World Forums

George Galloway did very well.

Good.

Who was the guy I saw turning upstage to regard Blair when speaking of the 'extremely controversial circumstances' leading to the Iraq war? I caught that his son (?) had been killed in Iraq.

Hi Barry

The guy you're thinking of might be Reg Keys, he contested Tony Blair's Sedgefield seat in vain, but I didn't see him speak, so it could be someone else.

As for George Galloway, I'm not quite sure how anyone could be happy he's elected. He's not the kind of person I'd want as an MP, but each to their own I guess.

It's quite simple. Friend of Saddam? Good. Enemy of America? Even better.

That's why I don't bother arguing with that useful idiot one post above Marko. It's a waste of time.

Michael Howard will stand down "sooner rather than later", so I guess that means they'll find a new leader soon. Boris Johnson for leader! Fine chance, but it would be better than someone like Ken Clarke.

As for Galloway, he was actually receiving threats from Muslims in the community where he was campaigning. Ironically, it is people like him, who purport to somehow represent their cause (by befriending the likes of Saddam and Aziz, the latter is apparently a "political prisoner" in George's warped world), that will probably be at greatest risk from any criminal or even terrorist act of the extremists.

He walked out of two TV interviews yesterday because they dared to mention Saddam )

welfarequeens across the continent, i.e basically bloody farmers

some things are sacred cows...

Almost http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/html/124.stm

Hi, Marko.

I've betrayed my ignorance. I didn't know Galloway was Saddam's friend. I thought this allegation was settled in court, and that he opposed the Ba'ath regime, but I would be happy to be better educated on the matter.

I am glad he resisted the war on Iraq, and gladder it seems he was rewarded by his electorate for doing so. (I'm aware there's a large Muslim population in jis seat that may have supported him).

I hear you make fine contributions in some discussions Leonid.

LOL

MARK COLVIN: At the top of the program we heard George Galloway trying to rub some salt into Tony Blair's wounds.

Mr Galloway is the ex Labour MP who in the 90s went to Baghdad and interviewed Saddam Hussein, famously using the words, "Sir, I salute your strength, your courage and your indefatigability".

He set up his own party, called Respect, and in this election targeted a London constituency with a very high number of Asian and Middle Eastern voters.

He won, and his victory provided one of the interviews of the night, between Mr Galloway and the BBC's Jeremy Paxman.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Mr Galloway, are you proud of having got rid of one of the very few black women in Parliament?

GEORGE GALLOWAY: What a preposterous question. I know it’s very late in the night, but wouldn’t you be better by starting by congratulating me for one of the most sensational election results in modern history?

JEREMY PAXMAN: Are you proud of having got rid of one of the very few black women in Parliament?

GEORGE GALLOWAY: I’m not… Jeremy, move on to your next question.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Well, you not answering that one?

GEORGE GALLOWAY: No, because I don’t believe that people get elected because of the colour of their skin.

I believe people get elected because of their record and because of their policies. So move onto your next question, because I’ve got a lot of people who want to speak to me.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Are you proud…

GEORGE GALLOWAY: If you ask that question again I’m going, I warn you now.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Don’t try and threaten me, Mr Galloway, please.

GEORGE GALLOWAY: You’re the one who’s trying to badger me.

JEREMY PAXMAN: I’m not trying to badger you, I’m merely asking you whether you’re proud of having driven out of Parliament one of the very few black women there – a woman you accused of having on her conscience the deaths of 100,000 people.

GEORGE GALLOWAY: Oh, well, there’s no doubt about that one. There’s absolutely no doubt that all those new Labour MPs who voted for Mr Blair and Mr Bush’s war have on their hands the blood of 100,000 people in Iraq, many of them British soldiers, many of them American soldiers, most of them Iraqis. And that’s a more important issue than the colour of her skin, I may assure you.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Yes, because you then went on to say including a lot of women who had blacker faces than her.

GEORGE GALLOWAY: Absolutely right. Absolutely right. So don’t try and tell me that I should feel guilty about one of the most sensational election results in modern electoral history because the person I defeated is a woman or a…

JEREMY PAXMAN: I put it to you, Mr Galloway, that Nick Rainsford had you to a tea when he said you were a demagogue.

GEORGE GALLOWAY: I’m sorry?

JEREMY PAXMAN: Nick Rainsford. You know who I mean? Nick Rainsford, Labour MP.

GEORGE GALLOWAY: I don’t… no, I don’t know him.

JEREMY PAXMAN: So you’ve never heard of him?

GEORGE GALLOWAY: I’ve never heard of Nick Rainsford, no.

JEREMY PAXMAN: What else haven’t you heard of?

GEORGE GALLOWAY: Well, I’ve been in Parliament a long time…

JEREMY PAXMAN: He’s a parliamentary colleague of yours until very recently.

GEORGE GALLOWAY: Well, most of them just blend one into the other, Jeremy. They’re largely a spineless supine bunch, and…

JEREMY PAXMAN: Have you every heard of Tony Banks?

GEORGE GALLOWAY: Yes I have, yes.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Right. Tony Banks was sitting here five minutes ago and he said you were behaving inexcusably – you had deliberately chosen to go to that part of London and to exploit the latent racial tensions there.

GEORGE GALLOWAY: Well, you are actually conducting one of the more, even by your standards, one of the most absurd interviews I have ever participated in. I have just won an election. Can you find it within yourself to recognise that fact, to recognise the fact that the people of Bethnal Green and Bow chose me this evening.

JEREMY PAXMAN: We recognise it.

GEORGE GALLOWAY: Why are you insulting them?

JEREMY PAXMAN: I’m not insulting them. I’m not insulting them.

GEORGE GALLOWAY: Yes you are. You are insulting them. They chose me just a few minutes ago. Can’t you find it within yourself even to congratulate me on this victory.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Congratulations, Mr Galloway. How do you propose to use your time in…

GEORGE GALLOWAY: Thank you very much indeed. I’m off.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Oh, I see, it’s another occasion you’re not wanting to talk to someone who doesn’t agree with you.

GEORGE GALLOWAY: No, no, no, no. Actually, Jeremy, it’s too, it’s too late…

JEREMY PAXMAN: David Larry, what do you make of Mr Galloway?

MARK COLVIN: Jeremy Paxman, interviewing – if that’s the right word – George Galloway, shades of Monty Python. And, I didn’t come here for a contradiction – yes you did.

Barry, well I don't suppose Galloway could continue any friendship with Saddam since Saddam has been captured, but I think it's clear what I meant. The very fact he could meet him and praise him, speaks volumes about the man.

Furthermore, consider the terms in which Mr Galloway spoke about Marwan Barghouti (imprisoned on FIVE counts of murder since then) in a Parliamentary debate in 2002:

First, the capture and proposed trial of Marwan Barghouti; is a very dangerous development. Marwan Barghouti; is the second most important man in Palestine, and he may well be the president of the Palestinian state one day. He is not an Islamic fundamentalist or extremist, but a leader of the progressive nationalist wing of the Palestinian resistance. The friends of Israel must accept that when Sharon marginalises, imprisons and murders the leaders of the nationalist wing of the Palestinian resistance, he ensures that the torch of nationalist leadership will pass to the irrational and irreconcilable Islamist fundamentalist forces. They are the main beneficiaries of Sharon's rampage through the Palestinian territories.

I ask this of the friends of Israel: please do not harm, humiliate or, after a kangaroo court trial, imprison Marwan Barghouti. With Yasser Arafat, he represents the last hope of a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine.

You can read the rest of the debate here (and indeed more garbage from Galloway - I only posted two paragraphs of his spiel) http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/? ... way#g519.0

Edited to say: As an aside, he's clearly not the only loon in this particular debate, and indeed in the House of Commons. Menzies Campbell runs him pretty close, as do a few others.

Surprisingly, former Noble Peace Prize winner, and former First Minister for Northern Ireland, David Trimble lost his seat in Upper Bann to a Democratic Unionist Party candidate, a party headed by that lovable character Ian Paisley...

Forms part of a worrying trend away from the reasonable Ulster Unionist Party to the hmm slightly less sane DUP.

Glenn:

"Still this [Tory immigration policy] would make UK far more liberal than the European countries."

It would make the UK the only country in Europe not to accept the Geneva Convention on refugees. That convention puts obligations on countries to take their share of the burden when human or natural disaster drive people out of their homes, such as what happened in the former Yugoslavia. The Tories do not think Britain should take such a responsibility, and therefore wants to repeal the convention. And you claim that's liberal? Liberals might not agree!

And as for border control police and 24-hour surveillance, I don't understand why fiscal conservatives are not up in arms about this excessive measure which is literally throwing money down the drain of populism. This is not the cold war, and Britain does not border on the Soviet Union.

In many ways, the Tories go farther than Denmark. The Danish government has introduced many of the measures that the Tories are calling for, but at least it accepts the Geneva Convention on refugees.

On balance, I would say that the Tories and Denmark's government are pretty much on the same page when it comes to immigration policy, as both base their policy on xenophobia.

Me: I wouldn't compare (Danish) Venstre and Socialdemokraterna with the British National Party."

You: I would.

If you want to put Venstre and Socialdemokraterna in group with a fascist party, then you'll at least have to elaborate on why you do that.

Infamous Mitford sisters and Oswald Mosley combined cannot hold a candle to George Galloway:)

There is no evidence that the Conservatives base their immigration policy on xenophobia. It's not quite the policy I would personally have implemented for the legitimate reason you stated, Boye - WASTE of taxpayer's money.

However, don't cast wild aspersions as to the motives behind Conservative policy; you don't know them as you weren't there when the policy was devised. I'm inclined to think you are also applying this to the Danish govt, but I don't know about them so won't rebuke you for that one.

Either way is better than not knowing how many immigrants and asylum seekers (legal or otherwise) are in the country, which our government do not know.

Strange how only Leonid and I actually comment where there IS definite xenophobia and bias toward one group and against another (Galloway). Nobody else seems too bothered about his comments or his election, except to offer their sincere congratulations of course

The suggestion that Michael Howard, the son of Jewish immigrants from Russia, could be a xenophobe, is nothing but the Labour propaganda.

National Review

State of the Cousins
What the British elections mean for the U.S.

JOHN O’SULLIVAN

Americans are accustomed to thinking of Britain as their most reliable ally, always there in a crisis. Broadly speaking that has been true since 1941 — and mutual. With the exception of a few wobbles like Suez and Edward Heath’s refusal of landing rights to U.S. planes supplying arms to Israel in the Yom Kippur war, the Brits have shared a common approach with the U.S. on defense policy, intelligence cooperation, nuclear weapons, trade liberalization, and much else. Margaret Thatcher’s backing for Reagan’s Libyan raid and Tony Blair’s commitment of British forces to the Iraq war strengthened this habitual cooperation. There was even government-to-government agreement for much of the time on the desirability of Britain’s joining the European Union to frustrate any tendency the latter might show toward anti-Americanism. By and large this mix of policies worked well.

It is now threatened, however, by three developments: the rise of anti-Americanism in British politics, a growing anti-Americanism in continental Europe, and the EU’s moves toward a common foreign policy. It is the first of these that is the main topic of this article.

Traditional anti-Americanism in Britain has been of two kinds: a left-wing political anti-Americanism rooted in anti-capitalism, and a right-wing hostility based on the decline of British power and the resentment at being displaced by the U.S. Neither was politically important; both were easily contained. But a much more dangerous, complicated, and surprising situation developed in the recent election campaign: Tony Blair’s handling of the Iraq war midwifed the birth of a powerful anti-Americanism of the center-Left.

I write somewhat perilously, for two reasons. First, it is now two days before the May 5 election, so the outcome is unknown; and second, it irks Americans to hear criticism of Blair on the topic of the war. Unfortunately, however, Blair did make a series of mistakes in presenting the case for war. He justified it almost entirely by reference to Saddam Hussein’s stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. He neglected justifications drawn from specifically British national interests. He claimed without qualification that the war was legal under international law. And at times he implied that he had obtained concessions from President Bush — such as seeking a second U.N. resolution and putting pressure on Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians — in return for Britain’s willingness to take part in the invasion.

Since then, of course, the WMD stockpiles were found not to exist (or to be elsewhere). Leaks of the attorney general’s advice on the war’s legality show that it was full of qualifications and caveats. The second U.N. resolution got nowhere. And Israeli concessions to the Palestinian Authority, whatever their other merits, hardly amount to a specifically British interest. So the retrospective impression of Blair’s justifications is as follows: He manipulated Britain into signing up for an illegal American war that had nothing to do with his own country’s interests and on grounds that turned out to be false.

This impression grew more powerful in the course of the campaign, as a cascade of official leaks from Whitehall drenched the front pages. One top-secret document recording a meeting between the prime minister and his senior national security advisers showed the foreign secretary conceding that the case for war was “thin” and that Saddam Hussein had a lesser WMD capability than Libya and others; an intelligence head, “C,” reporting that in Washington the policy was driving the intelligence; and Blair himself suggesting that the British people might be persuaded to accept a “regime change” that his own senior law officers were telling him was unlawful.

It is hardly surprising if many Brits resent what seems to be a policy of deceiving the British people in order to truckle to the Yanks. That impression is false. And it could be countered by a firm statement of the full case for liberating Iraq in the language of British patriotism. As a progressive internationalist, however, Blair finds it difficult to make that case because it would mean, inter alia, attacking the idea that international law and the International Criminal Court should usher in a new age of global legal governance. Blair believes in that. Patriotic language, meanwhile, sits uneasily in his mouth because he thinks Britain’s nationalism is an obstacle to its modernizing, European destiny. As a result he denounces attacks on his Iraq policy as staining his personal honor — which, at this point, simply invites a horselaugh.

An anti-American atmosphere thus suffused the campaign. But how will it influence post-election politics? The strongest anti-war (and, not coincidentally, the most pro-EU) party is the Liberal Democrat party headed by Charles Kennedy. The Lib-Dems opposed the war from the start and stand to benefit substantially from the current anti-war and anti-American mood. As a third party, they have no chance of becoming the government — and only a very slender chance of replacing the Tories as the second-largest party. If they make major gains, however, they could then become an anti-American “pole” in British politics dragging center-Left opinion in their direction. And in a “hung parliament” they would choose the governing party and prime minister.

The Tories remain the most reliable pro-American party, despite Karl Rove’s snubbing of them because of their attacks on Bush’s ally and personal friend, Tony Blair. Those attacks (niggling criticisms, rather) were indeed a mistake. They gave the impression that the Tories were soft on a war they had supported. In the course of the campaign, however, Tory leader Michael Howard dispelled such fears with an impressive argument that the Iraq war was justifiable even if Saddam Hussein lacked WMDs and that he would have supported it in those circumstances. If the Tories were to astonish the world by winning, there would be a few moments of regret and embarrassment in the White House — but Anglo-American cooperation would resume immediately afterwards, and it would be all the stronger because the Tories would resist further absorption into a common EU foreign and defense policy (always assuming that Condoleezza Rice did not bully them into going along with it).

Labour is a more complicated matter. The majority of its new members will likely be thoroughly hostile to Blair, passionately pro-European, and barely disguised in their anti-Americanism. If Blair gets a respectable majority, he will want to remain prime minister against the wishes of his party. He will thus be strongly tempted to appease his hostile followers by adopting policies that are not anti-American per se but that have anti-American implications. He can do so with reasonable consistency by pushing strongly for the ratification of the European constitution, shifting military resources from NATO to the EU defense structure, and embracing a common European foreign policy with few or no qualifications. Over time that would force Britain to choose between Europe and America — something Blair has said he would never do — and Labour with or without Blair would undoubtedly choose Europe. It might therefore be better for the U.S., and for Blair’s own historical reputation, if he did not remain prime minister.

Finance minister Gordon Brown would succeed him in almost any foreseeable circumstances. Almost all commentators, myself included, have written in the past that Brown is a dour Old Labour stalwart who would likely drift back toward more interventionist and left-wing policies at home and abroad. On the principle of Ockham’s razor, that remains the simplest and therefore best prediction. But there are aspects of Brown’s political personality that point in other and more interesting directions. He is a devout Christian, a son of the Manse, who had his infant daughter baptized shortly before her early death.

He is thought to be more skeptical of Europe than Blair — in part because his main economic achievement, granting independence to the Bank of England, would be negated if Britain joined the euro, and in part because he is unimpressed by the EU’s economic performance. He and his main adviser, new MP Ed Balls, are admirers of the flexibility, variety, and innovation not only of the U.S. economy but also of American welfare provision. (Brown visits the U.S. annually.) All these tendencies converge in Brown’s interest in giving religious and other community groups a role in welfare policy. Sound familiar?

British Tories would respond that all these virtues will inevitably fall victim to Brown’s control-freakery. He has forced British universities, for instance, to bring in quotas that limit places for children from independent schools in order to reach the “right” social outcome. So much for variety, experimentation, and flexibility. For the U.S., however, a new, confident Brown might be a better ally against anti-Americanism than a weakened Blair.

The stakes are certainly high. Anti-Americanism in continental Europe is no longer a vulgar mob passion; it is the new religion of the social-democratic political elites. Among the EU governments that embrace it are France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Spain. Italy is likely to join them next year when, if current polls are any guide, the pro-American Silvio Berlusconi will be replaced as prime minister by the Europhiliac Romano Prodi. If Britain were to join this anti-American coalition of the unwilling, it would remove all doubt that the EU had become an ideological competitor and rival to the U.S. in world politics. And if the European constitution with its common foreign policy were to be ratified, it would fix that anti-Americanism as a permanent element in Europe’s new political identity.

In the long term, we probably need a major public-diplomacy campaign to counter these trends. As the Australian Peter Coleman, author of The Liberal Conspiracy, said in London recently: “I used to think we needed another Congress of Cultural Freedom aimed at the Islamic world. I now realize that it is at least as urgent to establish one aimed at Europe for the second time.” In the short term, maybe the U.S. will have to choose between Gordon Brown discreetly backed by Michael Howard over and against Tony Blair pressed hard by Charles Kennedy.

At least that’s how it looked before the election.

The Conservatives did play to xenophobic voters with their immigration policy. The Tory website quite clearly states

"Early action to curb and control the flow of immigrants into the UK can be expected if the Conservatives win the May 5 general election"

This has clear connotations that immigration is a bad thing, and that it will be stopped if the Tories win the election so that Britain can remain a country for Britons.

Under the heading "Don't trust Blair on immigration", it goes on to say

"David Davis has called into question Tony Blair's integrity and credibility after new figures showed the full extent of immigration into Britain from eastern Europe."

Which gives more than a hint that the Tories want barriers to the movement of people to be re-erected within the EU, to stop those nasty Eastern Europeans from flooding into Britain.

The fear of free movement is also the reason given for setting up police border controls:

"A new police force specially designated to control and secure Britain's borders, and help fight illegal immigration, international crime and the threat of terrorism, will be established by an incoming Conservative government."

"Addressing a rally of party activists at Telford, Shropshire, Mr Howard said that instead of "pussy footing" around like Tony Blair, he would impose 24 hour security at ports to prevent illegal immigration"

"And Mr Howard added: "Taken together our plans will substantially reduce the number of people coming to the UK.""

Fighting people who have left everything behind to seek opportunity and a better life is a priority for the Conservatives.

The worst part, however, is the attack on the right of asylum:

On asylum, a Conservative Government will not allow outdated and inflexible rules to prevent us shaping a system which is more humane, more likely to improve community relations and better managed. So we will take back powers from Brussels to ensure national control of asylum policy, withdraw from the 1951 Geneva Convention, and work for modernised international agreements on migration.

Our objective is a system where we take a fixed number of refugees from the UNHCR rather than simply accepting those who are smuggled to our shores. Asylum seekers’ applications will be processed outside Britain.

We will set an overall annual limit on the numbers coming to Britain, including a fixed quota for the number of asylum seekers we accept. Parliament will set, and review, that number every year.

In effect, with a fixed quota, Britain will shut down its borders to asylum seekers, legitimate and illegitimate alike, when the quota has been filled. This is in violation of the 1951 Geneva Convention, which is probably why the Tories want to repeal it.

Marko:

Yes, I maintain that border control police is a waste of taxpayer's money, but of course if you're going to close the borders then it's only a logical consequence. If immigration is a threat to Britain - you know, the Poles are coming to take all your jobs - then it makes sense to have strict border controls. My argument is that the Poles are not a threat to Britain.

However, don't cast wild aspersions as to the motives behind Conservative policy; you don't know them as you weren't there when the policy was devised.

I - like everyone else - have to base my opinion of Conservative policy on the basis of the manifesto and on the basis of what the Tories are saying. If we have to be there when the policy is devised in order to be able to know what the Conservatives mean, then we couldn't trust anything they're saying.

I'm inclined to think you are also applying this to the Danish govt, but I don't know about them so won't rebuke you for that one.

Well, the Danish government is, obviously, in a position of power. They have put their policies into practice, so there can't be much doubt about how they are going to keep people from coming to Denmark.

The only good thing about Danish anti-immigration laws is that they apply to everyone. And I'll admit I found it amusing when Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen's son couldn't take his American wife to Denmark because of the regulations put in place by Fogh Rasmussen's government.

Strange how only Leonid and I actually comment where there IS definite xenophobia and bias toward one group and against another (Galloway).

I honestly don't know much about Galloway or his policies.

Leo:

Well, it is ironic that if, back then, Britain had had a fixed quota on asylum seekers, Michael Howard's father might not have been granted asylum. "Sorry, the quota has already been filled up. Come back next year."

Without trying to nail Boye down, I would say that pleading ignorance is a very convenient position.

Really, when Boye says "honestly", I have no reason to question his integrity. Instead I'm trying to understand the reason he doesn't know about Galloway.

I would understand certain liberal circles distancing themselves from communist atrocities, just as I would understand certain Republican circles remaining silent about their anti-Semitic past. Alas, I think I'm honest enough to know and admit the party's I support inglorious past regarding certain issues.

I should also conclude that Boye is a lot smarter and decent man than the likes of Galloway, for people like Boye understand that your own personal integrity and your own decency are always valuable assets, no matter what your political persuasion is. George galloways and michael moores don't.

Anyway, I hope that Mr.Galloway remains where he belongs, on the margin of the British political life. We already dedicated far too many keystrokes to him.

Yes, it's xenophobia because he wanted to control immigration.

How DARE someone defy the Geneva Convention! Why that's the be-all and end-all of everything that is good and just in life! In fact why don't we just leave everything to the UN and EU to decide. We're simply not competent enough to do it for ourselves. Certainly the intellectual calibre and overall integrity of those in such bodies are unquestionable! Must be why disgraced ex MP Mandleson is on the European Commission!

Give up, Boye. You still haven't proved it is xenophobic. YOU inferred that it was about Poles coming to Britain and "nasty Eastern Europeans".

Sorry, Boye, but I (a Tory voter, except for the times I didn't vote at all) have never said anything of the sort, neither has any Conservative I know. Only you did.

Anyway, you got what you wanted. It was the will of the people; but if we carry on this direction don't expect me to hang around in Europe. I'll seriously consider moving to the USA (if they'll have me, I already have cousins in Sarasota, FL) as Glenn is considering doing, and Britain will be left with only uneducated chavs and yobs. Good luck.

Marko, you'll make us proud.

Thank you, Leo. I too am a little sceptical when some people can't recognise bad apples on their "side", so to speak. I have pointed out the faults of the modern Tory party, and also recognise and won't forget the shameful incidents in our history.

Funny thing is, I'm only slightly right of centre, but when people say they've never heard of someone who disgraces their side, I do wonder if they're taking party politics a little too far.

But you're right, we've wasted enough time on the so-called "respect" politician. He'd wear it like a crown if he could see us.

Leo:

My interest in the election has been with the three main parties and partly the BNP and UKIP. I haven't really paid attention to any particular candidates or to mini parties like Respect, so I don't know the policies of Galloway or Respect, except now when I did a quick search I found that he is the one who was thrown out of Labour a couple of years ago over supporting insurgents in Iraq.

I would understand certain liberal circles distancing themselves from communist atrocities, just as I would understand certain Republican circles remaining silent about their anti-Semitic past.

Well, I'm not quite sure how this is related to Galloway, but in any case, I can assure you I've never been a Galloway supporter and that I've always distanced myself from communism. That said, I did join the youth branch of the Socialist Left Party for their environmental policy when I was 14, but upon learning more about them and their political platform, I left half a year later and did not re-enter party politics until I joined the Young Liberals a little more than a year ago. Which was actually quite a big step for me psychologically speaking, because I've always regarded myself as a socialist, albeit a liberal one (as it turns out, I've learnt I'm a social-liberal rather than a liberal socialist - yes, there is a difference). In the upcoming Norwegian elections, I'll campaign for the Liberal Party which is seeking re-election in a government with the Christian Democrats and the Conservatives (they're more moderate than the British Conservatives, mind you, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a bit uneasy about that alliance).

Marko:

Yes, it's xenophobia because he wanted to control immigration

You're misreading my words. I said the Tory immigration policies and the rhetoric they used to promote them are aimed toward xenophobic voters. I did not say that the policies themselves are xenophobic. The policies are just stupid and selfish.

How DARE someone defy the Geneva Convention!

Exactly. The Geneva Convention is the least common denominator of human dignity; the sort of human dignity that all countries (at least the civilised democratic ones) accept.

In fact why don't we just leave everything to the UN and EU to decide. We're simply not competent enough to do it for ourselves.

The thing is, asylum policy is not about yourselves. It is about those in need of asylum from brutal and oppressive regimes.

Must be why disgraced ex MP Mandleson is on the European Commission!

Britain's choice.

I'm sorry that we're (or wouldn't be if the Conservatives, or a like-minded party got into power, which they will one day btw) not deemed civilised or democratic enough.

UN has so many failures I couldn't possibly enumerate them all. They're nobody to lecture us, whether we keep the Geneva Convention or not (we will).

Asylum policy IS about us btw, as we're the ones who have to live with it. I actually agree with immigration btw; the Australian system is a good one and certainly doesn't do Australia any harm, as one of the best places to live on earth. It simply needs to be controlled and anyone who can't see that is an idiot.

It's offensive to call the party I voted for "xenophobes" (one of the most OVERused words in the English language btw, very rarely does it have a grounding in reality). I wouldn't dream of telling Norway how to handle their affairs.

Oh, and I wish Mandleson was the only idiot on the Commission, but alas no.

Just stay out of our affairs and refrain from calling the party I voted for xenophobic, or appealing to xenophobes. Stop being so high-minded about an issue that is more complex than that.

Marko:

Give up, Boye. You still haven't proved it is xenophobic. YOU inferred that it was about Poles coming to Britain and "nasty Eastern Europeans".

The main reason given for the Tory immigration proposals is the fact that there are more Eastern Europeans in Britain than what Blair had "promised" them there would be.

From the Tory website:

David Davis has called into question Tony Blair's integrity and credibility after new figures showed the full extent of immigration into Britain from eastern Europe.

Despite the Prime Minister's claims that new arrivals would be limited to no more than 13,000 a year, the total numbers to have entered since UK borders were thrown open on the accession of former eastern bloc states to the EU has rocketed to 150,000, with 9,000 still arriving each month.

That is thirty times the official Government prediction of between 5,000 and 13,000 new arrivals annually, and also disproves the ministerial claim that numbers would fall back dramatically after the initial influx.

Protested Mr Davis: "Labour said arrivals from accession countries would be between 5,000 and 13,000 a year - not 9,000 a month. It is no wonder that nobody believes a word Tony Blair says about getting a grip on the immigration shambles."

BTW, here's an interesting effect of Tory immigration rhetoric:

http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/index.p ... migration/

Not interested in blogistan, sorry. Still not a xenophobic policy

Marko:

Asylum policy IS about us btw, as we're the ones who have to live with it. I actually agree with immigration btw; the Australian system is a good one and certainly doesn't do Australia any harm, as one of the best places to live on earth.

Well, we have fundamental differences in opinion on what immigration should be for. I support migration because I support the freedom of movement of people. You support immigration because the host country can benefit from it economically.

But asylum policy is different than economic migration. Asylum is given to people who are persecuted and in need of protection. They can be writers, journalists, political opponents of the dictatorship regime, and other types of dissidents who have drawn government attention. Or they can be perspecuted for their ethnic background. E.g. like the Armenians in Turkey in the 1920s, the Jews in German controlled territories in the 1930s and 40s, or the Kosovars and Bosniaks in former Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

Asylum is to be given to those who need it. Sometimes only a few need protection. At other times, there are many people in need of protection. Putting a fixed limit on asylum seekers will not reduce the number of people who are in need. I think it is our duty to help those in need even when there are many people in need.

It's offensive to call the party I voted for "xenophobes" (one of the most OVERused words in the English language btw, very rarely does it have a grounding in reality).

You may find the label offensive. I find the policies, and the rhetoric that goes with them, offensive.

I wouldn't dream of telling Norway how to handle their affairs.

Well, don't. But I'm entitled to my opinion on British affairs, whether or not you care about Norwegian affairs.

Just stay out of our affairs and refrain from calling the party I voted for xenophobic, or appealing to xenophobes. Stop being so high-minded about an issue that is more complex than that.

It's not complex. It's actually very simple. The issue with illegal Eastern European immigration shouldn't really be an issue to begin with. It is profoundly unfair that a person living on the Western bank of the river Oder can freely move to Britain and take up work there, while a person living on the Eastern bank of the same river cannot. It is profoundly unfair that a Portuguese can freely move to Britain and take up work there, while a Hungarian cannot.

And if border police controls to protect Britain from immigration (mind you, that is what the Tories want those police controls for) is not appealing to xenophobes, then I don't know what is. Xenophobia is fear or dislike of foreigners. Police controls to protect a country from foreigners is a manifestation of xenophobia. Of course, the xenophobia comes with an asterisk. Portugese, Norwegians, Italians, Greeks and Germans are okay. The controls would stop Poles, Czechs, Estonians and Hungarians.

Marko:

Not interested in blogistan, sorry. Still not a xenophobic policy

Well, it comments on an article in The Independent, but it costs £1 to open the article, and I'm not that keen to illustrate a point. However, the article, at http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politi ... ory=629895 , starts with this:

The day Michael Howard met his match
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor and Arifa Akbar
16 April 2005

A Jewish immigrant confronted Michael Howard on a radio phone-in show and warned the Tory leader that his incendiary remarks on asylum and immigration would cause more racially motivated attacks.

It isn't appealing to xenophobes, and using a Jewish person in the Independent disagreeing with Howard changes nothing. That's a very silly way to argue, as if he represents all Jewish people. I wouldn't think that you represent all Norwegians, or that I represent all English people.

I've wasted enough time on this. I don't mind debating, but this is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned, and I won't start trawling the web for favourable articles to prove my point. Not worthwhile.

If there are racially motivated attacks, they are the sole responsibility of the attacker himself btw.

End of story.

How did you get the idea that I used a comment by a Jew to represent all Jews? Heck, Howard himself is a Jew, so obviously the Jews, so to speak, don't agree on this issue.

It was the message, not the ethnic background of the messenger, that was my point.

If there are racially motivated attacks, they are the sole responsibility of the attacker himself btw.

Of course, legally each individual carries responsibility for his own actions.

But I don't think every single action in a society happens in a vacuum, completely detached from society around and the political debate in the media. And I think it's a completely legitimate point that anti-immigration rhetoric can stir latent anti-immigration sentiment.

Marko,

I don't partcularly want to make an issue of Galloway. I knew that as a Labour man he vigorously opposed the Iraq war, and I am glad that he has emerged victorious on what seems to be that issue, (as well as his long time campaigning for Palestine, perhaps). As you know, I revile the decision to go to war in Iraq.

The interview was amusing to read. I do like provocative interviews, and Paxman's first question exceeded my predilictions by being antagonistic and racist. Must have been great television.

Anyway, I did some research on him to see why you and Leonid despise him so. His is an interesting story.

(this article defends him)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le8160.htm

(this one is more objective)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway

I wouldn't normally condone Paxman's style of interview. The first question would be disgusting under normal circumstances, but it was valid as Galloway specifically brought up the colour issue to Oona King when he said 100,000 Iraqis were dead because of the decisions she made, with "blacker faces than hers".

So he was getting a taste of his own medicine. Oona King is one of the few MPs I really respected as she honestly did her best for her constituency.

Galloway was an MP in Glasgow. Why did he come to Bethnal Green in London? Surely it wasn't to take advantage of the Muslim vote :O He'd never been elected there before.

Zimbabwe state media have criticised the recent election in the United Kingdom, saying it involved fraud.
Zimbabwe Television's (ZTV) Friday evening bulletin spoke of "a lack of transparency, suppression of media freedoms and fraud" in the UK poll.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4525615.stm

I bet Mugabe and his aides had a lot of laughs when drafting the instructions to ZTV.

Yeah, the article itself is funny. However, the suffering of the Zimbabwe people isn't, and thus when we have the resources to do so we should get rid of Mugabe once and for all.

I really don't think it would take such a great effort, but it would require international cooperation, as we're pretty stretched as it is, but it CAN be done and should be.

Yes, I agree that Zimbabwe and the world as a whole would be a better place if Mugabe were removed from power. But military action should only take place when all other options have been exhausted and only after a careful cost-benefit analysis, not in terms of money, but in terms of human cost and human benefit. If it is possible to overthrow Mugabe in a military coup followed by a brief period of international occupation until democratic elections have been held, then we should do it. But if overthrowing Mugabe means a full-scale military intervention and conventional war, then I'm not so sure it's a good idea in the current situation. At the end of the day, an oppressed Zimbabwean is better off than a dead Zimbabwean.

Sudan, however, is a different case, because there already was a military conflict there and UN and AU peacekeeping forces intervened to help stop it. But the size of the international community's presence in Sudan is pathetic and fails to solve the problem. I would like to see a massive invasion by NATO, preferably under a UN mandate, to hunt down the Janjaweed fighters and bring an end to the civil war.

180,000 people have already died in Sudan, more than 2 million people have fled their homes. I don't see how a NATO invasion could possibly make matters worse, but it's easy to see how the situation could worsen if we do nothing.

The AU is considering sending more troops to Sudan, but it lacks the money to do it. It's about time Europe and the USA stepped in. God knows they are more needed in Sudan than they are anywhere else in the world right now.

You're right. Military intervention is needed and justified far more in Sudan than Zimbabwe.

Not to mention, Sudan is also facing an intensive demographic and economic catastrophy. Even though things in Zimbabwe are pretty bad too, I can not imagine any basis for invading Zimbabwe. Just because we do not like Mugabe?

What we should do is clandestinely and openly supporting Zimbabwean opposition with funds and, if (or when) needed - with arms.