GG shouldn't claim it if is isn't proveable, its important if true and very disengenous if its not or is just hyperbole...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

This means nothing, it tells us nothing, vote labour.


----------



## Belushi (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> it might be - but will that be on offer in a viable form at the next GE? Where there won't be a danger of splitting the vote and helping the Con-Dems. If so, great! Count me in


 
This is all your politics ever appears to consist of, dire warnings of what will happen if we don't support whatever cause you've hitched your abortive political career to.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> You are indifferent whether Cameron, Clegg, Osborne and Pickles get back in or not?


 
Sorry, what are Labour offering again?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Bing-fucking-go.


So you'd be happy if someone stood in Sheffield Hallam and helped Clegg keep his seat?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Sorry, what are Labour offering again?


this is the key question.  We'll see.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> You are indifferent whether Cameron, Clegg, Osborne and Pickles get back in or not?


You must say vote labour.

You pathetic shil - is this all you have, vote labour, we're not the tories? You have no idea.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> this is the key question. We'll see.


 
But as recent history shows, it's Thatcherite economics.  Those of the sort that created the conditions for the Tories to wiggle back in with a hard right agenda.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You must say vote labour.
> 
> You pathetic shil - is this all you have, vote labour, we're not the tories? You have no idea.


 
a) as I've already said i'm *not* voting Labour at the GLA elections and 
b) I'm saying that it's critical to shift Labour into some form of opposition to neoliberalism,


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Wasn't that one of Denis Healey's? It's what he called Thatcher's economic policy in her first term isn't it?


 
Could be. I first heard it from Doug H in the early 90's, so an 80's origin is quite possible.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> So you'd be happy if someone stood in Sheffield Hallam and helped Clegg keep his seat?


_So you'd_

Sounds like gmart.

Don't oppose labour. What a shit example.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> But as recent history shows, it's Thatcherite economics.  Those of the sort that created the conditions for the Tories to wiggle back in with a hard right agenda.


Well there are forces in Labour that want that to prevail on that basis. But others want them to present an alternative, including their main donors. It's an open question how this works itself out.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> a) as I've already said i'm *not* voting Labour at the GLA elections and
> b) I'm saying that it's critical to shift Labour into some form of opposition to neoliberalism,


So did last night's result please you, then? If not, why not?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Well there are forces in Labour that want that to prevail. But others want them to present an alternative, including their main donors. It's an open question how this works itself out.


 
The problem with the 'forces within labour that are trying to change the party' is that they're actually helping to keep the whole circus going.


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2012)

I wonder how long it will be before the remnants of the EDL, etc make another visit to Bradford?


----------



## audiotech (Mar 30, 2012)

It was reported on BBC radio that the swing was in the region of 36 percent to Respect.

Speaking of the BBC, I've just listened to an appalling interview on BBC Radio 5 Live from some hack with George Galloway, who made a valid point that it was the Labour party who put up a Muslim candidate and not Respect, whose candidate is not a Muslim and is white with blue eyes. The interviewer in a crass remark to a colleague, was also laughing and joking about someone, it's unclear who, throwing eggs at Mr Galloway as he left the BBC studios. Is this what the "impartial" BBC has come to now.

The actual interview is hosted here:

http://couchtripper.com/forum2/page.php?page=6


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> a) as I've already said i'm *not* voting Labour at the GLA elections and
> b) I'm saying that it's critical to shift Labour into some form of opposition to neoliberalism,


By telling people to vote labour anything else might be bad.tt

Shift, you can't shift labour. You clueless cunt. You might get a career out of belief in that.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Well there are forces in Labour that want that to prevail on that basis. But others want them to present an alternative, including their main donors. It's an open question how this works itself out.


I want everything to be different and sweet. I will fight for that.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So did last night's result please you, then? If not, why not?


 
I thought last night's result was a mixed blessing.  Good - in the sense that it shakes Labour out of its complacency, and suggests there is an appetite for an anti-war stance and an alternative more generally, Bad - in the sense that the EDL will use this as an enemy to rally around and that much of Galloway's appeal is on the basis of ethnic/religious community as Labour has also sought to promote.


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2012)

Divisive Cotton said:


> newsnight might be worth watching tonight
> 
> i presume they'll lead with it


 
Newsnight, for all its recent failings, especially basically endorsing welfare reform, is still the news programme i wait for to get a balanced and holistic exploration of the issues...


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 30, 2012)

The proposed amalgamation between TSSA and the RMT collapsed. Why? It would have put more boots on the ground. It would have made a stronger union.

Reason: RMT general sec is Bob Crow. TSSA general sec is (like) Articul8.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Shift, you can't shift labour. You clueless cunt.


 
Has this always been true?  On every level or just the national leadership?  Whose to say what is or isn't possible given the kind of period we're living through?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:
			
		

> it's critical to shift Labour into some form of opposition to neoliberalism,


The labour party shifting into opposing neo-liberalism. What fucking mental bat-shit world do you live in?


----------



## spliff (Mar 30, 2012)

This may well have been posted before but I'm fucked if I'm gonna wade through 20 odd pages to see.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> The proposed amalgamation between TSSA and the RMT collapsed. Why? It would have put more boots on the ground. It would have made a stronger union.
> 
> Reason: RMT general sec is Bob Crow. TSSA general sec is Articul8.


 
Ha - not guilty.  There is a different between industrial and political strategy.  I hope there is a UNITE/PCS merger.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Has this always been true? On every level or just the national leadership? Whose to say what is or isn't possible given the kind of period we're living through?


Maybe you clueless few, with no influence can turn the ship. Fantasist. Trot,


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The labour party shifting into opposing neo-liberalism. What fucking mental bat-shit world dol you live in?


Labour shifted from being a social democratic party to being a neoliberal one.  Why is it unthinkable that they could move in the opposite direction?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The labour party shifting into opposing neo-liberalism. What fucking mental bat-shit world dol you live in?


 


They're a neo-liberal party. They'd be opposing themselves.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 30, 2012)

treelover said:


> I wonder how long it will be before the remnants of the EDL, etc make another visit to Bradford?


 

Hopefully Tommy boy will put in another of his appearances dressed as a rabbi


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe you clueless few, with no influence can turn the ship. Fantasist. Trot,


 
And your alternative is...?  A running club in Oxford?  Chances of a bronze medal (negligible)


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2012)

It all bodes well for the Pro NHS candidates, but the Greens look like they are in trouble...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> They're a neo-liberal party. They'd be opposing themselves.


It's not hard is it?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Ha - not guilty. There is a different between industrial and political strategy. I hope there is a UNITE/PCS merger.


 
Sorry I edited. But TSSA wouldn't merge with RMT because TSSA won't budge from funding labour where as RMT funds whoever suits.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 30, 2012)

Sky News


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> And your alternative is...? A running club in Oxford? Chances of a bronze medal (negligible)


Some hool-lit.

Fucking joker. Sort yourself out. You're an embarrassment.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Some hool-lit.
> 
> Fucking joker. Sort yourself out. You're an embarrassment.


I don't mean to belittle the IWCA - but you're so fucking sure you've got the answers (without anything to back it up) it's hard not to have a pop in return.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I don't mean to belittle the IWCA - but you're so fucking sure you've got the answers (without anything to back it up) it's hard not to have a pop in return.


You haven't had a pop.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

only on here - mouthing off


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You haven't had a pop.


from what he's arguing i'd say he's had too much pop, of the alcoholic variety


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 30, 2012)

How many years have Labour had to get it right, and what funds are at their disposal, compared to the IWCA?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> from what he's arguing i'd say he's had too much pop, of the alcoholic variety


that too


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> How many years have Labour had to get it right, and what funds are at their disposal, compared to the IWCA?


History is one damn thing after another. I don't exonerate Labour in any way, shape or form.  But things are as they are, not as we might wish them to be


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2012)

audiotech said:


> It was reported on BBC radio that the swing was in the region of 36 percent to Respect.
> 
> Speaking of the BBC, I've just listened to an appalling interview on BBC Radio 5 Live from some hack with George Galloway, who made a valid point that it was the Labour party who put up a Muslim candidate and not Respect, whose candidate is not a Muslim and is white with blue eyes. The interviewer in a crass remark to a colleague, was also laughing and joking about someone, it's unclear who, throwing eggs at Mr Galloway as he left the BBC studios. Is this what the "impartial" BBC has come to now.
> 
> ...


 
I noticed that, none of the usual BBC outrage when other such 'undemocratic' outrages occurs

btw, lots of posts on CIF, etc, from TH voters saying they wouldn't vote for Galloway again...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> History is one damn thing after another. I don't exonerate Labour in any way,you shape or form. But things are as they are, not as we might wish them to be


Make them happen again. Just be honest, People know what you mean - vote labour. Why such a coward?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> History is one damn thing after another. I don't exonerate Labour in any way, shape or form. But things are as they are, not as we might wish them to be


 
So a vote not for labour is a vote for conservative? 

Is there a difference between those parties nowadays btw? At least the Tories have a class interest in it. Labour are just trying to attain having a class interest in it.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Frogwoman has been hinting at it none too subtly - the idea that the national trend will be bucked on a frequent basis from now on etc. You have been drawing conclusions, while not necessarily electoral, are a bit more than this one result justifies


 
hang on i specifically said that i didn't think that galloway's vicotry heralded some sort of workers' vanguard. i don't think it's a massive victory and i don't think that it's the start of a new workers' party lol. i do think that it demonstrates the complete uselessness of your argument though. your argument is that labour is a party that still "cannot be ignored" and that galloway's victory is just an exception that proves the rule. it just seems so ridiculous, like you're argueing that the biggest blow for labour in years ia actually a reason to still be in labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> History is one damn thing after another. I don't exonerate Labour in any way, shape or form. But things are as they are, not as we might wish them to be


Which means nothing. Literally nothing


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

When leeds beat watford tmw - but what about Preston?


----------



## where to (Mar 30, 2012)

GG accepts the "i don't drink" letter was from him in this interview [edit- the 5 live one]

http://couchtripper.com/forum2/page.php?page=6

he also says he won in _most_ wards, not all, and quotes a 80-odd% figure in the 'university ward', which google doesn't seem to recognise.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 30, 2012)

At the outset of that Sky piece announcing the results George Galloway seems to be suggesting some dodgy goings on have been taking place during the election process. I wonder what and from who?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Make them happen again. Just be honest, People know what you mean - vote labour. Why such a coward?


I am not saying vote Labour whatever.  I'm saying that to abandon the struggle to make Labour offer an alternative, without any sense of how an alternative is to be built, is to weaken rather than strengthen our position.  

If we had a different voting system, then the choice wouldn't be posed in quite the same way.  Which is one key reason why there is no equivalent of Die Linke etc.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Labour shifted from being a social democratic party to being a neoliberal one. Why is it unthinkable that they could move in the opposite direction?


 
Wage options and expenses.


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2012)

where to said:


> GG accepts the "i don't drink" letter was from him in this interview
> 
> http://couchtripper.com/forum2/page.php?page=6
> 
> he also says he won in _most_ wards, not all, and quotes a 80-odd% figure in the 'university ward', which google doesn't seem to recognise.


 
Its certain the media will really scrutinise all aspects of his campaign tactics, it could all go horribly wrong...


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> When leeds beat watford tmw - but what about Preston?


Preston is a perfect example.  It's hard to abandon a sinking ship when it's been what you've been brought up with - maybe, just maybe things will turn round - we've been poised in the past


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I am not saying vote Labour whatever. I'm saying that to abandon the struggle to make Labour offer an alternative, without any sense of how an alternative is to be built, is to weaken rather than strengthen our position.
> 
> If we had a different voting system, then the choice wouldn't be posed in quite the same way. Which is one key reason why there is no equivalent of Die Linke etc.


 
The way it is now, why don't we all just join the Conservative Party and make them shift position instead?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2012)

Perhaps one could infer that in traditional safe seats Labour are now potentially vulnerable on the left, at least given a well-organised left-wing populist opponent with a bit of brand recognition.

I'm wondering what would happen if a younger, lefter Glenda (as a sort of imaginary stereotype with some of the same qualities as GG) were to run for say the SP against 'Mad Frankie' Field here in Birkenhead for example.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> hang on i specifically said that i didn't think that galloway's vicotry heralded some sort of workers' vanguard. i don't think it's a massive victory and i don't think that it's the start of a new workers' party lol.


Try telling whoever writes the TUSC press releases 



> i do think that it demonstrates the complete uselessness of your argument though. your argument is that labour is a party that still "cannot be ignored" and that galloway's victory is just an exception that proves the rule. it just seems so ridiculous, like you're argueing that the biggest blow for labour in years ia actually a reason to still be in labour.


 
By-elections are opportunities to protest.  General elections are something different.  Everyone knows this,


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 30, 2012)

He is their fucking MP now. One of the safest labour seats in the country.

It's a disaster for Labour and it completely disproves the arguement that "the labour party have to be reclaimed" "the labour party are not irrelevant for the left" etc. Face it


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I am not saying vote Labour whatever. I'm saying that to abandon the struggle to make Labour offer an alternative, without any sense of how an alternative is to be built, is to weaken rather than strengthen our position.
> 
> If we had a different voting system, then the choice wouldn't be posed in quite the same way. Which is one key reason why there is no equivalent of Die Linke etc.


'Abandon the struggle' - whose struggle? Not mine. The reduction of struggle down to what liberal-middle-class lefties find appropriate is noted. And that it is to change the labour party.

And you are saying vote labour whatever.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> By-elections are opportunities to protest. General elections are something different. Everyone knows this,


 


They both end with a seat in Parliament?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 30, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> He is their fucking MP now. One of the safest labour seats in the country.
> 
> It's a disaster. Face it


 
Exactly.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Preston is a perfect example. It's hard to abandon a sinking ship when it's been what you've been brought up with - maybe, just maybe things will turn round - we've been poised in the past


Maybe by more labour leaders giving a shit


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 30, 2012)

As an analogy it would be like Nigel Farage or Robert fucking Kilroy winning in Chalfont st Giles "as a protest". How could you say that that wasn't a disaster for the tories? would the tories meet that result in their safest seat with total denial?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:
			
		

> _Labour shifted from being a social democratic party to being a neoliberal one. Why is it unthinkable that they could move in the opposite direction?_


 
That's what he said. Game over isn't it?

Why?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Preston is a perfect example. It's hard to abandon a sinking ship when it's been what you've been brought up with - maybe, just maybe things will turn round - we've been poised in the past


What?


----------



## audiotech (Mar 30, 2012)

where to said:


> he also says he won in _most_ wards, not all, and quotes a 80-odd% figure in the 'university ward', which google doesn't seem to recognise.


 
Maybe he meant the ward where the university is. There is one afterall.


----------



## Plumdaff (Mar 30, 2012)

audiotech said:


> It was reported on BBC radio that the swing was in the region of 36 percent to Respect.
> 
> Speaking of the BBC, I've just listened to an appalling interview on BBC Radio 5 Live from some hack with George Galloway, who made a valid point that it was the Labour party who put up a Muslim candidate and not Respect, whose candidate is not a Muslim and is white with blue eyes. The interviewer in a crass remark to a colleague, was also laughing and joking about someone, it's unclear who, throwing eggs at Mr Galloway as he left the BBC studios. Is this what the "impartial" BBC has come to now.
> 
> ...


 
I think it was the same interviewer who kept mentioning a ward where they'd found some people who'd said Galloway hadn't visited - there was unhidden insinuation of "y'know....because this is a WHITE ward...wink wink". He probably did target certain wards, just like anyone else who ever ran an election campaign, and the determined divisiveness of the BBC coverage was blatant and deeply unpleasant, no matter how much cynicism I may retain about the man himself.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Try telling whoever writes the TUSC press releases
> 
> 
> 
> By-elections are opportunities to protest. General elections are something different. Everyone knows this,


 
its always just an exception/just a protest vote isn't it 

the fact is george galloway, the guy who was expelled from labour and is in a different party, is an MP, you can make as many excuses as you want but the results speak for themselves


----------



## JHE (Mar 30, 2012)

where to said:


> GG accepts the "i don't drink" letter was from him in this interview
> 
> http://couchtripper.com/forum2/page.php?page=6


 
There's also a mention in one of the Mail articles of Galloway being asked about the letter.  His reply, apparently, was that he would never have mentioned anyone's religion, but for the Labour attempt to use religion to get votes.

The letter is shown on a variety of sites and partially quoted in various articles.

The oddest thing is that anyone should think Galloway would NOT put out a letter of that sort.

* His comments on the Labour campaign are, I bet, true
* His innuendo about the Muslim Labour candidate's drinking matches tittle-tattle that you can read elsewhere.  Why would Galloway not use that? 
* The bulk of the letter consists of stuff that he has come out with before
* For example, all the stuff hinting that he's a Muslim, but stopping short of explicitly asserting or denying it, matches what he has done before in interviews
* The focus on "I, George Galloway" is just his style
* The boasting about some Pakistani honours he was awarded (awards that may be meaningful to Pakistanis, but are unknown by most Britons) is in character
* The wretched Islamophilia and pro-Palestinian blather, the focus on his own claimed bravery etc etc is all Gallowayesque


If it had turned out that someone had faked that letter, I would have been amazed and very impressed by whoever did it.  It is Galloway to a fucking T!  As far as I can see, it is only on U75 that people don't believe it's Galloway's letter.


----------



## nastybobby (Mar 30, 2012)

manny-p said:


> School boy error-Gorgeous George!


 
Ha! You'd have thought someone who was so 'in-tune' with an 'Islamic lifestyle' would have known that.

This is the first time that inner city Bradford has had the opportunity to vote for a candidate [that had both the financial and organisational support]  who was explicitly anti 'war on terror' since it began. This by-election was almost fought on this issue alone, it made no difference that the Labour Party candidate was of Pakistani heritage, he obviously had to toe the 'party line' on this which meant he'd lost once GG made his position clear.

The only other 'issue' that GG had to concentrate on to ensure a win was the stalled regeneration projects in the city. All the major political parties are complicit in this monumental fuck-up and it was a stick to beat them with, he told Bradfordians what they wanted to hear - get the Westfield development built and renovate the Odeon cinema instead of demolishing it.

I honestly don't think this result can tell us anything more about the political climate in this country at the present time. It was all about local issues and the concerns of a section of the community regarding foreign policy.


----------



## where to (Mar 30, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Perhaps one could infer that in traditional safe seats Labour are now potentially vulnerable on the left, at least given a well-organised left-wing populist opponent with a bit of brand recognition.
> 
> I'm wondering what would happen if a younger, lefter Glenda (as a sort of imaginary stereotype with some of the same qualities as GG) were to run for say the SP against 'Mad Frankie' Field here in Birkenhead for example.


 
i have long wondered how a resurrection of the Militant brand would fare.  everyone knows what it means in political terms.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 30, 2012)

lagtbd said:


> I think it was the same interviewer who kept mentioning a ward where they'd found some people who'd said Galloway hadn't visited - there was unhidden insinuation of "y'know....because this is a WHITE ward...wink wink". He probably did target certain wards, just like anyone else who ever ran an election campaign, and the determined divisiveness of the BBC coverage was blatant and deeply unpleasant, no matter how much cynicism I may retain about the man himself.


 
Nevermind the deeply unpleasant bit, as George Galloway explicitly made clear, and he is right, doing do is deeply dangerous. That it is the BBC playing this game is doubly so, well more than that actually.


----------



## where to (Mar 30, 2012)

JHE said:


> If it had turned out that someone had faked that letter, I would have been amazed and very impressed by whoever did it. It is Galloway to a fucking T!


 
i agree wholeheartedly.  i was pleased he didn't disown the letter. it silences the delusional.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2012)

audiotech said:


> Maybe he meant the ward where the university is. There is one afterall.


 
I worked in Bradford for about a year and I'd guess they mean Heaton. I could very well be wrong though. Not so much where the campus is, which I'm pretty sure is City ward, as where most of the students live.


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Perhaps one could infer that in traditional safe seats Labour are now potentially vulnerable on the left, at least given a well-organised left-wing populist opponent with a bit of brand recognition.
> 
> I'm wondering what would happen if a younger, lefter Glenda (as a sort of imaginary stereotype with some of the same qualities as GG) were to run for say the SP against 'Mad Frankie' Field here in Birkenhead for example.


 
Maybe if Owen Jones wasn't in Labour he may have done quite well...


----------



## audiotech (Mar 30, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I worked in Bradford for about a year and I'd guess they mean Heaton. I could very well be wrong though. Not so much where the campus is as where the students live.


 
I'm just down the road, stuck with some tory nonentity.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

i'm just down the road, if the road's the a1.


----------



## where to (Mar 30, 2012)

treelover said:


> Its certain the media will really scrutinise all aspects of his campaign tactics, it could all go horribly wrong...


 
not for GG.  last night was his endgame.  he just sits on the cheque for 3 years now.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2012)

Well, people have faked stuff and tried to pin it on Galloway in the past. So a reasonable amount of scepticism is understandable. I didn't see anyone making conspiracy theories about the letter. Just asking whether its provenance was confirmed by anyone trustworthy.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm just down the road, if the road's the a1.


 
I'm referring to a ring road.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 30, 2012)

while a labour prime minister's wife has just bought a pvte healthcare store in fucking sainsbury's and george galloway has just cost them their seat in bradford its time to keep up the strruggle to reclaim the labour party. 

what a joke.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 30, 2012)

where to said:


> not for GG. last night was his endgame. he just sits on the cheque for 3 years now.


 
No one goes on from losing a seat held, then challenging in another and losing, then to win another, to sit on their arse, least of all George Galloway.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

audiotech said:


> No one goes on from losing a seat held, then challenging in another and losing, then to win another, to sit on their arse, least of all George Galloway.


Eh?


----------



## audiotech (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Eh?


 
Galloway retired gracefully from Bethnal Green and Bow. My mistake.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> while a labour prime minister's wife has just bought a pvte healthcare store in fucking sainsbury's and george galloway has just cost them their seat in bradford its time to keep up the strruggle to reclaim the labour party.
> 
> what a joke.


 
She says she's still a socialist though


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 30, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> She says she's still a socialist though


 
Really? Oh, that's all right then.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> She says she's still a socialist though


All good capitalists are, in the end. Privatise the profits and socialise the losses...


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 30, 2012)

Note to media: Clayton ward in #*BradfordWest* is predominantly white, middle class & affluent. #*Respect* took approx 900 votes #*Labour* 40

Via Salma Yaqoob's twitter. Just now


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Note to media: Clayton ward in #*BradfordWest* is predominantly white, middle class & affluent. #*Respect* took approx 900 votes #*Labour* 40
> 
> Via Salma Yaqoob's twitter. Just now


 
Ouch ...


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 30, 2012)

If it turns out Galloways won all the white, middle-class wards, whereas Manningham and the asian wards voted for Labour I'll laugh my head off at some of the presumptions people are prepared to make.


----------



## Bingo (Mar 30, 2012)

if?


----------



## binka (Mar 30, 2012)

harriet harman is on newsnight to explain why labour did so shit


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

binka said:


> harriet harman is on newsnight to explain why labour did so shit


she'll be there all night then


----------



## binka (Mar 30, 2012)

the labour mp for bradford south had the gall to blame it on text messaging and social media


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

binka said:


> the labour mp for bradford south had the gall to blame it on text messaging and social media


no, that's riots


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Mar 30, 2012)

That was an interesting report on Newsnight. It brought in some new facts about the election


----------



## binka (Mar 30, 2012)

she was pleased with the 'milliband wagon'


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 30, 2012)

binka said:


> she was pleased with the 'milliband wagon'


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Perhaps one could infer that in traditional safe seats Labour are now potentially vulnerable on the left, at least given a well-organised left-wing populist opponent with a bit of brand recognition.
> 
> I'm wondering what would happen if a younger, lefter Glenda (as a sort of imaginary stereotype with some of the same qualities as GG) were to run for say the SP against 'Mad Frankie' Field here in Birkenhead for example.


ironic that would be, seeing as how mad frankie as only parachuted in to stop a trot (well, a soggy oggie) being selected



JHE said:


> If it had turned out that someone had faked that letter, I would have been amazed and very impressed by whoever did it. It is Galloway to a fucking T! As far as I can see, it is only on U75 that people don't believe it's Galloway's letter.


Galloway is a piece of piss to parody. And its a question of wanting it confirmed, as it would hardly be the first time false quotes have been attributed to him.


Pickman's model said:


> i'm just down the road, if the road's the a1.


the A1 goes nowhere near Bradford!


----------



## audiotech (Mar 30, 2012)

Harriet Harman, the woman's champion, who I remember at her first outing at the dispatch box, at the beginning of Labour's first term, attacking single mothers, reminiscent of any rabid tory you care to name.


----------



## 8115 (Mar 30, 2012)

The thing is, I think Galloway is very good at putting himself in the middle of perfect storms (tired labour locally and nationally, people still haven't forgotten Iraq, no appetite on labour's part for what could have been a very nasty fight to guess at but a few of the reasons), but I'm not really convinced there's any wider significance.


----------



## Belushi (Mar 30, 2012)

That's a particularly gormless photo of Ed in the background


----------



## binka (Mar 30, 2012)

she's been talking for 5 minutes and said nothing.

yes, i know...


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 30, 2012)

soggy oggie?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> the A1 goes nowhere near Bradford!


ok, it's up the a1 and round a couple of corners.


----------



## binka (Mar 30, 2012)

who cares what sunny hundal thinks? newsnight is so shit almost all of the time these days


----------



## JHE (Mar 30, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Just asking whether its provenance was confirmed by anyone trustworthy.


 
Well, I don't know, Bernard.  Does GGG count as trustworthy?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 30, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> soggy oggie?


 
Socialist Organiser now known as the AWL


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 30, 2012)

lol haha don't get me started on the awl


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2012)

JHE said:


> Well, I don't know, Bernard. Does GGG count as trustworthy?


 
I apologise for shitting up this thread with angry remarks based on stuff that happend on other threads long ago. Not necessary. (edited from 'fuck off ... ' etc )


----------



## nastybobby (Mar 30, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Note to media: Clayton ward in #*BradfordWest* is predominantly white, middle class & affluent. #*Respect* took approx 900 votes #*Labour* 40
> 
> Via Salma Yaqoob's twitter. Just now


 
I'd agree that it's 'predominantly white'. But 'middle class and affluent' is pretty wide of the mark IMO/E. That makes it sound like Ilkley, which it most certainly isn't.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> lol haha don't get me started on the awl


keep it spikey


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2012)

JHE said:


> Well, I don't know, Bernard. Does GGG count as trustworthy?


It was a foul letter. But then I don't see too many people on here praising Galloway. Lots of people who find it funny/are pleased that he won, but that's not the same thing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It was a foul letter. But then I don't see too many people on here praising Galloway. Lots of people who find it funny/are pleased that he won, but that's not the same thing.


for galloway is an honourable man


----------



## where to (Mar 30, 2012)

*Clayton and Fairweather Green (Ward) was 7% muslim in 2001 according to the ONS. *

Labour won resoundingly one year ago in this ward, with 2000 votes. http://www.bradford.gov.uk/asp/elections2011/index.asp?w=8

i find it hard to believe Yaqoob's claim. for one thing a capitulation of labour vote from 2000 to 40 in less than 12 months is just too great. if true it flies in the face of every Respect election result pretty much ever.


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 30, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Fuck you racist twat.


 
Constantly calling someone racist doesn't make them so.


----------



## manny-p (Mar 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> History is one damn thing after another. I don't exonerate Labour in any way, shape or form. But things are as they are, not as we might wish them to be


Fuck off. You are not welcome here.


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 30, 2012)

manny-p said:


> You are not welcome here.


 
You're not the one to decide that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Constantly calling someone racist doesn't make them so.


quite. another example: i could call you intelligent for months and months but you'd still be thick as pigshit


----------



## audiotech (Mar 30, 2012)

> Wasab recounts how he was driving a Respect speaker van on Wednesday night and was stopped by police, searched, taken to the station and then released. “They were just wasting my time,” he shrugs.


http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=28021


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

audiotech said:


> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=28021


it would be nice if they'd used that article to illustrate the diverse backgrounds of people in the ruc

they might even have found a catholic


----------



## manny-p (Mar 30, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> You're not the one to decide that.


I just did.


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> quite. another example: i could call you intelligent for months and months but you'd still be thick as pigshit


 
I could call you a cab, but I won't.


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 30, 2012)

manny-p said:


> I just did.


 
Luckily your decisions dont count.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I could call you a cab, but I won't.


do you remember how i said no one could make you look such a twat as you do yourself?

perhaps you could recall that famous line about it being better to keep quiet and have people think you a fool than open your gob and prove yourself one.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> it would be nice if they'd used that article to illustrate the diverse backgrounds of people in the ruc
> 
> they might even have found a catholic


 
I take your point (or were you taking the michael?), but this comment from the same article goes some way to address the diversity in Bradford and counters some misconceptions.




> Wasab acknowledges that crime is a problem in the area, but says the media makes things worse by racialising the situation and presenting it as an “Asian” or “Muslim” problem. In truth people in Bradford live far more mixed lives than these stereotypes suggest. “I work in a call centre,” he says. “It’s very mixed race. We all want the same thing—it’s all about love, peace and respect. It’s all about dignity".


http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=28021


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps you could recall that famous line about it being better to keep quiet and have people think you a fool than open your gob and prove yourself one.


 
You would do better to take such advice yourself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> You would do better to take such advice yourself.


you're like a little brat, trying to turn things round on people without realising how shit it makes you look


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

audiotech said:


> I take your point, but this comment goes some way to address the diversity in Bradford and counters some misconceptions.


i'm talking about the ruc and not about bradford.


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> you're like a little brat, trying to turn things round on people without realising how shit it makes you look


 
You are pathetic, and have always been so.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm talking about the ruc and not about bradford.


 
Well yes, I understood that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> You are pathetic, and have always been so.


what was that you said about calling people racist, that it didn't make them so? calling people pathetic doesn't mean it's true either.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

audiotech said:


> Well yes, I understood that.


your reply being about bradford didn't reflect that understanding


----------



## audiotech (Mar 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> your reply being about bradford didn't reflect that understanding


 
I said I take your point.


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> what was that you said about calling people racist, that it didn't make them so? calling people pathetic doesn't mean it's true either.


 
In your case it's not calling you pathetic that makes you pathetic. It's your patheticness that does that.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 30, 2012)

Oh for fuck sake, children. Stop the bickering.


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2012)

One of the steps the L/P could do to positively show they are listening, etc would be to get rid of former banker Liam Byrne or ate least remove him from his policy making role..

yes, i know many won't have heard of him, but many informed potential LP voters have..


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 30, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Oh for fuck sake, children. Stop the bickering.


 
I still don't think that JHE is a racist. Somehow Picky arguments have failed to persuade me differently.


----------



## past caring (Mar 30, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> In your case it's not calling you pathetic that makes you pathetic. It's your patheticness that does that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 31, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I still don't think that JHE is a racist. Somehow Picky arguments have failed to persuade me differently.


that's perhaps because i haven't been arguing the point one way or the other, i've been saying you're a thick as pigshit cunt, which every one of your posts proves


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 31, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> that's perhaps because i haven't been arguing the point one way or the other, i've been saying you're a thick as pigshit cunt, which every one of your posts proves


 
You wouldn't recognise sarcasm if it slapped you round the face.


----------



## treelover (Mar 31, 2012)

'George Galloway's victory confirms the demise of the radical Left, not its resurgence'

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/b...emise-of-the-radical-left-not-its-resurgence/


Brendan O' Neill's/Spiked's view on the bye-election


----------



## belboid (Mar 31, 2012)

quelle surprise


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 31, 2012)

Can you outline the main points? Cos those deformed cultists  are far greater cunts  than Galloway.


----------



## treelover (Mar 31, 2012)

For some reason RCP/LM/Spiked, etc have got involved with the science(such as it is) and certainly the politics of M.E/CFS, they have established the Science Media Centre
which has become the conduit for disseminating  and spinning research on the disease from a psycho-somatic angle and sadly has become the first point of call for journos. It's director is Claire Fox's sister, Fiona Fox...

baffled as to why though...


----------



## free spirit (Mar 31, 2012)

where to said:


> *Clayton and Fairweather Green (Ward) was 7% muslim in 2001 according to the ONS. *
> 
> Labour won resoundingly one year ago in this ward, with 2000 votes. http://www.bradford.gov.uk/asp/elections2011/index.asp?w=8
> 
> i find it hard to believe Yaqoob's claim. for one thing a capitulation of labour vote from 2000 to 40 in less than 12 months is just too great. if true it flies in the face of every Respect election result pretty much ever.


is there a 0 missing off the end of her figure for labour's vote in Yaqoob's tweet?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 31, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Can you outline the main points? Cos those deformed cultists are far greater cunts than Galloway.


 
Wasn't really anything coherent there that I could see. Perhaps others are more sensitive to ideological nuances though. Just seemed like whiny twats to me.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 31, 2012)

I apologise for shitting up this thread with angry remarks based on stuff that happend on other threads long ago. Not necessary. (edited from rant at JHE)


----------



## SLK (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 reminds me of the only person I know left in the Labour party. Her conclusion to everything is to embrace those who left Labour since 1997.


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 31, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I call JHE a racist twat because he continually emits zionist propaganda shit.


 
Maybe you quoted the wrong post, but I don't think you are pathetic. Only Pickman really fits that discription. But I do think you are wrong about JHE.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 31, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> You wouldn't recognise sarcasm if it slapped you round the face.


it's the sort of shit you would post, and mean though. Sarcasm may be the lowest form of wit but it's still beyond you


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 31, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Socialist Organiser now known as the AWL


 
Socialist Organgrinder- the Lib Dems of trotskyism


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 31, 2012)

where to said:


> i have long wondered how a resurrection of the Militant brand would fare. everyone knows what it means in political terms.


 
Very much doubt that campaigning for the Labour Party to commit itself in its next manifesto to nationalise the top 200 companies would galvanise working class voters.

In the meantime I was encouraged to see the Socialist Party's  third period Trostkyism embrace Galloway's victory in Bradford.Tony Mulhearn informed the attentive masses:



> I applaud George Galloway's victory, which symbolises a total rejection of the policies of the Con-Dem government, and a recognition that New Labour no longer represents the interests of working people.
> 
> This underlines the need for a mass movement to provide a real anti-cuts alternative in the interests of the 99%, which I and my colleagues in the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition intend to provide at the mayoral and council polls on the 3rd of May.


 
continued on page 94


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 31, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Very much doubt that campaigning for the Labour Party to commit itself in its next manifesto to nationalise the top 200 companies would galvanise working class voters.
> 
> In the meantime I was encouraged to see the Socialist Party's third period Trostkyism embrace Galloway's victory in Bradford.Tony Mulhearn informed the attentive masses:
> 
> ...


 
Jesus the SP really have abandoned building roots in their communities for get rich quick magic up a resistance schemes.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

This is what I was saying earlier in relation to their press releases.  Galloway's win certainly doesn't magic open the floodgates.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:
			
		

> This is what I was saying earlier in relation to their press releases.  Galloway's win certainly doesn't magic open the floodgates.



Not quite what you said or who you said it to Harriet. Maybe in your mind this is what happened.


----------



## belboid (Mar 31, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> But I do think you are wrong about JHE.


The difference between  a racist and JHE, who thinks that 'mossies' breed too much, is so small as to be totally irrelevant.


articul8 said:


> This is what I was saying earlier in relation to their press releases. Galloway's win certainly doesn't magic open the floodgates.


joke


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

belboid said:


> joke


you think it does magic open the floodgates?


----------



## belboid (Mar 31, 2012)

well, it certainly opened up a flood of shite from you


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:
			
		

> you think it does magic open the floodgates?



He must. We all must. Apart from one brave boy.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

TUSC appear to.  Bellend was having a go at my criticisms of their position.  On what basis?


----------



## belboid (Mar 31, 2012)

one th basis that you're a joke, just running round like a headless chicken attempting to defend the indefensible


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:
			
		

> TUSC appear to.  Bellend was having a go at my criticisms of their position.  On what basis?



Magic re writing of thread. You should write for the independent.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> TUSC appear to.  Bellend was having a go at my criticisms of their position.  On what basis?


You pissed again?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Magic re writing of thread. You should write for the independent.


Wouldn't be surprised if his initials were jh


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

belboid said:


> one th basis that you're a joke, just running round like a headless chicken attempting to defend the indefensible


I'm not defending anything - I'm saying that if Labour wants to understand this result it needs to look at its own failures both in terms of offering any real resistance to the cuts (or alternatives to austerity), and to call for an end to the occupation of Afghanistan.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> You pissed again?


no  neither am I jh.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> Wouldn't be surprised if his initials were jh



gg already writing about looking forward to representing Blackburn.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> gg already writing about looking forward to representing Blackburn.


confusing Lancashire and Yorkshire - that's the way to maintain your popularity


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> gg already writing about looking forward to representing Blackburn.


I'm still waiting for his book about the campaign in bethnal green and bow


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 31, 2012)

a8

You're not hari? You don't have his wit or intellectual rigour


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Speaking of maintaining things, how's your sobriety this morning?


 It is perfectly fine ta.  As it will be for the whole of April


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> It is perfectly fine ta.  As it will be for the whole of April


However you seem to be just as honest as johann hari


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 31, 2012)

Blimey ...........




> Workers Power rejects Labour’s contemptuous dismissal of the Muslim working class community who quite rightly hate the bloody wars waged by western imperialism in the Middle East.
> At the same time we criticize Respect for pandering to the business and religious leaders of the Muslim community by downplaying serious issues which should be central to any fight for freedom – especially women¹s rights to abortion and the right of lesbian and gay people to equality and freedom from oppression – which are offensive to their reactionary sentiments. And we condemn Galloway¹s
> record of defending ‘anti-imperialist dictators’ like Gadaffi, Ahmedinejad, and Syria’s brutal Assad.
> 
> ...


 
FORWARD TO THE REFOUNDlNG OF A LENINIST TROTSKYIST INTERNATIONAL!
FOR A NEW WORLD PARTY OF SOCIALIST REVOLUTION!


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 31, 2012)

Turn of caps 39th step

Makes you look like a loon


----------



## JimW (Mar 31, 2012)

All across the Arab world workers are hanging out for a new sectlet in the UK to provide their backing.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

Turn "off" - this way to the remedial classes Pickman's...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Blimey ...........
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They're great. What have the other lot said though?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

Artiul8 - i'd be interested in seeing exactly where GG agrees with you - as you suggested earlier in the thread.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Artiul8 - i'd be interested in seeing exactly where GG agrees with you - as you suggested earlier in the thread.


see http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/george-galloway-victory-speech/ from 1:40 or so on - "I do care about the Labour party... they must...they have to... etc"


----------



## belboid (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> They're great. What have the other lot said though?


nowt, they're still having a lie down


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> They're great. What have the other lot said though?


 
Very slow on the Trot front all round really.



Counterfire-"All those who oppose austerity and war should be walking a little taller this morning......... Two key tasks are ahead: first, to build from the great opposition to war a mass movement opposed to further interventions abroad; second, to build from the countless anti-cuts campaigns across the country a mass, national movement that can overwhelm austerity."

Socialist Worker: "While there were specific factors in Bradford that propelled Galloway to victory, his win is a boost for the left in Britain and underlines the potential for building grassroots opposition to Tory austerity."

AWL- nothing

WRP- "BRADFORD YOUTH ‘UPRISING’ WINS FOR GALLOWAY....Galloway however remained a true reformist and urged the Labour Party to turn away ‘decisively’ from the course set by former Prime Minister Tony Blair, and continued by Miliband and Balls."

Internal Marxist Tendency-Nothing but they dio have a lead article on Perspectives for world capitalism 2012 (Draft discussion document) – Part Four - Asia

Morning Star:"Bradford West should serve as a warning of further one-offs in the future if Labour fails to heed the clamour for change from a bankers' agenda to a people's agenda"

Permanent Revolution- nothing

Weekly Worker: Engels and his Origins of the family, private property and the state: still useful today?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> see http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/george-galloway-victory-speech/ from 1:40 or so on - "I do care about the Labour party... they must...they have to... etc"


That's your basis for claiming an anti-labour victory was really a victory for your pro-labour politics? Saying that they're traitors? Attacking the whole approach of they've nowhere else to go - as you have done on this thread - somehow justifies your craven pro-labour approach?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Very slow on the Trot front all round really.
> Internal Marxist Tendency-Nothing but they dio have a lead article on Perspectives for world capitalism 2012 (Draft discussion document) – Part Four - Asia


 
Ooh, part 4 is out!


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 31, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Weekly Worker: Engels and his Origins of the family, private property and the state: still useful today?


 
For a book that's a hundred years out of date, it's not bad, but it's still a hundred years out of date.

We now return you to your scheduled programming.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

It's good isn't it - what GG had done is not scaleable for other people nevertheless he is right to support articul8. His plan - that is the same as GG's apparently - is perfectly scaleable. But not GG's. That's not.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> For a book that's a hundred years out of date, it's not bad, but it's still a hundred years out of date.
> 
> We now return you to your scheduled programming.


Attack Morgan and you have Engels on the floor.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Attack Morgan and you have Engels on the floor.


 
Fools rush in where Engels feared to tread.

Morgan wasn't a bad guy, he was just unable to break fully with the paradigm of earlier 19th century anthropology, with its baggage of racism, unilineal cultural evolution etc. He did advocate giving the Native Americans their own state in the USA, with an elected congressman etc. Which at the time was very "out there" as a proposal.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

Whilst being a murderous robber baron - a bit like Engels.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Whilst being a murderous robber baron - a bit like Engels.


 
Well, there is that, yes.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 31, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Very much doubt that campaigning for the Labour Party to commit itself in its next manifesto to nationalise the top 200 companies would galvanise working class voters.
> 
> In the meantime I was encouraged to see the Socialist Party's  third period Trostkyism embrace Galloway's victory in Bradford.Tony Mulhearn informed the attentive masses:
> 
> ...



Quick. It's the upturn!


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That's your basis for claiming an anti-labour victory was really a victory for your pro-labour politics?


You are one disingenuous motherfucker, I'll hand that to you.



> Saying that they're traitors? Attacking the whole approach of they've nowhere else to go - as you have done on this thread - somehow justifies your craven pro-labour approach?


His orientation is clearly to shock Labour into reversing its NL neoliberal drift. He's right to attack the recent trajectory of the party, and would be warmly applauded by a section of Labour party members and activists for his arguments (though not necessarily his tactics, but since he was expelled this decision was made for him).

But is he saying "Labour is irretrievably dead"? No - he's saying the opposite. "I care about the Labour party...Labour must..Labour has to."
He's saying there is no real difference between the 3 parties at present, but clearly does think the Labour (unlike the Tories and LDs) has become detached from its core purpose in doing so.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

Yeah, and he's living in the past and a fantasy land - the same as you. But you think he's wrong. But what he says is right and what you were saying all along.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 31, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Very slow on the Trot front all round really.
> 
> 
> 
> Counterfire-"All those who oppose austerity and war should be walking a little taller this morning.........]



A new dawn has broken has it not?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah, and he's living in the past and a fantasy land - the same as you. But you think he's wrong. But what he says is right and what you were saying all along.


 I think what he's aiming to achieve is relevant, and I hope it has some effect in the direction he intends but I don't think his approach is the "one true path" to achieving it.  In fact I think it has a number of potential drawbacks.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

Which is why he's right in agreeing with you. What are the drawbacks in the aim to make labour a_ really great_ working class party then?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

Galloway is an egotist opportunist whose methods have tended to polarise opinion on ethnic lines (and I accept there may be elements to which this latest campaign cuts across any simple communalist appeal - but nevertheless I don't think the his general approach and track record is likely to unite w/c opinion on a political basis, quite the opposite).   But in the sense that he sees the fight for the future direction of Labour as a strategically critical task, he's right to that extent. 

The predecessors of TUSC banged the same drum when Ken Livingstone got elected as independent mayor of London.  I don't see Galloway being readmitted anytime soon.  But it's more that kind of thing.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

Now, have a go at answering the question that i asked you.


----------



## trevhagl (Mar 31, 2012)

already some twats on Facebook going on about his BB appearance , i just replied "even if he did pop idol wearing a nappy he would still have more credibility than the 3 Tory parties"


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

Already, a whole day and a half after it happened!


----------



## trevhagl (Mar 31, 2012)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Ha! Excellent result, I dunno what he stands for but its one in the eye for cunts. Tbf, if this shock result was a far right candidate we would be receiving this this much less favourably.


 
though i dunno , there's a lot on here who seem to hate other left factions more than the nazis themselves!


----------



## trevhagl (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Already, a whole day and a half after it happened!


 
it was actually yesterday , you do live a very interesting life


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

We've gone through this - I'm under no illusions about the difficulty of the left seizing control of the Labour party machine.  But I do think that at the very least the growth and influence of a socialist left inside the party could help to force the leadership towards a more traditionally social democratic position, and in the process develop its own forces so any future realignment on left forces would have more weight to them.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

trevhagl said:


> it was actually yesterday , you do live a very interesting life


Tell me more about this...facebook...and what people say on there.


----------



## trevhagl (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Tell me more about this...facebook...and what people say on there.


 
they tell me about going shopping , it's fascinating


----------



## trevhagl (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> We've gone through this - I'm under no illusions about the difficulty of the left seizing control of the Labour party machine. But I do think that at the very least the growth and influence of a socialist left inside the party could help to force the leadership towards a more traditionally social democratic position, and in the process develop its own forces so any future realignment on left forces would have more weight to them.


 

i do think this is a good result cos it will at least have the careerist bastards thinking , hang on a minute we aren't guaranteed the vote and may actually have to do something for the working class as well as the middle class


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> We've gone through this - I'm under no illusions about the difficulty of the left seizing control of the Labour party machine. But I do think that at the very least the growth and influence of a socialist left inside the party could help to force the leadership towards a more traditionally social democratic position, and in the process develop its own forces so any future realignment on left forces would have more weight to them.


Do you know how mealy mouthed and pathetic this sounds? This golden vision? This idiocy? You are under many illusions if you think this is likely possible or achievable  - you know as well as i do that it's bollocks. Hence the only practical expression of it being _vote labour we're shit._


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Galloway is an egotist opportunist whose methods have tended to polarise opinion on ethnic lines (and I accept there may be elements to which this latest campaign cuts across any simple communalist appeal - but nevertheless I don't think the his general approach and track record is likely to unite w/c opinion on a political basis, quite the opposite). But in the sense that he sees the fight for the future direction of Labour as a strategically critical task, he's right to that extent.
> 
> The predecessors of TUSC banged the same drum when Ken Livingstone got elected as independent mayor of London. I don't see Galloway being readmitted anytime soon. But it's more that kind of thing.


 
does he really though? he's been expelled for the party and spends most of the time demanding the arrest of its former prime minister, etc.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Ooh, part 4 is out!


 
I'll be running down the paper shop with me 12p later


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Do you know how mealy mouthed and pathetic this sounds? This golden vision?
> This idiocy? You are under many illusions if you think this is likely possible or achievable - you know as well as i do that it's bollocks.


I don't know that at all.  I'm not sure I'd go as far as to say it was "likely" but it's certainly possible.  And yes it would only represent a moderate step forward and beg a whole series of other questions.  But at least there is the prospect of some kind of dynamic opening up.



> Hence the only practical expression of it being _vote labour we're shit._


The practical expression is fight for a Labour party worth voting for (as a first step...)


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 31, 2012)

Guys, why are you even bothering to engage with articul8's silliness?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> does he really though? he's been expelled for the party and spends most of the time demanding the arrest of its former prime minister, etc.


have you heard his speech I linked to above - he makes it clear that he puts Labour in a different category to the Lib Dems/Tories, and makes a series of claims about what it "must" do, and "has" to do.   What other conclusion could you draw?  (hence earning him the ire of the WRP for being a "reformist" )


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> Guys, why are you even bothering to engage with articul8's silliness?


 why is this silly:


> the growth and influence of a socialist left inside the party could help to force the leadership towards a more traditionally social democratic position, and in the process develop its own forces so any future realignment on left forces would have more weight to them.


?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> have you heard his speech I linked to above - he makes it clear that he puts Labour in a different category to the Lib Dems/Tories, and makes a series of claims about what it "must" do, and "has" to do. What other conclusion could you draw? (hence earning him the ire of the WRP for being a "reformist" )


Remember though, he is wrong, which is why articul8 uses him to illustrate the correctness of his approach.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> why is this silly:
> ?


Are you kidding? This nonsense allied to your _vote labour because we're shit_ slogan and the analysis it fits into is pretty silly.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Remember though, he is wrong, which is why articul8 uses him to illustrate the correctness of his approach.


he's right in what he is setting out to achieve, wrong in the way he's trying to achieve it.  This is a perfectly consistent position.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Are you kidding? This nonsense allied to your _vote labour because we're shit_ slogan and the analysis it fits into is pretty silly.


I've never said "vote Labour because we're shit" - that is your stupid caricature.  And what specifically is so stupid about believing that the Labour leadership can be pressured into a more traditional social democratic approach, especially in circumstances where it's so dependent on union funds?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> he's right in what he is setting out to achieve, wrong in the way he's trying to achieve it. This is a perfectly consistent position.


He didn't say that he was setting out on the same path as you - he simply said that if labour don't do what they traditionally did (or were popularly seen to do) then they would face further challenges such as his. He didn't offer pie in the sky idiocy about joining labour and reclaiming labour - he made a populist appeal to others to do what he has done. What he has done  - you argue - is impossible on a wider scale - but your whole approach is based on arguing that it's possible. The central incoherency, the many faced loon approach always shines though.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I've never said "vote Labour because we're shit" - that is your stupid caricature. And what specifically is so stupid about believing that the Labour leadership can be pressured into a more traditional social democratic approach, especially in circumstances where it's so dependent on union funds?


Yes you have, repeatedly. You have argued that people should vote labour in order to feel disenfranchised so that they can then get beyond labour - of course the real silliness comes at this point because in your fantasy world the next step is joining and voting labour again to then go beyond labour. You're a clown.

What's so silly about your non-existent army pressurising the labour party leadership into adopting a traditional social democratic approach? Maybe you could petition the queen? That you don't understand how historically daft, how intellectually bereft this mad idea is tells its own story.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> He didn't say that he was setting out on the same path as you - he simply said that if labour don't do what they traditionally did (or were popularly seen to do) then they would face further challenges such as his. He didn't offer pie in the sky idiocy about joining labour and reclaiming labour - he made a populist appeal to others to do what he has done.


 
Until what? Until Labour finds itself pressured to move back to what they traditionally were seen as. It's a different route to the same end point.



> What he has done - you argue - is impossible on a wider scale - but your whole approach is based on arguing that it's possible..


My approach is based on the fact that only in limited and exceptional cases can Labour be defeated from the left for the forseable future, hence pressure has to be exerted from inside. The idea that "doing a Galloway" is possible on a national scale is the real fantasy[/quote]


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

So yes, _vote labour we're shit._In fact, you go one better_ - join labour, we're shit._

Yes, and it hasn't appeared once on this thread apart from your repeated insistence that this is what other posters are saying.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Yes you have, repeatedly. You have argued that people should vote labour in order to feel disenfranchised so that they can then get beyond labour - of course the real silliness comes at this point because in your fantasy world the next step is joining and voting labour again to then go beyond labour. You're a clown.


 
People should - at a General Election - vote Labour and at the same time demand that their interests are properly represented, even though they will do so in the knowledge the Labour is only the least worst option.  If they want to make sure Labour offers more of an alternative they should fight inside the party and work with others to build maximum pressure to make this happen.   



> What's so silly about your non-existent army pressurising the labour party leadership into adopting a traditional social democratic approach? Maybe you could petition the queen? That you don't understand how historically daft, how intellectually bereft this mad idea is tells its own story.


Leaderships find their freedom to act limited by a variety of external factors.  But its about time that the unions and broader labour movement made ourselves into more of an active constraint on their ability to keep up the neoliberal drift, and to begin to reverse the tide.   This is not impossible.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

Learn the lesson - don't fight labour. You might end up like George Galloway and get elected. That's what you took from thursday - _vote and join labour. Because we're shit._

The leadership are not in any way whatsoever blocked in their actions by you and your labour left - they couldn't care less about you. You are an utter irrelevance to them. What's impossible is getting you to recognise this - despite actually knowing it. And it's no good describing an ideal situation and saying that this is what you're on the road to - that's the worst sort of back slapping self-deception possible.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Learn the lesson - don't fight labour. You might end up like George Galloway and get elected. That's what you took from thursday - _vote and join labour. Because we're shit._


Change Labour by any means necessary - but it comes back to changing Labour and will do the forseable future.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Change Labour by any means necessary - but it comes back to changing Labour and will do the forseable future.


It does for you, because that's how limited your vision is. Because that's how blind you are - and worse, you insist they everyone else follows you and pokes their eyes out.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

In classical tragedy the blind are usually the true seers.


----------



## JimW (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Change Labour by any means necessary...


Not ruling out the armed option is about as realistic as the rest of your plans.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> In classical tragedy the blind are usually the true seers.


A martyr, a warrior _and_ a seer. Busy days.

And find me one blind seer other than tireseas (which i know i've spelt wrong).


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

Lear (for example) sees the truth of his situation clearer once his eyes have been put out.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

Apart from that not being classical tragedy of course and him not being a seer. But crack on...

(hint: just saying blind people in plays doesn't count)


----------



## Belushi (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> In classical tragedy the blind are usually the true seers.


 
Oh fuck off


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Apart from that not being classical tragedy of course and him not being a seer. But crack on...


You didn't ask for another example from classical tragedy, and there is an argument that Lear is indeed a seer (of sorts). 

Were you trying to get me to say Cassandra?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

No, but you did. I wasn't trying to get you to say anything other than stand up your attempted classical allusion.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

well it's stood up


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

By someone not a seer and not from classical tragedy. That's you example of a blind seer from classical tragedy. You can't even get this right.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

You've got two classical seers already - Tiresias and Cassandra.  How many do you need?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

I asked for a blind seer from classical tragedy other than tiresias. How many have you came up with?


----------



## ska invita (Mar 31, 2012)

David Blunkett?

...I'll leave you to it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> how is it different from Bethnal Green. Galloway can whip up an anti-Labour mood to further his own profile. Where's this going?


 
Q: Would Galloway have been able to whip *anything at all* up if an "anti-Labour mood" didn't already exist for him to exploit.

A: No. He may be facile, but he's not able to generate such shifts in political loyalty (because despite what some Labourites are noising about, while it may have been the "Muslim vote" that won for Galloway, they didn't in any way constitute a majority of the electorate in either case) of his own accord.

This isn't the public giving Labour a bloody nose to teach it an isolated lesson, this is generalised discontent with the existing political _status quo_, and while you hacks are whining about how this doesn't mean that people hate your party, you're missing the point of what such an instance indicates to the electorate.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

Remember VP, no lessons from this for articul8 - well, one lesson - _vote and join labour because we're shit._


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Christ


 
Didn't he lead the Labour party from 1994 to 2007?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Lots of people who wanted to inflict a defeat on Labour turned out and voted Galloway (including Tories), a fair % of Labour voters stayed at home, whilst another proportion switched. A bit misleading to talk about "swing" in relation to GE figures.


 
Nice mantra, but ultimately "it's a one-time bloody nose deal" is just as meaningless as "Om Mani Padme Hum".


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Change Labour by any means necessary - but it comes back to changing Labour and will do the forseable future.


change labour according to what precedent? Name a Labour Party world wide that has been "reclaimed" for the left.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> A martyr, a warrior _and_ a seer. Busy days.
> 
> .


 
Only one class per character allowed, Thief is generally the best to start with imo.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> what kind of Labour party is on offer though? Or is one Labour politician only the same as another? John McDonnell the same as James Purnell? Jeremy Corbyn the same as Frank Field?


 
As we both well know, for every McDonnell and Corbyn there are half a dozen Purnell and Field _manques_. *That* is the kind of Labour party on offer. A kind of Labour party people by far more neo-liberalists, Fabian top-downists and neo-Victorian moralists than by genuine social democrats.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I asked for a blind seer from classical tragedy other than tiresias. How many have you came up with?


one, which was what you asked for (Cassandra)


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

Have another go.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> change labour according to what precedent? Name a Labour Party world wide that has been "reclaimed" for the left.


I specifically said that it was unlikely that the left could capture the party for socialism which is what I assume you mean by "reclaim". But the history of the Labour party has not been one long march to the right it shifted to the left before 1945 and again in the early 70s.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Have another go.


why?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

Because your go was wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I specifically said that it was unlikely that the left could capture the party for socialism which is what I assume you mean by "reclaim". But the history of the Labour party has not been one long march to the right it shifted to the left before 1945 and again in the early 70s.


So your army will amass to such an extent that it has a gravity that means the leadership will be forced to break with neo-liberal assumptions. You believe this naive shit? What's different with pre-45 and what went wrong in the decade 71-81?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I specifically said that it was unlikely that the left could capture the party for socialism which is what I assume you mean by "reclaim". But the history of the Labour party has not been one long march to the right it shifted to the left after WWII and again in the early 70s.


Not even "capturing the party for socialism", just making it more left-wing than the status quo - where's the precedent?

Not buying either of those as swings to the left either. Early 1970s demonstrates the precise opposite in fact, even though the left gained substantial influence over policy making, when they took power in 1974 the Labour Party implemented right-wing policies. The Alternative Economic Strategy might as well have never been written.

As to WW2 you know as well as I do that Labour policy was determined by a long-running shift in the management of capitalism which stretched across all three major parties and the majority of policy planners and civil servants. It's not an example of members reclaiming anything at all.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Shift, you can't shift labour. You clueless cunt. You might get a career out of belief in that.


 
"Might"?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 31, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Didn't he lead the Labour party from 1994 to 2007?


 
I don't think the source of the voices in Blair's head was ever conclusively identified.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> In classical tragedy the blind are usually the true seers.


 
And yet the Delphic oracles weren't, and neither was Greek history's greatest Seeress, Cassandra.You were saying...?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I asked for a blind seer from classical tragedy other than tiresias. How many have you came up with?


 
There aren't any that I can recall. I think that artie may be conflating the blind eye-sharing seeresses in a Ray Harryhausen film with classical literary tragedy.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

Now you don't only look like a ponce articul8 you look ignorant too. Keep smiling.


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 31, 2012)

I just hope its the POLICIES Galloway was putting forward that secured this astonishing result -- presumeably it was ... because Galloway himself is a completely unprincipled scoundrel -- always was.. always will be.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> one, which was what you asked for (Cassandra)


 
Cassandra wasn't blind (that is, none of the extant myths mention her ever being blind) She was cursed, raped and enslaved, but never blind.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 31, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I don't think the source of the voices in Blair's head was ever conclusively identified.


 
Not by anyone who wasn't Blair, anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

Mastery of the classics as good as his mastery of a) the romantics and b) the moment


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Because your go was wrong.


 
Try Phineus, son of Agenor then  (btw I never said all seers were blind in classical myth)


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Now you don't only look like a ponce articul8 you look ignorant too. Keep smiling.


not at all - see above.  You and VP are wrong to suggest that the blind seer wasn't a familiar trope


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 31, 2012)

The more one thinks about this win, and gets past what I hope is any socialist's distaste for Galloway's lifelong record of entirely self serving opportunism, the more wonderful it is ... particularly for the body blow surely it must have delivered to Ed and his NULABOUR neo Thatcherites !  The Lib Dems too must be SHITTING themselves ! Is it the start of a realignment in UK politics ? Or am I just getting all overexcited about a local vote with peculiar local characteristics .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 31, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> I just hope its the POLICIES Galloway was putting forward that secured this astonishing result -- presumeably it was ... because Galloway himself is a completely unprincipled scoundrel -- always was.. always will be.


 
I can't think of many people who'll disagree with you on that point. *However*, unscrupulous and self-serving as Galloway may be, he's also a consummate political operator when he wants to be, and a gifted rhetorician. If he *wants* to do a good job, he can.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 31, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> am I just getting all overexcited about a local vote with peculiar local characteristics .


 
I think we all are, to be fair.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Try Phineus, son of Agenor then  (btw I never said all seers were blind in classical myth)


I asked you for one - you offered someone was neither a seer or part of classcial tragedy, then you offered someone who was part of classial tragedy but not blind. Now you offer a blind person who is not part of classical tragedy but of classical mythology and isn't a seer. What a star. (the attempted shift onto myth has been noted)


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> not at all - see above. You and VP are wrong to suggest that the blind seer wasn't a familiar trope


And you've found not a single example all day. The fool might be a better type for your purposes. The half-fool anyway.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 31, 2012)

I think it's interesting to ask what the peculiar characteristics were, if any.

I can see the political classes have an interest in spinning this as a one-off, but I'm not particularly inclined to take their word for that.

Personally I suspect it's mostly that GG has what you might call good "brand recognition" and credibility as an outsider candidate.

All the rest, well organised team, disaffected and youthful electorate with little-to-no stake in the status quo etc, I expect you could find in plenty of other places.

I'd be interested to see some analysis that explored such questions in a more concrete manner though, and ideally some sort of evidence to back it up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> not at all - see above. You and VP are wrong to suggest that the blind seer wasn't a familiar trope


 
Let me get this straight, you're claiming that your sample of *TWO* delineates a "familiar trope"? It isn't a "familiar trope" in classical myth or literature. It's more common to Gothic and Romantic literature, and latterly, to TV and film, but it's hardly archetypal even there.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 31, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> The more one thinks about this win, and gets past what I hope is any socialist's distaste for Galloway's lifelong record of entirely self serving opportunism, the more wonderful it is ... particularly for the body blow surely it must have delivered to Ed and his NULABOUR neo Thatcherites ! The Lib Dems too must be SHITTING themselves ! Is it the start of a realignment in UK politics ? Or am I just getting all overexcited about a local vote with peculiar local characteristics .


 
Labour have been spinning it as the electorate in Bradford West giving them "a bloody nose for taking our eyes off the ball" since the result came in, and the Tories and Lib-Dems aren't bothered one way or another in terms of the actual result, because it wasn't exactly a marginal. Whether it indicates anything as far as Lib-Dem chances in Sheffield are concerned remains to be seen.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I think it's interesting to ask what the peculiar characteristics were, if any.
> 
> I can see the political classes have an interest in spinning this as a one-off, but I'm not particularly inclined to take their word for that.
> 
> ...


GG plus a brand spinning  out of control. Sackings this weekend. They were lucky to get it this week.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> what went wrong in the decade 71-81?


 
This is a key question - and a complicated one.  Ultimately, a period of capitalist crisis meant that Labour faced the choice of either opening up the neoliberal attack on the w/c or confronting the interests of capital - the leadership clearly opted for the former (of course with some support from the union bosses and the rightwing of the membership) in the belief that they had no alternative and the left couldn't mobilise sufficiently to force them down another course.  They woke up far too late for the need for proper democratic internal structures of the kind that Benn et al only really started organising for in 80/81.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I asked you for one - you offered someone was neither a seer or part of classcial tragedy


true, but who is cast in the mould of a blind seer of the classical tragic tradition



> then you offered someone who was part of classial tragedy but not blind


True (i think) but she was wounded and traumatised



> Now you offer a blind person who is not part of classical tragedy but of classical mythology and isn't a seer.


He is a seer, although admittedly from wider classical mythology.



> According to Apollonius, Phineus disclosed too many secrets of the Zeus to men, so Zeus took away his sight and made him older than he really was. Zeus further punished the blind seer, by sending birds, known as the Harpies ("Hounds of Zeus"), to steal the seer's food.


 
And in the Oedipus trilogy, the hero himself has his eyes put out and attains true insight on the explicit parallel with Tiresias. Anyway - a distraction.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> This is a key question - and a complicated one. Ultimately, a period of capitalist crisis meant that Labour faced the choice of either opening up the neoliberal attack on the w/c or confronting the interests of capital - the leadership clearly opted for the former (of course with some support from the union bosses and the rightwing of the membership) in the belief that they had no alternative and the left couldn't mobilise sufficiently to force them down another course. They woke up far too late for the need for proper democratic internal structures of the kind that Benn et al only really started organising for in 80/81.


so, err, I'm not seeing the argument that the Labour Party was "reclaimed" for the left during this period. So effectively you're saying, if we tried really really hard, and the rank-and-file of the party and the unions was more left-wing and organised labour was much stronger, we might, might, be allowed to write a policy paper for the leadership to ignore both when campaigning (AES virtually unmentioned in Labour propaganda in '74) and when in government.

Where do I sign up?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> true, but who is cast in the mould of a blind seer of the classical tragic tradition
> 
> 
> True (i think) but she was wounded and traumatised
> ...


So fuck all


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> so, err, I'm not seeing the argument that the Labour Party was "reclaimed" for the left during this period. So effectively you're saying, if we tried really really hard, and the rank-and-file of the party and the unions was more left-wing and organised labour was much stronger, we might, might, be allowed to write a policy paper for the leadership to ignore both when campaigning (AES virtually unmentioned in Labour propaganda in '74) and when in government.
> Where do I sign up?


 
The 74 manifesto was the most radical (with possible exception of 45) that Labour has ever fought an election on. 

OK, they weren't able to hold them to implementing it - that is unarguable.  And Benn failed by telling the left he was making his case privately around the cabinet table [which to be fair he was] rather than mobilising for democratic reforms to the party when in government.  But you can imagine the pressure ("you're recking a Labour government and helping the Tories to gain power"), so he waited till after the election and the right discredited itself.  Not that they cared, they fucked off and formed the SDP and helped Thatcher stay in for 18 years.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So fuck all


Oedipus at Colonnus was a blind seer like Tiresias by the end. You are being perversely literal and pedantic.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> The 74 manifesto was the most radical (with possible exception of 45) that Labour has ever fought an election on.
> 
> OK, they weren't able to hold them to implementing it - that is unarguable. And Benn failed by telling the left he was making his case privately around the cabinet table [which to be fair he was] rather than mobilising for democratic reforms to the party when in government. But you can imagine the pressure ("you're recking a Labour government and helping the Tories to gain power"), so he waited till after the election and the right discredited itself. Not that they cared, they fucked off and formed the SDP and helped Thatcher stay in for 18 years.





articul8 said:


> The 74 manifesto was the most radical (with possible exception of 45) that Labour has ever fought an election on.
> 
> OK, they weren't able to hold them to implementing it - that is unarguable. And Benn failed by telling the left he was making his case privately around the cabinet table [which to be fair he was] rather than mobilising for democratic reforms to the party when in government. But you can imagine the pressure ("you're recking a Labour government and helping the Tories to gain power"), so he waited till after the election and the right discredited itself. Not that they cared, they fucked off and formed the SDP and helped Thatcher stay in for 18 years.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Oedipus at Colonnus was a blind seer like Tiresias by the end. You are being perversely literal and pedantic.


No i'm not. If you want to play this game, don't blag. Do the work. You ignorant cunt.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> The 74 manifesto was the most radical (with possible exception of 45) that Labour has ever fought an election on.


 
The '74 _campaign_ was conservative, and the AES almost entirely absent from the campaigning. The major labour figures essentially treating the AES as a unfortunate error that they had to pay lip service to in official documentation.

And that was the best that the left could do when it was 1000x stronger in the Labour Party and the working class much more powerful in society. The BEST! And you're using as an argument for joining and supporting the labour party now!

Invest a decade in campaigning, you might be able to slightly irritate the labour leadership!


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You ignorant cunt.


 the fact that you only knew of one is a mark of _my_ ignorance?  (Paul Ricoeur writes explicitly of Oedipus being in the blind seer tradition btw).


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> Invest a decade in campaigning, you might be able to slightly irritate the labour leadership!


 
what ought the left to have done in 70-81 oh wise ones?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> the fact that you only knew of one is a mark of _my_ ignorance? (Paul Ricoeur writes explicitly of Oedipus being in the blind seer tradition btw).


Well yeah.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> what ought the left to have done in 70-81 oh wise ones?


_Vote and join labour - we're shit._


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> what ought the left to have done in 70-81 oh wise ones?


What's got to do with anything? That their efforts were ultimately utterly fruitless is incontestable, that combined with immeasurably more favourable conditions should be sufficient to tell you that repeating their attempt is pointless.

I don't need to give you an alternative to tell you stop banging your own head on the table.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> _Vote and join labour - we're shit._


 
what was your recipe for the left to sweep to power in the 70s then?


----------



## belboid (Mar 31, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Labour have been spinning it as the electorate in Bradford West giving them "a bloody nose for taking our eyes off the ball" since the result came in, and the Tories and Lib-Dems aren't bothered one way or another in terms of the actual result, because it wasn't exactly a marginal. Whether it indicates anything as far as Lib-Dem chances in Sheffield are concerned remains to be seen.


It was on the tory marginals list for 2010, they weren't far behind from 2005 - dont forget Marsha Singh actually increased his majority. They thought they had chance (a vague chance) of actually winning it. Both of them are delighted GG won, as it takes the spotlight of their performances, which was also dire.

I did just bump into an old comrade, leafletting for TUSC here, who said he thought it opened up real possibilties for the left, and that the candidate might actually win.

I was polite in my disbelief...



articul8 said:


> Oedipus at Colonnus was a blind seer like Tiresias by the end. You are being perversely literal and pedantic.


Blind, but not a seer. He was heroised precisely because he stopped _opposing_ the seers, not because he became one.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> immeasurably more favourable conditions


In some ways, in others not so. But you could you take that approach with a strategy like building a left electoral alternative to Labour - if the ILP couldn't do it in 31, and it couldn't be done at the height of Blair's unpopularity, why now when Labour will still inherit a large chunk of the anti-coalition vote?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

belboid said:


> Blind, but not a seer. He was heroised precisely because he stopped _opposing_ the seers, not because he became one.


Critics like Ricoeur see him very much as a blind seer in the end, referring to him in explicitly these terms.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> what was your recipe for the left to sweep to power in the 70s then?


Yes, opposing labour means sweeping to power. In the 70s.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Critics like Ricoeur see him very much as a blind seer in the end, referring to him in explicitly these terms.


Is this your only book? Have you a brain to argue the point? Like Ricoeur says about something else entirely.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

General point: why do you think you're such a figure of fun articul8?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

because you're like idiot children who laugh to themselves all day long - and make about as much sense?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> because you're like idiot children who laugh to themselves all day long - and make about as much sense?


 
It is quite funny watching you badly defend a position you don't even believe in.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> because you're like idiot children who laugh to themselves all day long - and make about as much sense?


_Vote labour you idiots_


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It is quite funny watching you badly defend a position you don't even believe in.


I suppose I'm too honest for my own good. I don't think some people on here would accept anything I (or anyone else) could possibly say in defence of socialist involvement in the Labour party. Insofar as it is pointless and self-defeating, I don't see how it is any more pointless or self-defeating than any other form of involvement in the left. And it least it raises the idea that an alternative is possible, and that we should demand that we are represented by people who fight for our interests.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

You are, you're too good for us.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

A martyr, a warrior, a seer _and_ a saint. What a weekend.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> In some ways, in others not so. But you could you take that approach with a strategy like building a left electoral alternative to Labour - if the ILP couldn't do it in 31, and it couldn't be done at the height of Blair's unpopularity, why now when Labour will still inherit a large chunk of the anti-coalition vote?


Except I've never argued that the answer is left electoral alternative to Labour. Like I said. I'm telling you to stop banging your head on the table. What you do when you stop is no business of mine.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It is quite funny watching you badly defend a position you don't even believe in.


Maybe you're right here.  I don't believe Labour can be reclaimed for socialism, I believe that a new party or alignment of forces is necessary.  But I don't see how you can magic that it up from where we are.  So given people will look to Labour, however unwillingly, as the only default alternative to the coalition, then we might as well push it as far as it can be pushed (which might not be all that far, but who knows).


----------



## Belushi (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I suppose I'm too honest for my own good. I don't think some people on here would accept anything I (or anyone else) could possibly say in defence of socialist involvement in the Labour party. Insofar as it is pointless and self-defeating, I don't see how it is any more pointless or self-defeating than any other form of involvement in the left. And it least it raises the idea that an alternative is possible, and that we should demand that we are represented by people who fight for our interests.


 
I actually considered rejoining Labour following the defeat last year and getting involved with the LRC, but each time I read one of your posts I remember why I left in the first place.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> And it least it raises the idea that an alternative is possible, and that we should demand that we are represented by people who fight for our interests.


 
No more than any other form of political activity, and quite possibly less.

No the fact is you have correctly identified a possible career path that depending on where you end up requires at the very least membership of Labour (just like that very public sociaologist bloke) and you feel the need to defend it as a radical political move - I don't think you're doing anything wrong in taking that career (it's a personal choice, any hope of radical social change is off the table at the moment) - I just don't think you should waste your time creating a fantasy socialist project for shifting Labour to the left to justify it.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

Best way to do that is make sure the labour component dominates. Twat.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You are, you're too good for us.


I didn't say I was too good for you, I said I was too honest from my own good.  Poor sinner I might be in other respects


----------



## JimW (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I suppose I'm too honest for my own good.


 Come down off the cross, we need the wood.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

Belushi said:


> I actually thought of re-joining Labour following the defeat last year and getting involved with the LRC, but each time I read one of your posts I remember why I left in the first place.


Read it an fuckng weep articul8  - you have no idea how you look. Old-school labour will spit on you.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I didn't say I was too good for you, I said I was too honest from my own good. Poor sinner I might be in other respects


You mean that you're a self-obsesseed prick?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

JimW said:


> Come down off the cross, we need the wood.


Burn them up there. He wants to be a saint.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

didn't do Galloway's prospects any harm


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Read it an fuckng weep articul8 - you have no idea how you look. Old-school labour will spit on you.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

Yes. Your political radar as ever on the ball. Who pays this week?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 31, 2012)

The trick as I see it is to be in the Labour party but not pretend you can justify your choice. We all do things we're not proud of in life!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 31, 2012)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The trick as I see it is to be in the Labour party but not pretend you can justify your choice. We all do things we're not proud of in life!


 
Exactly it's no different to working for some big City finance company setting up their systems, or serving fries in Maccy Ds.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

That's exactly what this prick is failing to do. Nice to see you again - enjoying having a fascist as a manager?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That's exactly what this prick is failing to do. Nice to see you again - enjoying having a fascist as a manager?


 
It's ok his missus is a Tory and he drinks with a skateboarding NFer in his local pub


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 31, 2012)

Lol. My NFer has been moved to another part of town unfortunately. Who is the fascist manager, is that the edl City fella story?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

Di Canio ffs


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 31, 2012)

Oh sorry watching the rugby so on wrong wavelength for that question. Well I guess the question is how long can the team survive without GMB sponsorship!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

Forever


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 31, 2012)

I did of course practice revolutionary defeatism against Chesterfield.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 31, 2012)

So what's the consensus on GG here? Huge 2 fingers to the pro war pro austerity centre or a 'demographic' blip?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 31, 2012)

bolshiebhoy said:


> So what's the consensus on GG here? Huge 2 fingers to the pro war pro austerity centre or a 'demographic' blip?


 
Divisive demographic blip...


----------



## extra dry (Mar 31, 2012)

What is Respect stance on the coup in Africa?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

extra dry said:


> What is Respect stance on the coup in Africa?


Big yeah


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 31, 2012)

Thought it was interesting Tariq Ali went out of his way in the Guardian to celebrate the result. I'm inclined to agree with him and not the 'sectarian islamophobes' (copyright SWP)


----------



## audiotech (Mar 31, 2012)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Thought it was interesting Tariq Ali went out of his way in the Guardian to celebrate the result. I'm inclined to agree with him and not the 'sectarian islamophobes' (copyright SWP)


 
Tariq Ali told people to cast their votes for the Lib-Dems at the last election.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 31, 2012)

Wasn't that 2005?


----------



## extra dry (Mar 31, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep, I agree. I don't doubt that local issues were crucial to his winning, but he is a credible anti-labour candidate because he opposed labour's wars.


Will Britain need a war PM in the near future?


----------



## extra dry (Mar 31, 2012)

We as a nation should record this result in the cloud information for no one in five years time will remember this...well most of us


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 31, 2012)

extra dry said:


> Will Britain need a war PM in the near future?


Support for the wars of the last decade or so says a lot about who a person is and the agenda and interests they serve. Britain needs a PM who does not serve that agenda or those interests.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> because you're like idiot children who laugh to themselves all day long - and make about as much sense?


 
Ah, the prophet who is without honour in his own land, as opposed to merely a prophet without honour.


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> The 74 manifesto was the most radical (with possible exception of 45) that Labour has ever fought an election on.
> 
> OK, they weren't able to hold them to implementing it - that is unarguable. And Benn failed by telling the left he was making his case privately around the cabinet table [which to be fair he was] rather than mobilising for democratic reforms to the party when in government. But you can imagine the pressure ("you're recking a Labour government and helping the Tories to gain power"), so he waited till after the election and the right discredited itself. Not that they cared, they fucked off and formed the SDP and helped Thatcher stay in for 18 years.


 
Whether the  '74 Manifesto was the most "radical" since 1945 I dunno, but it got Labour back in - on a wave of HUGE working class unrest/strike action, defeat of the Heath government by the miners, the revolutionery Left was on an unprecedented upward roll (the IS had about 80 FACTORY branches by 74 !). Labour gets in in 1974 -- COMPLETELY demobilizes the struggle via the "Social Contract" garbage , and  lots of Downing street cuddly deals with the TU leadership. The wave of late 60's and early 70's militancy is "contained" - the wave ebbs -- trade union militancy, and the growing strength of the Far Left falls away rapidly...... hey presto... Labour has done its traditional  job for the bosses. In a few years Thatcher will get  in and the stage is set , here, and in the USA , for the biggest transfer of income from poor to rich since Victorian Times.    Face it ... Labour is an ENEMY of the working class ... working to "turn it Left".. is a sick joke. ALL that the Left winger working in it does is , EITHER , demoralise himself/herself, OR, more usually, set himself/herself up for a later sell out and move to the right, and a career as yet another Labourite Council or Parliamentary shitbag. Where are you so far in this process, articul8 ?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

mostly demoralised, but hoping against better judgement


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2012)

Interesting report from young Labour volunteer:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/sean-dolat/bradford-west-a-view-from-the-ground/10150635414247016

esp


> Galloway constantly promoted himself as the ‘Real’ Labour candidate, I think this helped people change sides with greater ease. His election speech was also about cementing that switching of sides. The speech was bizarre in a way, it was full of praise of the Labour party and it’s traditions and how he craves the old party back, he even said on Sky that he wants to see a Labour government in 2015![/quote}


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2012)

Yet more evidence that _joining labour because its shit_ is the future!


----------



## 8115 (Mar 31, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Divisive demographic blip...


 
Also exploited by very effective campaigning by Respect in Bradford by what I read in the Times today (not the most unbiased source but it rang fairly true).  Which is fine, and if Galloway/ Respect want to show how a more left wing MP can be effective locally and in parliament, well all good to them.  Time will tell if he is interested in really changing things.


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 31, 2012)

Time will tell if he is interested in really changing things.

Come ON 8115... I LOVE this election result too...to pieces... but we've ALL gotta remember that "Gorgeous George Galloway" is himself, always was, always will be... an opportunist snakeoil salesman/Elmar Gantry evangelist, with an ego bigger than the universe, and a desire ONLY to continue to ride his lifelong wave of personal prosperity on the back of pseudo radicalism and fooling the Muslim community that he's their "special pal". Just don't actually BELIEVE in the bastard... let's just hope what he's done is a crack in the Labour Party hegemony over the working class voter.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 31, 2012)

Galloway's victory in Bradford is little different to Griffen's and Brons' in the last Euros; both he and they exploited dissatisfaction with the status quo, and the establishments tweedle dum/ tweedledee political nonchoice, and both he, and they, were able to corner the communal frustrations of the majority ethnic/religious group.
 to see this as a break with labour is correct, but to see this as a break to the left is lunatic.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 31, 2012)

it's a lot different to the BNP given that the BNP only got seats due to the party list / PR type system, where as Galloway won an outright majority.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 31, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> <snip> but to see this as a break to the left is lunatic.


 Why?

The issues GG was campaigning on were predominantly left issues (as far as I can tell)

So I think that remark needs further explanation.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 31, 2012)




----------



## barney_pig (Mar 31, 2012)




----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 31, 2012)

Still not clear. Yes we know GG is a dick, but he seems to have run against Labour on what are predominantly left issues in Bradford.

So I still don't get how it's 'lunatic' to see the result as a 'break to the left' unless you think that means something very different to an indication of 'significant support for left policy positions' by the people who elected him.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 31, 2012)

teetotalism is a left wing issue?
 who is a real muslim is a left wing issue?
Galloway is the paid propagandist of the Iranian Government who denies the butchering of thousands of workers and alibis the mass murdering dictators of the near and far east, and this is a victory for the left?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 31, 2012)

It was Labour who ran a muslim candidate.

Galloway was clearly positioning himself well to the left of labour on policy issues.

I have yet to see evidence that his stance on Sky-Pixies or his penchant for sucking the dicks of dodgy Arab leaders was noticeably more electorally significant than his stance on (say) NHS privatisation.

I haven't seen as much evidence one way or the other as I'd like though, so if you have anything pertinent, then I'd be interested to see it.


----------



## 8115 (Mar 31, 2012)

.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 31, 2012)

JHE said:


>


campaigning on a left wing platform


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 31, 2012)

Sure, we know he was running in a community that's 38% muslim, against a muslim and hence had to make a show of respect for muslim views on sky-pixies. Hardly a surprise.

What you need to show though, in order for your argument to hold water, is that the deciding issues weren't primarily left issues (e.g. opposition to the cuts etc) but were rather, sky-pixie issues or whatever else it is you're trying to imply that they were.


----------



## treelover (Apr 1, 2012)

Careful Barney you are in danger of being accused of racism by some on here, or at least the dreaded 'islamophobe'


----------



## DexterTCN (Apr 1, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> campaigning on a left wing platform


barney...which part of that leaflet is inaccurate?   There's nothing wrong with a politician of any ilk releasing their version of reality to the voters they're looking to for votes.   There's nothing in that leaflet that is left or right wing apart from being against the war...in which he was correct...and left wing.


----------



## treelover (Apr 1, 2012)

Apparently G/G's latest tweet has confused Bradford with Blackburn!


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Apr 1, 2012)

Congratulations George Galloway and RESPECT, and well done people of Bradford West!


----------



## DexterTCN (Apr 1, 2012)

That was silly.


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 1, 2012)

treelover said:


> Careful Barney you are in danger of being accused of racism by some on here, or at least the dreaded 'islamophobe'





> Dear Mr. Pitt,
> 
> 
> Your web site Islamophobiawatch has come to our attention.
> ...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2012)

Still not seeing a coherent argument here.

I'd be extremely surprised if anyone here is unaware of Galloway's character and history, at least in outline. I'd also be very surprised if many people here have much enthusiasm for religious delusions of whatever flavour.

The question of whether Bradford West represents any sort of swing to the left, however conditional, is an interesting and I think important one though. If it does represent anything remotely like a 37% swing to the left of Labour, that's definitely not a trivial outcome.

The crucial point being, _how much of this is reproducible_ without either Galloway or a constituency that's 38% muslim?

So all this banging on about how Islamic Galloway sounds or which dodgy Middle East leaders' dicks he's sucked is, to my mind, begging the question unless you can _first_ make the case that Bradford was won primarily by kow-towing to Islamists (or whatever it is that you're trying to argue) and that any of the obviously left-of-Labour stuff that GG appeared to be campaigning on didn't matter; or at least was so insignificant in comparison to, say, GG's claim to be teetotal, that we can't legitimately infer anything from it about what might happen elsewhere.

So if you want to argue that this means nothing for the left, let's see something a bit better than all this MEMRI-style "Galloway is a paid Iranian agent" shit. What's next? Mulsamic Rayguns?


----------



## co-op (Apr 1, 2012)

> whatever other mumbo- jumbo bullshit that the black crows of the Priestocracy try to foist upon us


 
TBF there aren't priests in Islam (sunni at least, obvs I'm ignoring the shi-ite heretics, *spits*).

Just God and the believers. It's radical protestantism really.

Ma'salaama.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2012)

Well worth a read.

Bradford West: A view from the ground


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2012)

That's the same piece I've already linked to?  Yep, there's a deeply ingrained complacency at local government level in lots of Labour areas and putting an electoral bomb under them can only be a good thing.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Well worth a read.
> 
> Bradford West: A view from the ground


 
Thanks for that. We need more stuff like this.

Spin ('nothing wrong with Ed') apart, that strikes me as having some good insights.

It tends to support a hypothesis along the lines that: "young and disenfranchised" was probably a lot more significant than "pakistani and muslim" in producing this result.

It also suggests that Labour gave them an open goal by assuming that the result was a shoo-in for a young scion of the local old-boys network and treating it as a national campaigning opportunity. While Galloway convincingly pretended to care about local issues.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> It tends to support a hypothesis along the lines that: "young and disenfranchised" was probably a lot more significant than "pakistani and muslim" in producing this result.


You can't separate these two factors out so easily - it was part of Gallowar's back history of speaking out against the war etc (eg. US Senate hearing footage) - speaking truth and shattering cosy political consensus) that meant that muslim youth in particular would give him a hearing.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2012)

articul8 said:


> You can't separate these two factors out so easily - it was part of Gallowar's back history of speaking out against the war etc (eg. US Senate hearing footage) - speaking truth and shattering cosy political consensus) that meant that muslim youth in particular would give him a hearing.


 
Sure. I guess I was overstating my point a bit, but the "young and disenfranchised" aspect (along with the local issue stuff) does seem to have been far more important than, let's say most of the political class have been giving credit for.

I think it's very convenient for them to try to suggest that this is _all about_ Galloway sucking up to muslims and nothing at all do do with the failure of the neo-liberal parties to offer anything that young working class people in Bradford might give a shit about.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2012)

Yes, fair enough - but at the same time it doesn't follow that each and every candidate who attacks the main parties will get themselves a hearing.   Has Galloway said he'll contest Bradford West at the GE?  He'll find it harder to get re-elected


----------



## ayatollah (Apr 1, 2012)

If Labour have any electoral sense (and they DO seem pretty switched on  on that front at least), they will be SHITTING themselves about this result. They spend YEARS sucking up to the local Muslim bigwigs who count for so much in the traditional Muslim community in terms of delivering the vote, and arch poseur , George Galloway, cruises in, no previous organisation, and with a bit of Left rhetoric against the cuts and Labour uselessness, sucking up to "Muslim values", and his usual rhetoric on Iraq/Afghanistan (but presumeably nowt on his great pal Bashar Asaad), and bugger me, he landslides it !

Chillingly , one could easily imagine some similar "protest vote"  upset in another Labour safe seat - with a big WHITE working class majority, going to the BNP, in the current turmoil of UK politics !

(Something that ALWAYS amazes me when I see Galloway doing his almost "pidgeon English" patronising "me love Allah" ... "the Prophet be praised" stuff in meetings with Muslim communities, is that the locals can't SEE what an insincere twat he is -- a bit like the colonial era British nabob doing a bit of networking with the "natives"... "me Great White Chief... you lovely loyal chappies.. Allah be praised !")


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2012)

I don't think I could imagine the BNP mobilising large numbers of disenfranchised youth, including (as I understand it) lots of students, to campaign for them enthusiastically, which seems to have been the case and to have been a significant factor in Bradford.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 1, 2012)

treelover said:


> Careful Barney you are in danger of being accused of racism by some on here, or at least the dreaded 'islamophobe'


 
Do fuck off, you shit-stirrer.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 1, 2012)

Galloway must have attracted a sizeable percentage of the non-muslim vote to win by such a huge margin - over 50% of  the vote on a pretty reasonalbe turnout.
And he will not have got all of the muslim vote eithers- a sizeable chunk of that would surely have gone to labour local mulsim candidate. 
Unless we belive those non-muslims were attracted by his saddam bothering or big brother performances we can only assume they voted for him on the basis of his key campaign messages - uncompromising opposition to austerity and war. A position that puts him well to the left of the labour party.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 1, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> If Labour have any electoral sense (and they DO seem pretty switched on on that front at least),


what gives you that impression ayatollah?


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 1, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Galloway must have attracted a sizeable percentage of the non-muslim vote to win by such a huge margin - over 50% of the vote on a pretty reasonalbe turnout.
> And he will not have got all of the muslim vote eithers- a sizeable chunk of that would surely have gone to labour local mulsim candidate.
> Unless we belive those non-muslims were attracted by his saddam bothering or big brother performances we can only assume they voted for him on the basis of his key campaign messages - uncompromising opposition to austerity and war. A position that puts him well to the left of the labour party.


 
I'm sure that a lot of Tories and of the few Lib-Dem voters will have voted for Galloway to hurt Labour.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 1, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I'm sure that a lot of Tories and of the few Lib-Dem voters will have voted for Galloway to hurt Labour.


 
I'm sure they didn't.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I'm sure that a lot of Tories and of the few Lib-Dem voters will have voted for Galloway to hurt Labour.


 
That's an incredibly bizarre suggestion and if a few did as the result of head injuries or getting their prescriptions mixed up, their impact is going to be on a par with voting Monster Raving Loony.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 1, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> That's an incredibly bizarre suggestion and if a few did as the result of head injuries or getting their precriptions mixed up, their impact is going to be on a par with voting Monster Raving Loony.


 
It actually what one of the Tory spin doctors said, so I don't think it's so bizzare.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 1, 2012)

Yeah a tory voter would sooner give billy bragg a handjob than protest vote for Galloway

UKIP is the protest vote for Tories usually. Dunno if they bothered to run anyone in this race


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 1, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Yeah a tory voter would sooner give billy bragg a handjob that protest vote for Galloway
> 
> UKIP is the protest vote for Tories usually. Dunno if they bothered to run anyone in this race


 
When it became obvious that Galloway was in with a chance of winning a vote for UKIP would have been truly wasted from a Tory point of view.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> It actually what one of the Tory spin doctors said, so I don't think it's so bizzare.


I don't think it's likely to have been a major factor, but I don't think it's bizarre - esp given Galloway's appeal to religious values, not drinking etc. which would have gone down well with small-c conservative elements in the mosques some of whom might have previously voted Tory?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Yeah a tory voter would sooner give billy bragg a handjob than protest vote for Galloway
> 
> UKIP is the protest vote for Tories usually. Dunno if they bothered to run anyone in this race


 
Between them the BNP and UKIP got 5-6% in 2010 and the tories 31%. So say 36% to irredeemable right-wing shitheads in total.

Respect were on 3% and Labour on 45% last time around.

This time around Respect got 55%, Labour 25%, Tories 8% and the UKIP 3%, up one point on 2010, but with the BNP (who got 3% in 2010) not running at all.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> It actually what one of the Tory spin doctors said, so I don't think it's so bizzare.


 
Well, if it's a Tory spin doctor, he probably couldn't find Bradford on a map or understand a word that anyone from Bradford might have to say.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 1, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Well, if it's a Tory spin doctor, he probably couldn't find Bradford on a map or understand a word that anyone from Bradford might have to say.


 
I believe he was actually an MP from a nearby constituency, so your attempt at dismissal might have been better directed at Galloway who apparently thinks he's won a seat in Blackburn.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 1, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I don't think it's likely to have been a major factor, but I don't think it's bizarre - esp given Galloway's appeal to religious values, not drinking etc. which would have gone down well with small-c conservative elements in the mosques some of whom might have previously voted Tory?


 
I don't think any Tories voted for Galloway because they like him. Spreading egg all over Milliband's face would have been the motive.


----------



## belboid (Apr 1, 2012)

that'd be the tories who thought they could win the seat. the tories who hate galloway even more than labour.  doesnt really seem that likely to have occured on anything other than an insignificant level


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 1, 2012)

Fucking desperate attempts to avoid the obvious conclusion that lots of people, including many non-muslims - voted for galloway because they agreed with what he was saying.

The asumption that this must be becasue its lib dems and tories voting for Galloway - who they would absolutely hate as their MP - to stop labour winning the seat is utterly bizzarre. Its based on no evidence whatsoever and has absoultey no parrallel in the history of how people vote.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 1, 2012)

belboid said:


> that'd be the tories who thought they could win the seat.


 
I've very little respect for the thinking capabilities of the Tories, but thinking they could win the seat? We're talking about West Bradford here, a seat that has been with Labour since the seventies.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 1, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Its based on no evidence whatsoever and has absoultey no parrallel in the history of how people vote.


 
I find that a bizarre thing to say.


----------



## Fedayn (Apr 1, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> It actually what one of the Tory spin doctors said, so I don't think it's so bizzare.


 
Because it's said by a Tory to excuse their massive % drop in votes does it make it any more believable?


----------



## belboid (Apr 1, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I've very little respect for the thinking capabilities of the Tories, but thinking they could win the seat? We're talking about West Bradford here, a seat that has been with Labour since the seventies.


on their list of possible on 2010, Singhs majority was only a couple of thou in 2005.  With GG standing they thought he'd take enough votes from labour to let them slip thru the middle.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 1, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Because it's said by a Tory to excuse their massive % drop in votes does it make it any more believable?


 
Perhaps it is the explanation for that drop in their vote. Just because a Tory says something it's not automatically wrong, however much certain people might want that to be so.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 1, 2012)

belboid said:


> on their list of possible on 2010, Singhs majority was only a couple of thou in 2005. With GG standing they thought he'd take enough votes from labour to let them slip thru the middle.


 
That's not what the pundits were saying before polling day.


----------



## Fedayn (Apr 1, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Perhaps it is the explanation for that drop in their vote. Just because a Tory says something it's not automatically wrong, however much certain people might want that to be so.


 
Nor is it immune from criticism and questioning no matter how much you don't think it should be. Where is the evidence for this claim? Where is any precedent for such a voting swicth? Why are you so uncritically repeating it as true? Simply saying it was the comments by a Tory PR man doesn't make it true.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 1, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I find that a bizarre thing to say.


 
Ok - your only 'evidence' for tories and lib dems voting for galloway to get at labour is based on what a tory spindoctor says.
Ergo - your argument is pretty unconvincing to say the least.
Its would also be completely out of the ordinary in terms of people's voting behaviour. Thats why I called it bizzarre.
Give me one single example of something similar ever happening beofre - i.e. significent numbers of labour voters voting UKIP to get at the tories.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 1, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Ok - your only 'evidence' for tories and lib dems voting for galloway to get at labour is based on what a tory spindoctor says.
> Ergo - your argument is pretty unconvincing to say the least.
> Its would also be completely out of the ordinary in terms of people's voting behaviour. Thats why I called it bizzarre.
> Give me one single example of something similar ever happening beofre - i.e. significent numbers of labour voters voting UKIP to get at the tories.


 
I have no evidence and offered none. Neither did I suggest that it was in any way a deciding factor. But, if I was a gambling man, I'd bet that Galloway will not win the seat at the next election with over 50% of the vote.


----------



## JHE (Apr 1, 2012)

I doubt many Tories or Lib Dems voted for Galloway, though I'd want to know more about the votes in the posher wards before forming a definite opinion.



Kaka Tim said:


> Fucking desperate attempts to avoid the obvious conclusion that lots of people, including many non-muslims - *voted for galloway because they agreed with what he was saying*.


 
There is at least one very emotive issue on which many people of all parties and none agree with GGG.  He calls very loudly for the troops to be brought home and points out that British soldiers are dying for nothing, that their deaths are pointless and he says the government is to blame for this grisly useless sacrifice of young men.  This is true and people know it's true.

On Urban75 there may be people who like to kid themselves that opposition to a hopeless and bloody military campaign in Afghanistan is left-wing, but it's not particularly left-wing or right-wing.  There are people on the right who agree (though they may be underrepresented among Tory MPs, who think it would be disloyal to talk sense) and there are also plenty of people, not least Lib Dems, who consider themselves in the centre of politics who also agree.  If you disbelieve me, get out and talk to more people.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2012)

Fair point.

GG was clearly aiming to position himself as a left alternative to Labour though. At least on the basis of the information I've seen.

So while there may be other questions that are arguably neutral from a left/right point of view and which were factors in Bradford, on issues where there is a clear left-right spectrum, I believe it would be correct to say that GG was positioned well to the left of Labour.


----------



## two sheds (Apr 1, 2012)

JHE said:


> On Urban75 there may be people who like to kid themselves that opposition to a hopeless and bloody military campaign in Afghanistan is left-wing, but it's not particularly left-wing or right-wing.


 
That'll be why that well known left-wing government in the US is so overwhelmingly in favour of the war. I'd puzzled over that.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2012)

For what its worth though, it appears that he was also (almost certainly falsely given his track record) claiming that if elected he'd actively address a variety of local issues that the local Labour old-boy network had failed to convince their constituents that they gave a shit about.

Some of those local issues will have a left-right dimension (austerity vs effective public services) and some potentially won't (e.g. whether the candidate is teetotal)

I'd be surprised if anyone could find such a local issue where there is clearly a left-right dimension, on which GG wasn't well to the left of the Labour party though.

Very surprised.


----------



## ayatollah (Apr 1, 2012)

ska invita said:


> what gives you that impression ayatollah?


 
Its NOT a compliment to Labour I assure you... but they do appear to be constantly "focus grouping"  the MIDDLE CLASS SWING VOTERS MAINLY, in relation to their policies , and adjusting accordingly, as any totally cynical bourgeois political party does. The Galloway win has probably told them graphically that their  political elite arrogance in assuming that the working class vote is "forever in the Labour bag, whatever they do" can't be taken for granted. It will be interesting to see if NULabour "adjusts" the rhetoric to the "Left" a wee bit in the coming months as a sop to this vital "voting  cohort".


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 1, 2012)

two sheds said:


> That'll be why that well known left-wing government in the US is so overwhelmingly in favour of the war. I'd puzzled over that.


 
While I agree with JHE that being anti-war is not the preserve of the left, in what way is the current US government left wing?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 1, 2012)

Leaflets put out by all the parties in the election are here:
http://www.electionleaflets.org/constituencies/bradford_west/

Galloway's are clearly a radical/socialist programme - pulling the troops out of Agfhanistan is only one out of half a dozen issues: opposition to tuition fees and restoration of the EMA (Bradford has the highest and fastest growing proportion of Under 25s of any local authority in the country IIRC), defence of NHS, opposition to public spending cuts, investment and jobs locally, etc.

Comedy award goes to the Raving Monster LibDem Party candidate ('It's a two horse race', 'Only the LibDems can defeat Labour', 'The Tories, UKIP and other parties aren't in the race'... etc - they lost their deposit!!).

There are six wards in the constituency each with three councillors - three are all Labour, two are split 1 Con, 2 Lab, and one is entirely Tory.  It is mathematically impossible to win 56% across the constituency without substantial votes in the three wards with Tory councillors.  There is no evidence of those who usually voted Tory switching to Respect to keep Labour out.  However clearly a significant number of those who voted for other parties voted for Galloway, however there is also the phenomenon of those who did not vote at all in prior elections turning out.  The Tory candidate clearly believed right up to the vote that Galloway's candidature would help her by splitting the Labour vote - Cameron actually visited the constituency, traditionally prime ministers have stayed away from by-elections for fear of the vote being turned into a protest vote on the government.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2012)

Fisher_Gate said:


> It is mathematically impossible to win 56% across the constituency without substantial votes in the three wards with Tory councillors. There is no evidence of those who usually voted Tory switching to Respect to keep Labour out.


But it wouldn't be totally illogical to believe that if Respect had done well in areas with Tory councillors then it's possible that a percentage of previously Tory voters switched tactically to the best placed candidate to defeat Labour?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2012)

articul8 said:


> But it wouldn't be totally illogical to believe that if Respect had done well in areas with Tory councillors then it's possible that a percentage of previously Tory voters switched tactically to the best placed candidate to defeat Labour?


Another pile of fucking pony from you. Just because somewhere's a tory councillor you automatically assume a lot of things about the area which may not stand up to scrutiny. For example, the cllr may have fuck all majority.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 1, 2012)

articul8 said:


> But it wouldn't be totally illogical to believe that if Respect had done well in areas with Tory councillors then it's possible that a percentage of previously Tory voters switched tactically to the best placed candidate to defeat Labour?


 
It's more plausible that people in those wards who didn't vote in previous elections because there was no-one worth voting for came out in large numbers to vote for Galloway (council elections tend to have a 30-40% turnout compared to 51% in the by election).  Given the demographics of Bradford specifically and of voting more generally, these would mostly be young voters 18-24.   Hopefully someone will collate the ward level turnouts and we can see.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 1, 2012)

It is worth pointing out that of the six by-elections in Labour held seats since the General Election, Bradford West had the highest turnout by quite a bit compared to the run of the mill ones - in the most recent one of Feltham and Heston turnout sank to 28.8%, while in Barnsley Central it was 36.5%. Even in the 'controversial' one in Oldham East & Saddleworth caused by scum Woolas' disqualification after an electoral court action taken by an opposing party, it was still only 48% and the Labour vote increased massively.


----------



## two sheds (Apr 1, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> While I agree with JHE that being anti-war is not the preserve of the left, in what way is the current US government left wing?


 
Sorry, it was a palindrome  . 

I must admit I hadn't really thought about it but whether someone still supports the war presumably depends on the reasons they thought it was being waged in the first place.

Left wingers I'd have thought would tend to see the war as the US wanting to promote their foreign interests, so would be against and still be against.

Right wingers would presumably believe it was to fight al-Qaeda, so they would tend to believe that was still necessary. I suppose a lot would feel that we should pull out for financial reasons, though.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2012)

two sheds said:


> Sorry, it was a palindrome  .
> 
> I must admit I hadn't really thought about it but whether someone still supports the war presumably depends on the reasons they thought it was being waged in the first place.
> 
> ...


 
Without wishing to derail, it appeared to me that most of the senior UK military were opposed to the war when it was first proposed to them. I'm pretty sure most of them also profile 'right-wing' politically.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 1, 2012)

Whatever one thinks about Galloway, most people who have seen or met her believe that Salma Yaqoob is a person of integrity and honesty.  She was born in Bradford and was heavily involved in the campaign.  During polling day she tweeted that her relatives in Bradford had been approached by the Labour Party and told that they had to vote for the Labour candidate because he was a muslim.  Does anyone seriously believe that she is lying and made this up?


----------



## treelover (Apr 1, 2012)

Any news on the pro NHS Doctors standing against the Condems?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2012)

treelover said:


> Any news on the pro NHS Doctors standing against the Condems?


 
In Bradford?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Another pile of fucking pony from you. Just because somewhere's a tory councillor you automatically assume a lot of things about the area which may not stand up to scrutiny. For example, the cllr may have fuck all majority.


They'd still have had a proven ability to win a plurality of votes in the previous contest, and therefore *unless as F-G says there was a very different pattern of who was turning out (which is possible but certainly bucks recent electoral trends) , then it is probable that at least some of these voters switched allegiance.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2012)

articul8 said:


> They'd still have had a proven ability to win a plurality of votes in the previous contest, and therefore *unless as F-G says there was a very different pattern of who was turning out (which is possible but certainly bucks recent electoral trends) , then it is probable that at least some of these voters switched allegiance.


And I suppose you've explored turnout in the last local elections in bradford to support your reasoning


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 1, 2012)

articul8 said:


> But it wouldn't be totally illogical to believe that if Respect had done well in areas with Tory councillors then it's possible that a percentage of previously Tory voters switched tactically to the best placed candidate to defeat Labour?


 

egyptian riverdance


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2012)

The anecdotal stuff in that Labour activist article linked earlier and other stuff I've seen, tends to suggest that what happened was largely the mobilisation of disenfranchised 18-25 voters who don't think the neo-liberal parties have anything to offer them.

Which I think is pretty much what Fishergate is suggesting above.

It would be *very* interesting to know if this is true and if so, what mobilised them.

I'd hazard a small wager that it wasn't GG claiming to be tee-total.


----------



## DexterTCN (Apr 1, 2012)

Tories voting for gg tactically seems highly unlikely.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 1, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> The anecdotal stuff in that Labour activist article linked earlier and other stuff I've seen, tends to suggest that what happened was largely the mobilisation of disenfranchised 18-25 voters who don't think the neo-liberal parties have anything to offer them.
> 
> Which I think is pretty much what Fishergate is suggesting above.
> 
> ...


 

See that would be interesting. Th libdems got that section of the electorate in the general because nick was doing a 'hey, new politics' thing. Since jumping into bed with the tories and serving up their (often first time) voter share the first taste of 'yeh we lied' they have lost that section of young, looking for alternative to the big 3 (well soon to be two LOL).

it will be interesting to see how things swing next locals, not so much that the yellow scum will be wiped out and we will all have a good chuckle, but where the vote they had goes.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 1, 2012)

treelover said:


> Any news on the pro NHS Doctors standing against the Condems?



I have my suspicions that a certain GP and current Green Party councillor will be one of those in our fine city. I really hope not because she makes the politics of most SWP student members look sensible and sane. Emasculate capitalism etc.


----------



## JHE (Apr 1, 2012)

Two things about GGG's stuff about never drinking:

a) It formed just part of his usual tactic/habit - used in London as well as Bradford - of dropping very strong hints that he's Muslim without ever quite asserting it

b) In this particular campaign, it was used because of the tittle-tattle about Imran Hussain. This is clear from the letter (and from at least one of GGG's speeches and from MPAC)

Today I have seen a couple of vids, one of a GGG speech at an Al-Respeq rally and one of a speech by Imran Hussain at a Labour campaign meeting.

GGG's speech was complete with all his usual Islamic greetings, references to God, religious faith and (a new one on me) the use the Arabic word 'haq' (truth) instead of the English word. It went down a bomb with his large audience. He was absolutely scathing about Hussain and it was clear that the audience had zero respect for the Labour candidate. The audience and GGG had contempt for Hussain. Jibes about his alleged drinking were part of that. Another thing that was jeered at was Hussain's ability at speech-making and debate. In GGG's assessment Hussain can barely string two sentences together. This derision had the crowd in stiches. Having seen the vid of Hussain, I have to say GGG is not far wrong about Hussain's speech-making ability. It's surprisingly crap for a barrister.

The other key point in GGG's attack on Hussain was different: it was political. According to GGG, Hussain had said in a debate that he "supports the mission in Afghanistan". It is unlikely that GGG would lie about that so publicly during an election campaign, so I'm inclined to believe he did say that.

Hussain's speech made me cringe. Insofar as it had any content, it was about his being a local Pakistani lad made good and the government being full of millionaires - but that's being quite kind about it. Hussain came across really badly. His manner was angry and shouty, but the content was barely political.

Having seen those vids, I reckon:

1. GGG was particularly lucky in his Labour opponent. Perhaps his campaign would have given him a chance against a better candidate (he beat Oona King who is a lot more impressive than poor Imran Hussain), but I think his landslide owes a lot to a crap Labour candidate.

2. Imran Hussain was particularly unlucky in getting the GGG as an opponent. Given the Labour voting traditions of the constituency, without the GGG campaign, Imran Hussain would probably have won, though on a much lower turn-out.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2012)

Got links for these videos?


----------



## JHE (Apr 1, 2012)

The GGG one is embedded in an article on Socialist Unity. The Imran Hussain one is on YouTube. It's called something like Imran Hussain Part 1 Bradford


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2012)

OK ta.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 1, 2012)

say Tower Hamlasesh again JHE.


----------



## JHE (Apr 1, 2012)

I've found it but it's now telling me it's private which it wasn't earlier this evening


----------



## JHE (Apr 1, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> say Tower Hamlasesh again JHE.


 
desh, not sesh.  What's sesh?


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 1, 2012)

The massive one they had when they heard abot Gorgeous winning 'the most spectacular victory in british political history'


----------



## JHE (Apr 1, 2012)

Anyway, he's now in Bradistan West or more specifically Bradpur West or Mirford West


----------



## JHE (Apr 1, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> The massive one they had when they heard abot Gorgeous winning 'the most spectacular victory in british political history'


 
If rumours are correct, the poor defeated Imran Hussain may have, but the victors were too busy praising God


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2012)

JHE said:


> Anyway, he's now in Bradistan West or more specifically Bradpur West or Mirford West


 
Race-baiting again JHE?


----------



## Combustible (Apr 1, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Tories voting for gg tactically seems highly unlikely.


 
Well the -23% swing away from the Tories and 10000 lost votes has to be explained somehow.  They could have not voted or they could have genuinely switched to Labour/GG (rather than voted tactically) but that is a lot of votes lost, far more then any other by-election of this parliament and with a reasonably high turn out it seems unlikely that they all stayed at home.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 1, 2012)

JHE said:


> Anyway, he's now in Bradistan West or more specifically Bradpur West or Mirford West


 

You'll need to work on that. Brashmir? Either way when you find it be sure to add it to your bank of wind up terms to wheel out whenever opportunity knocks. You shameless fuck.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 1, 2012)

Hilariously funny and unpredictable as they may be, I detect a wee bit of racism behind the "Tower Hamladesh", "Bradistan West", "Bradpur West" and "Mirford West" jokes.







But then again I'm a craven Islamophile and Dhimmitrot so I may be viewing this through Mecca tinted spectacles.


----------



## 8115 (Apr 1, 2012)

I really don't like the sound of a terror state within Melanie Phillips.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 1, 2012)

Disapproval of Islamism is not racist.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> And I suppose you've explored turnout in the last local elections in bradford to support your reasoning


You'd need the marked registers to tell who was voting though


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 1, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Disapproval of Islamism is not racist.


 
No shit? Good job nobody claimed it was then.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> No shit? Good job nobody claimed it was then.


 
Yep, I'd certainly take all that "Bradistan" stuff to be clearly referencing and very arguably sneering at the immigrant origins and race of the citizens in question, rather than their religion.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 1, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> No shit? Good job nobody claimed it was then.


 
I disagree.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 1, 2012)

In most election there is usually more than one group of moving voters and it can get quite complicated.

In the Bradford Council local elections in the two 'split' party wards in Bradford West, the Tories won 1,815 and 2,127 in 2010 just before the General Election, but by May 2011 they were down to 1,184 and 1,370 respectively - a decline of nearly 1,500 votes in just 12 months - and both wards which had been Tory in 2008 were solidly won by Labour. One quite likely hypothesis is that a significant number of Tory voters from the General Election switched to Labour for the by-election (the Tories did drop by over 20 percentage points and UKIP only explains about 1 percent of that), while a larger number of Labour voters from the GE switched to Respect, while those who did not vote in the General Election who turned out in the by-election overwhelmingly voted for Respect. This might makes it look like Tory voters switched to Respect but while I have no doubt that there were a few, there may not have been very many and it certainly was not a consciously organised or vociferous group.

Galloway's support for the redevelopment of the Odeon cinema (rather than demolition) in the constituency is likely to have won him some votes among the older white longer-established (family-wise) Bradford voters - the issue has a attracted a small but vociferous and determined group of generally older white/indigenous to Bradford people (I've seen them queueing to collect leaflets by the campaigners outside the former cinema in the past). These voters could well have seen Galloway's election as a potential (last) chance to save it and voted on a single issue basis.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 1, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> You'll need to work on that. Brashmir?.



Islamabrad.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2012)

articul8 said:


> You'd need the marked registers to tell who was voting though


why don't you get onto a local labour psephologist then and see what they have to tell you


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2012)

articul8 said:


> You'd need the marked registers to tell who was voting though


in the 2011 local elections the conservatives got a total of 5364 votes in the wards comprising the bradford west constituency, on an average 42.7 turnout. on a 51% turnout on thursday only half that number - 2746 - voted conservative.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 1, 2012)

JHE said:


> Anyway, he's now in Bradistan West or more specifically Bradpur West or Mirford West


 
at west ham games early -mid 80's, when spurs barmies / hoolies were at their/our (political) worst, 'Upton, - Parkistan' and 'East Endbul,East Endbul,East Endbul' were crowd favourites - good to see keyboard muglets keeping the proud tradition going 30 + yrs later


----------



## Combustible (Apr 1, 2012)

Fisher_Gate said:


> One quite likely hypothesis is that a significant number of Tory voters from the General Election switched to Labour for the by-election (the Tories did drop by over 20 percentage points and UKIP only explains about 1 percent of that), while a larger number of Labour voters from the GE switched to Respect, while those who did not vote in the General Election who turned out in the by-election overwhelmingly voted for Respect.


 
It's also interesting that when Galloway won Bethnal Green and Bow, the Tories also lost a third of their votes from 2001 despite significantly more people voting.  So it seemed pretty likely that Tory voters were tactically voting for someone and there are plausible reasons why they may tactically vote for Labour or Respect.  I'd have thought enough time has passed since 2005 for something to come out about voting patterns in that election.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 1, 2012)

Combustible said:


> .... I'd have thought enough time has passed since 2005 for something to come out about voting patterns in that election.


 
It's a secret ballot ... and surveys taken about both intended and actual electoral behaviour are notoriously unreliable (remember the 1992 general election where there was the 'Shy Tory' factor... of course now we have the 'Two fingers Labour' factor where card carrying members of the Labour Party in Bradford West go out and vote for Galloway en masse).

Irish elections, where we have transfer votes detailed under STV, show some fascinating insights into counter-intuitive voter behaviour.


----------



## audiotech (Apr 1, 2012)

cantsin said:


> at west ham games early -mid 80's, when spurs barmies / hoolies were at their/our (political) worst, 'Upton, - Parkistan' and 'East Endbul,East Endbul,East Endbul' were crowd favourites - good to see keyboard muglets keeping the proud tradition going 30 + yrs later


 
I remember going to see Leeds play a "friendly" with Bradford City back in those times, mid 70's. Leeds fans went on the rampage, abusing Asians and throwing bricks through people's windows, with those on the receiving end cowering in fear. Not pleasant to witness. JHE take note. We set up a successful RAR club a few years later, held weekly at St George's Hall.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 2, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Fucking desperate attempts to avoid the obvious conclusion that lots of people, including many non-muslims - voted for galloway because they agreed with what he was saying.
> 
> The assumption that this must be becasue its lib dems and tories voting for Galloway - who they would absolutely hate as their MP - to stop labour winning the seat is utterly bizzarre. Its based on no evidence whatsoever and has absoultey no parrallel in the history of how people vote.


Then were did the Tory (and LD) vote go?
I can see three possibilities.
1) They all stayed at home (despite the fact that there had been talk of them coming from behind and managing to win the seat) and Galloway managed to pick up a _lot_ of new voters.
2) Some of them voted for Labour but more Labour voters switched to Galloway.
3) Some of them voted for Galloway to give Labour a kicking.

I think a combination of all three is the most likely but if you want to account for Galloway's win solely through the first option then he must have attracted a significant number of people who didn't vote at the last GE while turnout overall dropped. Which makes his win even more impressive IMO.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 2, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> Then were did the Tory and LD vote go?


I'd suspect a lot of the lib dem vote would have gone directly to Galloway.

Remember when they last voted lib dem they were portraying themselves as the anti-war party on a relatively left of centre ticket, and an alternative to the 2 main parties. Not at all surprising to find that a significant proportion of those voters would move directly to supporting Galloway now the lib dems have shown their colors in government.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 2, 2012)

I'd actually not be surprised to find a fair few voters switching directly from the tories to Galloway as well in this constituency, as they'll have been directly seeing the impact of the governments economic policies on their businesses etc. as well as the local issues.

I've yet to find anyone from any side of the political spectrum in bradford who's got a good word to say for any of their politicians from any of the major parties either in the council or MPs, and it really is a city that's been shat upon and largely left to rot for a couple of generations. If Galloway was able to portray himself as someone who might shake things up, I can easily see a fair few tory voters switching their votes across as well.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 2, 2012)

free spirit said:


> I'd actually not be surprised to find a fair few voters switching directly from the tories to Galloway as well in this constituency, as they'll have been directly seeing the impact of the governments economic policies on their businesses etc. as well as the local issues.


Yep I don't think loads of Tories switched to Galloway but I don't think it's stupid to suggest that a few probably did.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 2, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> Yep I don't think loads of Tories switched to Galloway but I don't think it's stupid to suggest that a few probably did.


and a hell of a lot more who just stayed at home either in disgust at the state of the things, or because they saw the way things were heading and realised it would be pointless bothering to vote tory anyway.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I disagree.


 
You're not even making sense now. What do you disagree with?


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> You're not even making sense now. What do you disagree with?


 
You said that nobody claimed that disaproval of Islamism was racist, yet JHE, who disapproves of Islamism, has repeatedly been called racist.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 2, 2012)

Do you recon thats because he couches his dissaproval in racist terms or because everyone who objects loves ~Islam in all its forms and wants to nosh mo off?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 2, 2012)

two sheds said:


> Sorry, it was a palindrome  .
> 
> I must admit I hadn't really thought about it but whether someone still supports the war presumably depends on the reasons they thought it was being waged in the first place.
> 
> ...


 
That's all very nice but doesn't answer my question - I am well aware of why people may or may not be anti/pro war.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Do you recon thats because he couches his dissaproval in racist terms or because everyone who objects loves ~Islam in all its forms and wants to nosh mo off?


 
I dont accept that he couches his disapproval in racist terms. The addition of a "stan" to a place-name is a gibe against Islam but not against any "race".


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 2, 2012)

How many seats do we think they will get in the Council elections?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I dont accept that he couches his disapproval in racist terms. The addition of a "stan" to a place-name is a gibe against Islam but not against any "race".


 
The 'stan' suffix is geographical. Hence it can reasonably be taken to be a slur against immigrants from parts of the world where that suffix is common when used as JHE does.

Obvious counter-examples to the suggestion that 'stan' is something to do with Islam would be Hindustan, Khalistan (Sikh) ... and there are plenty of others.


----------



## chilango (Apr 2, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> How many seats do we think they will get in the Council elections?


 
I'd say none. Council elections are a very different beast. Can Respect (or anyone else) motivate a similar turn-out for the locals?  

...but then I said Galloway wouldn't get 10% so what do I know?


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> The 'stan' suffix is geographical. Hence it can reasonably be taken to be a slur against immigrants from parts of the world where that suffix is common when used as JHE does.


 
I see that as being over-sensitive. Everyone's toes seem to have grown so much longer in the years since I was young.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 2, 2012)

or perhaps casual racism was acceptable when you where young. I've seen sitcoms from the 70s.

shit isn't acceptable today. These days brown and black people get to share the same rights as everyone else


----------



## two sheds (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I see that as being over-sensitive. Everyone's toes seem to have grown so much longer in the years since I was young.


 
No, it's just that you can't go round stamping on them without being called out for it. And I know you see it as us sensitive flowers not being able to 'take a joke' or that we should 'man up' or that we're restricting your freedoms.

It's actually you who's being the sensitive flower, though - you go round bullying people and referring to rag heads or Bradistan or whatever it is and we'll call you a bully and a racist. Get over it.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> How many seats do we think they will get in the Council elections?


Not sure.  What's been going on at council level?  I've seen a Labour member praise the council's 'inclusive' approach to working on a cross-party consensus with LDs and Tories...?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> You said that nobody claimed that disaproval of Islamism was racist, yet JHE, who disapproves of Islamism, has repeatedly been called racist.


 
Not _for_ his disapproval of Islamism. I disapprove of Islamism too you dopey twat. He was called racist for coming up with "funny" nicknames for cities based on, and this is the important part, the _ethnic_ origins of some of the people who live there. That's racist and you're an idiot.


----------



## trevhagl (Apr 2, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> How many seats do we think they will get in the Council elections?


 
all down to funding , no left wing party can do well across the country because politics is money and the rich are always gonna want Tory type set ups whether thats UKIP , the nazis or the Tories themselves.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 2, 2012)

free spirit said:


> I'd suspect a lot of the lib dem vote would have gone directly to Galloway.
> 
> Remember when they last voted lib dem they were portraying themselves as the anti-war party on a relatively left of centre ticket, and an alternative to the 2 main parties. Not at all surprising to find that a significant proportion of those voters would move directly to supporting Galloway now the lib dems have shown their colors in government.


 
Even if they did, the LibDem vote went down by only 7 percentage points, Respect's vote went up by 53; I find it hard to believe that even half of those consciously switching from the LibDems would go to Galloway, in which case it would make up about 5 or 10% at most, of the explanation for the where Galloway's vote came from. 

I think there are two overwhelming explanations - massive switch from traditional Labour voters, massive number of first time young voters.  Labour will have picked up significant numbers of disgruntled former Tory voters.  The rest is what the psephologists call 'churn'. 

The electorate went up by over 2,000 between June 2010 and the by-election by the way - that's primarily about 'new' young voters coming on to the register.  The demographics of Bradford's urban core is in completely the opposite direction to most inner city areas by the way, rapidly rising population due to the higher birthrate among the families of second and third generation migrants and the increasing tendency to stay in the family home of young people and not move away.


----------



## trevhagl (Apr 2, 2012)

Fisher_Gate said:


> Even if they did, the LibDem vote went down by only 7 percentage points, Respect's vote went up by 53; I find it hard to believe that even half of those consciously switching from the LibDems would go to Galloway, in which case it would make up about 5 or 10% at most, of the explanation for the where Galloway's vote came from.
> 
> I think there are two overwhelming explanations - massive switch from traditional Labour voters, massive number of first time young voters. Labour will have picked up significant numbers of disgruntled former Tory voters. The rest is what the psephologists call 'churn'.
> 
> The electorate went up by over 2,000 between June 2010 and the by-election by the way - that's primarily about 'new' young voters coming on to the register. The demographics of Bradford's urban core is in completely the opposite direction to most inner city areas by the way, rapidly rising population due to the higher birthrate among the families of second and third generation migrants and the increasing tendency to stay in the family home of young people and not move away.


 
if Respect or anyone similar ie a party who's main aims were better than the big 3 even if i disagree with em on some points , i would vote for em no problem, cos round here its the 3 Tory parties and the nazis


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Not _for_ his disapproval of Islamism. I disapprove of Islamism too you dopey twat. He was called racist for coming up with "funny" nicknames for cities based on, and this is the important part, the _ethnic_ origins of some of the people who live there. That's racist and you're an idiot.


 
When I was 17 I left home in a tiny West Highland village and went to London. As you might be able to imagine that was rather a daunting thing to do and I was not helped by the dozens of Londoners who thought it was funny to call me "Jock" and make jokes about Donald's trousers. These people were doing exactly the same thing as offensive and racist people who call immigrants from the sub-continent "Pakis" but I found it quite possible to shrug it off and get on with my life. All those thin-skinned people with over-extended toes should do the same.

The fact is that I don't use expressions like Islamabrad or Bradfordstan, but everyone knows that when JHE uses them he is referring to the Islamicness of those names, and not the ethnic background of immigrants.

By the way, your incessant use of abuse when replying to me will eventually result in my ignoring you which may or may not be your intention.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 2, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> How many seats do we think they will get in the Council elections?


Very difficult to call.  It's near enough in time terms (four weeks) for there to be a bounce effect on Galloway's result translating in council seats for Respect.  Incredible that there were 2,000 people at the victory rally yesterday, called at about 36 hours notice!

But there will be experienced councillors defending their seats and more local issues to focus on. 

There are six wards in the constituency and a couple of neighbouring wards that might go the same way.  I'd predict Respect to gain at least two (Manningham and City).  More are possible but it would be something incredible for them to win about 8, but not beyond the bounds of possibility at all.  I also think they might win one or two wards in Halifax (Calderdale), Wakefield, Dewsbury (Kirklees) or Rochdale. They might also hold their ward in Birmingham which they had been predicted to lose.

This is exactly what Respect should have been doing after the general election, rather than pissing about in Glasgow and playing footsie with the SP and SWP.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> When I was 17 I left home in a tiny West Highland village and went to London. As you might be able to imagine that was rather a daunting thing to do and I was not helped by the dozens of Londoners who thought it was funny to call me "Jock" and make jokes about Donald's trousers. These people were doing exactly the same thing as offensive and racist people who call immigrants from the sub-continent "Pakis" but I found it quite possible to shrug it off and get on with my life. All those thin-skinned people with over-extended toes should do the same.



As you think your situation to be on an equal footing, can you tell us how many times you had dogshit posted through your letterbox?


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> When I was 17 I left home in a tiny West Highland village and went to London. As you might be able to imagine that was rather a daunting thing to do and I was not helped by the dozens of Londoners who thought it was funny to call me "Jock" and make jokes about Donald's trousers. These people were doing exactly the same thing as offensive and racist people who call immigrants from the sub-continent "Pakis" but I found it quite possible to shrug it off and get on with my life. All those thin-skinned people with over-extended toes should do the same.


 
Completely lacking in any understanding and analysis of history of racism and its power relations - the comparison doesn't work.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2012)

Some interesting observations on the proposed boundary changes for Bradford West - basically helps the tories and will potentially damage both RESPECT and labour. (Interesting comment as well on how they'll effect northern lib-dems)


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> As you think your situation to be on an equal footing, can you tell us how many times you had dogshit posted through your letterbox?


 
Not every immigrant has had dog-shit posted through their letter-box, and those who have have been criminally assaulted and should seek help from the police and other authorities. Being called a "Paki" or a "Jock" is not a criminal assault, however reprehensible it is.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Not every immigrant has had dog-shit posted through their letter-box, and those who have have been criminally assaulted and should seek help from the police and other authorities. Being called a "Paki" or a "Jock" is not a criminal assault, however reprehensible it is.


That's right, racial abuse isn't a criminal offence. Buffoon.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 2, 2012)

Galloway's interview with the local rag:

--------
*Galloway sets sights on Council*

7:00am Saturday 31st March 2012
By Dolores Cowburn
Trying to save the Odeon is top of the agenda for new Bradford West MP George Galloway.
Mr Galloway said that he would be writing to Bradford Council to get hold of the engineering report to see what could be done to save the building. He is also going to field Respect candidates in every seat up for grabs in the local May elections in Bradford with a rally tomorrow to garner support.
Also finding out why there have been no penalties inflicted on Westfield for not yet building on Broadway is also on the new Respect MP’s agenda.
Speaking to the Telegraph & Argus yesterday, Mr Galloway said he would be spending his weekends at his Manningham home and his weeks in Westminster.
He was scathing about the current Council, describing them as “incompetent”. “I think the Council is disastrous and we need a broom to sweep it clean,” he said.
“I am already suing at least one councillor for a very serious libel for £100,000.”
Mr Galloway, when asked why he emerged victorious, said: “I think there is a large well of discontent with local councillors here in Bradford.
“There has been a neglect of people and it is manifest for everyone to see.
“Voters can’t believe that this kind of political leadership is as good as it gets.
“Someone offered a different perspective and different ideas and people related to it in extraordinary numbers.
“Nobody predicted this result and I was the only person in Britain who thought I would win it.
“We got 85 per cent of the vote in the University Ward and are moving our national Respect HQ here from Manchester.
“We have one of the highest youth unemployment rates in the city of those aged 24 which has increased by 40 per cent since January, so if we put a fraction of that cash into youth services in Bradford that would help.”
Asked about his priorities, he said the Odeon was the most urgent.
“It is literally falling down,” he said.
“I am demanding access to the site and need to know whether it can be saved. I have some plans and think we should do everything we can to save it.
“The Westfield site is a much bigger scandal. I want to know who drew up the contract and why no effective penalty clause is in it. How is it possible for a foreign multinational company to take a premium piece of land and public money and not deliver and not be punished for it?”
Mr Galloway said he would make a difference in Parliament, despite being an independent MP. “I will be raising issues in the House of Commons and demanding that things are done,” he said. “Bradford needs a strong voice to speak up for the people and my voice is heard.
“I don’t want to scuffle with the Council, but I want to vote in better people in the local elections. Bradford is a beautiful place with wonderful people and a multicultural population.”
Does he think he can make a difference? “I hope so, certainly 56 per cent of people think so.”
-------------
In the video interview he also says that Respect will move its national HQ to Bradford (it's in Manchester currently).  He also defends his attendance record in parliament - and explains he attended but did not vote because it was a choice between wrong policies.  He also says Salma Yaqoob will win a seat in parliament (presumably she is over her illness).

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/9624517.Galloway_sets_sights_on_Council/?ref=mr


----------



## trevhagl (Apr 2, 2012)

we can all rest easy now and join the BNP because SOME Asians haven't had dogshit thru their letterbox!!


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

stephj said:


> Completely lacking in any understanding and analysis of history of racism and its power relations - the comparison doesn't work.


 
I am well aware of the histroy of racism, and in any book about racism there should be a chapter on black-on-brown and brown-on-black racism which so many people seem so lightly to overlook. All abuse of other human beings just because they aren't the same colour, creed or nationality as the abuser is equally contemptable and no one version of such bigotry is less reprehensible than another.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 2, 2012)

Try again.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

trevhagl said:


> we can all rest easy now and join the BNP because SOME Asians haven't had dogshit thru their letterbox!!


 
Stupid boy!


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That's right, racial abuse isn't a criminal offence. Buffoon.


 
Can't you read? I said criminal assault.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 2, 2012)

"muslim isn't a race".


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Can't you read? I said criminal assault.


Yes, and implied in that ridiculous statement of yours was the idea that criminal racial abuse - calling someone a 'paki' - is just something 'they' should swallow in the same way that you swallowed the dread word 'jock'. Why are you even here?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Not every immigrant has had dog-shit posted through their letter-box, and those who have have been criminally assaulted and should seek help from the police and other authorities. Being called a "Paki" or a "Jock" is not a criminal assault, however reprehensible it is.



Which mod agreed to let this prick back on again?


----------



## trevhagl (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Stupid boy!


 


Lock&Light said:


> I am well aware of the histroy of racism, and in any book about racism there should be a chapter on black-on-brown and brown-on-black racism which so many people seem so lightly to overlook. All abuse of other human beings just because they aren't the same colour, creed or nationality as the abuser is equally contemptable and no one version of such bigotry is less reprehensible than another.


 

if you're gonna call someone stupid at least learn to spell , there endeth my histroy lesson


----------



## Wolveryeti (Apr 2, 2012)

I liked the betting angle I read about this somewhere. Apparently the bookies lost hundreds of grand because they thought the initial flow of bets coming in were Galloway's backers trying to convince voters that he was winning already.

I hadn't thought of using betting to influence the vote before - cunning.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 2, 2012)

so when someone calls attention to say jewish sounding surnames of people in an attempt to imply some sort of jewish control of high powered industries, we should all just accept that? 

what about that guy who filmed a racist attack by police where they said "no matter what you'll always be a nigger"? should everyone just accept that?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 2, 2012)

RESPECT might do ok in the local elections. Bradford's a fucking disaster area these days in terms of town planning.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Which mod agreed to let this prick back on again?


 
You are so bigoted that you can't stand having an alternative point of view represented.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> what about that guy who filmed a racist attack by police where they said "no matter what you'll always be a nigger"? should everyone just accept that?


 
Nothing I've said suggests that I would think that, so why do you ask?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2012)

Dont buy into his attempted derail.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Nothing I've said suggests that I would think that, so why do you ask?


you seem to think it's all right for people to go around saying paki.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> You are so bigoted that you can't stand having an alternative point of view represented.



You're quite lucky. If you 'represented' it while sitting next to me in a pub i'd sort you out some dentistry work.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

trevhagl said:


> if you're gonna call someone stupid at least learn to spell , there endeth my histroy lesson


 
My son suffers from much more severe dyslexia than I do and yet no-one thinks he's stupid. You spell impeccably and yet ooze stupidity from every spore.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> you seem to think it's all right for people to go around saying paki.


 
No I don't.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> You're quite lucky. If you 'represented' it while sitting next to me in a pub i'd sort you out some dentistry work.


 
That assumes that you're a big enough man to take me on.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 2, 2012)

Have you worked out yet why being called a 'Jock' isn't the same as being called a 'Paki'?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> That assumes that you're a big enough man to take me on.



You'd shit yourself.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Some interesting observations on the proposed boundary changes for Bradford West - basically helps the tories and will potentially damage both RESPECT and labour. (Interesting comment as well on how they'll effect northern lib-dems)


 
This article is twaddle (typically LibDem).  The proposals are not confirmed yet and are still out for review (closes tomorrow).  They are then subject to parliamentary approval.  Some backbench LibDems have threatened to revolt and vote against them so there's no guarantee of a government majority.  While Labour loses the most the LibDems are likely to get wiped out. 

That's why Galloway is right to ensure that Respect stands in every council seat next month.  Whatever seat emerges that he stands for he'll want to put down roots and create support in. 

If the current Boundary Commission proposal stands, Bradford West is actually split three ways and while the largest chunk stays in the new seat of the same name, Galloway may well stand a better chance in the new Bradford East and Central seat - which takes in about one third of Bradford West but probably half his vote in the by-election because it includes Galloway's two best wards of City/Manningham, where it is estimated he won 75/80% of the vote.  Galloway has also committed to living in Manningham.  Despite the name, the new seat of Bradford East and Central is not a majority of the old Bradford East seat held by the LibDems and they are likely to go elsewhere. 

There's a lot of water to go under this particular bridge over the coming months and the result of the local elections is more likely to influence things than the meanderings of a Liberal.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2012)

stephj said:


> Have you worked out yet why being called a 'Jock' isn't the same as being called a 'Paki'?



Him being called a jock is about as offensive as me being called a geordie. Or, actually its more offensive to call me a geordie because im actually a smoggy.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

stephj said:


> Have you worked out yet why being called a 'Jock' isn't the same as being called a 'Paki'?


 
I've heard the word "Paki" being used in an affectionate way, and I've heard the word "Jock" being used just before the punch was launched.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> You'd shit yourself.


 
What a twat you are.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I've heard the word "Paki" being used in an affectionate way


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2012)

Fisher_Gate said:


> This article is twaddle (typically LibDem). The proposals are not confirmed yet and are still out for review (closes tomorrow). They are then subject to parliamentary approval. Some backbench LibDems have threatened to revolt and vote against them so there's no guarantee of a government majority. While Labour loses the most the LibDems are likely to get wiped out.
> 
> That's why Galloway is right to ensure that Respect stands in every council seat next month. Whatever seat emerges that he stands for he'll want to put down roots and create support in.
> 
> ...


 
What part of it are twaddle - it outlines what the proposed changes are and notes the traditional electoral representation of those wards proposed to come in and those to go out, then maps those traditional patterns onto the ones left. These _are_ the proposed changes and these _are_ the past results in those wards.

Even odder, you go onto to _endorse_ the twaddles conclusion - its main contention in fact - that the proposed changes if put into effect would make things harder for RESPECT and Labour.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> What a twat you are.



Perhaps so. But at least i wouldnt get my face filled in by calling an asian guy a paki 'affectionately'.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Perhaps so. But at least i wouldnt get my face filled in by calling an asian guy a paki 'affectionately'.


 
Unlike you, I take no pleasure in using shorthand epitephs when talking to people and I show my affection in a quite different way.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I've heard the word "Paki" being used in an affectionate way, and I've heard the word "Jock" being used just before the punch was launched.


 
Brilliant!


----------



## krink (Apr 2, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Him being called a jock is about as offensive as me being called a geordie. Or, actually its more offensive to call me a geordie because im actually a smoggy.


 
the web-toed, wannabe-yorkshire, chemical wasteland dweller above is correct, if a black or asian bloke from scotland started working at my place, once he was settled in (i.e. after 5 minutes) he'd get the jokes about fried mars bars etc etc. just like my southern pals with their anti-northerner piss-takes or whatever. But we wouldn't call him paki or nigger. It's pretty easy to establish the difference.

For the record I'm not a makem I'm a barbary coaster.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

stephj said:


> Brilliant!


 
Thank you.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 2, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Which mod agreed to let this prick back on again?


Don't know but I'd wish they'd reverse their decision.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> Don't know but I'd wish they'd reverse their decision.


 
Another one who can't bear the light of an alternative viewpoint.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&light and coley tag-team on the dynamics of racism: 'you just don't like our alternative viewpoint'.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Another one who can't bear the light of an alternative viewpoint.


It's got nothing to do with your viewpoints, tho I'm rather pleased you've shown what a cunt you are on this thread, it's because you're the most boring prick on the boards.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2012)

Fisher_Gate said:


> Some backbench LibDems have threatened to revolt


we've heard that before


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> It's got nothing to do with your viewpoints, tho I'm rather pleased you've shown what a count you are on this thread, it's because you're the most boring prick on the boards.


 
I have yet to be raised to the peerage, but I thank you for your kind wishes.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> and I've heard the word "Jock" being used just before the punch was launched.



Here's hoping it was you on the receiving end of it.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Here's hoping it was you on the receiving end of it.


 
That reflects your state of mind quite admirably.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2012)

I think the point L&L is trying to make (correct me if I'm wrong) is that it isn't automatically true that use of the term "paki" is racially abusive [though it often is]?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 2, 2012)

Hopefully that shortbread and heroin munching jock bastard Lock&Light had blows rained down upon him - just for being a Scotch like.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I think the point L&L is trying to make (correct me if I'm wrong) is that it isn't automatically true that use of the term "paki" is racially abusive [though it often is]?


Of course it isn't - his point though was when it was used in a racially abusive manner the victim should shut up and put up with it because someone 70 years ago called him a jock in London. Do yourself a favour and read the bloody thread.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What part of it are twaddle - it outlines what the proposed changes are and notes the traditional electoral representation of those wards proposed to come in and those to go out, then maps those traditional patterns onto the ones left. These _are_ the proposed changes and these _are_ the past results in those wards.
> 
> Even odder, you go onto to _endorse_ the twaddles conclusion - its main contention in fact - that the proposed changes if put into effect would make things harder for RESPECT and Labour.


 
The conclusion is twaddle: "So enjoy your win, George Galloway. _There won’t be another for you in Bradford_.". 

The article does not even mention the timetable and likelihood of the changes.  It just starts with "If .." and then treats it as a foregone conclusion.  The article doesn't discuss the new seat of Bradford East and Central and Galloway's possibilities there, while waffling on about Bingley and Queensbury.   Why would Galloway even entertain standing in the proposed new Bradford West seat with all its traditionally tory rural areas, when there's a good urban seat with a large proportion of his electorate there as an alternative?  This article comes from someone no doubt who thought the by-election was a two way fight between the LibDems and Labour.  Wishful thinking, my arse!  This guy is a typical opinionated idiot who works for the BBC and thinks that because he has an MBA from Bradford University he knows something about what has just gone on in Bradford.  However he also contributes to another blog that had an article against Galloway, somewhat underestimating the degree of his support (polite version).  File under 'P' for 'P*ll*ck'.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Of course it isn't - his point though was when it was used in a racially abusive manner the victim should shut up and put up with it because someone 70 years ago called him a jock in London. Do yourself a favour and read the bloody thread.


 
If you read the thread then you would know that I said no such thing.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> If you read the thread then you would know that I said no such thing.



You meant it in an offensive context, or else why the suggestion for them to grow 'a thicker skin'?


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> When I was 17 I left home in a tiny West Highland village and went to London. As you might be able to imagine that was rather a daunting thing to do and I was not helped by the dozens of Londoners who thought it was funny to call me "Jock" and make jokes about Donald's trousers. These people were doing exactly the same thing as offensive and racist people who call immigrants from the sub-continent "Pakis" but I found it quite possible to shrug it off and get on with my life. All those thin-skinned people with over-extended toes should do the same.





stephj said:


> Have you worked out yet why being called a 'Jock' isn't the same as being called a 'Paki'?


 
.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2012)

Fisher_Gate said:


> The conclusion is twaddle: "So enjoy your win, George Galloway. _There won’t be another for you in Bradford_.".
> 
> The article does not even mention the timetable and likelihood of the changes. It just starts with "If .." and then treats it as a foregone conclusion. The article doesn't discuss the new seat of Bradford East and Central and Galloway's possibilities there, while waffling on about Bingley and Queensbury. Why would Galloway even entertain standing in the proposed new Bradford West seat with all its traditionally tory rural areas, when there's a good urban seat with a large proportion of his electorate there as an alternative? This article comes from someone no doubt who thought the by-election was a two way fight between the LibDems and Labour. Wishful thinking, my arse! This guy is a typical opinionated idiot who works for the BBC and thinks that because he has an MBA from Bradford University he knows something about what has just gone on in Bradford. However he also contributes to another blog that had an article against Galloway, somewhat underestimating the degree of his support (polite version). File under 'P' for 'P*ll*ck'.


Well, pretty clearly the last line meant bradford west as that was the entire focus of the article and the proposed changes discussed. Nor is saying 'If...' indicating a foregone conclusion, it means that '_If these proposed changes come to pass then possibly this...'. _Not discussing another seat doesn't undermine the article in any way - indeed you above talked about bradford east in the exact same way as you slate this writer for doing. You say _if_ these boundary proposal changes go through GG might be looking to bradford east - again another conclusion of yours in line with the twaddle to go with your previous agreement with the articles main contention that these proposed changes have potential to damage labour and RESPECT.

If you can undermine the factual element of the twaddle that would be useful - but you can't because these _are_ the proposed changes and these _are_ the past results in these wards - regardless of how much of a dick the writer is.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> If you read the thread then you would know that I said no such thing.


Ah, now you're adding bare-faced lying to your mornings performance. Fucking star.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

stephj said:


> .


 
Do you think that every shouted comment of "Paki" requires the intervention of the Law? I dont.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Do you think that every shouted comment of "Paki" requires the intervention of the Law? I dont.


 
Is not an answer to the question posed.

Try again.


----------



## trevhagl (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Do you think that every shouted comment of "Paki" requires the intervention of the Law? I dont.


 

i have only ever heard the word paki said in a derogatory way , which of course could lead to breach of the peace . But if you mean there are "pakis" that shout it to each other in an affectionate manner then no

but i suspect that may not be the case


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2012)

trevhagl said:


> i have only ever heard the word paki said in a derogatory way ,


No not necessarily at all - but it's all very context dependent and it can be highly abusive and, indeed, criminally so.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> egyptian riverdance


 
A warped marriage of Flatley and Wilson, Keppel and Betty! 

The Horror! The Horror!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2012)

8115 said:


> I really don't like the sound of a terror state within Melanie Phillips.


 
Really?

It sounds good to me!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Do you recon thats because he couches his dissaproval in racist terms or because everyone who objects loves ~Islam in all its forms and wants to nosh mo off?


 
In the end, it's all about repressed sexuality, innit?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> How many seats do we think they will get in the Council elections?


 
Interesting question, the answers to which will do a lot more to illuminate exactly what kind of a mark GG makes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2012)

krink said:


> the web-toed, wannabe-yorkshire, *chemical wasteland dweller* above is correct, if a black or asian bloke from scotland started working at my place, once he was settled in (i.e. after 5 minutes) he'd get the jokes about fried mars bars etc etc. just like my southern pals with their anti-northerner piss-takes or whatever. But we wouldn't call him paki or nigger. It's pretty easy to establish the difference.
> 
> For the record I'm not a makem I'm a barbary coaster.


 
I didn't realise he was from Hartlepool!


----------



## belboid (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I've heard the word "Paki" being used in an affectionate way,


aah, the Suaerez defense again!

Is saying 'mossies breed too much' racist, btw? As that is what JHE beleives


----------



## mk12 (Apr 2, 2012)

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned but an article by Mehdi Hasan in the Guardian seems to confirm that the leaflet was genuine:



> Ironically, Labour's candidate in the Bradford West byelection, Imran Hussain, was on the verge of becoming the ninth such MP. But Hussain seems to have been out-Muslimed by the Catholic Galloway. "God KNOWS who is a Muslim," said a leaflet sent out to voters. "And he KNOWS who is not. Instinctively, so do you ... 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."
> *The Respect party leader, Salma Yacoub, tells me this leaflet was a response to a smear campaign by the local Labour party, allegedly telling Bradford's Muslims not to vote for Galloway because he was a sharabi ("drunk").*


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/02/muslims-step-outside-antiwar-comfort-zone


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I didn't realise he was from Hartlepool!



Not Hartlepool. The next town to the south.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

belboid said:


> Is saying 'mossies breed too much' racist, btw? As that is what JHE beleives


 
There is indeed too much breeding going on in the world, but the Catholic Church and many other religions encourage it as much if not more than Islam does.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Not Hartlepool. The next town to the south.


 
See, when people say "chemical wasteland", Hartlepool always comes to mind first.


----------



## belboid (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> There is indeed too much breeding going on in the world, but the Catholic Church and many other religions encourage it as much if not more than Islam does.


so, it is racist then?


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 2, 2012)

Good at not answering questions is Lock&light.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> See, when people say "chemical wasteland", Hartlepool always comes to mind first.



Its a fair assesment. My hometown is worse tbf.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

belboid said:


> so, it is racist then?


 
I can't see how you make that out.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

stephj said:


> Good at not answering questions is Lock&light.


 
And you are good at posting pointless ones.


----------



## belboid (Apr 2, 2012)

because it's racist?


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

belboid said:


> because it's racist?


 
How can it be racist?


----------



## belboid (Apr 2, 2012)

no, of course, how silly of me, Singling out one group for criticism over somethng done by many different groups is in no way a sign of bigotry. And when that group is overwhelmingly of a particular ethnic background, it is in no way racist. Thank god for LocknLight!


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2012)

A successful derailment.


----------



## krink (Apr 2, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> See, when people say "chemical wasteland", Hartlepool always comes to mind first.


 
Hartlepool is the monkey-hangers and monkey mayors. Mind, my smoggy, ICI-genetic mutation mate Citizen66 and I both have a common bond - at least we're not geordies.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

belboid said:


> no, of course, how silly of me, Singling out one group for criticism over somethng done by many different groups is in no way a sign of bigotry. And when that group is overwhelmingly of a particular ethnic background, it is in no way racist. Thank god for LocknLight!


 
If Islam is being discussed, (and therefore not Catholicism or any other religion) then by the very nature of things critisism is going to refer to Islam. That's to avoid having to end every sentence with the words "including Catholicism or any other religion".


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> A successful derailment.


 
I've always thought you were a bit like Jerry Ford, who also couldn't chew gum and walk at the same time.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2012)

krink said:


> Hartlepool is the monkey-hangers and monkey mayors. Mind, my smoggy, ICI-genetic mutation mate Citizen66 and I both have a common bond - at least we're not geordies.


 
Quite frankly, if you live further north than Brum, to me you're all "Northerners", totally indistinguishable from one another!


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I've always thought you were a bit like Jerry Ford, who also couldn't chew gum and walk at the same time.



Im sure he could. Arent you supposed to credit other peoples quotes that you use?


----------



## belboid (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> If Islam is being discussed, (and therefore not Catholicism or any other religion) then by the very nature of things critisism is going to refer to Islam. That's to avoid having to end every sentence with the words "including Catholicism or any other religion".


you're an idiot.

and idiot who apologises for racists.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Im sure he could. Arent you supposed to credit other peoples quotes that you use?


 
Do you really think that anyone who might be interested in reading this thread doesn't know it was said by LBJ? You are such a prat.


----------



## binka (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> in any book about racism there should be a chapter on black-on-brown and brown-on-black racism which so many people seem so lightly to overlook.


racists guidebook, chapter 3:
_'How the ethnics are just as racist as us - except you won't hear anyone talking about it!'_

fuck off lock&light


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

belboid said:


> you're an idiot.
> 
> and idiot who apologises for racists.


 
You are the idiot if you think that.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

binka said:


> racists guidebook, chapter 3:
> _'How the ethnics are just as racist as us - except you won't hear anyone talking about it!'_
> 
> fuck off lock&light


 
Anyone who has made any effort to read my posts knows that I don't have a rascist bone in my body so it's you who can fuck off.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> You are the idiot if you think that.


 
Twat. Fuck off.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Twat. Fuck off.


 
The same to you with bells on.

Is anyone actually interested in debate, or is this just going to continue to be a worthless playground name-calling exercise.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Do you really think that anyone who might be interested in reading this thread doesn't know it was said by LBJ? You are such a prat.



Well yes, I think they'd deduce you wouldn't muster up such line under your own steam.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Anyone who has made any effort to read my posts knows that I don't have a rascist bone in my body so it's you who can fuck off.


 
You score 10 points.

Now have you worked out the problems with this yet?


Lock&Light said:


> When I was 17 I left home in a tiny West Highland village and went to London. As you might be able to imagine that was rather a daunting thing to do and I was not helped by the dozens of Londoners who thought it was funny to call me "Jock" and make jokes about Donald's trousers. These people were doing exactly the same thing as offensive and racist people who call immigrants from the sub-continent "Pakis" but I found it quite possible to shrug it off and get on with my life. All those thin-skinned people with over-extended toes should do the same.
> 
> The fact is that I don't use expressions like Islamabrad or Bradfordstan, but everyone knows that when JHE uses them he is referring to the Islamicness of those names, and not the ethnic background of immigrants.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> The same to you with bells on.
> 
> Is anyone actually interested in debate, or is this just going to continue to be a worthless playground name-calling exercise.


 
Nobody is interested in a debate with you because you're a boring and thick arsehole. Fuck off.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Nobody is interested in a debate with you because you're boring and thick arsehole. Fuck off.


 
Your slight extremity is showing.


----------



## belboid (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Anyone who has made any effort to read my posts knows that I don't have a rascist bone in my body so it's you who can fuck off.


you think use of racist language is acceptable. 

foad


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 2, 2012)

_



			The fact is that I don't use expressions like Islamabrad or Bradfordstan, but everyone knows that when JHE uses them he is referring to the Islamicness of those names, and not the ethnic background of immigrants.
		
Click to expand...

_


> > _would it be acceptable for somebody to use jewish sounding "nicknames" for things? or for someone to use scare quotes around "english" sounding names in an attempt to imply they were jewish? _


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Your slight extremity is showing.


 
And?

Cunt.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Well, pretty clearly the last line meant bradford west as that was the entire focus of the article and the proposed changes discussed. Nor is saying 'If...' indicating a foregone conclusion, it means that '_If these proposed changes come to pass then possibly this...'. _Not discussing another seat doesn't undermine the article in any way - indeed you above talked about bradford east in the exact same way as you slate this writer for doing. You say _if_ these boundary proposal changes go through GG might be looking to bradford east - again another conclusion of yours in line with the twaddle to go with your previous agreement with the articles main contention that these proposed changes have potential to damage labour and RESPECT.
> 
> If you can undermine the factual element of the twaddle that would be useful - but you can't because these _are_ the proposed changes and these _are_ the past results in these wards - regardless of how much of a dick the writer is.


 
twaddle [ˈtwɒdəl]
_n_
silly, trivial, or pretentious talk or writing; nonsense
_vb_ to talk or write (something) in a silly or pretentious way
[C16 _twattle_, variant of _twittle_ or _tittle_; see tittle-tattle]
I stand by my use of the word.  I don't understand why you are defending the article. 
Of course the question of whether Galloway can get re-elected is a valid topic, but I'm not going to take seriously prediction talk from people who thought he had no chance of getting above 10%, as 99% of the supposedly informed pundits who did not go to the constituency during the election did.  Galloway has just overturned every rule in the political commentators handbook; the idea that it could never be repeated is frankly absurd.  And to say it with such certainty just 24 hours after his incredible victory is precisely, as the definition says, silly, pretentious, nonsense.  If Galloway can breeze into a city three weeks away from the election and go from 3% to 56%, mashing Labour and winning every single ward including the Tory ones, most of which he'd never set foot in before the election was called, then to be frank the minor issue of where the wards will go in a possible boundary redistribution is hardly the point.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

belboid said:


> you think use of racist language is acceptable.
> 
> foad


 
Do I? That's news to me.


----------



## belboid (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Do I? That's news to me.


but not to anyone else


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2012)

Fisher_Gate said:


> twaddle [ˈtwɒdəl]
> _n_
> silly, trivial, or pretentious talk or writing; nonsense
> _vb_ to talk or write (something) in a silly or pretentious way
> ...


So why then have you argued that he's likely not to stand in bradford west but instead in bradford east due to the potential effects of the proposed boundary changes? You can't have it both ways - either you and the article are both correct that the suggested changes might harm his re-election prospects, or you're both wrong.

And boundary changes that are so minor that they lead to you suggesting that they might force Galloway to stand elsewhere? Again, you cannot have it both ways - they cannot be both so minor, so meaningless and also of such potential consequence that Galloway might have to stand in another seat.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

belboid said:


> but not to anyone else


 
Speaking for everyone again, Belboid?


----------



## belboid (Apr 2, 2012)

okay, not to anyone else except JHE and his fellow racists


----------



## binka (Apr 2, 2012)

belboid said:


> okay, not to anyone else except JHE and his fellow racists


it's not racist language just language that racists use


----------



## 1%er (Apr 2, 2012)

So the people have spoken and Galloway got elected.

Are there any other faces that consider themselves left of the Labour party that could do the same elsewhere? What about that Bob Crow fellow he seems to be popular around this board?

I think I read that some doctors and other professionals were planning to stand on single issues, but I'm not sure they will serve the workingclass that well, who else has the credentials and is considered left of Labour?


----------



## trevhagl (Apr 2, 2012)

1%er said:


> So the people have spoken and Galloway got elected.
> 
> Are there any other faces that consider themselves left of the Labour party that could do the same elsewhere? What about that Bob Crow fellow he seems to be popular around this board?
> 
> I think I read that some doctors and other professionals were planning to stand on single issues, but I'm not sure they will serve the workingclass that well, who else has the credentials and is considered left of Labour?


 
i think Bob Crow could do it with some financial backing, they try to demonise him as the top dog of greedy workers but i bet all the rail customers back him 100% on the likes of ticket machine removal etc, fare rises. The Tories have gone too far and are alienating even their own supporters


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So why then have you argued that he's likely not to stand in bradford west but instead in bradford east due to the potential effects of the proposed boundary changes? You can't have it both ways - either you and the article are both correct that the suggested changes might harm his re-election prospects, or you're both wrong.
> 
> And boundary changes that are so minor that they lead to you suggesting that they might force Galloway to stand elsewhere? Again, you cannot have it both ways - they cannot be both so minor, so meaningless and also of such potential consequence that Galloway might have to stand in another seat.


 
You've missed the whole point.  Most current parliamentary seats are being abolished and many hundreds of MPs will have to stand for different ones and will start courting their new electorate as soon as the conclusions are brought before parliament, if not before.  The proposed new Bradford West seat although it shares the same name is a very different seat to the current one, not just slightly different.  However it is a) just a proposal still out for consultation with no firm decisions yet and could well be changed b) one of a number of proposed seats in Bradford taking in parts of the existing seat Galloway has just walked c) presumed that the new seat is unwinnable by a left of Labour candidate in the same terms that most commentators assumed the old seat was.  The article failied to take account of any these factors and came to the remarkable conclusion that it was therefore impossible for Galloway to win reelection on the flimsiest of bases.  Therefore it is pretentious, silly, nonsense, not informed comment or analysis.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

trevhagl said:


> The Tories have gone too far and are alienating even their own supporters


 
As long as the Tories continue to cut the higher rates of tax they will alienate very few of their supporters.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2012)

> These people were doing exactly the same thing as offensive and racist people who call immigrants from the sub-continent "Pakis" but I found it quite possible to shrug it off and get on with my life. All those thin-skinned people with over-extended toes should do the same.


I hadn't read this post  telling people that are on the wrong end of racist abuse they are just being "thin-skinned"  How many people Scottish people in England have been attacked for no other reason than their ethnicity, and been systematically targeted by organised groups on that basis?


----------



## 1%er (Apr 2, 2012)

trevhagl said:


> i think Bob Crow could do it with some financial backing, they try to demonise him as the top dog of greedy workers but i bet all the rail customers back him 100% on the likes of ticket machine removal etc, fare rises. The Tories have gone too far and are alienating even their own supporters


I don't really know much about Bob Crow other than what I read on here. I was just interested to know if there are other people who could do what Galloway seems to have done. It seems to me that there is a massive open goal to the left of the labour party in the UK that no-one seems to want to fill.

Love him or hate him, it seems that Galloway got his message across. Today it seems the messenger is just as important as the message.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I hadn't read this post  telling people that are on the wrong end of racist abuse they are just being "thin-skinned"  How many people Scottish people in England have been attacked for no other reason than their ethnicity, and been systematically target by organised groups on that basis?


 
Attacked you say. That is not being called names, or if it is it's a very mild form of attack. Plenty of people on this thread seem to think it's quite acceptable.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Attacked you say. That is not being called names, or if it is it's a very mild form of attack. Plenty of people on this thread seem to think it's quite acceptable.


But that's just it - saying something stupid like "Oi Jock, want an irn bru?" or some such is perhaps mildly racist but of no real consequence other than any unfunny dickhead saying something crass. It's not a big issue. But - given the history of physical violence directed against "Paki's" (not just Pakistani's incidentally, but Bengali's, Indians) then "Oi Paki, you stink of curry" is not just a bit of unfunny 'banter'. You must see the difference?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 2, 2012)

That and there isn't a huge attempt to demonise scottish people in the media etc ..


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2012)

Fisher_Gate said:


> You've missed the whole point. Most current parliamentary seats are being abolished and many hundreds of MPs will have to stand for different ones and will start courting their new electorate as soon as the conclusions are brought before parliament, if not before. The proposed new Bradford West seat although it shares the same name is a very different seat to the current one, not just slightly different. However it is a) just a proposal still out for consultation with no firm decisions yet and could well be changed b) one of a number of proposed seats in Bradford taking in parts of the existing seat Galloway has just walked c) presumed that the new seat is unwinnable by a left of Labour candidate in the same terms that most commentators assumed the old seat was. The article failied to take account of any these factors and came to the remarkable conclusion that it was therefore impossible for Galloway to win reelection on the flimsiest of bases. Therefore it is pretentious, silly, nonsense, not informed comment or analysis.


Astonishing performance Mr Gate. I link to an article that suggested on the basis of the proposed boundary changes and looking at the political history of the wards that would be coming in and thosewards going out _if_ the proposal are passed that GG (and labour) will be potentially setback in the next general election. You say, no no no this is twaddle, the real situation is that on the basis of the proposed boundary changes and looking at the political history of the wards that would be coming and what wards going out _if_ the proposal are passed that GG (and labour) will be potentially setback in the next general election  - hence you suggest that Galloway might opt to stand in another seat. Further, these changes, should they occur  would be so minor as to make no difference whatsoever - how then do you square the circle of you thinking that GG might not stand again in the newly reconfigured seat?


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

articul8 said:


> But that's just it - saying something stupid like "Oi Jock, want an irn bru?" or some such is perhaps mildly racist but of no real consequence other than any unfunny dickhead saying something crass. It's not a big issue. But - given the history of physical violence directed against "Paki's" (not just Pakistani's incidentally, but Bengali's, Indians) then "Oi Paki, you stink of curry" is not just a bit of unfunny 'banter'. You must see the difference?


 
That's not an accurate comparison. I've been physically attacked because I am Scottish and, as I've said before the use of the word "Paki" is not always (often, even usually, but not always) combined with physical violence.

This whole discussion started with me saying that I don't think adding the suffix -stan to a place-name is obviously and nessessarily racist and I stand by that.


----------



## belboid (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> That's not an accurate comparison. I've been physically attacked because I am Scottish


more likely you were physically attacked because you're a twat


----------



## 1%er (Apr 2, 2012)

articul8 said:


> But that's just it - saying something stupid like "Oi Jock, want an irn bru?" or some such is perhaps mildly racist but of no real consequence other than any unfunny dickhead saying something crass. It's not a big issue. But - given the history of physical violence directed against "Paki's" (not just Pakistani's incidentally, but Bengali's, Indians) then "Oi Paki, you stink of curry" is not just a bit of unfunny 'banter'. You must see the difference?


Is the word you are looking for "context"?

I often hear people using words like gringo, gaijin, brits, yanks, japs, aussie, kiwi, paki when talking about people from those countries in a very positive way.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2012)

> This whole discussion started with me saying that I don't think adding the suffix -stan to a place-name is obviously and nessessarily racist and I stand by that.


For what other reason would use language in this way?


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

articul8 said:


> For what other reason would use language in this way?


 
To denigrate the Islamic religion, of course.


----------



## 1%er (Apr 2, 2012)

articul8 said:


> For what other reason would use language in this way?


slang?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> To denigrate the Islamic religion, of course.


oh well that's alright then.  Tickety boo


----------



## 8115 (Apr 2, 2012)

Could there not just be one thread for people to argue endlessly about Islam, what's racist and what's not? A sort of, "what's for tea" for the politics forum, you know?


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

8115 said:


> Could there not just be one thread for people to argue endlessly about Islam, what's racist and what's not? A sort of, "what's for tea" for the politics forum, you know?


 
Being anti-Islamism is not racist and I can't understand why anyone thinks it is. I'm also anti-Catholic (and anti-Protestant and anti all religions) but that hasn't stopped me having a Catholic wife with whom I've happily spent the last thirty years.


----------



## binka (Apr 2, 2012)

8115 said:


> Could there not just be one thread for people to argue endlessly about Islam, what's racist and what's not? A sort of, "what's for tea" for the politics forum, you know?


i admit there is a danger of ruining an interesting topic but casual racism should be challenged. personally im sick of seeing jhe continually put -stan on the end of every town or city where theres a pakistani muslim population. he may claim it isnt racist, his apologists may claim it isn't racist but it is the language of racists and there's no need for it


----------



## belboid (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Being anti-Islamism is not racist and I can't understand why anyone thinks it is.


really? _Really?_

The BNP, EDL, etc etc, they're not racist then.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

belboid said:


> really? _Really?_
> 
> The BNP, EDL, etc etc, they're not racist then.


 
How can you find that meaning in what I said. Do your brains work properly?


----------



## 8115 (Apr 2, 2012)

Yeah I know.  I was just being a bit flippant.  I've just never been on a message board that was so bad for "wind them up and off they go" in this way.


----------



## belboid (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> How can you find that meaning in what I said. Do your brains work properly?


its called 'logic' -something you consistently fail to apply.  Anyway, we all know why you dont think JHEs views are racist, its because you agree with them.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

The BNP and EDL are racist because they think and act racist, not because they dislike the Islamic religion.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 2, 2012)

Bradistan. Cos lots of folks there have pakistani heritage.  Well they could be Indian or bangladeshi - but same differnce innit?

Bit like hindus, sikhs and muslims - they're all foreign type paki religions.

In fact its a bit like saying 'The White Hut' instead of 'the White house' becasue a black man is president.

No  - definitely not racist at all.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 2, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> RESPECT might do ok in the local elections. Bradford's a fucking disaster area these days in terms of town planning.


 
could be a key election issue


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Astonishing performance Mr Gate. I link to an article that suggested on the basis of the proposed boundary changes and looking at the political history of the wards that would be coming in and thosewards going out _if_ the proposal are passed that GG (and labour) will be potentially setback in the next general election. You say, no no no this is twaddle, the real situation is that on the basis of the proposed boundary changes and looking at the political history of the wards that would be coming and what wards going out _if_ the proposal are passed that GG (and labour) will be potentially setback in the next general election - hence you suggest that Galloway might opt to stand in another seat. Further, these changes, should they occur would be so minor as to make no difference whatsoever - how then do you square the circle of you thinking that GG might not stand again in the newly reconfigured seat?


 
Now you are talking twaddle - the conclusion of the article was that on the basis of the boundary changes Galloway will not win again.  You're just arguing the toss for the sake of it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> When I was 17 I left home in a tiny West Highland village and went to London. As you might be able to imagine that was rather a daunting thing to do and I was not helped by the dozens of Londoners who thought it was funny to call me "Jock" and make jokes about Donald's trousers. These people were doing exactly the same thing as offensive and racist people who call immigrants from the sub-continent "Pakis" but I found it quite possible to shrug it off and get on with my life. All those thin-skinned people with over-extended toes should do the same.
> 
> The fact is that I don't use expressions like Islamabrad or Bradfordstan, but everyone knows that when JHE uses them he is referring to the Islamicness of those names, and not the ethnic background of immigrants.
> 
> By the way, your incessant use of abuse when replying to me will eventually result in my ignoring you which may or may not be your intention.



Thanks for the mini-autobiography. Not that I really care. If he's talking about their faith then why isn't it Bradhammed, immamgham, etc.? There are plenty of people from Pakistan and Bangladesh who are a secular as you (I presume) and I. My turn for a mini-bio - my secondary school was c. 50% Pakistani. Well over half of the ones I knew drank, didn't know a word of Arabic, had never seen the inside of a mosque and wouldn't know the Koran if you smacked them across the gob with it. He's equating Islam, or rather Islamism, with Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnicity. That's racist. Particularly as he's using those terms in a derogatory way. Would it be ok to call someone a Paki or a nigger if you claimed to be doing it to mock Islam or evangelical Christianity? Of course fucking not. 

Being anti-Islamism doesn't make him a racist - he's a racist who happens to also be anti-Islam. Although I suspect his racism and his islamophobia are both caused by the same thing. He's clearly a social inadequate and feels the need to take it out on brown people. Racism isn't all that trendy now so he expresses his racism in anti-islamic rhetoric. But sometimes the trick doesn't work too well - like on this thread. 

You daft old fuckwit.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Being anti-Islamism is not racist and I can't understand why anyone thinks it is. I'm also anti-Catholic (and anti-Protestant and anti all religions) but that hasn't stopped me having a Catholic wife with whom I've happily spent the last thirty years.



You appear to be a bit confused. You're comparing being 'anti' Islamism (which is politics) with being 'anti' catholicism (which is religon) and as such you're the last person who should accuse others of being stupid.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> You appear to be a bit confused. You're comparing being 'anti' Islamism (which is politics) with being 'anti' catholicism (which is religon) and as such you're the last person who should accuse others of being stupid.


 
If only what you say was true.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> If only what you say was true.



Where was I wrong?


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Where was I wrong?


 
You don't seem to understand that religion and politics are inextricably linked together and are impossible to analyze in isolation from each other.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> You don't seem to understand that religion and politics are inextricably linked together and are impossible to analyze in isolation from each other.



Nice wriggle. I'm sure most Muslims are indeed Islamists. Perhaps you can back that up?

Out of curiosity, what religion was Soviet Communism 'inextricably linked' with?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2012)

Here's a few Islamic countries to help you along:

Iran
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Turkey

Which of the above are Islamist?


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Out of curiosity, what religion was Soviet Communism 'inextricably linked' with?


 
The politics of Russia ignores the Orthodox Church at its peril. That's a particularly naive question, even coming from you. Politics, just so you know, is not confined to political parties, even one so powerfull as the Soviet Communist one once was.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 2, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Here's a few Islamic countries to help you along:
> 
> Iran
> Pakistan
> ...


 
Now I'm done with you. Such a childish question is not worth me wasting my time over.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> The BNP and EDL are racist because they think and act racist, not because they dislike the Islamic religion.



Same as JHE then you thick cunt.


----------



## rekil (Apr 2, 2012)

Isn't JHE an expat? Lives in Spain or something? Or have I perchance confused the despicable fucker with some other creepy cunt.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> The politics of Russia ignores the Orthodox Church at its peril. That's a particularly naive question, even coming from you. Politics, just so you know, is not confined to political parties, even one so powerfull as the Soviet Communist one once was.



So all politics regardless of political parties are 'inextricably linked' with religion?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Now I'm done with you. Such a childish question is not worth me wasting my time over.



I want you to define the anti Islamism that is your position. You've been harping on and on about it for pages now. Set out your stall.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 2, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> As long as the Tories continue to cut the higher rates of tax they will alienate very few of their supporters.


Yeah I mean it's not like Labour are ahead in the polls and were for pretty much all of 2011.
It's not like the Tories have just seen a huge drop in their vote at the last by-election.
It's not like that over the last week even papers traditionally friendly to them have been attacking them
None of that has happened has it.

You tit, you can't even get the fucking basics right.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2012)

He's already ran away. True to form, he'll re-appear elsewhere and start up the monotony again like none of this ever happened.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 3, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> He's already ran away. True to form, he'll re-appear elsewhere and start up the monotony again like none of this ever happened.


 
I've never run away. I told you, I'm no longer prepared to waste time on the likes of you.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 3, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> Yeah I mean it's not like Labour are ahead in the polls and were for pretty much all of 2011.
> It's not like the Tories have just seen a huge drop in their vote at the last by-election.
> It's not like that over the last week even papers traditionally friendly to them have been attacking them
> None of that has happened has it.
> ...


 
When I say supporters I don't mean those who occasionally choose to vote for them. I mean supporters.


----------



## bamalama (Apr 3, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> That's not an accurate comparison. I've been physically attacked because I am Scottish and, as I've said before the use of the word "Paki" is not always (often, even usually, but not always) combined with physical violence.
> 
> This whole discussion started with me saying that I don't think adding the suffix -stan to a place-name is obviously and nessessarily racist and I stand by that.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 3, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I've never run away. I told you, I'm no longer prepared to waste time on the likes of you.



Good. Piss off from the boards then.


----------



## chilango (Apr 3, 2012)

Ignoring the nonsense above, one thing that strikes me in some of the reactions to this election is the confusion between criticising Respect for trying to appeal to "communal politics" and the assumption that the voters are going to conform to "communal politics". 

Whether Galloway tried to appeal to a mythical "muslim vote" or not, it certaibnly does not follow that any such "muslim vote" exists or that voters are going to sit within such a framework.

there are some hints that Galloway won this because of a turn-out of young, disenfranchised people who don't normally vote. This is by far the most interesting possibility in this election.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 3, 2012)

Council elections: Respect could conceivably use the success and their new activists to put up a credible show. one in which enthusiasm could  triumph over a lack of organisation on the ground. Labour must sense this locally but its difficult to know the state of their local machine after this.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 3, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Council elections: Respect could conceivably use the success and their new activists to put up a credible show. one in which enthusiasm could triumph over a lack of organisation on the ground. Labour must sense this locally but its difficult to know the state of their local machine after this.


 
After 1,200 posts, many nothing to do with Bradford West, it's time to start a new thread on the Council Elections methinks


----------



## manny-p (Apr 3, 2012)

chilango said:


> Whether Galloway tried to appeal to a mythical "muslim vote" or not, it certaibnly does not follow that any such "muslim vote" exists or that voters are going to sit within such a framework.
> .


I would say he was going for the pakistani vote who are mostly muslim. Nothing mythical about it.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 3, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> When I say supporters I don't mean those who occasionally choose to vote for them. I mean supporters.


What you mean like leader writers for the Telegraph and Mail, who've published articles critical of them
Or the core supporters that polling shows are angered by the budget.
Idiot, you've not a clue.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 3, 2012)

People who have the scarf on their bedroom wall.


----------



## chilango (Apr 3, 2012)

manny-p said:


> I would say he was going for the pakistani vote who are mostly muslim. Nothing mythical about it.


 
Pakistani and Muslim aren' interchangeable.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 3, 2012)

I don't much like Galloway as his biggest agenda has always been himself, but the recent 'Galloway is a drinker' smear is just that though, a smear. I worked for War On Want decades ago and he was definitely teetotal then. I think it's most probably Labour sour grapes.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I don't much like Galloway as his biggest agenda has always been himself, but the recent 'Galloway is a drinker' smear is just that though, a smear. I worked for War On Want decades ago and he was definitely teetotal then. I think it's most probably Labour sour grapes.


It was _him_ suggesting that the labour candidate drinks, not labour suggesting that he does. (Not that i care but i have seen him drinking and drunk at a meeting and geri knows from an MP he shared an office with that he used - doesn't mean he does now though, as i said - don't care either way).


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It was _him_ suggesting that the labour candidate drinks, not labour suggesting that he does.


I've seen otherwise on the net, maybe as a counter-smear?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I've seen otherwise on the net, maybe as a counter-smear?


Well, i've not seen or heard any suggestions it was both ways - doesn't mean it didn't happen. Galloway did it in Bow as well i think - again, might have been a response to labour.


----------



## belboid (Apr 3, 2012)

yeah it was, supposedly, a response to smears put out by (or on behalf of) the labour candidate


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2012)

I note your 'supposedly'? Sceptical?


----------



## belboid (Apr 3, 2012)

me?  sceptical?  never!  I wouldnt put it past GG to make it up, but I wouldnt put it past Labour to do in the first place, either.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 3, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> What you mean like leader writers for the Telegraph and Mail, who've published articles critical of them
> Or the core supporters that polling shows are angered by the budget.
> Idiot, you've not a clue.


 
Please yourself.


----------



## manny-p (Apr 3, 2012)

chilango said:


> Pakistani and Muslim aren' interchangeable.


They pretty much are in bradford.


----------



## Ranbay (Apr 3, 2012)

EDL gona do a demo init... he's a traitor init.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 3, 2012)




----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 3, 2012)

There was an excellent debate on Radio 4 'Women's Hour' today between Salma Yaqoob and New Labour toady Meg Hillier.  The presenter started off trying to make it about Yvette Cooper's stupid comments on Andrew Marr's about Labour 'losing touch with muslim women'.  Within about 60 seconds Salma had refused to debate it on those 'patronising' terms and turned it into a debate about class politics and Labour's abandonment of support for working class communities, using tuition fees and EMA as an example.  She also branded Labour as 'Austerity-lite'.  Meg Hillier was humiliated and didn't know what to say, while the presenter tried to say "We're not turning this programme into the 'Respect Appreciation Society'" and curtail the debate. 

I thought it was excellent that Salma refused to follow the terms of the corner they were trying to box her into and turned it around class and policy.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 3, 2012)

Fisher_Gate said:


> There was an excellent debate on Radio 4 'Women's Hour' today between Salma Yaqoob and New Labour toady Meg Hillier. The presenter started off trying to make it about Yvette Cooper's stupid comments on Andrew Marr's about Labour 'losing touch with muslim women'. Within about 60 seconds Salma had refused to debate it on those 'patronising' terms and turned it into a debate about class politics and Labour's abandonment of support for working class communities, using tuition fees and EMA as an example. She also branded Labour as 'Austerity-lite'. Meg Hillier was humiliated and didn't know what to say, while the presenter tried to say "We're not turning this programme into the 'Respect Appreciation Society'" and curtail the debate.
> 
> I thought it was excellent that Salma refused to follow the terms of the corner they were trying to box her into and turned it around class and policy.


 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01f5lcj/Womans_Hour_The_Undateable/

Starts at 17:40


----------



## manny-p (Apr 3, 2012)

Fisher_Gate said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01f5lcj/Womans_Hour_The_Undateable/
> 
> Starts at 17:40


Cheers but Salma has done some cuntish things herself so I hear whilst she was a councillor.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 3, 2012)

manny-p said:


> Cheers but Salma has done some cuntish things herself so I hear whilst she was a councillor.


 
a) that's not acceptable language
b) there's a code of conduct and standards board that councillors can be reported to - if you or anyone else had a problem with it she should have been reported;
http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=Member-Services/PageLayout&cid=1223096351551&packedargs=website=1&pagename=BCC/Common/Wrapper/Wrapper&rendermode=live
c) slurs against Salma when she was on the Council were common, especially from LibDems. Here's one apology from a repeat offender who's in trouble again only this week:

http://www.birminghammail.net/news/...mingham-council-extremism-row-65233-28422052/


----------



## DexterTCN (Apr 3, 2012)

Available here till tomorrow http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/programmes/schedules/fm

Direct iplayer link http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b01f5lcj

Starts 17:45 minutes. 22 minutes bbc bod says labour has betrayed the working class.  Balanced by 'respect appreciation society' comment a minute later, to be fair. It's certainly interesting but it's almost like a Chat! or Hello! type interview.

(eta never saw other post with link, sorry)


----------



## manny-p (Apr 3, 2012)

Fisher_Gate said:


> c) slurs against Salma when she was on the Council were common, especially from LibDems.


 
What I heard was that she was open to the privitisation of some swimming baths. Is there any truth in that?


----------



## IC3D (Apr 3, 2012)

manny-p said:


> What I heard was that she was open to the privitisation of some swimming baths. Is there any truth in that?


Labour run councils are doing that up and down the country so not really much of a smear.


----------



## manny-p (Apr 3, 2012)

IC3D said:


> Labour run councils are doing that up and down the country so not really much of a smear.


It's a fucking joke that's what it is.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 3, 2012)

manny-p said:


> What I heard was that she was open to the privitisation of some swimming baths. Is there any truth in that?


No


----------



## manny-p (Apr 3, 2012)

Fisher_Gate said:


> No


You seem to be a fan boy/girl of Salma. I respected her for what she did during the soldier thing but no politicians are saints.


----------



## manny-p (Apr 3, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Available here till tomorrow http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/programmes/schedules/fm
> 
> Direct iplayer link http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b01f5lcj
> 
> ...


24.30 - Kumar the paedo? eh?


----------



## DexterTCN (Apr 3, 2012)

On my link it's a flourescent jacket at 24.30


----------



## manny-p (Apr 3, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> On my link it's a flourescent jacket at 24.30


keep going


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 3, 2012)

manny-p said:


> You seem to be a fan boy/girl of Salma. I respected her for what she did during the soldier thing but no politicians are saints.


She's a reformist politician, but I judge her by what she does and says.  On the Sparkhill baths I can't see anything wrong with her issues, she genuinely fought to defend a community facility and opposed PFI/privatisation:
http://www.salmayaqoob.com/2010/02/sparkhill-baths-shut-till-2012.html
http://www.salmayaqoob.com/2010/02/lib-dems-mislead-public-over-sparkhill.html
http://www.salmayaqoob.com/2010/02/we-want-community-pool-run-by-community.html


----------



## DexterTCN (Apr 3, 2012)

manny-p said:


> keep going


No...it's called Women's Hour for a reason.  I get worried in there.


----------



## DexterTCN (Apr 4, 2012)

Interesting article by Mark Steel. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...y-and-aung-san-suu-kyi--so-alike-7615451.html

The last paragraph is interesting.



> So maybe the main thing that's changed is it's proved that people, including the young, can be reconnected with politics. But it helps to be against pointless wars, and making the poor poorer, and to go about it like Galloway, quietly and with humility and never making yourself the centre of attention.​


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 4, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Interesting article by Mark Steel. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...y-and-aung-san-suu-kyi--so-alike-7615451.html
> 
> The last paragraph is interesting.


 
Remind me what Mark Steel's occupation is?


----------



## BigTom (Apr 4, 2012)

manny-p said:


> You seem to be a fan boy/girl of Salma. I respected her for what she did during the soldier thing but no politicians are saints.


 
Salma is good afaik though.  There doesn't seem to be anything much in the way of hypocracy etc., she's not always been responsive when I've emailed about something (as a constituent of hers - I don't know her personally), but then no councillor has, and I've always felt that she worked for her ward.
Don't generally vote, but I voted for her, and that's because I think she does have as much integrity as it's possible for a politician to have.

And I'm certainly no respect/salma fanboy


----------



## treelover (Apr 4, 2012)

Well there is one downside(one?) to GG being elected as a Respect MP

the return of Fisher Gate.....


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 4, 2012)

Is bigamy a obstacle to being able to sit as an mp?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Apr 4, 2012)

I believe he doesn't have more than one civil marriage at a time. Still hoping that he'll be caught out on embezzlement, though.


----------



## two sheds (Apr 4, 2012)

Back on I'm a celebrity .... I hear







Americans I feel have an inflated opinion of his importance though.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/04/september-11-mastermind-guantanamo-trial


----------



## audiotech (Apr 5, 2012)

treelover said:


> <idiocy snipped>


 
Not one for differences of opinion and open debate then treelover?


----------



## SLK (Apr 5, 2012)

stephj said:


> .


 
Sorry I am late to this, and I'm only reading the thread because I am interested, but this post from lockandlight saying being laughed at as a jock (I am) should be laughed off in the same way as called a paki is, bluntly, ignorant at best and racist at worst.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 5, 2012)

SLK said:


> Sorry I am late to this, and I'm only reading the thread because I am interested, but this post from lockandlight saying being laughed at as a jock (I am) should be laughed off in the same way as called a paki is, bluntly, ignorant at best and racist at worst.


 
I never said "laughed off".


----------



## treelover (Apr 5, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/apr/04/how-women-won-it-for-galloway


A lot of hostages to fortune is this rather strange article...

I think it will all end in tears...


----------

