Galloway is back

[Virus]

UK democracy has already collapsed. It is now suffering under an unelected government of upper-class incompetents pursuing chaotic policies that no one voted for.

Better get out while you can then Jane. Maybe Iran will take you in a refugee of Western Imperialism or something.

 

[Darat]

Why is he even allowed to hold office? He should be in jail for financing a designated terrorist organization.

People are jailed for such offences in the UK so if there was actual evidence that he did this he would have been jailed a long time ago.

 

[Darat]

No. Simply no, and you should be embarrased to have made that mistake. He got elected as a member of parliament to represent his constituents. Feel free to show evidence that he performs less than averagely in that regard. ...snip...

Since he's not technically taken his seat in parliament yet he really can't have a record (this time around) as a MP! However his past record does not show a very active MP since around the time he left the Labour party. (Which to me indicates quite a lot of his parliamentary activity prior to leaving the Labour party was at the behest of the whips.)

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/george_galloway/bradford_west

 

[Darat]

I agree with you here on two points:

1) Yes, it could be projection
2) Yes, Galloway probably was trying to mobilize the "Muslim vote"

...snip....

Think there is very little that is "probably" to that! I mean look at the constituency he ran in!

 

[Darat]

...snip...

UK democracy has already collapsed. It is now suffering under an unelected government of upper-class incompetents pursuing chaotic policies that no one voted for.

I agree with your second sentence to a degree (they aren't all upper-class and they aren't all incompetent) but your first sentence would seem to indicate a lack of understanding of what British democracy has been for over a hundred years. You may think that the democracy we've had for over a hundred years is not a good democracy but there is nothing to indicate that the system of democracy we have has collapsed or is collapsing.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Since he's not technically taken his seat in parliament yet he really can't have a record (this time around) as a MP! However his past record does not show a very active MP since around the time he left the Labour party. (Which to me indicates quite a lot of his parliamentary activity prior to leaving the Labour party was at the behest of the whips.)

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/george_galloway/bradford_west

Well I did phrase my question to allow for evidence on his current term to be presented as and when it became available, but of course he does have a history of being elected to parliament and we can indeed look at evidence from earlier years. The question, of course, was whether he was more or less than average in fulfilling the obligations to which he was elected - ie, representing his constituents. I'll not beat about the bush, he has a poor record of intervening in parliamentary debate and asking oral questions. He has asked written questions, but your link doesn't readily allow comparison. Apparantly "People have made 24 annotations on this MP’s speeches — well above average amongst MPs." - but that doesn't speak directly to representation of constituents either. Is there an indicator we can agree on?

Also from that link, George "Has used three-word alliterative phrases (e.g. "she sells seashells") 230 times in debates — average amongst MPs." I expected his detested 'flair' to be reflected here, but it seems he's no more than averagely florid among a pack of preening poppinjays.

Most pertinently, the site explains why they include that curious 'she sells seashells' statistic:

Why should I read in more depth than just the numbers?

A few people have asked why we publish statistics on how often MPs use alliterative phrases, such as "she sells seashells". It has even been mentioned in the House of Commons.

Simply put, we realise that data such as the number of debates spoken in means little in terms of an MP's actual performance. MPs do lots of useful things which we don't count yet, and some which we never could. Even when we do, a count doesn't measure the quality of an MPs contribution.[...]
Our advice — when you're judging your MP, read some of their speeches, check out their website, even go to a local meeting and ask them a question. Use TheyWorkForYou as a gateway, rather than a simple place to find a number measuring competence.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Hmmmmmm! A Damascene conversion, one might almost say ...

Well played!

Galloway gets voted back in, on his single issue, that he always fails to push once in any seat. He is one of the guys who screams "THIS IS WRONG!" but does nothing to make it right when he can just keep telling everybody else how wrong they are.

His political career will continue to flacid noise.

He is well qualified, in that case, to try and run for Congress in the US, once he gets his citizenship changed via the usual protocols.

One other thought - I think it is going to be bad for local people on local matters. Unless their local issue can be used to provide publicity for Galloway I suspect they will find their new MP is rather absent and rather non-supportive.

Nailed that dive.

George Galloway egged in Bradford by protestor

Waste of good food.

Democracies can fail badly. Democracies can collapse.

And people like Galloway are the harbingers. The man has no talent for governing competently, or even any detectable desire to do so. He is a demagogue. A wide, flapping mouth. Nothing more.

As above, eligible for many a seat in Congress.

I had read elsewhere that Galloway had taken advantage of a feeling among the younger muslim voters that clan politics plays too much of a role in the selection of the Labour candidate, and they broke ranks with the elders in the community. The video seems to confirm that.

Perhaps he's a UK version of Ron Paul or Dennis the K: getting fringe voters to do at least something, rather than nothing.

George Galloway: another example of the virtues of British Bombast.

 

[zooterkin]

George Galloway: another example of the virtues of British Bombast.

Scottish, please! Or is this one of those occasions when the resident Scots don't want to make the distinction?

 

[Rolfe]

He's a cross we have to bear, unfortunately. I'll just note again that he stood for the Scottish parliament last May, in a PR system that would have given him every chance of securing a seat if he had had even moderate public support, and failed miserably.

He's also a foaming-at-the-mouth unionist.

Rolfe.

(But I still like the way he shredded Frank Duggan.)

 

[Darth Rotor]

Scottish, please! Or is this one of those occasions when the resident Scots don't want to make the distinction?

Regretfully, since it is all part of Great Britain, and he's gonna be an MP in the larger entity serving the various united parts of the British Isles, British it is.

Of he's a Scot, that's Scotland's problem to deal with, just as Rick Perry is Texas' problem to deal with.

 

[JihadJane]

I agree with your second sentence to a degree (they aren't all upper-class and they aren't all incompetent) but your first sentence would seem to indicate a lack of understanding of what British democracy has been for over a hundred years. You may think that the democracy we've had for over a hundred years is not a good democracy but there is nothing to indicate that the system of democracy we have has collapsed or is collapsing.

If it ever succeeds in liberating itself from representing the interests of big money rather than the people, then I'll agree with you.

 

[WildCat]

People are jailed for such offences in the UK so if there was actual evidence that he did this he would have been jailed a long time ago.

You mean like a video of him doing so and bragging about it?



I guess the UK police are too busy dealing with real crimes like arresting internet trolls than frivolous stuff like handing sacks of cash to terrorist organizations.

 

[Ziggurat]

I said opposition is axiomatically good (indeed essential) for democracy.

You reply that some opposition has been bad for the US. I apologise if this comes as a rude awakening to you, but the two are not synonymous. The US is a democracy, not the concept of democracy (and not even a particularly good example of democracy). What was incredibly destructive for the US was good for democracy.

You contradict yourself. You also fail to notice that a single exception can disprove a universal rule, and your claim that opposition is axiomatically good is exactly such a universal rule which even a single exception disproves.

Standards have slipped, I said, and here they plummet.

Indeed they have. Your stunning display of bad logic above is a prime example.

Oh look, you can highlight part of what I said (while ignoring the meaning) and make a poor joke at my expense. Is this because I pointed out how wrong you were in your understanding of Galloway's new job role? You didn't quote or respond to that part of my post at all.

No, it's because you have absolutely no clue about me and even admitted you weren't paying attention to what I said, you still presumed to tell me things about myself which simply aren't true. Again, standards (yours) are indeed slipping. As for details of Galloway's impending failures, others have addressed that better already.

 

[Ziggurat]

People are jailed for such offences in the UK so if there was actual evidence that he did this he would have been jailed a long time ago.

You have frequently pointed out a case where you thought someone was jailed in the UK without evidence. Is it really so hard for you to image a case where someone would not be jailed even though there was evidence? That seems a strange position to take, to assert that the system can only fail in one direction.

 

[Ziggurat]

UK democracy has already collapsed. It is now suffering under an unelected government of upper-class incompetents pursuing chaotic policies that no one voted for.

Huh. I never really took you for a Euroskeptic.

 

[jiggeryqua]

You contradict yourself. You also fail to notice that a single exception can disprove a universal rule, and your claim that opposition is axiomatically good is exactly such a universal rule which even a single exception disproves.

Indeed they have. Your stunning display of bad logic above is a prime example.

I neither contradict myself nor have you 'disproved' a claim at all. The claim is that political opposition is good (and necessary) for democracy. Your point, which missed the point, was that opposition to anti-slavery was bad for the US. The US is not democracy, but you do have very several more posts than I, so I suppose it's worth your while claiming a win and hoping nobody actually checks.

Of course some elements of some opposing positions might be fairly assessed as being not-good for a particular democratic country. If you want to have that argument, find someone who stands against it. Meanwhile, democracy itself is served by any and all opposition.

No, it's because you have absolutely no clue about me and even admitted you weren't paying attention to what I said, you still presumed to tell me things about myself which simply aren't true. Again, standards (yours) are indeed slipping. As for details of Galloway's impending failures, others have addressed that better already.

No, I did not 'admit' I wasn't paying attention to 'what you said', I declared that I had not paid attention to which political trench you were manning. I paid full attention to the points I responded to. I don't recall presuming to tell you things about yourself, and you've neglected to mention what you think they were. But then your entire post is smoke, aimed at some fundament somewhere. My final, repeated question wasn't about Galloway's impending failures, it addressed your schoolboy howler in misapprehending Galloway's job as an MP.

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course some elements of some opposing positions might be fairly assessed as being not-good for a particular democratic country.

Then in what possible sense can opposition be axiomatically good? Your position is incoherent.

Furthermore, and more importantly, you have already conceded the essential point by this statement. If some elements of some opposing positions might be fairly assessed as being not-good for a particular democratic country, then it is obviously possible that George Galloway's positions may be fairly assessed as being not-good for the UK.

Meanwhile, democracy itself is served by any and all opposition.

One wonders what "democracy itself" even is, if it enjoys benefits from things which actual democratic countries suffer from. One also wonders why we should care about the benefit to an abstraction when harm is done to real people.

 

[Darat]

You mean like a video of him doing so and bragging about it?



I guess the UK police are too busy dealing with real crimes like arresting internet trolls than frivolous stuff like handing sacks of cash to terrorist organizations.

As I said - if there was actual evidence of him funding an organisation that is considered a terrorist organisation in the UK he would have been put on trial. If you believe that you have evidence of this you should contact the CPS.

 

[Darat]

You have frequently pointed out a case where you thought someone was jailed in the UK without evidence. Is it really so hard for you to image a case where someone would not be jailed even though there was evidence? That seems a strange position to take, to assert that the system can only fail in one direction.

Eh?

 

[Darat]

Then in what possible sense can opposition be axiomatically good? Your position is incoherent.

...snip..

It isn't - it is merely a way of stating one of the principles that is considered necessary for a democracy to be representational.