George Galloway is in celebratiy Big Brother

[el Chi]

Well people continually say about George Galloway blatent unfounded remarks, such as "Hes arrogant, Hes a tosser, hes a scumbag, he does dosgy dealings", and these are the sort of stuff the papers are coming out with. He sued the telegraph and won, becuase there allegations are completely unfounded.

Yes a lot of people do talk badly of him, and a lot of those claims do have foundation. Perhaps it has been exaggerated in certain instances - I have little doubt that the Torygraph's allegations were not entirely without basis but were "embellished" in the fashion that so many journalists do. But then that's the nature of almost all news outlets, no matter what their political affiliation, and that is something I'm sure Galloway was fully aware of when he got into politics.

And sadly the majority of people who read the Daily Mail cannot form there own opinion.

Oh Christ, if I had my way, Mail readers would be denied the vote and sent to "re-education".

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

there allegations are completely unfounded.

But not necessarily false

 

[Solaris]

But not necessarily false

I will agree, him travelling to Iraq like he did could raise suspiscions, but looking at his agenda and hearing what he says, he's not doing it for self intrest. I belive he genuinely wants to make it a better world, and I think he can.

Oh Christ, if I had my way, Mail readers would be denied the vote and sent to "re-education".

Totally.

It looks so real, you can see how people confuse it with real life

 

[SAJ]

But not necessarily false

But far, far more likely to be false than true.

 

[Feath]

http://beta.cergis.com/george/

 

[Solaris]

Your constituency has lots of problems, and the place is going down the pan since Oona left.

Evidence?

 

[Feath]

It's an opinion. You know, people are allowed to have them, even if they do differ from yours.

 

[Kangy]

To be honest, Solaris, it appears they actually live there, as opposed to spouting off whatever of his semen you can successfully regugitate

 

[Solaris]

I'm just wondering what things have gone wrong under his 'rule'. I've only read good things, but admitably in 'George Galloway Weekly' aka 'The Socialist Worker'.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

If you're representing a constituency, surely you shouldn't be spending up to 3 weeks away, entirely incommunicado, merely to receive a fee and attempt to raise your profile.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Respect have a seat in parliament, the greens don't.

This is because Galloway directly targets working-class immigrants (especially Muslims), who make up the majority of some inner-city constituencies. All he's doing is aiming for a certain type of person knowing that as long as he secures enough support from this limited audience he'll be able to get a few seats.

Meanwhile the Green Party actually have a huge number of supporters, but they're spread out all over the country and amongst a wider variety of demographics. I agree with some aspects of Respect policy but as far as I can see, it's just pure opportunism - jumping on a bandwagon that might not be the most popular but guarantees at least a limited amount of success. It seems like Respect is a single-issue party that thinks it could run the whole country, which seems unlikely.

 

[el Chi]

He has now been voted out. Unsurprisingly having failed in his plan to raise enthusiasm for politics or boost his own integrity. He is a political laughing-stock and, as far as I can see, he's buggered.

<One person claps slowly at the back of an erstwhile silent auditorium>

 

[Laivasse]

Yeah, looks bad for him, but tbh I don't understand the hysteria that he rode out on. I mean fair enough he's shady and you might not like him, but everyone coming down on him because he was picking on Barrymore?? Barrymore is so obviously nuts that I'm amazed he hasn't tried to eat anybody's face off. He needs to be stungunned and shut in a cage.

 

[ComradeBadger]

He has now been voted out. Unsurprisingly having failed in his plan to raise enthusiasm for politics or boost his own integrity. He is a political laughing-stock and, as far as I can see, he's buggered.

<One person claps slowly at the back of an erstwhile silent auditorium>

See in British politics we get RID of the nutjobs :E

 

[clarky003]

To be honest although he got dissed to hell.. He kinda did succeed in becoming more of a household name because of it. It was partly successful and although quite negative, people still loved to watch him because of the attitude, and to be honest I like his political views despite his personal reputation, the man has balls.

 

[SAJ]

He kinda did succeed in becoming more of a household name because of it. It was partly successful ........

Thats a scary thought, more politicians following Galloway's example.

Imagine; One day all leadership (and dare I say it, national) elections might be held via a big brother stlyle 24/7 televised vote-off.

The horror, the horror................

 

[Solaris]

This is because Galloway directly targets working-class immigrants (especially Muslims), who make up the majority of some inner-city constituencies. All he's doing is aiming for a certain type of person knowing that as long as he secures enough support from this limited audience he'll be able to get a few seats.

So, all political partys have target audiences. They always stand the priminister somewhere he is likely to win. Respect have done the same, you can't critercise them for standing where there likely to win.

Meanwhile the Green Party actually have a huge number of supporters, but they're spread out all over the country and amongst a wider variety of demographics. I agree with some aspects of Respect policy but as far as I can see, it's just pure opportunism - jumping on a bandwagon that might not be the most popular but guarantees at least a limited amount of success. It seems like Respect is a single-issue party that thinks it could run the whole country, which seems unlikely.

Respect have uncomprimiseable policies. The greens settle, they even agreed to have a Lord represent them, a lord! There buying into this artisotic crap whereas Respect refuse too.

 

[Sulkdodds]

So, all political partys have target audiences. They always stand the priminister somewhere he is likely to win. Respect have done the same, you can't critercise them for standing where there likely to win.

I'm not criticising them. Well actually I am, because they're opportunistic and annoying, but my point was that Green have far more support than they do.

 

[el Chi]

To be honest although he got dissed to hell.. He kinda did succeed in becoming more of a household name because of it.

Yeah but for all the wrong reasons. Everyone thought he was a dick.

Respect have uncomprimiseable policies. The greens settle, they even agreed to have a Lord represent them, a lord! There buying into this artisotic crap whereas Respect refuse too.

Oh, for pity's sake... Respect's policies are, as Sulk pointed out, tailored almost exclusively to get Galloway re-elected in his own constituency and that's about it. The man cares about keeping himself in power, kicking up a bit of a self-indulgent fuss every so often and involving himself with some astoundingly shady characters. Yes, that's very uncompromising.

And so WHAT if the Green Party have a Lord to represent them!? Is it really that out of the question that they should have someone representing them in another body of power besides the Commons? Is it really that out of the question that they should wish for their views to be voiced in an extremely important political arena?
And please don't have a go at the House of Lords, for Christ's sake. In a way it partly perpetuates some idea of inhereted hierarchy, yes, but they do actually keep a decent leesh on government. For example, on a number of occassions, the Lords have roundly rejected various ID card schemes.
If it weren't for a secondary law-making body, there might be some very serious mistakes made.

 

[Solaris]

Oh, for pity's sake... Respect's policies are, as Sulk pointed out, tailored almost exclusively to get Galloway re-elected in his own constituency and that's about it. The man cares about keeping himself in power, kicking up a bit of a self-indulgent fuss every so often and involving himself with some astoundingly shady characters. Yes, that's very uncompromising.

Nope the policies haven't been tailored for the consituency, there the policies the Socialist Alliance have been campaining for for ages.

And so WHAT if the Green Party have a Lord to represent them!? Is it really that out of the question that they should have someone representing them in another body of power besides the Commons? Is it really that out of the question that they should wish for their views to be voiced in an extremely important political arena?
And please don't have a go at the House of Lords, for Christ's sake. In a way it partly perpetuates some idea of inhereted hierarchy, yes, but they do actually keep a decent leesh on government. For example, on a number of occassions, the Lords have roundly rejected various ID card schemes.
If it weren't for a secondary law-making body, there might be some very serious mistakes made.

It is sad that we now have to rely on the house of lords to protect us commoners from our elected representatives yes, but it should still be abolished.

 

[kirovman]

In response to the one about taxing the rich - I think it was Clement Atlee's government who decided to tax the rich by 99%.

Needless to say, the rich migrated.
Governments have since learnt that it's almost impossible to tax the rich, you increase their tax, they'll hire more accountants to find ways to reduce their tax. Also, the government likes the rich investing in big projects, so offer them incentives to invest large amounts of money, tax free, into things like shopping malls, etc.

Also, Sharon is still alive it seems?

 

[Solaris]

In response to the one about taxing the rich - I think it was Clement Atlee's government who decided to tax the rich by 99%.

Needless to say, the rich migrated.
Governments have since learnt that it's almost impossible to tax the rich, you increase their tax, they'll hire more accountants to find ways to reduce their tax. Also, the government likes the rich investing in big projects, so offer them incentives to invest large amounts of money, tax free, into things like shopping malls, etc.

Also, Sharon is still alive it seems?

Good. We don't need rich people, they only ge rich by exploiting there workers. Well, in modern times its more to do with ingenuity and stuff.

But still! Leave riches youre not welcome here.

 

[kirovman]

Yes, what a good idea, let us watch and laugh as our economy crumbles. Ha-ha-ha.

Believe me, the government now would love to tax the rich a lot higher, but the consequences would be quite adverse.

 

[Asknoone]

I laughed when George Galloway emerged from the Big Brother house to a round of boos.

 

[kirovman]

Seems a lot of the people in his own constituency are very disappointed with him, even his ex-hardcore supporters.

 

[Solaris]

Yes, what a good idea, let us watch and laugh as our economy crumbles. Ha-ha-ha.

Believe me, the government now would love to tax the rich a lot higher, but the consequences would be quite adverse.

Not under socialism.

becuase Money isn't worth anything.

 

[kirovman]

Oh what a great idea. What am I supposed to buy my groceries with then? A shotgun? Or maybe I could barter some bad apples off to someone.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Or maybe you could get handed down a load of groceries from the state.

And maybe they'd be crap, but you wouldn't be able to get better ones because there'd be nowhere else to get better ones from and there'd be no way for you to force the state to give you better ones because they wouldn't have to bother to stay in business.

On the subject of the house of lords regulating the house of commons, I've always wondered why they don't have three bodies. You know, like how in days of yore they'd use three supercomputers - because if one made a mistake and gave different results and you only had two then you'd be at a stalemate, unable to tell which was which - whereas with three, if one has an error then you have a majority decision and it's very unlikely for two to have the same error.

If you see what I'm saying.

 

[kirovman]

Or maybe you could get handed down a load of groceries from the state.

And maybe they'd be crap, but you wouldn't be able to get better ones because there'd be nowhere else to get better ones from and there'd be no way for you to force the state to give you better ones because they wouldn't have to bother to stay in business.

On the subject of the house of lords regulating the house of commons, I've always wondered why they don't have three bodies. You know, like how in days of yore they'd use three supercomputers - because if one made a mistake and gave different results and you only had two then you'd be at a stalemate, unable to tell which was which - whereas with three, if one has an error then you have a majority decision and it's very unlikely for two to have the same error.

If you see what I'm saying.

THREE?

Like the USA? The Senate, Supreme Court and Executive Office? Nooooooo.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I dunno, I was just wondering if it would work.

 

[Solaris]

Or maybe you could get handed down a load of groceries from the state.

And maybe they'd be crap, but you wouldn't be able to get better ones because there'd be nowhere else to get better ones from and there'd be no way for you to force the state to give you better ones because they wouldn't have to bother to stay in business.

Not if the people responcable for qualitie control were elected, what reason would they have to make crap things anyway, everything would be made for use not profit, and it would be almost impossible to make a profit from growing crap vegitables.

On the subject of the house of lords regulating the house of commons, I've always wondered why they don't have three bodies. You know, like how in days of yore they'd use three supercomputers - because if one made a mistake and gave different results and you only had two then you'd be at a stalemate, unable to tell which was which - whereas with three, if one has an error then you have a majority decision and it's very unlikely for two to have the same error.

Or if you had a massive body, where democracy was at everyturn making all positions of power chosen by the citizenry with no partys just the state, desiscions would reflect the people perfectly.



If you see what I'm saying.[/quote]

 

[kirovman]

Well, let's give it a shot.

House of Commons, House of Lords, and House of Kirov. The latter obviously being superior to the other two.

Solaris, having referendums for every law would be very inefficient. Would you like to vote on 100 things everyday? Who would count the votes? The efficiency of the system would be terrible.

Not if the people responcable for qualitie control were elected, what reason would they have to make crap things anyway, everything would be made for use not profit, and it would be almost impossible to make a profit from growing crap vegitables.

Yes, if they got elected. Why not just chose the best person for the job in the first place?

 

[el Chi]

It is sad that we now have to rely on the house of lords to protect us commoners from our elected representatives yes, but it should still be abolished.

No, it should not be abolished for the reasons I already stated. I see your gripes with the class issues it throws up but it serves its purpose fairly well, so maybe it could do with a restructuring (ie: putting less emphasis on class), but there is no way it should be abolished.

Or if you had a massive body, where democracy was at everyturn making all positions of power chosen by the citizenry with no partys just the state, desiscions would reflect the people perfectly.

If you see what I'm saying.

[/QUOTE]I believe that's how Ancient Greece worked - all the people (or at least the eligible) were required to vote on all matters. In that day, it was less complex and there were lfewer people, however, as Kirov has already stated, nowadays that would involve everyone voting on matters every day - a huge undertaking.

People wouldn't have had time to properly make their minds up about the issues, and uninformed decisions are a Bad Thing.
Besides, it's enough trouble getting people out to vote once every four years, let alone every day. It just doesn't work with people's lives - people have jobs, people have stuff to do with their friends and family, it simply does not work.

The reason we have parties and elected representatives is because we democratically we choose people we - supposedly - trust. A grouping of people who most closely express your own views.

 

[oldagerocker]

I like the house of lords, quite often they stop the rediculous laws labour come up with, like ID cards and civil liberty destroying anti-terrorism laws. They're a good, intelligent conservative way of weeding out laws and backhanded schemes from over powerful parties within the government... ie, the huge power labour used to have.

 

[OCybrManO]

OMG... Dennis Franz moved to England, changed his name, and went into politics?!

 

[Sulkdodds]

I like the house of lords, quite often they stop the rediculous laws labour come up with, like ID cards and civil liberty destroying anti-terrorism laws. They're a good, intelligent conservative way of weeding out laws and backhanded schemes from over powerful parties within the government... ie, the huge power labour used to have.

Exactly. It's not like just because they're rich and aristocratic that necessarily means they're evil money-grabbing bastards.

 

[Solaris]

I like the house of lords, quite often they stop the rediculous laws labour come up with, like ID cards and civil liberty destroying anti-terrorism laws. They're a good, intelligent conservative way of weeding out laws and backhanded schemes from over powerful parties within the government... ie, the huge power labour used to have.

But the house of commons can just overule them.

 

[kirovman]

Tony Blair is trying to minimise the role of the House of Lords as much as possible, so they can't stand in the way of his power-hungry madness! :O

He's probably the person who would most love to abolish the Lords.

 

[el Chi]

I want Gordy. He may not be HEAPS better, but at least it'd be a change. And at least he wouldn't be David sodding Cameron D:

 

[kirovman]

I prefer Ridley Scott. lol

But Gordy sounds like a safe bet for the time being. Blunkers was talking about him just now, saying he would be the PM within 2 years.