Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Respect get sent to Siberia!

INPROG, and Boris Kagarlitsky seem pretty sorted Russian anti-corporate types.

Boris was imprisoned in the 1980s for 'anti-soviet activities', and also writes for ZNet and Green/Left quarterly.

http://www.tni.org/fellows/kagarlitsky.htm

What I don't understand is why Respect and George 'socialism of smokestacks' Galloway are suddenly getting concerned about Siberian pollution. Why no peep about Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, or the Sakhalin exploitation... :confused:

I can only think that it is, as someone said, a consolation prise for Guy Taylor, and he's being allowed to push this and given big gun backing...
 
Fisher_Gate said:
Report on trip is now on Respect website.
http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=888
It also made some Russian news media:
http://www.regnum.ru/english/523650.html

I think this sort of media coverage and the invitation and links with IPROG more than justify the trip. I presume Galloway will raise this in the House of Commons when it reconvenes following the recess.
Click to expand...

The Respect report is very interesting. I'm still at a bit of a loss to know why INPROG contacted the SWP, however. Maybe the anti-USSR dissidents inside it have a history of links with the IS/IST?

Anyway, good luck to GT with this. Presumably he's been handed it because his involvement in the 'anti-capitalist' protests such as Mayday means he's hte closest thing that the RUS have to a green on board :confused:
 
Fisher_Gate said:
Report on trip is now on Respect website.
http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=888
It also made some Russian news media:
http://www.regnum.ru/english/523650.html

I think this sort of media coverage and the invitation and links with IPROG more than justify the trip. I presume Galloway will raise this in the House of Commons when it reconvenes following the recess.
Click to expand...
yeh - but that requires galloway to go to the house of commons, which, given his previous pitiful attendance, is by no means certain.
 
Random said:
The Respect report is very interesting. I'm still at a bit of a loss to know why INPROG contacted the SWP, however. Maybe the anti-USSR dissidents inside it have a history of links with the IS/IST?

Anyway, good luck to GT with this. Presumably he's been handed it because his involvement in the 'anti-capitalist' protests such as Mayday means he's hte closest thing that the RUS have to a green on board :confused:
Click to expand...

Kagarlitsky has had a fraternal dialogue with the Fourth International (USEC) in the past (people like Labour Focus on Eastern Europe, which was led by the IMG/ISG), not the IS/IST - nobody in Russia believes Cliff's theory of State Capitalism has any credibility as an explanation of stalinism and certainly not Kagarlitsky who is much closer to the 'degenerated workers state' concept. Maybe the connection came via them, which would explain why formally it was Respect the approach was made to, as the FI supports Respect but not SWP/IST/GR.
 
Fisher_Gate said:
Kagarlitsky has had a fraternal dialogue with the Fourth International (USEC) in the past (people like Labour Focus on Eastern Europe, which was led by the IMG/ISG), not the IS/IST - nobody in Russia believes Cliff's theory of State Capitalism has any credibility as an explanation of stalinism and certainly not Kagarlitsky who is much closer to the 'degenerated workers state' concept. Maybe the connection came via them, which would explain why formally it was Respect the approach was made to, as the FI supports Respect but not SWP/IST/GR.
Click to expand...

Though according to a report by Alan Thornett in Socialist Outlook that is on the net he did speak at Marxism 2001 alongside Thornett. Elsewhere Google tells me that one of the 'ultra left' groups inside the FI claimed the ISG and the Matti group inside the French section were accused of being too pro-Kagarlitsky in the 1990s, so there's likely to be some link there.
 
I can't remember which one, but at a conference I was at a few years back Kargalitsky and Callinicos were very chummy together. Whatever their theoretical differences, this might be the link, rather than Thornett who (no offence) is in reality a somewhat peripheral figure in Respect.

On BP, I'd be extremely surprised if the majority of its shareholders, or of its management, were located in Britain anymore.
 
fisher gate

doing a proper fucking search, using the terms "george galloway", brings back fucking 13 results - not, i submit, as good a performance as the one you would have us believe. your fuckwitt'd proclamation that it weren't that bad is fucking straight out of the trotskyite school of falsification. arse.

the proper search:

http://www.publications.parliament....06=&PROP06=T=P,P=J1&B2=&ORGANISE_CODED=R:date

and even in that search a couple of unwanted results slip in, like 16 may and 28 june.
 
Pickman's model said:
not a squeak out of him! :)
Click to expand...

We don't all have our nerve endings continuously plugged into the internet you know. We can all make a mistake - no need to be abusive. It was a quick response and I apologise if it misled.

In fact the Hansard search doesn't tell you how many times an MP turned up, only how many times they are referred to, spoke and voted. Searching on 'George Galloway' doesn't give the references to 'Mr Galloway' (when it meant George) or the 'member for Bethnal Green and Bow'. So the search is very crude anyway. All I was trying to illustrate was that GG had turned up to quite a few parliamentary debates, spoken, voted and been referrred to by other speakers. Whether hansard turns up one dozen or four dozen is not the point as there is no norm or reference point - other than a zero indicates no parliamentary action by the MP which is what you were trying to say in your original post.

Getting back to the original point, I'm quite sure GG/Respect will be raising the Siberia situation once parliament reconvenes. You doubt that. We'll see in due course who is right.
 
Fisher_Gate said:
In fact the Hansard search doesn't tell you how many times an MP turned up, only how many times they are referred to, spoke and voted.
Click to expand...

oh come on, you really think there's a whole slew of times that george has turned up, said fuck all, and therefore not mentioned in hansard. On the rare occassion that he botheres to make his way to parliament, he's hardly going to go to all that effort and not say anything!
 
oisleep said:
oh come on, you really think there's a whole slew of times that george has turned up, said fuck all, and therefore not mentioned in hansard. On the rare occassion that he botheres to make his way to parliament, he's hardly going to go to all that effort and not say anything!
Click to expand...

According to another database he's spoken in four debates since the general election which is about middle ranking for all MPs in the current parliament. 378th out of 646. Not an awful record at all which is what it is painted as.
Remember, MPs can only speak when called by the Speaker, and parliamentary rules give precedence to members of the Privy Council, ie current ministers, ex-ministers and the leaders of the Tories, LibDems, SNP etc. That's why you are always reading about them in the papers - because they have precedence.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/george_galloway/bethnal_green_and_bow#votingrecord

Unfortunately this database isn't very useful yet as most of the searches relate to the period before the current parliament. Nevertheless if you are so interested you can sign up and it sends you an e-mail every time he speaks.
 
but that database is useful in showing us his performance in the last parliament,and it's not being unfair to judge him on his past record is it? or are we to believe he's had a sudden damascus like change over the summer?
 
Fisher_Gate said:
We don't all have our nerve endings continuously plugged into the internet you know. We can all make a mistake - no need to be abusive. It was a quick response and I apologise if it misled.

In fact the Hansard search doesn't tell you how many times an MP turned up, only how many times they are referred to, spoke and voted. Searching on 'George Galloway' doesn't give the references to 'Mr Galloway' (when it meant George) or the 'member for Bethnal Green and Bow'. So the search is very crude anyway. All I was trying to illustrate was that GG had turned up to quite a few parliamentary debates, spoken, voted and been referrred to by other speakers. Whether hansard turns up one dozen or four dozen is not the point as there is no norm or reference point - other than a zero indicates no parliamentary action by the MP which is what you were trying to say in your original post.

Getting back to the original point, I'm quite sure GG/Respect will be raising the Siberia situation once parliament reconvenes. You doubt that. We'll see in due course who is right.
Click to expand...
you'd have us believe that there were 52 occasions when hansard refers to george galloway since the general election. in fact there are about 11. there's quite a sizeable difference...

if you can't be fucked to accurately report on the activities of an mp you seemingly affect to admire (or respect) then what the fuck can you be trusted to report on? the first result returned by your search should have given you pause for thought as it mentioned one ERIC GALLOWAY, and not the sordid carpetbagger you were looking for.

in the last parliament, we were told that george galloway would raise in parliement the issues which the swc and ruc felt were immensely important, namely the war on terror. we were told that the working class would be receiving the representation they were denied in parliament. so after all that big build-up, it's interesting to see the burghers of bethnal green and bow, and the wider working class, in receipt of the same representation galloway provided to his unfortunate constituents in glasgow kelvin, which is to say fuck all.

of course, not all an mp's work is in the palace of westminster. a good constituency mp will also do much work on behalf of his electorate. sadly, then, galloway's inability to be at the constituency surgeries he's organised for every friday afternoon undermines his claims to be working for the people who voted him in in may.

to paraphrase one geo. galloway, the people of bethnal green and bow have been sold a pup on a false prospectus.
 
Pickman's model said:
i think you should refine your search to george galloway. look at the first result that comes up.

i'm talking about bloody GEORGE GALLOWAY not fuckwitt'd MARK GALLOWAY! or cuntwitt'd ERIC GALLOWAY! :mad:

or LYNNE fucking GALLOWAY! :mad:

arse.
Click to expand...

I've just realised you really are more stupid than I thought you were, and twice as abusive. I did check the first few references, so following your later post where you said I couldn't have I rechecked it.

The references you are talking about are the summary of divisions. The Summary excludes the line breaks that appear in the full Hansard.

So in the first search there is no 'Mark Galloway' - If you follow the link, Hansard actually says

The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 114.
Division No. 45
[10.16 pm
AYES
...

NOES
...
Field, Mr Mark
Galloway, Mr George
...

on seperate lines. The summary then misses out the line break and shows it as

... Field, Mr Mark Galloway, Mr George ...

and of course searching for "George Galloway" wouldn't actually find this.

There are no MPs called Mark Galloway, Eric Galloway or even Lynne Galloway.
In fact there is only one MP with a surname of Galloway, so my original search wasn't far out.

I think an apology is in order.
 
Fisher_Gate said:
I've just realised you really are more stupid than I thought you were, and twice as abusive. I did check the first few references, so following your later post where you said I couldn't have I rechecked it.

The references you are talking about are the summary of divisions. The Summary excludes the line breaks that appear in the full Hansard.

So in the first search there is no 'Mark Galloway' - If you follow the link, Hansard actually says

The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 114.
Division No. 45
[10.16 pm
AYES
...

NOES
...
Field, Mr Mark
Galloway, Mr George
...

on seperate lines. The summary then misses out the line break and shows it as

... Field, Mr Mark Galloway, Mr George ...

and of course searching for "George Galloway" wouldn't actually find this.

There are no MPs called Mark Galloway, Eric Galloway or even Lynne Galloway.
In fact there is only one MP with a surname of Galloway, so my original search wasn't far out.

I think an apology is in order.
Click to expand...
i don't.
 
Fisher_Gate said:
I've just realised you really are more stupid than I thought you were, and twice as abusive. I did check the first few references, so following your later post where you said I couldn't have I rechecked it.

The references you are talking about are the summary of divisions. The Summary excludes the line breaks that appear in the full Hansard.

So in the first search there is no 'Mark Galloway' - If you follow the link, Hansard actually says

The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 114.
Division No. 45
[10.16 pm
AYES
...

NOES
...
Field, Mr Mark
Galloway, Mr George
...

on seperate lines. The summary then misses out the line break and shows it as

... Field, Mr Mark Galloway, Mr George ...

and of course searching for "George Galloway" wouldn't actually find this.

There are no MPs called Mark Galloway, Eric Galloway or even Lynne Galloway.
In fact there is only one MP with a surname of Galloway, so my original search wasn't far out.

I think an apology is in order.
Click to expand...
"my original search wasn't far out" :D :D :D

what arrant toss! :D

bollox! :mad:

all the results referring to the member for bethnal green & bow which occur in yr arsewitt'd search turn up in mine: and even then there're a couple of results which have nothing to do with the bloke. so fucking TWELVE (count 'em) references to mr george galloway, pbuh. not fucking 52 - not even 32 - but TWELVE. yr search was not far out - it's fucking far beyond far out.
 
Fisher_Gate said:
So did you think there was an MP called "Lynne Galloway"? 'cos that was what you said!
Click to expand...

irrelevent

12 results for george galloway, why not just admit it?

fucking islamists :rolleyes:
 
rednblack said:
irrelevent

12 results for george galloway, why not just admit it?

fucking islamists :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm an atheist actually.

The actual answer is 29, for reasons I shall now explain.

The purpose of searching Hansard was to find how much impact Galloway is having on the House of Commons. In my view this includes not only speeches and votes by Galloway himself but also references to him by other speakers responding to what he has said or done.

My original search was too wide in that it produced several duplicate references where the name Galloway was referred to several times in the same context, eg where a speech goes over more than one page in Hansard, the speaker's name is given at the top of the next page. Ditto when an intervention is made against the speaker and s/he comes back to continue. There are also several spurious references that picked up 'Dumfries and Galloway'. I have catalogued all 52 search items and eliminated duplicates and spurious information. The list follows and shows 29 distinct references to George Galloway MP. Where a single item produces more than one search result, this is shown in the final column and I've listed the spurious references at the end to show it adds to 52. I've already said I'm sorry for overstating the numbers but having eliminated the errors, I think it does show Galloway is having an impact on the Commons. Any chance of an apology now?

Date Debate References to Galloway Search Results
1 19-Jul Crossrail bill Vote 45 1
2 19-Jul Crossrail bill Vote 44 1
3 19-Jul Crossrail bill Speech by Mark Field (Con) 1
4 19-Jul Crossrail bill Speech by John McDonnel (Lab) 1
5 19-Jul Crossrail bill Speech by Galloway 1
6 19-Jul Crossrail bill Speech by Alistair Darling (Lab minister) 1
7 19-Jul Crossrail bill Intervention by Galloway during Darling Speech 1
8 19-Jul Business of the House Procedural Intervention 1 1
9 19-Jul Business of the House Procedural Intervention 2 2
10 11-Jul Racial and Religious Hatred Bill Vote 35 1
11 07-Jul Defence in the World Repeated Attempt at procedural intervention 4
12 07-Jul Defence in the World Speech by Adam Ingram (Lab Minister) 1
13 07-Jul Defence in the World Speech by Julian Lewis (Con) 1
14 07-Jul Defence in the World Speech by Mike Penning (Con) 1
15 07-Jul Defence in the World Speech by Mark Lancaster (Con) 1
16 07-Jul Defence in the World Speech by Galloway 6
17 05-Jul G8 Meeting Procedural Intervention by Galloway before Kim Howells Speech 2
18 05-Jul G8 Meeting Speech by Galloway 3
19 05-Jul G8 Meeting Speech by Kim Howells 1
20 05-Jul IMMIGRATION, ASYLUM AND NATIONALITY BILL [MONEY] Vote 29 1
21 28-Jun Identity Cards bill Vote 21 1
22 28-Jun Identity Cards bill Vote 20 1
23 22-Jun Electoral Integrity Speech by Clive Betts (Lab) 1
24 22-Jun Electoral Integrity Speech by David Heath (LD) 1
25 22-Jun Electoral Integrity Speech by Oliver Heald (Con) 1
26 21-Jun Racial and Religious Hatred Bill Speech by Boris Johnston (Con) 1
27 21-Jun Racial and Religious Hatred Bill Intervention by Greg Hands (Con) 1
28 24-May Health and Education Speech by Mark Harper (Con) 1
29 19-May Oath Galloway took oath 1

Spurious references
05-Jul Fairtrade Ref to Dumfries and Galloway 2
29-Jun NHS Dentistry Ref to Dumfries and Galloway 2
09-Jun Consumer Credit Bill Ref to Dumfries and Galloway 4
24-May Health and Education Ref to Dumfries and Galloway 1
23-May Knife Crime Ref to Dumfries and Galloway 1
19-May Oath Ref to Dumfries and Galloway 1

Total number of search references = 52
 
oisleep said:
oh come on, you really think there's a whole slew of times that george has turned up, said fuck all, and therefore not mentioned in hansard. On the rare occassion that he botheres to make his way to parliament, he's hardly going to go to all that effort and not say anything!
Click to expand...

George Galloway's four speeches in parliament since the General Election are the same in number as hard-working Campaign Group leaders Alan Simpson and John McDonnell. It's also more than Clare Short and Michael Meacher, who by virtue of their Privy Council membership (having been ministers) have precedence when it comes to getting to speak.
 
It's worth contrasting the respective performances of George Galloway at Westminster and Joe Higgins in the Dáil.

Higgins is a very good public speaker but he doesn't have Galloway's extraordinary talent for oratory. However he is widely regarded, even by the right wing media, as the best parliamentary performer in the Dáil. He is an expert at using the platform given to him to further working class interests - as for instance the GAMA workers can testify. He also has a unique ability to get under the skins of establishment politicians and make them look very foolish.

Galloway's performance in parliament strikes me as being better than his opponents like to make out, but ultimately not particularly noteworthy either way. He certainly doesn't make the kind of use of his platform which Higgins manages to do. Perhaps not a fair comparison though. Higgins after all is a revolutionary socialist while Galloway is essentially a social democrat.
 
Surely the point is not so much how much time Galloway spends in what Trots refer to as the "dungheap" but what he's doing for his constituents in east London. I'm not in much of a position to say one way or the other, but I can tell you what a terrible service he provided the people of Kelvin.
 
On the issue of funding for the trip: maybe there are some friendly local sponsors in Russia that want to have BP/TNK's reputation tarnished?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pickman's model
Members of Britain's richest family get prison sentences
Replies
12
Views
620
stavros
S
Buddy Bradley
How long before we get a proper Tory-style sleaze gaffe from Labour?
Replies
0
Views
174
Buddy Bradley
Buddy Bradley
N
People sent donations to Royal Family after Queen died!!!!!!
Replies
28
Views
1K
stavros
S
Sasaferrato
The NHS needs to get its finger out and stop whining about lack of funds. They are bloated and wasteful.
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
154
Views
7K
UnderOpenSky
UnderOpenSky
DaveCinzano
JOBS THAT NEVER PREVIOUSLY EXISTED #892: Set Designer For Grifty Arseholes Who Get Sacked & Become Self-Facilitating Media Nodes In Their Garden Shed
Replies
27
Views
916
Cid
Cid
Back
Top Bottom