On January 06, 2006 9:29 AM,  snooo said...

Who are half those guys? They are stretching the term "celebrity" a little.

Shame they couldn't have Bez on for a second year running. Ho hum.  

On January 06, 2006 9:42 AM,  Justin said...

Ah, come on. It's going to be great.

I'm hoping they smuggle Tariq Aziz into the house in the dead of night to try and trap George in a Spanish (Iraqi?) Prisoner con.  

On January 06, 2006 9:54 AM,  snooo said...

Interesting constitutional marklarky on Digital Spy forums shocka.

I've vowed not to watch it this year. Scouts honour.  

On January 06, 2006 12:02 PM,  tom p said...

I saw a bit of it too, just the end where they introduced Gorgeous George to the house. It looks like I may have to actually watch this crap for once. I doubt he was going to say something like 'proles' regarding those who may not have heard of him, it was probably more like 'brain-dead morons who are so stupid they don't deserve to have the vote, wasting their lives in front of shite like this and reading OK & Heat'.

If memory serves, Galloway essentially stood as an anti-war candidate. Thus, he has a mandate to criticise it as widely as possible, and appearing on big brother is quite probably the most effective way of getting the anti-war message across.
He may not be directly contactable straight away, but he's certainly continuing to campaign on the platform he was elected.

Isn't the big brother house in Bow, anyway? that's right in his constituency, so his constituents could contact him by shoulting over the wall  

On January 06, 2006 12:07 PM,  Devil's Kitchen said...

I hoping for a surprise addition tonight... Christopher Hitchens.

Now that would be funny...

DK  

On January 06, 2006 12:14 PM,  Justin said...

Yeah, George and Christopher could finally take the lid off the pressure cooker of their unresolved sexual tension and give the rest of us a break. They can find a quiet corner and do their "ooh, you are awful" bit for three solid weeks.

Although Gorgeous is teetotal by all accounts. Hitchens will have to slip him a mickey.  

On January 06, 2006 12:57 PM,  Anonymous said...

I think it's unlikely that George will be able to use BB as an anti-war platform: a) there's bound to be at least one 'celebrity' who'll reply 'what war?' or something similarly vacuous; b) people made the same claim for Germaine Greer and feminism last year.  

On January 06, 2006 1:16 PM,  Justin said...

I wonder if he's regale his housemates with tales of enjoying a tin of Quality Street with Saddam or his "very jolly " Christmas with Tariq Aziz.  

On January 06, 2006 2:27 PM,  chris said...

I just hope that the BB house has a swimming pool.  

On January 06, 2006 4:11 PM,  Dave Cross said...

Oh look.  

On January 06, 2006 5:31 PM,  Friendly Fire said...

Nice catch Dave........... I expect that will be the MSM meme over the excruiating period that GG survives on BB. (Right to the end).

Justin why did you post this?

It just adds to the media frenzy of what CBB has become, no News Media these days.

I'll not watch it, but I expect to see you posting how GG extols his ripping a new asshole for Coleman(sp?) in the senate in the Oil for Food bullshit.  

On January 06, 2006 7:22 PM,  Justin said...

Sorry FF, I posted it because I think Galloway is a loathsome drab and I like to have a laugh between posts about torture and injustice.

He's an (ex?) Stalinist for a start. He said when the Soviet Union collapsed it was one of the worst days of his life. There are 20 million reasons why it should have been one of the best.

He and Andrew Murray (another of Uncle Joe's) systematically hijacked the Stop The War movement. Less lions led by donkeys than by jackals. All this is about George and nobody else. You don't fight tyrants by accepting their Quality Streets and spending "jolly" Christmases with their deputies.

His defence of his "indefatigability" schtick is disingenuous at best, mendacious at worst.

Handing Norm Coleman his arse was fantastic television but it was George building his own "mother of all smokescreen". Where are the accounts for the Mariam Appeal?

He's going to spend up to three weeks away from his job and constituents (while drawing his MP's salary by all accounts) on top of the weeks he's already spent in America shilling his book. If he'd been in Parliament a few weeks back instead of in Cork feathering his nest the result on the vote to outlaw glorifying terrorism would have been very different. If this was any other job he'd have had his P45 weeks ago.

His vanity, the as yet unexplained allegations of corruption, his bending the knee before tyrants and his unrepentant Stalinism allowed the likes of Nick Cohen and David Aaronovitch to paint all of us against the war as dupes and appeasers. If he'd been the leader of a political party rather than the self-appointed leader of a diverse coalition he'd, again, have been handed his hat.

If he heads any movement against war with Iran then, I'm sorry, I won't march for it. He's made common cause with fundamentalists, homophobes and those who would put women in a lowly place. Not a crew someone of my sensibilities wants to be linked with however tenuously.

Sorry mate, we agree on many things but we'll have to agree to disagree on Galloway. He's a ridiculous and yet dangerous figure. Pointing out the former might go some way to damping down the latter.  

On January 06, 2006 9:44 PM,  Friendly Fire said...

Good response Justin.

I am for one am not a GG appeaser by any means whatsoever. In another life, GG would be selling dodgy wrist watches in the East End.

And I would like to think that banter here could be like buying and drinking pints of Old Peculiar at Starbotton in Yorkshire.  

On January 07, 2006 9:04 AM,  ejh said...

If he'd been in Parliament a few weeks back instead of in Cork feathering his nest the result on the vote to outlaw glorifying terrorism would have been very different.

As far as I'm aware that's not quite right - the vote he missed wasn't a vote of the legislation. Can't remember the details though (amazing how the memory falls apart when you're forty).

I also don't see that anybody "systematically hijacked" Stop The War or indeed how they would have done so. Murray and Galloway are both very prominent anti-war figures and were heavily involved - I don't see the justification for saying anything else. As for damaging the movement - well, any mass movement is going to have prominent figures of different views including views that you or I would find disagreeable (e.g. admiration for the USSR). We can't have a movement that's just so, it's not like that.

I'm not, by the way, an admirer of Gorgeous although he has done some admirable things. He just seems to me to be the latest in a long line of rogues who have always appeared (from Leigh Hunt to Derek Hatton) in the history of the labour and radical movement. Such people are both egotists and thoroughly untrustworthy - and yet the same time sincere and committed in their views. People are odd like that. As far as I can see GG attracts opprobrium far in excess of anything he's actually done to deserve it and to that extent my first inclination is always to defend him against his attackers. Solidarity Reg.  

On January 07, 2006 10:23 AM,  Porkbeast said...

Some observations on the comments above.

"Are the people who voted for him angry or relieved that he's decided to take himself off the streets of their constituency for an extended period again, do you think?"

I think it is those like you who are angry because that they can't censor views they do not agree with. Shoot the messenger?

"He's an (ex?) Stalinist for a start. He said when the Soviet Union collapsed it was one of the worst days of his life. There are 20 million reasons why it should have been one of the best."

We are allowed to think these things you know, and change our minds. Ask Ex Communist John Reed, currently uncharged of our armed forces.

"He and Andrew Murray (another of Uncle Joe's) systematically hijacked the Stop The War movement. Less lions led by donkeys than by jackals. All this is about George and nobody else. You don't fight tyrants by accepting their Quality Streets and spending "jolly" Christmases with their deputies."

I think all this whinging is about an attempt to censor the anti-war position, wrapped up with a good deal of humbug about his constituents. John Stuart Mill must be rolling in his grave. We desperately need a plurality of voices commenting on our society. Get real, drop the insults, attack his criticism of the war not him. I remember this character assassination of Livingstone and Scargill. Quite effective in the short term - that's why they do it - but the truth will out.
PS I am not a member of a political party but I am a member of the great unwashed.  

On January 07, 2006 11:40 AM,  Justin said...

Porkbeast, I think you'd find if you'd had a look around this site before going off half-cocked in the comments you'd see that I'm vehemently anti-war and anti-censorship.

My objection to Galloway is that he's the self-appointed figurehead of a movement I feel passionate about which I have seen dragged throught the mud and made a laughing stock by the antics of this self-agrandising fool.

You mention, John Reid and as much as it pains me to defend that abject specimen, I don't remember him being on the record as lamenting the fall of the Soviet Union with its gulags and pogroms. Or accepting sweets from dictator or invitations to spend Xmas with their deputies. I notice you and ejh studiously ignored that one.

And "humbug about his constituents"? He's a constituency MP. He was elected to represent his constituents. A constituent in Bow and in trouble right now would be unable to contact their elected representative. You talk about censorship and yet seem to have a very tenuous grasp of how our democracy works. All this guff about "well he'll reach a bigger audience than if he was in parliament" completely misses the point.

And what about his charity dealings? Where are the accounts? No doubt you think me bringing up these awkward issues means I'm trying to censor Galloway's anti-war stance when really I want a clear and unequivocal denial in black and white that he and his charity had a financial arrangement with a totalitarian regime. And don't tell me giving a half-witted senator a verbal kicking was that denial. Where are the accounts? They're years late. If Galloway had nothing to hide we'd have seen them.

I hope you'll be as forthright with Channel 4 when they start cutting George's speeches. You're naive if you think they're going to let him stand up and say what he likes.  

On January 07, 2006 12:23 PM,  Porkbeast said...

Justine, why do you have to attack people personally when they disagree with you? (i.e. “going off half-cocked” and “You're naive if you think they're going to let him stand up and say what he likes. (Channel 4)”, something I never said or thought.) I think you are too emotionally involved with the Galloway character assassination project to be rational on this point. I hear all you say about his past and present dealings but these allegations are just that at the moment. I remember similar allegations against Scargill regarding donations from eastern bloc mining unions that were lies and smears. I am yet to be persuaded that the allegations against Galloway are anything other than this. But I do have an open mind and even if true I would still defend his right to argue his point. Why don’t you?  

On January 07, 2006 12:47 PM,  Disillusioned kid said...

Porkbeast, you appear to have missed the point. This isn't about Galloway's "right to argue his point," it's about whether he's somebody we want to count as an ally, even a leader.

Also worth pointing out that you criticise Justin's personal attacks, before accusing him of being "too emotionally involved with the Galloway character assassination project to be rational on this point" which looks ever so slightly like a personal attack to me.

Justin, the StWC was never hijacked. The coalition was set-up by the same people who control it now. The problem arises when we look to the extent to which the StWC has been able to assert it's hegemony over the wider (more diverse and pluralistic) anti-war movement.  

On January 07, 2006 1:45 PM,  Anonymous said...

Me again....

"You appear to have missed the point. This isn't about Galloway's "right to argue his point," it's about whether he's somebody we want to count as an ally, even a leader."

As I am not a member of the Respect coalition I have no opinion on their rights to elect a leader. This point I find a trifle esoteric. I want to hear what he has to say. I am not alone. He is being censored. You are apart of this willingly or otherwise.

My point is that he is presenting many opinions I entirely agree with better than any other political voice currently allowed access to the mass media - and they are trying very, very hard to stop these opinions. Mill and Gramsci would agree that he is an ally to plurality and a conter-hegemonic hero I am sure. If the left want a saint as a leader they will be looking for a long time. By attacking his personality you are climbing into bed with “the enemy" - so to speak - and their mission to undermine anti-war opinion.


"Also worth pointing out that you criticise Justin's personal attacks, before accusing him of being "too emotionally involved with the Galloway character assassination project to be rational on this point" which looks ever so slightly like a personal attack to me."

Point taken, I would argue fair comment however.

Please explain what it is regarding his opinions on "the war on terror" etc. that you disagree with?  

On January 07, 2006 6:03 PM,  Nosemonkey said...

A couple of quick questions for Porkbeast/Anonymous (I assume the 1:45pm comment is the same person) - How, exactly, is Galloway being censored when he gets more airtime than any other member of the anti-war movement?

The person who shouts the loudest gets heard the most. He's shouting by far the loudest and getting heard by far the most - the problem other anti-war types have is that his shouting is drowning out their voices. Is their irritation with the man really so difficult to understand?  

On January 07, 2006 6:44 PM,  Disillusioned kid said...

Porkbeast, I think your just being silly. Your argument seems to be that Galloway has some opinions; certain people don't agree with them and would like to shut him up; therefore anybody who criticises him is attacking his freedom of speech. Unless there's something else that's beyond my feeble intellect that strikes me as obviously nonsensical. If we continue that logic we couldn't criticse anybody vaguely controversial. Even Blair.

You also seem to misunderstand my point about him as a ally/leader. I wasn't referring to Respect. They can do what the fuck they like - and no doubt will. What I'm interested in is the wider anti-war movement which he has come to be seen as something of a de facto leader of by virtue of his prominent role in the Stop the War Coalition.

As for my dislike, Nosemonkey sums it up succinctly. Those of us who oppose the war and tyrannical regimes like that of Saddam and Assad's Syria are drowned out by Galloway's ravings. Partly because he's infamously forthright in his opinions and partly because the pro-warniks go out of their way to emphasise everything he says in order to attack the wider movement. (The pro-war left's obsession - you can't really call it anything else - with Galloway is telling in this regard.) This is why he's given access to the mass-media. He's easy to discredit.  

On January 07, 2006 7:00 PM,  Justin said...

Yet another post I'm starting to wish I hadn't written. I can write all manner of vile things about the Government and nobody ever bites much to my disappointment but I write semi-jokey posts about holy fools like Galloway, Geldof or Chris Martin from Coldplay and it's like I farted in a lift.

Porkbeast (any relation to the Porkbolter at all?), my post and subsequent comments can be regarded as a personal attack in so far as I regard Galloway's personal failings worthy of scrutiny.

How I'm part of censoring Galloway I'm not quite sure. I haven't been given access to the editing suite at Channel 4. By the very nature of the format of the programme Galloway is going to be edited - you could have put Nelson Mandela in there and they wouldn't broadcast his every word. Suspicious of the media as I am, I suspect they will censor Galloway and call it editing.

My beef is that Galloway stood as a Member of Parliament with all the responsibilities that that entails. So far, while MP, Galloway has taken extended tours of the US and the UK to sell his book, attended a paltry number of votes and asked a paltry number of parliamentary questions. Granted he's promoting Respect but MPs are often the lynchpin of the community particularly in poor areas lke Tower Hamlets. Good constituency MPs are one of the few beacons in our shrinking democracy. It seems, at least yesterday, that George had left nobody to fill the gap while he was on the telly.

As for getting into bed with "the enemy" (whoever that is) I think you should examine some of Respect's coalition partners. Some of them, with their views on women and homosexuality, should be beyond the pale for any Leftist.

At the risk of repeating myself I don't want to censor Galloway, in fact the opposite. I was quite the fan myself before I saw him speak and then utter weasel words in the Q&A at a public meeting I attended. I'm all for him having his platform - much good it will do him in the long term, I think - I just wish those of us on the anti-war Left who don't want to sail under his flag could get our voices heard as well.

As for his views on the war on terror, actively supporting a "resistance" responsible for the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of civilians was a bollock the anti-war movement couldn't afford to drop. Iraq will never be rebuilt while the insurgency rages. Us on the Left should be doing all we can to see a better Iraq and that, in my view, should include utterly condemning those who seek to undermine any stability. We can all still feel aggrieved and want justice over the war - and trust me, I do - but isn't it ordinary Iraqis, union movements and reconstruction efforts we should be showing solidarity with now?

I and others, as individuals, worked hard for the anti-war movement in the run up to war only to see the message watered down by a range of vested interests, Galloway's most prominent among them, that alienated many people who should have been marching with us.

And what about this petition to secure the release of Tariq Aziz? He was Saddam Hussein's number two. The man should be tried. Some of the names on that petition are the worst ultra-right yahoos in Europe. The some on the anti-war Left are supping with devils and there are all too many out there who will never let us forget it.

Anyway Porkbeast, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. It's all getting a bit circular, isn't it? I'm sorry if you felt I attacked you personally.  

On January 07, 2006 7:09 PM,  Porkbeast said...

Interesting discussion. I still believe we should support not character assasinate Galloway. Anyone who gets this far up the establishments nose must be doing somthing right.
Porkbeast (no relation to porkbolter.)  

On January 07, 2006 7:19 PM,  Nosemonkey said...

Sadly, Porkbeast old man, Galloway doesn't irritate "the establishment" in the slightest. As far as they're concerned, he's doiong them a favour by making their opponents look like idiots.  

On January 07, 2006 7:56 PM,  Porkbeast said...

I find the assertion that GG does not get up the nose of the establishment pretty...well i apologise, but pathetic is the only word. He has obviously got up a monkey’s nose.

There is a lot of “emperor’s new clothes” about GG so called failings. The continual assertion that he is a clown without engagement of your critical faculties is –willingly or otherwise - a part of the character assassination project. It is now “common sense” in many circles that he is a clown. Gramsci would point out how this has been engineered. Let’s get real here. He is on our side and some of us are willing to do the dirty work for the forces of conservatism in this country by supporting this culture of personality. You are being duped. You do not have to like him,or agree with him on everything (my position) but I ask the question again, do you disagree with his analysis of the war in Iraq? Has he brought this analysis to a mass audience? Could anyone else have done it with such style?


Oh by the way if you are not aware of who the enemy is what you doing on a leftist blog? Let please try to stick with the issues rather than getting into bed with the Mail and Telegraph's cult of personality agenda.  

On January 08, 2006 12:31 AM,  Nosemonkey said...

With your astounding insight and wonderous wordplay with my interweb pseudonym I am intellectually crushed.

The thing you are missing, old man, is a little thing called nuance. Galloway is anti-war, yes. But anti-war in the wrong way, as far as a good number of people are concerned.

How's this for an extreme example? Just because Stalin, like (old) Labour, wanted certain industries to be nationalised does not mean that supporters of the (old) Labour party also wanted to see the slaughter of 20 million innocents. To agree on one thing does not mean you have to accept the whole package. The whole package can, however, demean the one thing.

(Apologies if this makes no sense, but I am pissed up on booze)  

On January 09, 2006 10:59 AM,  Anonymous said...

Porkbeast,
You say He is on our side and some of us are willing to do the dirty work for the forces of conservatism in this country by supporting this culture of personality.

That got me thinking...are you Alex Peach, the ex-Crazyhead bass player?  

On January 09, 2006 9:34 PM,  edjog said...

Anti-war in the wrong way, nosemonkey old man? That seems like sophistry beyond the call of duty, what? Either that or it's masking the same kind of Sour Grapes at Harry's Place.  

On January 10, 2006 10:20 AM,  Nosemonkey said...

Not really, edjog. Galloway is antiwar in a manner that gives rise to accusations (founded or not it doesn't matter - the preception is also important) of supporting terrorism and totalitarianism. That is (as far as I and many others are concerned) anti-war in the wrong way. I - and others - refuse to ignore his faults just because we agree with him on one issue - is that so hard to understand?

Here, as this is the internet and it's a political discussion, let's bring Hitler into it:

Hitler was socialist, but in the wrong way.

By your Galloway logic, any lefty types should ignore Hitler's mass-slaughter merely because (aspects of) his economics were sound.

That's precisely the sort of attitude that led people like Galloway to blindly support Stalin despite all the evidence of Soviet genocide - so I can't say I'm surprised that it seems to be the common fall-back option for Galloway's supporters.  

On January 10, 2006 1:31 PM,  edjog said...

Tell you what nosemonkey, let's assume we're both adults and leave Hitler out of it for a change, eh?

I'm not saying that Galloway isn't a dick and as far as i can tell from what he actually says, rather than overinflated media reportage taking some of his illconsidered statements out of context, he's got some ideas which i disagree with. His much vaunted 'stance' on Stalin would be one of them, however i must confess to having been too lazy to find out what his full position actually is.

The fact remains however that he is vociferously anti-war and has got off his arse to provide himself with a platform to be heard on the matter. Whether his prime motivation for this is actually, as i suspect, self-aggrandisement matters not at all: anyone who challenges widely trumpeted ideas will inevitably come in for ad hominem criticism. It is both the nature of our personality driven culture and the first fallback of those who cannot debate the issues. (i don't mean you BTW, i'm on about what passes for 'journalism' in this age of bullshit)

To the extent to which i have a "Galloway logic" it is simply that he is doing the do. He is an MP and able to get on Celebrity Big Bollox: you're not and neither am i. In fact if i was to try what he's about, assuming i had the wherewithall to succeed, the headlines would read,

"Stop The War Coalition: bunch of junkies and criminals!"

So more power to his elbow, it's not like he's going to be forming the next government or anything. To take 'your Galloway logic' to it's absurd conclusion (and thus, hopefully, illumine the fallaciousness of this style of debate) we should wait for the second coming of Christ to champion the cause, because only 'He' could be immune to the criticism of our detractors.

No, he is a dick, but he's our dick.  

Post a Comment

Create a Link

Home