Bizarre Comparisons of Our Time # 1

July 26, 2007 at 5:52 pm (Galloway, voltairespriest)

Anyone who can see the validity of the comparison Galloway’s making here, or how it in any way relates to his own suspension from Parliament, please enlighten me. Either way, watching him working himself into a frenzy is tremendously funny.


  1. Will said,

    His whole performance was a pathetic joke.

    you can read it all here.

    What a disgusting little turd (and crook and perjurer).

  2. tim said,

    Why did he apologise to the “Honourable Lady”?

  3. voltaires_priest said,

    Perhaps he thinks “ladies” would be shocked by the publications that he was mentioning?

  4. stroppybird said,

    He could have apologised to the House if he felt the need, but to say Lady ,well that shows his attitude that he feels ‘ladies’ may have more delicate sensibities ! Sexist crap, but what else would you expect from Galloway.

  5. voltaires_priest said,

    Precisely, Stroppylady. 😀

  6. voltaires_priest said,

    Incidentally I’m not entirely sure what’s wrong with being a “spunk loving slut” (certainly in relation to what’s wrong with, for example, taking money from the Saudi royal family). Perhaps Gameboy or another SWP member could offer moral guidance on the issue?

  7. stroppybird said,

    “Incidentally I’m not entirely sure what’s wrong with being a “spunk loving slut” (certainly in relation to what’s wrong with, for example, taking money from the Saudi royal family). ”

    you do know this will now come up in search engines 🙂

  8. voltaires_priest said,

    Thought never occured to me 😉

  9. stroppybird said,

    Well I have some very disappointed people i’m sure who search for portugeuse porn, Hazel Blears is sexy and mudwresting and thongs. The last two lead to a post on Denham 😉

  10. voltaires_priest said,

    Hazel Blears. Whooar.

  11. stroppybird said,

    Steady now Volty, next you will be fantasising about Yvonne Ridley (again)

  12. voltaires_priest said,

    Me, Yvonne Ridley and Hazel Blears. Whooooar.

  13. stroppybird said,

    Now Volty, there are delicate ladies present. Oh and perhaps Mr Newman;-) What did you say about him, that he is like a victorian lady who hides the table legs ?

  14. voltaires_priest said,

    Did I say that?

  15. stroppybird said,

    Wasn’t it when there was the debate about swearing and Will was about and so was Andy. perhaps it was Will, but I thought it was you ?

  16. voltaires_priest said,

    If Andy was suggesting that swearing and nasty words are imperialist, then maybe it could have been me? Don’t remember it though.

  17. stroppybird said,

    See , you need a volty’s comments blog, so we can find it easily, just like Punchies 😉

    Somebody said it somewhere and i’m sure it was you and it was here.

  18. Jim Denham said,

    The great orator seems to have lost it altogether, doesn’t he? He’s not even witty in the way he used to be while supporting fascism, sucking up to dictators or denouncing democracy. I notice (though it’s not included in that clip) that he managed to suggest that Israel was behind it all…

  19. stroppybird said,

    Ah Denham, bringing this back on topic and not getting caught up with Volty’s fantasies involving Hazel Blears and Yvonne Ridley and a threesome 😉

  20. Jim Denham said,

    Believe it or not, I have *some* taste, Strops.

  21. stroppybird said,

    Which is more than can be said for Volty and his threesome fantasies 🙂

    Anyway, back off topic, what car you getting? A little red open top sporty number as befits a man of taste and discernment ?

  22. Digger said,

    I would have thought it would have been obvious even to you sectarian nitwits the whole thrust of Glloways defence was the double standards that apply in parliamentay politics. Labour and the Tories accepts huge donations from millionares including pornographers,and crooks but think the Maryum appeal should question the source of all donations. I think he was doing a good job at exposing the hypocracy no wonder he was named.

  23. Mike said,

    Now I’m not used to defending the integrity of Members of Parliament – but the issue was Galloway’s dishonesty about the source of the donations to the Maryam Appeal, not the fact that he had accepted them. It muat also be admitted that taking money from mass murderers is worse than taking money from common-or-garden capitalists, which as Galloway spends much time irrelevantly pointing out, all the parties do (including his own, incidentally).

  24. Will said,

    It’s always fun to read the pathetic psuedo-leftists and incompetent thick jerks and ignoramuses like ‘Digger’ attempt to gloss over the little Orange Napolean’s misdemeanors and assorted criminality by shouting ‘look over there”! Pathetic tossers.

    That is of course, in between watching them veer dementedly from praising Islamist and Ba’athist murderers and scum to condemning them to praising them again. Malicious and stupid fuckwits.

  25. Andy Newman said,

    Oooh – too much swearing for me here!

    Is jack Dromey still treasuer of the Labour party? When I heard the recording I assumed he might be apologising to Harriett harman for bringing her husband into it.

    But i might be being much too generous to Galloway.

    And perhapops we couls start a blog for recording comments about SouthPaunch?

  26. Andy Newman said,

    you have to admit


    is a good misspelling even by my high standards.

  27. modernityblog said,

    surely you don’t mean this?

    we are waiting for a long discussion paper, on the climate change, tasks of the 12th International and the death annoyance of his corns, from comrade Southpawpuch

    it should be a real spell-binder!

  28. stroppybird said,


    Yes, we are all waiting for the wisdom of Punchie, especially his belief in ‘SWP weathermen’ . He will probably pop over here and tut ar our wussy ways and despair .


    I think there needs to be a blog pulling together the best of your typos 🙂

  29. voltaires_priest said,

    You can spot the swopper a mile off, can’t you. Digger seems to think that being critical of Galloway is “sectarian”, which is always a clue…

  30. charliemarks said,

    Erm, yes, be critical of Galloway and the SWP — but I still think it’s off that he couldn’t defend himself in a debate about whether he should be booted out of parliament.

  31. voltaires_priest said,

    Well, he could – except that my understanding is that he didn’t stick to the subject at hand (i.e. the Maryam appeal), as against Richard Desmond, Spunk Loving Sluts, the sins of Bush and Blair, or whatever else sprang to mind. Hence he was cut off, apparently.

  32. charliemarks said,

    If you watch the whole thing, you see that he cannot defend himself. I think the Speaker was enforcing the rules here where otherwise he would’ve let it pass — like when Blair was given a standing ovation on his departure, encouraged by David Cameron…

    The point about Richard Desmond is that its not seen as problematic that New Labour take money from people involved in the exploitation of women and that the campaign to indict Saddam Hussein was funded by the American government.

    Like him or not, he’s being targeted for his opposition to the wars in the Middle East, not because he doesn’t share our political beliefs.

  33. Digger said,

    You can spot the virtual socialists a mile off, all bluster and swear words, little class politics.

    George was excluded at just the point things were getting interesting with his accuser admitting to being involved with an organisation (Indict) financed by the US Government and various other governments, through which he had met various Iraqi oppositionists, no doubt who were destined to serve in the US puppet government, post occupation.

    Now according to parliamentary double standards this is perfectly acceptable.

    If you can’t see this was a pretence to have a go at the highest profile anti war MP by MP’s who have sanctioned mass murder you have spent too much time staring into a pc and in Jim’s case with a fine malt in his right hand.

  34. voltaires_priest said,

    Nice to see you’re on first name terms with “George”: you can spot the SWP ex-socialist a mile off. Willing to make common cause with anyone “anti-war” (just as well Alan Clark’s popped his clogs, eh?), and making weird jibes at people for using the internet to make political points – those jibes coming of course on, err, the internet.

    Is it not the bottom line “Digger” that from your perspective it doesn’t really matter what he did or didn’t say or do? You’d defend him anyway because it’s “the line” to do so. Hence I’d like to ask you a question. If all of these donations from Saudi Royals etc prove to be “legitimate”, does that make them OK from your political standpoint?

  35. modernityblog said,

    Supposing that in 5-10 years all of Galloway’s dodgy dealings are out in the open and irrefutable, then I would expect SWPers and the likes of Digger to go:

    “well, I am truly shocked I would never have thought that of George”,

    a bit like how people were surprised when Stalin’s activities were exposed, the capacity for self-delusion amongst Respect/SWPers is almost boundless, along with their naivete and duplicity.

    Galloway is a spiv and most people (outside of Respect/SWP) recognise that

  36. charliemarks said,

    I am outside of Respect/SWP and don’t think he’s a spiv. Well, I always think of a spiv as being like Private Walker out of Dad’s Army…

    But seriously, dodgy dealings? If true, it’s a wonder he’s not had the polis knocking as his door. Let’s face it, if they could get a shred on Galloway he’d’ve been sent down long ago.

    I don’t know about you, but if I was running a political campaign to end suffering in Iraq, I wouldn’t give a shit who gave money — just as long as they didn’t try to interfere with the political message.

  37. voltaires_priest said,

    I think I’d give a shit who gave money. Yep, I definitely would.

    Think about it Charlie – there actually is such a thing as tainted money, even if the manner in which it is accepted is technically legitimate. Are you really saying that there’s nobody from whom you wouldn’t accept donations towards a campaign that you thought was good?

  38. Digger said,

    I know VP and MB think that everyone who supports Respect or the SWP or the Stop the War Coalition are either naive fools or unprincipled opportunists but I obviously don’t share that analysis.

    It has already been acknowledged by George Galloway that the Maryum Appeal accepted donations from an Iraqi business man and the Saudi Royal Family, amongst others. It is quite possible that setting up charitable organisations, that include campaigning in opposition to sanctions against Iraq is not the way we would choose to organise but that would not prevent us working alongside such individuals in other campaigns or coalitions.

    The fact is that some former members of the left hate Galloway more than they do their own ruling class and are only too willing to believe any old smear put about him. They are incandescent that both the Charities Commission and the Police found nothing untoward. Thankfully their chums in the House of Commons managed still to sticth Galloway up.

    Some of these see nothing wrong in being a members of a Labour party that supported the war and accepts plenty of dodgy donations but then lecture others for not being pure enough revolutionaries. If you want to be pure untainted revolutionaries fine, but less of the hypocrisy please!

  39. voltaires_priest said,

    It’s not quite the same thing to take a tactical decision to be a member of an organisation which contains the majority of the politically organised labour movement, as to choose to set up an unprincipled, ramshackle coalition with minute impact upon the working class as a whole, whose figurehead is George Galloway. You do see that?

  40. charliemarks said,

    As long as the money was declared, I don’t think it matters. If people can see that the campaign was not influenced by donations (as opposed to those secret Labour donors…)

    So, yes. I am actually saying that if I had any say over a campaign to end suffering in Iraq I’d say — as long at is not going to get us in trouble with the law (no need to complicate things) and there are no strings attached, take the money.

    As far as I am aware, the Mariam campaign did not recieve funds illegally — though money was taken from unsavoury people, this is not a crime. I think of it like this: Would I rather some capitalist spent the cash on themselves or on a political campaign to end the suffering of Iraqis?

  41. voltaires_priest said,

    The Saudi Royals aren’t “some capitalist” though, are they?

  42. Digger said,

    The Labour Party led by pro war, pro privatisation and anti union rights Brown/Blair and funded by assorted millionaires and backed by Murdoch, or Respect lead by anti war, anti privatision and pro union Galloway, Yaqoob, Rees. There may be some tactical considerations but I know whose principles I most adhere to!

  43. Digger said,

    The Labour Party led by pro war, pro privatisation, and anti trade union Brown/Blair, funded by millionaires and backed by Murdoch or Respect, anti war, anti privatisation, pro trade union rights led by Galloway, Yaqoob and Rees. We might debate tactics but my principles are with the latter.

  44. Digger said,

    Sorry for repeat post

  45. Jim Denham said,

    The Labour Party, political expression of the British trade union movement and still the political expression of trade union reformism and the British working class; or Respect: the creation of a pro-dictator, soft-on-fascism demagogue, backed by a bunch of ex-Marxist opportunist who’d dump every principle they once held in order to win a few votes, plus the British wing of the viciously reactionary Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood, plus a few small business men with as much sympathy for organised labour as they have for radical feminism or homosexuality…bloody hell: even New Labour is preferable to that shower!

  46. Digger said,

    “In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally – in this case I will be on the side of ‘fascist’ Brazil against ‘democratic’ Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat.” [Anti-Imperialist Struggle is Key to Liberation, in Writings of Leon Trotsky (1938-39).]

    Old Trotsky seems as soft on fascism as Jim is on New Labour!

  47. voltaires_priest said,

    Are you hypothetically in favour of being soft on fascism then? If it means taking the “anti-imperialist” side in a conflict of course?

  48. Digger said,

    No I am as resolutely opposed to fascism as I am sure Trotsky was and Galloway is. Jim Denham lines up behind imperialism and disparages opponents of the war as pro dictator and soft on fascism. It’s time he fessed up to being an ex marxist without principles, not too difficult after admitting his fondness for New Labour.

  49. voltaires_priest said,

    Do you understand the political basis for the debate (regardless of which side of that debate you happen to agree with) about whether socialists should be in the Labour Party? You do know it’s not actually about whether or not one endorses New Labour’s political programme, right?

  50. Digger said,

    I am well aware aware of the basis of the debate about whether socialists should organise within or outside the Labour Party and that this has always been a tactical question depending up on lots a factors, but importantly its relationship with trade union organisation. Although the former Militant Tendency elevated it to an issue of principle, until leading members expelled, then it became a mater of principal not to be involved.

    I just think denouncing Respect as “the creation of a pro-dictator, soft-on-fascism demagogue, backed by a bunch of ex-Marxist opportunist who’d dump every principle they once held in order to win a few votes, plus the British wing of the viciously reactionary Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood” is a bit rich for someone who is happy to support a party that really does support and arm dictators, that is resolutely opposed to marxism, that panders to xenophobia, islamophobia and racism to get votes, pursues consistant neo liberal polices………. I could go on but won’t.

  51. modernityblog said,

    Digger wrote:

    I just think denouncing Respect as “the creation of a pro-dictator, soft-on-fascism demagogue, backed by a bunch of ex-Marxist opportunist who’d dump every principle they once held in order to win a few votes, plus the British wing of the viciously reactionary Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood” is a bit rich for someone who is happy to support a party that really does support and arm dictators,

    rich it might be, but that does not make the first part less truthful, does it?

    “the creation of a pro-dictator, soft-on-fascism demagogue, backed by a bunch of ex-Marxist opportunist who’d dump every principle they once held in order to win a few votes, plus the British wing of the viciously reactionary Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood”

    is a fair summary, that many non-Labour Party members would understand

    but then again to entrenched Respect supporters, that have invested so much time and emotional energy, any criticism of Respect stings them and they go on the attack

    I would suspect that in a few years from now Respect will implode, Galloway will have a career in the media, the SWP will look for another “front” organisation to expand their influence and Islamists will have gained all the political lessons they need

    However, the effect of Respect’s implosion will be felt wider, a generation may be put off political activism by their bad experiences with Respect (in much the same way, the WRP had a negative impact in the long run).

    Not that it will trouble many of the SWPers they’ll dust themselves off, start again and be shocked when people accuse them of political cynicism of the highest order.

  52. voltaires_priest said,


    You can see there’s a dissonance between your first paragraph and your second, can’t you? I rather suspect you’ve heard both from fellow SWP members.

    However the first is an organisational point. Do you or don’t you believe that the trades unions are the vehicles for the organised working class? And don’t you think it’s politically important that we have some leverage within political organisations where they do?

    The second point is just issue-by-issue politics on which basis I’d imagine you or I would both agree with more or less any hopeless revolutionary candidate against either Labour or Respect.

    Your first point was quite sophisticated. Your second wasn’t.

  53. Jules said,

    Genuine Q to any of the Labour entrists out there – what could you do as members of the LP that you couldn’t outside of it or as a member of an affiliated union?

  54. charliemarks said,

    I am not a member of Labour, but I’d guess if I was, there would be a sinking feeling. I don’t have a sinking feeling. More floaty.

  55. voltaires_priest said,

    11:10pm eh? That’ll be the beer 😆

  56. charliemarks said,

    True actually…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: