George Galloway wins Bradford West by-election

A consummate self-publicist, who actually did very little for the constituents of Bethnal Green and Bow, who couldn't be bothered turning up to vote very often at the House of Commons (approx. 8% of votes), and who famously said to Saddam Hussein when he visited him in 1994

"Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability"

He will be representing himself in the House (when he turns up), not his constituents, IMHO.

"Bradford Spring", my arse - comparing a by-election with armed insurrection in Libya and Syria just sums up this man's self-obsession and bloated view of his status.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

I'd have thought the anti Iraq and Afghanistan war stance would have gone down rather well with the Muslim segment of the electorate.

I reckon that's all that got him elected.

[Pierre]

I can't stand the guy, but that's not the point.

The fact that a labour stronghold since 1975 has been lost to this idiot is the story.

The Bradford people couldn't vote for the Tories in such a labour area, they couldn't vote for the LibDems as they're in bed with the Tories otherwise I think they'd have done quite well.

More importantly they couldn't even vote for Labour whilst Ed Silliband is in charge, so they put their tick against the only other candidate they'd heard of.

This is a damning verdict of a Labour heartland on what they think of the current labour leadership, and I think it's great.

I don't think Ed will make it to the next election.

Whatever you think of Gorgeous George (and that's not an awful lot, in my case), our political landscape is in dire need of mavericks and people who think differently to the crowd. Westminster will be a better place with him back in it.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I don't think Ed will make it to the next election.

Personally i hope he does, It makes Labour unelectable

[denphone]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...-labour-harman

Bradford West byelection result is very bad for Labour, Harriet Harman admits.

Harriet Harman, the deputy Labour party leader, has admitted the result of the Bradford West byelection was "very bad" for Labour.

Labour's shocked candidate Imran Hussain was crushed by a 36.59% swing from Labour to Respect that saw George Galloway take the seat with a majority of 10,140 on a turnout of just over 50%.

Voters turned their backs on the mainstream parties with Labour's share of the vote down 20% on its 2010 figure, while the Conservatives dropped by almost 23% and the Liberal Democrats lost their deposit after netting 4.59% of the votes, down 7% on the 2010 general election result. Galloway's result represented the first byelection win by an independent since 1973 and the first time an opposition party has lost one of its seats since the Romsey byelection in 2000

Originally Posted by Chris

Whatever you think of Gorgeous George (and that's not an awful lot, in my case), our political landscape is in dire need of mavericks and people who think differently to the crowd. Westminster will be a better place with him back in it.

If he turns up, that is - unlikely, if you go by his past record.....

[mertle]

Originally Posted by Taf

I reckon that's all that got him elected.

yep me too taf

its funny one for me did the electorate show distancing from 3 main parties doubt it lib/dems would been bludgeoned last week they won. Same with conservatives. So its more they supported galloway anti war.

You either love him foroutspokeness or think he clown. However never towed the partly line dont think he should been removed by labour. It was crass approach.

I wondering if this was victory for the people to show parties you cant remove the whip just because you dont like him not towing the line.

I wonder if people should vote the MP who will represent the party they wish away to get round this.

So labour and others put forward more than one you vote you prefered MP instead we getting told He's your Party representative.

Ban the whip.

If its disipline it should be house decide if its sackable such the MP who had fight. Although the investigations should be thorough find if provokation involved.

End the day MP's should be forced to tow party line sooner this abolished the better.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chris

Whatever you think of Gorgeous George (and that's not an awful lot, in my case), our political landscape is in dire need of mavericks and people who think differently to the crowd. Westminster will be a better place with him back in it.

Well it'll certainly be more entertaining. However, I doubt Bradford West will be a better place.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Damien

Shame he doesn't do this job however. Deciding that Big Brother was more important than the vote on Crossrail, which is going though what was then his constituency. He is interested in his own ego and publicity, it wasn't the only time he prioritised media commitments over parliamentary commitments (i.e actual voting). His defence was in to invoke Tony Blair's record of attending less than he did whilst refusing to take into account that Blair was the Prime Minster.




Bradford have elected someone who will do squat for them. A professional contrarian whose 'beliefs' seems to revolve around a naive and simplistic notion that the West is always at fault. The Falklands belong to Argentina, not because of any rational and logical argument, but because of 'British Imperialism' and he will continue to rail against such Imperialism with great oratory to the delight of his fans but refuse to engage in any substance. That is on what he has based a career in politics in.

Still, at least the people of Bradford West get to see their name on a byline during one of his many forthcoming interviews in lieu of seeing it in a a parliamentary voting record.

The only good that can come of this is more pressure on Ed Miliband to step aside and get someone in who knows what they are doing.

I heard him say catagorically that his expenses were zero pounds so some one's telling lies, given the number of time he's been to court and proven libled I'll go with him especially as his name would have been top of the pile during the expenses scandle.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I heard him say catagorically that his expenses were zero pounds so some one's telling lies, given the number of time he's been to court and proven libled I'll go with him especially as his name would have been top of the pile during the expenses scandle.

Well that wasn't my point, it was about him not performing his duties as an MP whilst lecturing people about democracy. It was about his awful attendance record for parliament and his choice to appear on Big Brother instead of turning up for one of the most important votes in his constituency.

However a quick Google shows he did claim expenses as an MP. I am not sure why he said it, it's a matter of public record for the most part. I suspect his most loyal fans would take him at his word.

http://mps-expenses.guardian.co.uk/r...orge-galloway/

The expenses themselves are not order of order for the most part, it's just when it's weighed against his attendance record that it doesn't reflect well. Although if he has claimed he never took any expenses it's more evidence of his tendency for self promotion over substance.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I heard him say catagorically that his expenses were zero pounds so some one's telling lies, given the number of time he's been to court and proven libled I'll go with him especially as his name would have been top of the pile during the expenses scandle.

They Work For You - George Galloway

Expenses are at the bottom of the webpage - according to this, he claimed

2008-09 £130,340
2007-08 £136,390
2006-07 £107,610
2005-06 £107,030
2004-05 £145,072
2003-04 £105,973
2002-03 £126,759
2001-02 £84,773

That totals up to approx. £940,000, which is a bit more than "zero pounds"....

And in the "Members Interests" section, it shows he earns approx 200k per annum on his speaking and media engagements.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=10218

[Derek]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I heard him say catagorically that his expenses were zero pounds.

Zero pounds but several thousand rials...

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

They Work For You - George Galloway

Expenses are at the bottom of the webpage - according to this, he claimed

2008-09 £130,340
2007-08 £136,390
2006-07 £107,610
2005-06 £107,030
2004-05 £145,072
2003-04 £105,973
2002-03 £126,759
2001-02 £84,773

That totals up to approx. £940,000, which is a bit more than "zero pounds"....

And in the "Members Interests" section, it shows he earns approx 200k per annum on his speaking and media engagements.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=10218

That's interesting wonder why he told such a blatantly provable lie on tv IIRC he was laying into some MP about duck ponds and he responded with something like I can't wait to see your expenses, that's when he said they were zero pounds.

Perhaps I being thick again

My expenses are zero. I have no second home, I have never bought a bean from the "John Lewis List", which I didn't know existed and I don't claim a penny in travel expenses.

http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/cgi-b...cludeBlogs=162

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

That's interesting wonder why he told such a blatantly provable lie on tv IIRC he was laying into some MP about duck ponds and he responded with something like I can't wait to see your expenses, that's when he said they were zero pounds.

Perhaps I being thick again

My expenses are zero. I have no second home, I have never bought a bean from the "John Lewis List", which I didn't know existed and I don't claim a penny in travel expenses.

http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/cgi-b...cludeBlogs=162

Not sure why he said even that really. The link I provided show taxi fares and stuff and he does claim some expenses....