Fishes and Bicycles
I wouldn't cross the road to listen to George Galloway - far less spend £11.
Which only goes to show that there can't be a really serious cost of living crisis in the UK, if lots of people are daft enough to hand over some of their hard earned cash, as reported in this opinion piece by Zoe Williams in The Guardian.
Now the last time George put his politics to the test in Scotland, the down to earth voters of Glasgow were immune to his 'charms' and gave him the cold shoulder, politically speaking
So why should it be any different when it comes to GG's views on independence?
Likewise with Nigel Farage who is doing rather well across large swathes of England and Wales, but that's really because the Westminster Parliament is held in such poor regard by the voters these days, which is where George has plied his trade for years, of course.
Yet I don't expect UKIP to breakthrough in Scotland during the European elections and they certainly are not having anything like the same impact on politics north of the border, if recent opinion polls are to be believed.
But I do agree with Zoe Williams about the likely turnout in Scotland's independence referendum - people are going to vote in large numbers because there is a real sense that their votes might bring about some real change.
Nigel Farage, George Galloway … why we're queuing up to listen to the mavericks
Lone rangers are popular because they appear to reject the boring Westminster rules
By Zoe Williams - The Guardian
‘Like self-tightening knots, the less they abide by normal standards the more respect they accrue for their authenticity.' Illustration: Belle Mellor
As Nigel Farage puts the wind up English politics, George Galloway is playing to packed houses in Scotland with Just Say Naw: forget everything you know about political rallies. The truly gobsmacking thing about Galloway's appearances is that you have to pay £11 to get in – but relax, I'm not going to make a turgid point about accounts and accountability. Farage is quite a bit cheaper but their price points are none of my business. They can spend it on sweets for all I care.
Nevertheless, this marks a new high point for the lone rangers of British politics. Traditionally, gatherings scheduled to spread some political message are free, to make up for how boring they're likely to be. No, sorry, that's wrong – they're free because they're meant to embody a sense that nobody in the room can do anything without everybody else in the room; the group is more than the sum of its parts, because no one part is greater than any other. This is not just socialist claptrap, I don't think – even rabid, possessive individualists, when they all get together, share the rubric of in-group solidarity.
Evenings spent in the company of a charismatic figure, by contrast, cost money. It's not unprecedented for the two to combine. The Nuremberg rallies were ticketed events, but in fairness to Hitler, they cost a bit to put on. Those flares weren't going to light themselves.
This isn't, for once, about the political message of either man; it's rather the peculiar appeal of the maverick, to which none of us are immune, and which only becomes more pronounced.
Part of this is nothing to do with politics; consensus and cooperation are inherently boring. My mum once bought a Christmas boardgame where players had to collaborate, and my cousin refused to play it on the basis that he had to do that at work, and when he was on holiday he wanted to enjoy himself.
Following someone – anyone – is more interesting than agreeing, because you never know where you're going to end up. Following someone with a messianic belief is even more exciting. If the appeal were simply a quasi-religious energy, we could write that off as something performative, inconsequential, likely to last no longer than the evening itself. We may all yearn, on some level, to be led, but we yearn for all kinds of things – white knights on horses, a room somewhere/ far away from the cold night air. We're also not stupid.
Yet there are other elements, besides the exhilarating, forward-moving certainty of a politician who brooks no complication and accepts no compromise: first, a hope that people who are unmoored from parties might finally tell the truth; second – and related – that they might do something different. All the normal requirements made of politicians are waived for mavericks. They don't have to be consistent and they don't have to make sense. Galloway, a man so individualistic that he can't even be held to a standardised spelling of the word "no", is allowed to argue for togetherness.
Ironically, while they're valued for their honesty, they're rarely asked for an answer specific or precise enough that their honesty could ever be used against them. Farage is a wonderful example. Whenever the conversation within his party comes close to an actual policy, some member inevitably has to be ejected. He is immune to any damage that would cause another leader – the very fact of his ranks being out of control is proof that he's not part of the same stale machine that wants to control everything.
Decency and taste, a shared understanding of what you can and can't use in the scoring of political points – all those bets are off. Boris Johnson claimed this week that we were living in a "Boko Haram" world because Jeremy Clarkson isn't allowed to be a prick, and that, apparently, is (almost) as bad as being kidnapped as a teenager and sold as a slave. The more combustible the remark the better, as far as a lone wolf is concerned – like self-tightening knots, the less they abide by normal standards the more respect they accrue for authenticity.
These assessment criteria are actually pretty weak. Just because somebody habitually says controversial things it doesn't mean they're honest; nor does it mean they're an escape from rule-bound politics. They're just marshalling the rules to their rhetorical advantage and are no more radical than any figure in history who has built a platform on not being that other guy. But it is, inescapably, a reflection on how unpopular the political discourse has become that the rejection of its norms will light up the skies.
To return to Scotland, Alistair Darling, meanwhile, is reported to have been quietly sidelined this week by the No campaign in favour of Gordon Brown, who himself has only appeared on the Better Together platform in the last fortnight. Previously he was pro-union but preferred the lesser-known "United with Labour" campaign, proving the point that just because you can't get on with anyone it doesn't make you a lovable maverick.
Gerry Hassan, author of Caledonian Dreaming, which looks at the Scottish referendum not as seismic contest between yes and no but in the wider context of what it will and won't mean for social democracy, noted that turnout in that election might, ultimately, be more important than the result.
Already polling and focus groups are showing that people who don't bother voting in general elections will vote on this because it might actually change something. Political entrepreneurs, whatever their stripe, are running on the same fuel – the stasis of the conventional debate. Brace yourself for more of these mavericks: people are responding to something deeper than their words.
Come Into My Parlour (25 April 2014)
Labour leader Ed Miliband has raised more than a few eyebrows at Westminster and elsewhere - with the news that he held a private, hour long meeting with George Galloway, the Respect MP.
Now why would Ed do such a thing? - since the news of a 'secret' meeting was bound to leak out - sooner or later - and could only work to the Labour leader's disadvantage.
Because it looks distinctly odd it has to be said - as if Ed Miliband is on the back foot - cast in the role of the fly and not the spider.
Some of the newspapers say it was to discuss the recent vote boundary change legislation - which sounds bonkers and completely unconvincing, to me at least.
Now I haven't come across George Galloway in the flesh, so to speak, for a very long time - many years ago in the 1980s we went to a football game in London - to White Hart Lane the home of Tottenham Hotspur, if I remember correctly.
But to me George has evolved into the worst kind of politician - a demagogue and a political carpet-bagger, whose giant ego overwhelms everything else including his undoubted talent as a public speaker.
So, no disrespect - but I wouldn't cross the road to see George these days, never mind invite him into my private office for an hour long chat.
The news today that George Galloway has won the Bradford West by-election is a devastating blow to the Labour Party.
Bradford West has been a safe Labour seat since 1974 - one where Labour has actively courted the Muslim vote - but the bottom line is that the voters rejected Labour in favour of a political demagogue.
Now as regular readers will know - George Galloway stood in the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections - and got absolutely nowhere.
My view is that the voters of Glasgow were too canny and wise - to be taken in with his particular blend of bombast - which is designed to appeal to disaffected Muslim voters these days.
Which is not to say that George does not raise some important issues about wars and military intervention in foreign countries - the present conflict in Afghanistan being a case in point.
Because the original mission was to deny a safe haven for the al-Qaeda terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks on New York - yet what purpose we are serving there now seems a mystery to many people - including me.
But George Galloway was against the original military mission - which was fully backed by the United Nations (UN) - it has to be said.
Just as he was against the decision to intervene in the civil war in Yugoslavia - of course - which ended the 'ethnic cleansing' regime of Slobodan Milosevic.
I haven't hear any of George's thoughts about the military intervention in Libya - come to think of it - which finally got rid of Colonel Gaddafi and his murderous crew.
Although I would be surprised if he was anything other than completely opposed to that decision either - which had the support of the UN and Arab League.
To my mind George is against just about everything - except George.
Which is why I think the voters of Glasgow decided he wasn't worthy of a seat in the Scottish Parliament - and sent him packing elsewhere.
As I said at the time Holyrood needed George - in the same way as a fish needs a bicycle.
But I suppose Labour now needs him in Westminster - like the party needs another hole in his head - because how does Ed Miliband explain such a crushing defeat?
George knows - of course.
Apparently God was on his side - which we know because he said so on Twitter - proclaiming his great victory over Labour was 'By the grace of God...'
A dog whistle comment if I ever heard one.
So George Galloway has failed to win a seat in the Scottish Parliament elections.
Now this comes as no great surprise - here's what I said about the relevance of his campaign for a list seat in the Glasgow region.
Seems like the voters in Glasgow agreed with me - that the former Respect MP had little to offer Holyrood.
Which chimes with my own views - because I didn't vote for him either.
George Galloway is to politics what Jose Mourinho is to football - though without the evident talent and smouldering good looks.
'Gorgeous' George is a tired old pussycat these days - both vain and vainglorious in equal measure - whose current claim to fame is that he writes a regular column - wait for it - for the Daily Record.
The other day George was rude and condescending about Christopher Hitchens - saying that he would 'pray' for the avowed atheist - who is terminally ill with throat cancer.
George also boasted - as is his wont - about his public debates with Hitchens in 2005 - suggesting that these had been a great success - and that he had come out on top.
So I watched these recordings and other interviews on You Tube and it seemed to me that - as on many other issues - the former MP is simply deluding himself.
The two men clearly detest each other - which makes for great theatre and sparky TV.
Yet for me Hitchens had the measure of his opponent - whom he would probably characterise as a populist demagogue.
Apparently George is interested in standing for the Scottish Parliament in next year's elections - and his penchant for flowery words and phrases would certainly bring some colour to its debates.
But as his political interests have always been dominated by foreign affairs - Holyrood needs George about as much as a fish needs a bicycle.
