Galloway backs Ken

You can say a lot about that George Galloway, but this is a positive thing. Anyine who can get the support both of Galloway and Luke Akehurst is onto a winner. I have no idea why SWP/Respect persists in running a candidate against a socialist mayor, but I suppose that's the SWP for you.

This is particularly insightful:

"In these new and developing circumstances, it would be self-indulgence, a luxury the left can no longer afford, to stand a candidate of the left against Livingstone for mayor. The danger of his defeat by the right is too great. With opinion polls varying between neck-and-neck and a substantial Tory lead, a left candidate opposing Livingstone really could aid the Tories and risk handing the keys to City Hall to the rancid reactionaries around Johnson."

Galloway, as far as I remember, is a character I haven't talked about much here. Lots of Labour people seem to have a visceral hatred of him, but I have more of a nagging distaste. His support for some variants of what I would describe as terrorism gets me, but the biggest problem I have with him are his views on 'sodomy'. This is accompanied all too often by tolerance of intolerance. I don't think the religion or background of somebody with intolerant beliefs should be any obstacle to them being criticised for them. It is not islamophobic to attack the quaranic take on homosexuality, and it is not 'anti-christian' to do the same thing with the bible. Of course, the right often uses these things as a stick with which to beat muslims, which is ironic given the widespread sexism and homophobia which exists in places on that side of the political divide. But people like galloway need to distinguish rightist criticisms of muslims (and occasionally their ethnicity) from left or liberal criticism of the islamic faith. Islamophobia is in business and booming, but it is not the only reason, as Galloways folks (and ex-folks) seem to eager to claim, for criticising this particular manifestation of superstition. I'm sure that Lenin, himself an advocate of terrorism as a political tool, would be appalled by the lack of militant atheism in the SWP. And I don't even advocate militant atheism in principle.

That aside, I think that Galloway is an admirable speaker who makes as many worthy points as he does poor ones. The development of 'Respect renewal' will be particularly interesting, prominent members of of Ken's Student Broad Left NUS faction (and socialist action) having defected. And let's face it, what a nice website. Apart from some of the content.

I remember him getting kicked out of the party in my hard left days. At that point I largely agreed with him; don't we believe in the right of nations to self defense anymore?

That said, I'm not sure that the public reason given for his removal was the real one. Perhaps we'll learn one day.

I can't claim to back either respects' agenda. There is more to politics than war. And a lot of the privatisation they describe is far from it. Further, on a more general note, a lot of the time it seems that they see the real enemy as the Labour Party, and the nefarious neo-fascist social democrats it contains.

Which, of course, makes Galloway's utterances towards de-sectarianisation all the more welcome. Vote Ken for democratic socialism.