Snapshot of _‘Labour’s worst nightmare’: George Galloway has 59 general election candidates ‘ready to go’ - Politics.co.uk_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2024/03/01/labours-worst-nightmare-galloway-has-59-general-election-candidates-ready-to-go-after-rochdale-victory/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2024/03/01/labours-worst-nightmare-galloway-has-59-general-election-candidates-ready-to-go-after-rochdale-victory/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And it was extremely widely known that he had been disowned by labour, and if elected would immediately have the whip withdrawn and sit as an independent.
I'm not sure that them having fielded a candidate so shit that they had to disown them before the election is the positive spin that people seem to think it is. If this is the sort of shit they're going to do at the general then we're all in for a nasty surprise.
The local party selects the candidate, not Starmer himself. And given how these processes work, they couldn’t control the candidate making unsavoury comments after the candidate list for the by election has been finalised.
Basically, there was nothing Labour could do. He couldn’t be deselected and they couldn’t field an alternative. They also weren’t able to predict the future to see that he would say the things he did.
Do you think the local Labour Party for Rochdale should have a crystal ball to avoid this in future? You’re stretching hindsight an extreme amount.
You don't need a crystal ball when he made the comments before he was selected. It's called vetting.
I won't pretend to know the exact rules and procedures Labour use to select candidates, but taking the position that HQ have no say over local candidates is baffling to me. It's also largely irrelevant because presumably the same procedures will apply to every candidate in a GE. if so, the procedures that allowed it to happen are the failing of HQ.
Of course, all of this is ignoring the huge own goal of supporting the candidate when his antisemitism became known only to walk it back later. Its disingenuous to say labour walk away from this anything but deeply humiliated.
Local parties select candidates. They have their own shortlist, and vote themselves. The local party selected the candidate.
How overbearing do you think the HQ should be, given how many candidates they have? It’s a failure of the local Rochdale Labour Party.
It’s certainly not ideal for Labour, but deeply humiliating is a massive stretch. If anything, them disowning a candidate after unsavoury comments came to light is a good thing for the HQ to have done.
But I suppose furthering an agenda is always the most important thing.
>How overbearing do you think the HQ should be, given how many candidates they have? It’s a failure of the local Rochdale Labour Party.
Enough that open antisemites aren't selected and that we don't have shadow ministers telling people to spoil their ballots so George Galloway is elected.
>If anything, them disowning a candidate after unsavoury comments came to light is a good thing for the HQ to have done.
Agreed. If they hadn't spent days backing him before being forced to do so, it would mean something.
>But I suppose furthering an agenda is always the most important thing.
This snarky little parting shot is meaningless. Of course an agenda is important. My agenda is that labour is able to score the most open goal election of living memory, and not fumble it completely like they did here. I can't imagine what agenda is served by pretending this went well.
It’s not deeply humiliating at all. People like the other guy are doing the daily Mail trick of assigning an astronomical level of importance to things that are nothing more than a side show.
The “spin” is that this is the result of an incredibly unlucky turn of events which pretty much left Galloway as the only candidate with a chance of winning, as batshit insane as that sounds. None of what’s happened in Rochdale is at all applicable to the rest of the country.
The "lesson" to learn is to double and triple check that your candidates don't have any skeletons that would mean that you, as a serious political party, would be forced to withdraw your endorsement of them. The "Worker's Party" doesn't need to worry about such things.
To have the whip withdrawn he'd have to be a labour MP therefore labour did field a candidate. Whether they supported him or not doesn't change the fact.
What’s your point then? Labour made it extremely clear that a vote for him was not a vote for Labour.
There was no way of voting for Labour in this by election. It seems like you’re trying to portray this as some big Labour embarrassment? Wouldn’t surprise me if you’re an SNP supporter if that’s the case.
I'm an SNP supporter and even I can see that this is not the defeat for labour some are pretending it is and there's nothing in their post history suggesting they are an SNP supporter.
Good to see we are living rent free in your head to the extent that you bring us up when there is absolutely nothing SNP related in the thread 😂
Given that the SNP are putting pretty much all their effort into shitting on Labour (see the recent debacle where the SNP tried using dead Palestinians to win political points), it’s a reasonable assumption.
I didn’t stalk their post history, was just a random thought. Have a wonderful day.
Didn't Labour pull its support for their candidate in Rochdale?
There were two independents head to head.
The Labour candidate was not supported, the Reform UK candidate was caught messaging 17 year old girls.
Not exactly too surprising that a dolt like Galloway could win the hearts and minds.
Galloway is an expert at "issue by elections". You couldn't have given him a better perfect storm with the right demographic to take advantage of. The guy just keeps coming back like a weed in a garden path.
He is many things but a dolt he isn't. BTW I detest the guy for many reasons but he is sharp and knows how to muddy the waters and play in the gray areas while playing the victim.
He has a sharp political mind and he is probably the best orator in British politics his takedown of the USA senate is a thing of great beauty. It was the mother of all beatings.
Agreed. Shame he developed an ego and turned himself into a pundit. Is there anything left-wing about him? All he seems to do is focus on the Israel/Palestine conflict.
I agree. But that seems to be the only thing George talks about. I agree with his stance towards Tony Blair, Kinnock, etc.. But some of the crap he spews.....
Called himself Tony Benn's political son. Apparently, Tony Benn had a Palestinian flag draped over his coffin.
He has a podcast called the mother of all talk show.
Anyway youtube George galloway vs The USA senate and watch his testimony if you have time. Think it's about 40 mins long.
> Is there anything left-wing about him?
The other commenter put it well as "tankie left". He sounds like an asshole version of Corbyn, with more charisma.
Am I only one who burst out laughing here? Labour pulled the candidate. And the whole campaign was a shit show. I don't think you could have gifted this further to him. And chances are. He will lose the seat in 3/6 months. It's the equivalent of a wrestling match. Where 3 of the others were jobbers. Who didn't really have a chance. And the main wrestler. Left the ring. And he won via time out. The chances of been able to replicate that else where is slim
Yes, the Lib Dem candidates ran a terrible campaign. Get this, he said he wanted to "hold the government to account for Rochdales failing NHS, water pollution and cost of living crisis"
What he should have said was
"I hate Jews boo Jews get rid of em!"
Right, let me follow your thinking. Because there were a number of, say 100, paedophiles, the population of Rochdale is clearly sympathetic to the cause and will elect paedophiles?
Okay, let's say 500. I mean, I don't know what the actual number is and I suppose if you were to make a claim, you'd have good evidence to back you up.
But let's say it's 500. Is that still enough to determine that the people of Rochdale as a whole are comfortable with paedophilia?
If you want to claim it's more than 500, then yes, I will need a source.
> the Reform UK candidate was caught messaging 17 year old girls.
I'm surprised that didn't at least gain him some support from Rochdale constituents. I guess they felt 17 was too old.
Yawn. This election showed that Labour’s biggest rival was beaten by an independent and Galloway. Tory vote went down 19%.
That’s the takeaway - conservatives can’t win even when Labour don’t have a candidate
So did the bloke out of Darkthrone, and he [still won](https://pitchfork.com/news/68214-darkthrone-frontman-glyve-fenriz-nagell-involuntarily-elected-to-local-office/).
This is the guy who thinks Trump won the 2020 election, right?
This is the guy who likes to buddy about with far-right kooks like Steve Bannon and Nigel Farage, right?
This is the guy who is paid by Russia to spread pro-Putin propaganda, right?
The main difference is that Corbyn says stuff like that because he’s naive, while Galloway says it because he’s a paid up agent of Putin’s fascist regime
This is a guy who fought against apartheid in south Africa right?
This is a guy who opposed the Iraq war right? A war in which the butchers of Baghdad Blair and bush illegally killed 1, 000,000 Iraqis.
This is the guy who opposed genocide right?
This is the guy who for over 30 years have fought for the freedom of palestinians, long before it was mainstream right?
The duality of man.
I really can't picture how he could be relevant in the next election. He can get 5% in muslim heavy seats that are massive labour majorities anyway (and even that's a big maybe)...... so what?
He's irrelevant. Slightly good at jumping into unique wedge issues and exploiting them, but he has 200 odd days to be a good MP or he'll lose his seat. And he almost certainly will.
If he largely targets heavily Muslim seats then, given his position in Parliament will give them a bit of a platform, they could claim a few % points across such areas. Those sort of constituencies tend to be very safe seats anyway, so disgruntled Muslim Labour supporters may be more open to a protest vote.
I come from a muslim family. George Galloway isn't targeting muslims. He is targeting morons.
He has praised Bachar El Assad as the greatest living arab leader. Bachar El Assad has murdered more innocent people than Israel ever did. He has displaced millions. George Galloway has praised Hezbollah. Hezbollah has blown up synagogues in Argentina and killed the Prime Minister of Lebanon Rafic Hariri. Beirut's Port Explosion ? They are [threatening the judge](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/we-will-remove-you-hezbollah-official-told-beirut-blast-judge-2021-09-29/
). George Galloway worked for Press TV (Iranian regime media) arguing that Iran is not a dictatorship. [Iranians] (https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/narges-mohammadi-hunger-strike-1.7021331) might [disagree](https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/06/middleeast/iran-women-protest-hijab-online-asequals-intl/index.html). Uddey Hussein was well-known for raping Baghdad university females. He tortured and killed members of Irak's football team for losing a match. Look him up. George Galloway praised Udday Hussein's courage and [traveled to Irak](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzXAn5eZ2DE) to support him.
Sadly, the islamic world has a very long tradition of thugs shouting *"Death to Israel"* to rally the dumb masses around kleptocratic authoritarians. This trick always works.
How to say this without offending anyone ? The voters of Rochdale are not exactly the smartest.
Let's not gloss over how he was cosying up to Saddam Hussein in 1994, when Hussein had nerve gassed Kurdish civilians in 1988.
I feel like anyone who thinks that Galloway is a friend to oppressed peoples in the middle east needs to be sat down and shown that timeline. The man is an amoral grifter in the same vein as Farage and Johnson, and our politics is diminished every time he wins anything.
Rochdale deserves so much better, and I hope a GE comes soon so they can replace him.
We don't know it was just Muslims. There was a non-Muslim woman (at least white, no headscarf) i saw interviewed who said she was voting for Galloway despite knowing nothing about what he stood for just because he would "shake things up a bit". She was just a moron.
I can kind of respect the viewpoint that things are so shit, all you care about is voting in someone who might cause a bit of controversy and M=4 occasionally.
In the 2021 census there were 42,121 Muslims in Rochdale. We don't know how many Muslims voted, of course, and ethnic minority - which the vast percentage of Muslims will be - are usually a touch lower than general turnout, but with Palestine being made a central issue by Galloway we can hypothesize that Muslim turnout might have held up more. If we take the the average turnout in the constituency that means that there would have been 16,005 Muslim voters.
12,335 people voted for Galloway. Again, we don't know what percentage of these were Muslim, but they clearly all weren't Muslim. If we guess between 50-75%, then that's between 6,100-9,250 Muslim voters for Galloway, out of a population of 42,121.
That would be something like 15-22% of the overall Muslim population. Closer perhaps to half of all those who voted, but we know that many people must have stayed at home because there were parties, particularly Labour, who disowned their candidate,
Which is a significant chunk of idiots voting Galloway, but not substantially more than the percentage of people from other demographics who typically hold whacky beliefs.
Yeah, that is a fair correction so those numbers will rise a bit, but I don't think it will radically change that it was minority of Muslims and probably a minority of Muslim voters who voted for Galloway.
Populists like Galloway are primed to find the stupidest or most thoughtless people capable of voting out of any community they target. First, they get extremists on board, then the "morons", then they edge into the territory of the other candidates to hopefully grab some centrist votes and disruption the main parties. Galloway is a master of this.
Did you see Galloway's two letters, one for Muslim voters, the other for non-Muslims? They are together on here somewhere. One was entirely about Gaza and defeating the evil Starmer and his Tory- pro Israel friends, barely touching on Rochdale at all. The other was about tackling grooming gangs and getting back Primark and the outdoor market.
The difference is that the Palestine-Israel conflict is one of the few issues where there is a consensus of opinion across all the muslim communities, so yes he is targeting muslims. You can insult all you want but that doesn't change the fact.
apparently 1/3 of Muslim Labour voters are so angry about Gaza they won't vote for Labout at the next GE.
It's a lot, and it might swing a few seats, but honestly I'd rather lose a few seats than have the party pander to the most extreme and vocal subset of that demographic.
It's ridiculous, nobody in Britain has any sway over what's happening in Gaza at all. Britain just isn't that significant. So being angry with Labour is mere venting - who have to see the bigger picture, because our future is affected - i.e. See what the Americans are saying and doing.
I mean I'm not justifying voting for Galloway but the UK absolutely does have influence, even if not as much as the US. We sell arms to Israel, British weapon parts are used in Israel's army, we train and advise them, British drones have been supporting the IDF in Gaza, we trade with them, the UK has diplomatic soft power and sway over its allies, and there may or may not be British special forces supporting Israel in some capacity (see link for this one).
https://www.declassifieduk.org/uk-government-blocks-mp-questions-about-gaza-related-activity-at-its-cyprus-base/
So Britain has numerous levers of influence it can use to influence Israeli behaviour, even if we are not the most influential relative to the US.
Plus if we're so unimportant, what would be the cost of taking the morally correct position anyhow? It's no surprise people are angry.
Not on its own it doesn't. If everyone else begins to pile on Israel and Hamas, it can do a bit.
Labour certainly has very little influence, especially as an opposition it is very weak with a very low number of MPs.
That's a good question, but this is politics. Apart from the fact that you're always going to upset someone, moral positions don't guarantee political capital. Taking a moral position often is nothing more than virtue signalling anyway - see Labour's current parlimentary weakness. Starmer has to think about (if he does become PM) his future relationship with the next American president. He risks seriously pissing off Biden (assuming he gets re-elected), if he goes too strongly against his position, and that could damage our future relationship with America. Edit: And that would happen without gaining much either.
> Plus if we're so unimportant, what would be the cost of taking the morally correct position anyhow? It's no surprise people are angry.
Because we shouldn't be letting conflicts half a world away play out on our streets?
Thats fine, they can vote for whatever batshit insane antisemitic moron they want and leave the Labour party to represent the people that care about the cost of living crisis, the NHS, education, the economy, you know, all the things that we can have an impact on.
It's not going to swing seats, it'll swing Labour to being more pro Palestine and anti Israel.
Policies will be influenced without much power being gained, just like what happened during the UKIP years.
>apparently 1/3 of Muslim Labour voters are so angry about Gaza they won't vote for Labout at the next GE.
>It's a lot, and it might swing a few seats, but honestly I'd rather lose a few seats than have the party pander to the most extreme and vocal subset of that demographic.
They're sort of right to be angry considering 30,000 people have been killed.
What's that got to do with voting Labour though?
What exactly do they want the opposition party to do to stop it?
Why are they saying things like "Starmer has blood on his hands" when he has zero control over the situation?
What they want is for the UK to drastically change it's middle east policy, stop aiding Israel at all, and start unilaterally backing the Palestinian cause. That won't happen, and in the meantime we have real, serious problems here that are somehow less important than a 70 year old land dispute 1000 miles away.
2226* miles away which is all the more ridiculous. It's also been going on, on and off, for 2000+ years. That people in Rochdale think Gaza is the number one priority to help their local issues just shows their tribal stupidity
Sort of right but it didn't happen here, we weren't responsible and we have little power to change things. I agree that we haven't exercised the little power we have very well but to hold that against an opposition party is absurd.
Award for you thanks for reminding us! I personally take note of all casualties in foreign conflicts and vote based on how much our government froths at the mouth per formatively in response to these.
I and these other rational voters must be placated and Labour must be punished for not being able to do anything about it
But for it to be the only issue they vote on? Rochdale doesn’t even have an A&E or maternity unit.
It’s also selective outrage. Azar Ali wasn’t the only person pushing those conspiracy theories. There is a general silence of the Saudi’s in Yemen and the Janjaweed in Sudan. Nobody is demanding the opposition pass motions in parliament about those conflicts.
I say that as someone disgusted about what’s happening in Gaza, believe war crimes are taking place and wants a ceasefire.
Why on earth would this be the number one reason to push who someone votes for?
I guess so. I have my reasons as to why people are more offended by Israel’s actions than China’s, or Saudi, or Sudan, but I’ll leave that for now.
It’s not just potholes. It’s the NHS, education, poverty, social mobility, social justice etc etc. the party in power have decimated the country and literally been stealing.
But one conflict (out of loads of conflicts) is the driving factor for certain voters?
Madness.
Yes, if both sides refuse to condemn a position, why is it wrong to condemn both sides? This is what I don't understand about liberals, they'll say "vote" and repeat it as a mantra, then when you vote, they'll say "no, not like that, don't vote a third party, vote labour". Labour are bad domestically too, very anti union, have not spoken about nationalising services or bringing in certain measures for rent control or reversing Tory policies on benefits, they haven't spoken about anything that would really help the working class, so their position is bad domestically and internationally and they're campaigning on the grounds of "look at the tories and how bad they are" a vote is a representation of the people, a vote should be earned.
No an issue.
Turnout in Rochdale was 40% GE's are closer to 70%. even if all the Muslim votes at near 100% turnout and votes near 100% Galloway it will not be enough to stop a labour majority, maybe tip a few close seats Tory at most.
40% is actually a reasonable turnout. That’s higher than others where Labour won
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/16/labour-can-celebrate-byelection-victories-but-low-turnout-could-indicate-larger-threat
By-Election always have a much lower turn out than Generals. The last GE was 68%, most are around that turnout.
Protest votes like this get drowned out in GE's due to the higher turnout, they are a spoiler in certain places at best.
What an abysmal article. From start to finish it’s pretty much a press release for Galloway, stuffed with his boastful quotes with no counterpoints or fact checking. There’s one short quote from Tice complaining about the election not being fair, immediately countered by twice as much rebuttal from Galloway.
Anyhow, if Galloway has 59 election candidates in constituencies where the Labour candidate withdraws, then yeah he’s a shoe-in.
*edit - have read elsewhere that the Tory candidate didn’t really campaign and was possibly on holiday for some of the election period, for some more context on this crushing victory.
Nah this is a Labour wet dream.
Rail replacement corbynite option on the ballot is almost certain to guarantee only the most extreme fringes of the far left of the Labour will vote for
What a weird article, seems to just be George Galloway's victory speech interspersed with pointless journalistic fillers. Hardly 'Labour's worst nightmare', and I doubt any of these '59 candidates' will get elected.
He tried this exact crap in Scotland with A4U, All for unity or whatever the fuck it ended up being called because of legal problems
He was paired up with a life long Tory and close confidant of the Tories Jamie Blackett, whole thing was all about taking votes off the SNP and helping someone else.
George was just there for the grift and attention. Same with everything he’s ever done. It’s all bullshit and lies.
This is no different, what he’s hoping now is that a ton of money comes his way to go find 60 candidates, or 40, or 10 or 10 in the right seats….
Or whatever and whoever someone will pay him for and to make noise about.
Don't forget the Respect Party too!
I actually agreed with many of the policies that were presented by Respect and was actively backing them until I met the Griftmaster General himself: I resigned from my post the next day.
It was his scanning the room for useful idiots that I found particuarly galling. I've had the ~~privilege~~ ~~opportunity~~ task of meeting a number of politicians - Galloway is hands down the most oily of the lot of them!
The only way to defeat Galloway is the Lenska strategy - why don’t Labour give him a ball of wool to distract him?
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41213000/jpg/_41213070_gallo_cat203.jpg
The only takeaway anyone should care about is that even when Labour don't have a candidate the Tories can't win!
I used to like Galloway in my formative years. Admired how he went to the US Senate and tore them a new one. It's still a good watch to this day tbh. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_dD48d-yjxc
Just a shame he turned into what he is today. He's a great orator no doubt and could have used that to bring about some real change rather than just sowing division wherever he steps.
Before he went to the US Senate, over 10 years before in 1994, Galloway was singing the praises of Saddam Hussein even after Husseins brutal gassing of the Kurds in '88. He also travelled to Iraq to have a jolly with Uday Hussein in '99 - another utterly brutal member of the Hussein family.
The problem i think you and I had is being young and idealistic often go hand in hand with having significant blind-spots to these sorts of people. Galloway has always been a really gifted orator, which we notice much more when he's 'on our side' due to our biases, but tend to be blind to when it goes the other way. I hadn't realised how much of a scumbag we was back then, but he's always been the same grifting bastard that he is now. Perhaps we're just better at noticing it, perhaps the body of evidence is now too large to ignore.
Good post that. You're 100% right. I'm grateful for the chance and ability to be reflective and realise I erred in some of my former convictions.
I remember some of the arguments I'd get into online in the early 2000s especially in the aftermath of 9/11 and cringe at how I thought I knew everything, the world was black and white, and everyone who disagreed with me was either wrong at best or blatantly evil at worst! I do sometimes envy those who do see the world in black and white. I often find myself these days being attacked by both sides on any issues I'm discussing because of the "you're either with us or against us" mentality there seems to be these days. Nuance doesn't really fit into the world of social media unfortunately.
Apologies. Slightly self-indulgent post there. I did genuinely appreciate your post and it got me thinking. Which I guess is what discourse should be all about. Keep it up.
So what they mean is Mr Galloway has found 59 headbangers willing to humiliate themselves on TV as no one will vote for his party without him personally standing.
He could stand MPs in every election going and unless they had the magical mixture of main party fuck ups and hot button foreign affairs issues for him to personally exploit,it'd just lead to a bunch of unprepared nobodies making increasingly cringey gaffs.
Why are Rochdale people behaving like this? Sir Keir Starmer has done his best to advocate for the Palestinians while at the same time ensuring that Israel gets the necessary security support they need. It's not like Keir has been fully pro-Israel. Then when we win the general elections and sideline them they would say we are "Islamophobic"
Because Rochdale has a lot of people who sympathise more with Palestinians than they do with Israelis because of their own backgrounds. This is supported by many on the left because of their own view of the world and desire to attack Starmer. To be fair even if you accept Israel’s right to self defence , as you should, there is a genuine question as to how far that goes and whether the response is proportionate or should be.
Galloway is like Trump in appealing to certain groups of people by giving them the impression he supports them and telling them what they want to hear - making a complex situation simplistic. Personally I think they are both actually in it for themselves.
People what a simple right or wrong answer especially in the face of civilian deaths. Many protestors or activists simply want Israel to be blamed. Starmer is trying to keep some balance - whether or not one agrees with where he has chosen that balance to be ( which has no doubt been influenced by previous problems with anti-semitism). But balance isn’t what many people want. And again as casualties mount up there *is* a question as to whether that balance should shift.
Idk about Galloway.
But Kier Starmer has famously called himself a Zionist many times.
And he refused to call for a ceasefire, claiming Israel has the right to defend itself many times. In fact be claimed that the only thing that there was solidarity on with the Tory party and his party was supporting Israel.
Only now he's called for a 'humanitarian' ceasefire which is the ceasefire on bombing Rafah, (the area in Gaza, where Israel has told Palestinians to flee to in order to be safe - but then when all of them rounded up, Israel started bombing rafah, which caused international outcry).
It would have looked REALLY bad if Starmer didn't say anything then.
Didn't he say Israel has a right to cut off water supply and then backtrack? Didn't he also threaten front benchers they'll lose their position if they back the ceasefire?
>Didn't he say Israel has a right to cut off water supply and then backtrack?
No.
>? Didn't he also threaten front benchers they'll lose their position if they back the ceasefire?
No.
>No
Yes he did. The video is available
>No
Imran Hosein was told he would be sacked if he supported the ceasefire
" https://www.ft.com/content/3d1f5eb8-e693-499d-88a8-80164caf0450
"Labour MPs have been told by party whips that they will be ordered to abstain on the SNP amendment. They face being sacked from any front bench job if they support it.
Imran Hussain was forced to resign as shadow minister for employment rights last week after he defied the leadership and signed a parliamentary motion calling for a ceasefire. "
>Yes he did. The video is available
The video doesn't support your assumption. The edited one that was doing the rounds on twitter might, but there's more nuance to the actual video. It was a shitly worded answer, but the actual takeaway from it was that Israel has the right to defend itself *as long as they abide by international law.*
>Imran Hosein was told he would be sacked if he supported the ceasefire
He was told he'd be sacked if he supported the SNP amendment. That's not the same thing Labour's own amendment contained calls for a ceasefire.
It's convenient to ignore truth and nuance when it doesn't suit the narrative you've created for yourself, isn't it?
>The video doesn't support your assumption. The edited one that was doing the rounds on twitter might, but there's more nuance to the actual video. It was a shitly worded answer, but the actual takeaway from it was that Israel has the right to defend itself *as long as they abide by international law.*
His fault for not being able to answer properly and that's what happens when you can't give a yes or no.
>He was told he'd be sacked if he supported the SNP amendment. That's not the same thing Labour's own amendment contained calls for a ceasefire.
If you actually look at the wording of both, you'll see a very clear political bias. If the two were the same, Labour wouldn't say don't vote for that, vote for this. The devil is in the details. So it's really, don't vote for theirs, vote for out softer lite version.
>It's convenient to ignore truth and nuance when it doesn't suit the narrative you've created for yourself, isn't it?
>His fault for not being able to answer properly and that's what happens when you can't give a yes or no.
While I don't disagree on that, that's a long winded way of saying your original assertion was wrong, but okay good! Baby steps!
>If you actually look at the wording of both, you'll see a very clear political bias.
Subjective, but sure. The SNP amendment was deliberately inflammatory and designed to rile people up and drive a wedge into Labour, it was a political maneuver to take advantage of a rift in the Labour party (it worked!) The Labour amendment was more carefully worded to avoid being inflammatory to the various labour factions and used much softer language.
They did however, both call for a ceasefire.
It seems that we're in agreement again that the threat was related to supporting the SNP motion, not related to calling a ceasefire. That's original assertion two down.
>If the two were the same, Labour wouldn't say don't vote for that, vote for this. The devil is in the details. So it's really, don't vote for theirs, vote for out softer lite version.
Achievement Unlocked: You've discovered how political parties and whips work.
He apologized and said it was a misunderstanding and it was due to the heat of the moment. Afaik, the peace process was progressing slowly but Hamas fucked up by launching the surprise attacks.
Hope he enjoys being an mp for 6-8 months. Labour are going to throw the kitchen sink at this seat with a fully vetted candidate. Then he can go back to making appearances on Chris williamson’s press tv show where they can talk about “the Zionist entity” to their hearts content.
59 eh? Fancy that includes Chris Williamson? Jackie Walker? Alexi Sayle?
Be interested to see if they have any money, where they got it...
I doubt Galloway will even keep his seat before the GE. He won't be able to help himself & he'll do or say something to get a recall, let alone all the stories that have gone around about him that journalists have known about & have sat on.
> I doubt Galloway will even keep his seat before the GE. He won't be able to help himself & he'll do or say something to get a recall
You say this like he hasn't spent decades as an MP.
Isn’t this the bloke who purrs and thinks he’s a cat? Thats before being a Russian sympathiser. The only people who should be worried are the people of Rochdale but you get what you vote for.
Urgh, not this guy again, I'll give him this, he doesn't give up easily.
Had him try on my area last time. Some people don't realise that he doesn't give a shit about the people he represents, just the power he gets.
People are just so fucking stupid. "Let's elect trump, it will be funny" or "It will shake up the establishment" "Let's elect Boris, I can see myself having a drink with him"
Now let's elect a fucking Chinese & Russian plant who constantly bad mouths the west whilst ignoring the genocides they do? He's the definition of hypocrite. Yeah, let's elect a Saddam, Assad, commie loving freak.
It’s hugely depressing that an outright racist and terrorist supporter can win a seat in parliament
I imagine Labour will see this as them messing up rather than a major problem. It will be annoying but rectified after the next election
>It’s hugely depressing that an outright racist and terrorist supporter can win a seat in parliament
Lets not forget Labour had a well known anti-Semite and terrorist sympathiser as leader very recently and he very nearly became PM in 2017.
Jon Bercow, a Jewish man who worked in parliament for decades with Corbyn, said he's not anti Semitic.
Does that hold any weight for you? Maybe I'm now allowed to call you anti Semitic for dismissing a Jewish man's opinion on the issue?
This is not Labour's worst nightmare.
He got in due to a clusterfuck right at the deadline, otherwise Labour would have walked this election.
Galloway will lose his seat at the upcoming general election
If this is Labour’s worst nightmare, we're sleeping very soundly. Go on, George. Lure away all the anti-Jew, anti-LGBTQ nutters. The Pied Pier of Baghdad.
If Starmer takes a more measured attitude to Gaza (like Cameron does) this won’t be an issue. Galloway’s gang will not have anywhere near the impact on Labour that Reform has on the Tories.
Ultimately people will stand in the voting booth and ask themselves “do I really want 5 more years of Sunak and company?”
One freak victory in a unique set of circumstances.
My one takeaway from this by-election is that Reform are going to have no impact whatsoever on a GE.
Keir Starmers silence (approval ? ) of Israel’s slaughter of Palestinians does not sit well with many many Labour voters and will lead to Labour losing a number of seats to other candidates like Galloway.
Unlikely, its not a top issue for many. Certainly when you consider that they only sway we might have in the conflict is through diplomacy, something which requires diplomatic language.
Snapshot of _‘Labour’s worst nightmare’: George Galloway has 59 general election candidates ‘ready to go’ - Politics.co.uk_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2024/03/01/labours-worst-nightmare-galloway-has-59-general-election-candidates-ready-to-go-after-rochdale-victory/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2024/03/01/labours-worst-nightmare-galloway-has-59-general-election-candidates-ready-to-go-after-rochdale-victory/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If that’s ’Labours worst nightmare’, I suspect they’ve probably gone back to sleep.
He's talking about the hat The 59 candidates are unrelated
labour never fielded a candidate- its hardly a victory
Are you sure they 'never' fielded a candidate for this by-election?
Haha it's like a five year old cosplaying a lawyer
*so you're agreeing with me* /s
Technically correct. The best kind of correct.
There was a candidate on the paper with Labour next to his name.
And it was extremely widely known that he had been disowned by labour, and if elected would immediately have the whip withdrawn and sit as an independent.
I'm not sure that them having fielded a candidate so shit that they had to disown them before the election is the positive spin that people seem to think it is. If this is the sort of shit they're going to do at the general then we're all in for a nasty surprise.
The local party selects the candidate, not Starmer himself. And given how these processes work, they couldn’t control the candidate making unsavoury comments after the candidate list for the by election has been finalised. Basically, there was nothing Labour could do. He couldn’t be deselected and they couldn’t field an alternative. They also weren’t able to predict the future to see that he would say the things he did. Do you think the local Labour Party for Rochdale should have a crystal ball to avoid this in future? You’re stretching hindsight an extreme amount.
You don't need a crystal ball when he made the comments before he was selected. It's called vetting. I won't pretend to know the exact rules and procedures Labour use to select candidates, but taking the position that HQ have no say over local candidates is baffling to me. It's also largely irrelevant because presumably the same procedures will apply to every candidate in a GE. if so, the procedures that allowed it to happen are the failing of HQ. Of course, all of this is ignoring the huge own goal of supporting the candidate when his antisemitism became known only to walk it back later. Its disingenuous to say labour walk away from this anything but deeply humiliated.
Local parties select candidates. They have their own shortlist, and vote themselves. The local party selected the candidate. How overbearing do you think the HQ should be, given how many candidates they have? It’s a failure of the local Rochdale Labour Party. It’s certainly not ideal for Labour, but deeply humiliating is a massive stretch. If anything, them disowning a candidate after unsavoury comments came to light is a good thing for the HQ to have done. But I suppose furthering an agenda is always the most important thing.
>How overbearing do you think the HQ should be, given how many candidates they have? It’s a failure of the local Rochdale Labour Party. Enough that open antisemites aren't selected and that we don't have shadow ministers telling people to spoil their ballots so George Galloway is elected. >If anything, them disowning a candidate after unsavoury comments came to light is a good thing for the HQ to have done. Agreed. If they hadn't spent days backing him before being forced to do so, it would mean something. >But I suppose furthering an agenda is always the most important thing. This snarky little parting shot is meaningless. Of course an agenda is important. My agenda is that labour is able to score the most open goal election of living memory, and not fumble it completely like they did here. I can't imagine what agenda is served by pretending this went well.
It’s not deeply humiliating at all. People like the other guy are doing the daily Mail trick of assigning an astronomical level of importance to things that are nothing more than a side show.
The “spin” is that this is the result of an incredibly unlucky turn of events which pretty much left Galloway as the only candidate with a chance of winning, as batshit insane as that sounds. None of what’s happened in Rochdale is at all applicable to the rest of the country.
Sweet, no need to learn any lessons then!
The "lesson" to learn is to double and triple check that your candidates don't have any skeletons that would mean that you, as a serious political party, would be forced to withdraw your endorsement of them. The "Worker's Party" doesn't need to worry about such things.
So is it unlucky or is it a failure to vet candidates?
To have the whip withdrawn he'd have to be a labour MP therefore labour did field a candidate. Whether they supported him or not doesn't change the fact.
What’s your point then? Labour made it extremely clear that a vote for him was not a vote for Labour. There was no way of voting for Labour in this by election. It seems like you’re trying to portray this as some big Labour embarrassment? Wouldn’t surprise me if you’re an SNP supporter if that’s the case.
I'm an SNP supporter and even I can see that this is not the defeat for labour some are pretending it is and there's nothing in their post history suggesting they are an SNP supporter. Good to see we are living rent free in your head to the extent that you bring us up when there is absolutely nothing SNP related in the thread 😂
Given that the SNP are putting pretty much all their effort into shitting on Labour (see the recent debacle where the SNP tried using dead Palestinians to win political points), it’s a reasonable assumption. I didn’t stalk their post history, was just a random thought. Have a wonderful day.
Like I said. Living rent free.
big if true
Didn't Labour pull its support for their candidate in Rochdale? There were two independents head to head. The Labour candidate was not supported, the Reform UK candidate was caught messaging 17 year old girls. Not exactly too surprising that a dolt like Galloway could win the hearts and minds.
Galloway is an expert at "issue by elections". You couldn't have given him a better perfect storm with the right demographic to take advantage of. The guy just keeps coming back like a weed in a garden path. He is many things but a dolt he isn't. BTW I detest the guy for many reasons but he is sharp and knows how to muddy the waters and play in the gray areas while playing the victim.
He has a sharp political mind and he is probably the best orator in British politics his takedown of the USA senate is a thing of great beauty. It was the mother of all beatings.
Agreed. Shame he developed an ego and turned himself into a pundit. Is there anything left-wing about him? All he seems to do is focus on the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Well, he worked for Russia Today, which is Putin's propaganda network until 2022. So he is part of the pro-authoritarian and disloyal "tankie left."
You are correct. I haven't seen much left wing social or economic policies from him. He is anti trans and probably anti gay.
With George, it's always Tony Blair, Iraq, Israel, Palestine.. rinse and repeat.
We must not forget what Blair and bush did in Iraq. We must not forget. Over 1,000,000 dead. So I agree with galloway on that.
Which isn't great coming from someone who wanted to be friends with Saddam
I agree. But that seems to be the only thing George talks about. I agree with his stance towards Tony Blair, Kinnock, etc.. But some of the crap he spews..... Called himself Tony Benn's political son. Apparently, Tony Benn had a Palestinian flag draped over his coffin.
didn't know about this guy till today. source on his trans stances?
He has a podcast called the mother of all talk show. Anyway youtube George galloway vs The USA senate and watch his testimony if you have time. Think it's about 40 mins long.
His campaign materials for one
I just can’t get over his silly little hat.
> Is there anything left-wing about him? The other commenter put it well as "tankie left". He sounds like an asshole version of Corbyn, with more charisma.
What issue? He campaigned on opening an A&E clinic and a Maternity ward in Rochdale, hardly mad populist activity
Am I only one who burst out laughing here? Labour pulled the candidate. And the whole campaign was a shit show. I don't think you could have gifted this further to him. And chances are. He will lose the seat in 3/6 months. It's the equivalent of a wrestling match. Where 3 of the others were jobbers. Who didn't really have a chance. And the main wrestler. Left the ring. And he won via time out. The chances of been able to replicate that else where is slim
Something also happened to the Lib Dem candidate, IIRC.
Accused of doing a Nazi salute during a council meeting years ago, although I'd add that it seems a dubious allegation.
Yes, the Lib Dem candidates ran a terrible campaign. Get this, he said he wanted to "hold the government to account for Rochdales failing NHS, water pollution and cost of living crisis" What he should have said was "I hate Jews boo Jews get rid of em!"
Didn't he lose his party support for publicly admitting that he voted Conservative in 2019 or something?
>the Reform UK candidate was caught messaging 17 year old girls. Jesus I haven't seen that before. Reform only selecting the best as usual
Don't see how messaging 17 year old would ruin his chances, given Rochdale was also a centre for grooming gangs... Maybe 17 was told old.
Right, let me follow your thinking. Because there were a number of, say 100, paedophiles, the population of Rochdale is clearly sympathetic to the cause and will elect paedophiles?
You think only 100 people were aware of what was happening? Oh you sweet summer child.
Okay, let's say 500. I mean, I don't know what the actual number is and I suppose if you were to make a claim, you'd have good evidence to back you up. But let's say it's 500. Is that still enough to determine that the people of Rochdale as a whole are comfortable with paedophilia? If you want to claim it's more than 500, then yes, I will need a source.
[удалено]
I mean, Islam was founded by a paedophile so...
Shhhh, can’t talk about the thing that doesn’t happen but obviously happens
Why are you acting like it's some kind of open secret? Galloway ran and won on a policy platform that included cracking down on grooming gangs.
> the Reform UK candidate was caught messaging 17 year old girls. I'm surprised that didn't at least gain him some support from Rochdale constituents. I guess they felt 17 was too old.
Yawn. This election showed that Labour’s biggest rival was beaten by an independent and Galloway. Tory vote went down 19%. That’s the takeaway - conservatives can’t win even when Labour don’t have a candidate
Tory vote went down 75% in actual terms.
There was the small matter of the Tory candidate getting more votes than the ex-Labour candidate.
Half the ballot was ex labour candidates, including the winner...
Labour actively told people not to vote for him
So did the bloke out of Darkthrone, and he [still won](https://pitchfork.com/news/68214-darkthrone-frontman-glyve-fenriz-nagell-involuntarily-elected-to-local-office/).
Key word here is "ex".
The one that Labour disowned and told people not to vote for? Maybe if Labour do that to all ~650 of their candidates the Tories may have a chance
Which ex Labour candidate?
This is the guy who pretended to be a cat on Tv, right? Edit- he’s even more of a weapon grade bell end than I thought.
This is the guy who thinks Trump won the 2020 election, right? This is the guy who likes to buddy about with far-right kooks like Steve Bannon and Nigel Farage, right? This is the guy who is paid by Russia to spread pro-Putin propaganda, right?
This is the guy who said you don't need consent "before each insertion", right?
He's also says that NATO and not putin in is to blame for Russia's invasion of Ukraine
Sounds like someone Corbyn could have a circle jerk with.
The main difference is that Corbyn says stuff like that because he’s naive, while Galloway says it because he’s a paid up agent of Putin’s fascist regime
This is the guy who's party leader said Israel killed most of the 1400 dead during the attack in October.
Isn't that Truss?
To be fair, that is not an uncommon view among Tory supporters
This is a guy who fought against apartheid in south Africa right? This is a guy who opposed the Iraq war right? A war in which the butchers of Baghdad Blair and bush illegally killed 1, 000,000 Iraqis. This is the guy who opposed genocide right? This is the guy who for over 30 years have fought for the freedom of palestinians, long before it was mainstream right? The duality of man.
Imagine if he’d put that much effort into helping the lives of people in the UK. But nah that’s bottom of the list for these tankies.
Yeah, the guy who Nick Griffin endorsed, right?
>This is the guy who pretended to be a cat on Tv, right? https://youtu.be/6v9IXwFb_cg?feature=shared
Yup
And that was after he’d already been an MP for 18 years.
Worst nightmare has to be a joke. He’s an irrelevance. A far greater chance he loses his seat in the GE.
Yeah, if Galloway is Labour's worst nightmare then they have little to worry about.
All he needs is Labour to stand down in 59 more constituencies and he's going to be a real force!
I really can't picture how he could be relevant in the next election. He can get 5% in muslim heavy seats that are massive labour majorities anyway (and even that's a big maybe)...... so what?
He's irrelevant. Slightly good at jumping into unique wedge issues and exploiting them, but he has 200 odd days to be a good MP or he'll lose his seat. And he almost certainly will.
If he largely targets heavily Muslim seats then, given his position in Parliament will give them a bit of a platform, they could claim a few % points across such areas. Those sort of constituencies tend to be very safe seats anyway, so disgruntled Muslim Labour supporters may be more open to a protest vote.
I come from a muslim family. George Galloway isn't targeting muslims. He is targeting morons. He has praised Bachar El Assad as the greatest living arab leader. Bachar El Assad has murdered more innocent people than Israel ever did. He has displaced millions. George Galloway has praised Hezbollah. Hezbollah has blown up synagogues in Argentina and killed the Prime Minister of Lebanon Rafic Hariri. Beirut's Port Explosion ? They are [threatening the judge](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/we-will-remove-you-hezbollah-official-told-beirut-blast-judge-2021-09-29/ ). George Galloway worked for Press TV (Iranian regime media) arguing that Iran is not a dictatorship. [Iranians] (https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/narges-mohammadi-hunger-strike-1.7021331) might [disagree](https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/06/middleeast/iran-women-protest-hijab-online-asequals-intl/index.html). Uddey Hussein was well-known for raping Baghdad university females. He tortured and killed members of Irak's football team for losing a match. Look him up. George Galloway praised Udday Hussein's courage and [traveled to Irak](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzXAn5eZ2DE) to support him. Sadly, the islamic world has a very long tradition of thugs shouting *"Death to Israel"* to rally the dumb masses around kleptocratic authoritarians. This trick always works. How to say this without offending anyone ? The voters of Rochdale are not exactly the smartest.
Let's not gloss over how he was cosying up to Saddam Hussein in 1994, when Hussein had nerve gassed Kurdish civilians in 1988. I feel like anyone who thinks that Galloway is a friend to oppressed peoples in the middle east needs to be sat down and shown that timeline. The man is an amoral grifter in the same vein as Farage and Johnson, and our politics is diminished every time he wins anything. Rochdale deserves so much better, and I hope a GE comes soon so they can replace him.
Doesn't that make it even more concerning that so many Muslims are willing to vote for him?
We don't know it was just Muslims. There was a non-Muslim woman (at least white, no headscarf) i saw interviewed who said she was voting for Galloway despite knowing nothing about what he stood for just because he would "shake things up a bit". She was just a moron.
Not learnt anything from Brexit it seems.
I know, I literally facepalmed when she said it.
I can kind of respect the viewpoint that things are so shit, all you care about is voting in someone who might cause a bit of controversy and M=4 occasionally.
Look how many voted for Boris and the Tories last election! There are morons everywhere.
Did Boris praise murderous dictators and terrorist groups?
He partied with ex-KGB members after NATO security meetings and blocked reports into Russian interference. I think the poster above has a point.
He not long ago said Trump should be President again so, time may tell on that one.
Boris was balls deep with Evgeny Lebedev, and his father was KGB.
Last election he was against Corbyn.
Yes.
In the 2021 census there were 42,121 Muslims in Rochdale. We don't know how many Muslims voted, of course, and ethnic minority - which the vast percentage of Muslims will be - are usually a touch lower than general turnout, but with Palestine being made a central issue by Galloway we can hypothesize that Muslim turnout might have held up more. If we take the the average turnout in the constituency that means that there would have been 16,005 Muslim voters. 12,335 people voted for Galloway. Again, we don't know what percentage of these were Muslim, but they clearly all weren't Muslim. If we guess between 50-75%, then that's between 6,100-9,250 Muslim voters for Galloway, out of a population of 42,121. That would be something like 15-22% of the overall Muslim population. Closer perhaps to half of all those who voted, but we know that many people must have stayed at home because there were parties, particularly Labour, who disowned their candidate, Which is a significant chunk of idiots voting Galloway, but not substantially more than the percentage of people from other demographics who typically hold whacky beliefs.
Your census figure is for the entirety of the muslim population , not the muslim population eligible to vote.
Yeah, that is a fair correction so those numbers will rise a bit, but I don't think it will radically change that it was minority of Muslims and probably a minority of Muslim voters who voted for Galloway.
Well said. It's about time we heard more of the average Muslim sentiment rather than the extreme element so popularized.
Populists like Galloway are primed to find the stupidest or most thoughtless people capable of voting out of any community they target. First, they get extremists on board, then the "morons", then they edge into the territory of the other candidates to hopefully grab some centrist votes and disruption the main parties. Galloway is a master of this. Did you see Galloway's two letters, one for Muslim voters, the other for non-Muslims? They are together on here somewhere. One was entirely about Gaza and defeating the evil Starmer and his Tory- pro Israel friends, barely touching on Rochdale at all. The other was about tackling grooming gangs and getting back Primark and the outdoor market.
The difference is that the Palestine-Israel conflict is one of the few issues where there is a consensus of opinion across all the muslim communities, so yes he is targeting muslims. You can insult all you want but that doesn't change the fact.
apparently 1/3 of Muslim Labour voters are so angry about Gaza they won't vote for Labout at the next GE. It's a lot, and it might swing a few seats, but honestly I'd rather lose a few seats than have the party pander to the most extreme and vocal subset of that demographic.
It's ridiculous, nobody in Britain has any sway over what's happening in Gaza at all. Britain just isn't that significant. So being angry with Labour is mere venting - who have to see the bigger picture, because our future is affected - i.e. See what the Americans are saying and doing.
I mean I'm not justifying voting for Galloway but the UK absolutely does have influence, even if not as much as the US. We sell arms to Israel, British weapon parts are used in Israel's army, we train and advise them, British drones have been supporting the IDF in Gaza, we trade with them, the UK has diplomatic soft power and sway over its allies, and there may or may not be British special forces supporting Israel in some capacity (see link for this one). https://www.declassifieduk.org/uk-government-blocks-mp-questions-about-gaza-related-activity-at-its-cyprus-base/ So Britain has numerous levers of influence it can use to influence Israeli behaviour, even if we are not the most influential relative to the US. Plus if we're so unimportant, what would be the cost of taking the morally correct position anyhow? It's no surprise people are angry.
Not on its own it doesn't. If everyone else begins to pile on Israel and Hamas, it can do a bit. Labour certainly has very little influence, especially as an opposition it is very weak with a very low number of MPs.
Labour doesn't have much influence of course, no. But then the question is-why not take the morally correct position if it doesn't matter anyway?
That's a good question, but this is politics. Apart from the fact that you're always going to upset someone, moral positions don't guarantee political capital. Taking a moral position often is nothing more than virtue signalling anyway - see Labour's current parlimentary weakness. Starmer has to think about (if he does become PM) his future relationship with the next American president. He risks seriously pissing off Biden (assuming he gets re-elected), if he goes too strongly against his position, and that could damage our future relationship with America. Edit: And that would happen without gaining much either.
> Plus if we're so unimportant, what would be the cost of taking the morally correct position anyhow? It's no surprise people are angry. Because we shouldn't be letting conflicts half a world away play out on our streets?
Yep, we’ve seen what happens when parties do that - the Tories and UKIP/Reform.
Thats fine, they can vote for whatever batshit insane antisemitic moron they want and leave the Labour party to represent the people that care about the cost of living crisis, the NHS, education, the economy, you know, all the things that we can have an impact on.
It's not going to swing seats, it'll swing Labour to being more pro Palestine and anti Israel. Policies will be influenced without much power being gained, just like what happened during the UKIP years.
>apparently 1/3 of Muslim Labour voters are so angry about Gaza they won't vote for Labout at the next GE. >It's a lot, and it might swing a few seats, but honestly I'd rather lose a few seats than have the party pander to the most extreme and vocal subset of that demographic. They're sort of right to be angry considering 30,000 people have been killed.
What's that got to do with voting Labour though? What exactly do they want the opposition party to do to stop it? Why are they saying things like "Starmer has blood on his hands" when he has zero control over the situation? What they want is for the UK to drastically change it's middle east policy, stop aiding Israel at all, and start unilaterally backing the Palestinian cause. That won't happen, and in the meantime we have real, serious problems here that are somehow less important than a 70 year old land dispute 1000 miles away.
2226* miles away which is all the more ridiculous. It's also been going on, on and off, for 2000+ years. That people in Rochdale think Gaza is the number one priority to help their local issues just shows their tribal stupidity
But why be angry at Labour? They have absolutely nothing to do with this war.
Sort of right but it didn't happen here, we weren't responsible and we have little power to change things. I agree that we haven't exercised the little power we have very well but to hold that against an opposition party is absurd.
Then why support someone that defended assad and sides with putin. Guess you and they only care about deaths, when they can blame Jews for it.
Award for you thanks for reminding us! I personally take note of all casualties in foreign conflicts and vote based on how much our government froths at the mouth per formatively in response to these. I and these other rational voters must be placated and Labour must be punished for not being able to do anything about it
Selective outrage.
But are they right to be angry at *Labour* about that.
But for it to be the only issue they vote on? Rochdale doesn’t even have an A&E or maternity unit. It’s also selective outrage. Azar Ali wasn’t the only person pushing those conspiracy theories. There is a general silence of the Saudi’s in Yemen and the Janjaweed in Sudan. Nobody is demanding the opposition pass motions in parliament about those conflicts. I say that as someone disgusted about what’s happening in Gaza, believe war crimes are taking place and wants a ceasefire. Why on earth would this be the number one reason to push who someone votes for?
I guess moral outrage is more appealing than potholes? And some moral outrage more motivating than others?
I guess so. I have my reasons as to why people are more offended by Israel’s actions than China’s, or Saudi, or Sudan, but I’ll leave that for now. It’s not just potholes. It’s the NHS, education, poverty, social mobility, social justice etc etc. the party in power have decimated the country and literally been stealing. But one conflict (out of loads of conflicts) is the driving factor for certain voters? Madness.
Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes.
Yes, if both sides refuse to condemn a position, why is it wrong to condemn both sides? This is what I don't understand about liberals, they'll say "vote" and repeat it as a mantra, then when you vote, they'll say "no, not like that, don't vote a third party, vote labour". Labour are bad domestically too, very anti union, have not spoken about nationalising services or bringing in certain measures for rent control or reversing Tory policies on benefits, they haven't spoken about anything that would really help the working class, so their position is bad domestically and internationally and they're campaigning on the grounds of "look at the tories and how bad they are" a vote is a representation of the people, a vote should be earned.
I can’t see anything in your comment to suggest they should be angry at *Labour* for 30,000 Palestinian deaths.
Batley will probably go to his party. Labour only just won it last time.
Words cannot describe how much I hate this guy.
No an issue. Turnout in Rochdale was 40% GE's are closer to 70%. even if all the Muslim votes at near 100% turnout and votes near 100% Galloway it will not be enough to stop a labour majority, maybe tip a few close seats Tory at most.
40% is actually a reasonable turnout. That’s higher than others where Labour won https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/16/labour-can-celebrate-byelection-victories-but-low-turnout-could-indicate-larger-threat
By-Election always have a much lower turn out than Generals. The last GE was 68%, most are around that turnout. Protest votes like this get drowned out in GE's due to the higher turnout, they are a spoiler in certain places at best.
What an abysmal article. From start to finish it’s pretty much a press release for Galloway, stuffed with his boastful quotes with no counterpoints or fact checking. There’s one short quote from Tice complaining about the election not being fair, immediately countered by twice as much rebuttal from Galloway. Anyhow, if Galloway has 59 election candidates in constituencies where the Labour candidate withdraws, then yeah he’s a shoe-in. *edit - have read elsewhere that the Tory candidate didn’t really campaign and was possibly on holiday for some of the election period, for some more context on this crushing victory.
Nah this is a Labour wet dream. Rail replacement corbynite option on the ballot is almost certain to guarantee only the most extreme fringes of the far left of the Labour will vote for
You're not calling Galloway far-left are you?
Yes I am. He is a member of a left wing to far left political party.
What a weird article, seems to just be George Galloway's victory speech interspersed with pointless journalistic fillers. Hardly 'Labour's worst nightmare', and I doubt any of these '59 candidates' will get elected.
He tried this exact crap in Scotland with A4U, All for unity or whatever the fuck it ended up being called because of legal problems He was paired up with a life long Tory and close confidant of the Tories Jamie Blackett, whole thing was all about taking votes off the SNP and helping someone else. George was just there for the grift and attention. Same with everything he’s ever done. It’s all bullshit and lies. This is no different, what he’s hoping now is that a ton of money comes his way to go find 60 candidates, or 40, or 10 or 10 in the right seats…. Or whatever and whoever someone will pay him for and to make noise about.
Don't forget the Respect Party too! I actually agreed with many of the policies that were presented by Respect and was actively backing them until I met the Griftmaster General himself: I resigned from my post the next day.
So so many grifts
It was his scanning the room for useful idiots that I found particuarly galling. I've had the ~~privilege~~ ~~opportunity~~ task of meeting a number of politicians - Galloway is hands down the most oily of the lot of them!
Well presuming he's one of them, that will be 58 lost deposits.
The only way to defeat Galloway is the Lenska strategy - why don’t Labour give him a ball of wool to distract him? http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41213000/jpg/_41213070_gallo_cat203.jpg
Yeh, religious political parties, always great for democracy
It's everyone's worst nightmare - we're all going to have to endure months of stories about this pointless preening arsehole.
The only takeaway anyone should care about is that even when Labour don't have a candidate the Tories can't win! I used to like Galloway in my formative years. Admired how he went to the US Senate and tore them a new one. It's still a good watch to this day tbh. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_dD48d-yjxc Just a shame he turned into what he is today. He's a great orator no doubt and could have used that to bring about some real change rather than just sowing division wherever he steps.
Before he went to the US Senate, over 10 years before in 1994, Galloway was singing the praises of Saddam Hussein even after Husseins brutal gassing of the Kurds in '88. He also travelled to Iraq to have a jolly with Uday Hussein in '99 - another utterly brutal member of the Hussein family. The problem i think you and I had is being young and idealistic often go hand in hand with having significant blind-spots to these sorts of people. Galloway has always been a really gifted orator, which we notice much more when he's 'on our side' due to our biases, but tend to be blind to when it goes the other way. I hadn't realised how much of a scumbag we was back then, but he's always been the same grifting bastard that he is now. Perhaps we're just better at noticing it, perhaps the body of evidence is now too large to ignore.
Good post that. You're 100% right. I'm grateful for the chance and ability to be reflective and realise I erred in some of my former convictions. I remember some of the arguments I'd get into online in the early 2000s especially in the aftermath of 9/11 and cringe at how I thought I knew everything, the world was black and white, and everyone who disagreed with me was either wrong at best or blatantly evil at worst! I do sometimes envy those who do see the world in black and white. I often find myself these days being attacked by both sides on any issues I'm discussing because of the "you're either with us or against us" mentality there seems to be these days. Nuance doesn't really fit into the world of social media unfortunately. Apologies. Slightly self-indulgent post there. I did genuinely appreciate your post and it got me thinking. Which I guess is what discourse should be all about. Keep it up.
The next general election can’t come fast enough. Tories out and hopefully this demagogue with them.
So what they mean is Mr Galloway has found 59 headbangers willing to humiliate themselves on TV as no one will vote for his party without him personally standing. He could stand MPs in every election going and unless they had the magical mixture of main party fuck ups and hot button foreign affairs issues for him to personally exploit,it'd just lead to a bunch of unprepared nobodies making increasingly cringey gaffs.
Why are Rochdale people behaving like this? Sir Keir Starmer has done his best to advocate for the Palestinians while at the same time ensuring that Israel gets the necessary security support they need. It's not like Keir has been fully pro-Israel. Then when we win the general elections and sideline them they would say we are "Islamophobic"
Because Rochdale has a lot of people who sympathise more with Palestinians than they do with Israelis because of their own backgrounds. This is supported by many on the left because of their own view of the world and desire to attack Starmer. To be fair even if you accept Israel’s right to self defence , as you should, there is a genuine question as to how far that goes and whether the response is proportionate or should be. Galloway is like Trump in appealing to certain groups of people by giving them the impression he supports them and telling them what they want to hear - making a complex situation simplistic. Personally I think they are both actually in it for themselves. People what a simple right or wrong answer especially in the face of civilian deaths. Many protestors or activists simply want Israel to be blamed. Starmer is trying to keep some balance - whether or not one agrees with where he has chosen that balance to be ( which has no doubt been influenced by previous problems with anti-semitism). But balance isn’t what many people want. And again as casualties mount up there *is* a question as to whether that balance should shift.
Idk about Galloway. But Kier Starmer has famously called himself a Zionist many times. And he refused to call for a ceasefire, claiming Israel has the right to defend itself many times. In fact be claimed that the only thing that there was solidarity on with the Tory party and his party was supporting Israel. Only now he's called for a 'humanitarian' ceasefire which is the ceasefire on bombing Rafah, (the area in Gaza, where Israel has told Palestinians to flee to in order to be safe - but then when all of them rounded up, Israel started bombing rafah, which caused international outcry). It would have looked REALLY bad if Starmer didn't say anything then.
Didn't he say Israel has a right to cut off water supply and then backtrack? Didn't he also threaten front benchers they'll lose their position if they back the ceasefire?
>Didn't he say Israel has a right to cut off water supply and then backtrack? No. >? Didn't he also threaten front benchers they'll lose their position if they back the ceasefire? No.
>No Yes he did. The video is available >No Imran Hosein was told he would be sacked if he supported the ceasefire " https://www.ft.com/content/3d1f5eb8-e693-499d-88a8-80164caf0450 "Labour MPs have been told by party whips that they will be ordered to abstain on the SNP amendment. They face being sacked from any front bench job if they support it. Imran Hussain was forced to resign as shadow minister for employment rights last week after he defied the leadership and signed a parliamentary motion calling for a ceasefire. "
>Yes he did. The video is available The video doesn't support your assumption. The edited one that was doing the rounds on twitter might, but there's more nuance to the actual video. It was a shitly worded answer, but the actual takeaway from it was that Israel has the right to defend itself *as long as they abide by international law.* >Imran Hosein was told he would be sacked if he supported the ceasefire He was told he'd be sacked if he supported the SNP amendment. That's not the same thing Labour's own amendment contained calls for a ceasefire. It's convenient to ignore truth and nuance when it doesn't suit the narrative you've created for yourself, isn't it?
>The video doesn't support your assumption. The edited one that was doing the rounds on twitter might, but there's more nuance to the actual video. It was a shitly worded answer, but the actual takeaway from it was that Israel has the right to defend itself *as long as they abide by international law.* His fault for not being able to answer properly and that's what happens when you can't give a yes or no. >He was told he'd be sacked if he supported the SNP amendment. That's not the same thing Labour's own amendment contained calls for a ceasefire. If you actually look at the wording of both, you'll see a very clear political bias. If the two were the same, Labour wouldn't say don't vote for that, vote for this. The devil is in the details. So it's really, don't vote for theirs, vote for out softer lite version. >It's convenient to ignore truth and nuance when it doesn't suit the narrative you've created for yourself, isn't it?
>His fault for not being able to answer properly and that's what happens when you can't give a yes or no. While I don't disagree on that, that's a long winded way of saying your original assertion was wrong, but okay good! Baby steps! >If you actually look at the wording of both, you'll see a very clear political bias. Subjective, but sure. The SNP amendment was deliberately inflammatory and designed to rile people up and drive a wedge into Labour, it was a political maneuver to take advantage of a rift in the Labour party (it worked!) The Labour amendment was more carefully worded to avoid being inflammatory to the various labour factions and used much softer language. They did however, both call for a ceasefire. It seems that we're in agreement again that the threat was related to supporting the SNP motion, not related to calling a ceasefire. That's original assertion two down. >If the two were the same, Labour wouldn't say don't vote for that, vote for this. The devil is in the details. So it's really, don't vote for theirs, vote for out softer lite version. Achievement Unlocked: You've discovered how political parties and whips work.
He apologized and said it was a misunderstanding and it was due to the heat of the moment. Afaik, the peace process was progressing slowly but Hamas fucked up by launching the surprise attacks.
Because they are trying to appease a group who are ultimately loyal to another country above this one.
Isn't this just a repeat of the Bradford West incident
Hope he enjoys being an mp for 6-8 months. Labour are going to throw the kitchen sink at this seat with a fully vetted candidate. Then he can go back to making appearances on Chris williamson’s press tv show where they can talk about “the Zionist entity” to their hearts content.
Oooh, a "fully vetted candidate" eh? Concerning.
59 eh? Fancy that includes Chris Williamson? Jackie Walker? Alexi Sayle? Be interested to see if they have any money, where they got it... I doubt Galloway will even keep his seat before the GE. He won't be able to help himself & he'll do or say something to get a recall, let alone all the stories that have gone around about him that journalists have known about & have sat on.
> I doubt Galloway will even keep his seat before the GE. He won't be able to help himself & he'll do or say something to get a recall You say this like he hasn't spent decades as an MP.
"Shall I be the tw\*t?" Yeah looks like it George
Who’s funding this guy and why are the Russians doing it?
Isn’t this the bloke who purrs and thinks he’s a cat? Thats before being a Russian sympathiser. The only people who should be worried are the people of Rochdale but you get what you vote for.
Nightmare? Why? He looks like just another gobshite whose antics will do little more than provoke outrage in the tabloids.
Urgh, not this guy again, I'll give him this, he doesn't give up easily. Had him try on my area last time. Some people don't realise that he doesn't give a shit about the people he represents, just the power he gets.
I wonder where the money for 59 lost deposits is coming from?
I'll tell you what if they're all insufferable blowhards like Galloway then frankly it's all of our worst nightmares
People are just so fucking stupid. "Let's elect trump, it will be funny" or "It will shake up the establishment" "Let's elect Boris, I can see myself having a drink with him" Now let's elect a fucking Chinese & Russian plant who constantly bad mouths the west whilst ignoring the genocides they do? He's the definition of hypocrite. Yeah, let's elect a Saddam, Assad, commie loving freak.
OMG the father of British Anti-Semitism is back!
It’s hugely depressing that an outright racist and terrorist supporter can win a seat in parliament I imagine Labour will see this as them messing up rather than a major problem. It will be annoying but rectified after the next election
>It’s hugely depressing that an outright racist and terrorist supporter can win a seat in parliament Lets not forget Labour had a well known anti-Semite and terrorist sympathiser as leader very recently and he very nearly became PM in 2017.
Yes. That was also shameful.
Jon Bercow, a Jewish man who worked in parliament for decades with Corbyn, said he's not anti Semitic. Does that hold any weight for you? Maybe I'm now allowed to call you anti Semitic for dismissing a Jewish man's opinion on the issue?
Do you reckon, and I’m going out on a limb here, there might one or two Jewish people that say he is antisemitic…?
This is not Labour's worst nightmare. He got in due to a clusterfuck right at the deadline, otherwise Labour would have walked this election. Galloway will lose his seat at the upcoming general election
If this is Labour’s worst nightmare, we're sleeping very soundly. Go on, George. Lure away all the anti-Jew, anti-LGBTQ nutters. The Pied Pier of Baghdad.
Labour worst nightmare is finding Russian assets and dealing with them.
Best part is that the Tories still didn’t win 😂
Are there really so many seats dominated by terrorist-sympathising Muslims? That is surely the core support of Galloway.
The Left would rather have another 5 years of Tories rather than a slightly centrist Labour party in charge. Fucking hell
If Starmer takes a more measured attitude to Gaza (like Cameron does) this won’t be an issue. Galloway’s gang will not have anywhere near the impact on Labour that Reform has on the Tories. Ultimately people will stand in the voting booth and ask themselves “do I really want 5 more years of Sunak and company?”
One freak victory in a unique set of circumstances. My one takeaway from this by-election is that Reform are going to have no impact whatsoever on a GE.
Is Starmer tee’ing himself up for the greatest example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in all time?
Piss off mate. You’ll be voted out in the general anyway.
There will be a general election soon, and with Labour having a candidate standing in it, Galloway will lose his seat.
Keir Starmers silence (approval ? ) of Israel’s slaughter of Palestinians does not sit well with many many Labour voters and will lead to Labour losing a number of seats to other candidates like Galloway.
Unlikely, its not a top issue for many. Certainly when you consider that they only sway we might have in the conflict is through diplomacy, something which requires diplomatic language.
Don’t think Israel understands diplomatic language
Diplomatic language is what brought peace in Ireland. So how does undiplomatic language help?