In defence of George Galloway. Almost.
Posted on Tuesday 17 July, 2007
Filed Under Respect
George Galloway – pictured left – will be suspended from parliament for 18 days this autumn, on the grounds that he damaged the reputation of the House of Commons through the way he conducted his Mariam Appeal charity.
It’s well enough established that I am not an admirer of Mr Galloway or a supporter of his Respect party. In one of my better-known contributions to the left press over the years, I insisted that the MP was wrong in principle to accept money from the Saudi royal family, a repellent bunch of brutal kleptocrats who run the most repressive regime on the entire planet.
What’s more, what sort of message did that act send to the proletariat in Saudi Arabia? What did it tell Filipino and Bangladeshi guest workers about the principles – or lack thereof – of the European left?
All of this should come as elementary socialist morality, I would have thought. But not to some. The article is still cited by Respect supporters today as evidence of my alleged ‘rightwards drift’.
Yet I remain convinced that neither individual socialists nor socialist organisations should take financial support from bourgeois sources, both on the grounds that money generated by class exploitation is inevitably tainted, and that it could not conceivably come without strings attached.
Leftwing parties should restrict themselves to cash raised from supporters or donated by the collective organisations of the working class. Labour’s decision to ditch reliance on trade union backing and emulate the methods of the Tories, which essentially boil down to passing round the begging bowl in the salons of the super-rich, angered me to the point that I was motivated to write a book about the process
Ultimately, the problem here is that politicians come to accept the outlook of the sundry billionaires that pay the piper. So any measures that limit the whims of the super-rich in the interests of ordinary people are automatically politically unacceptable. Wealthy businessmen expect a return on their political investments, as they do with all their other investments.
That the Conservatives and the Lib Dems are in on the racket too is no excuse for Labour to cash in. Higher standards are applicable to progressive parties than those that obtained for John Major’s Tories.
So before it is in any position to throw the book at Galloway, New Labour needs to ask itself some pertinent questions here.
Did the Mariam Appeal do more to lower public opinion of politicians than Labour did when it accepted a £100,000 donation from a pornography publisher, or delayed legislation on tobacco advertising after pocketing £1m from a sports promoter who benefited extensively from the largesse of cigarette manufacturers?
Sure, Galloway was guilty of ‘concealing the true source of Iraqi funding’. But wasn’t Lord Levy equally guilty of trying to conceal the true source of funding for New Labour by using loans as a mechanism to avoid disclosure?
None of this is to argue that Galloway is in the right. But it is a call for consistency when Scotland Yard finally hands in its dossier on cash for peerages.
Or will the commissioner for parliamentary standards suddenly transmogrify into the commissioner for parliamentary double standards?
<<Go back
Comments
37 Responses to “In defence of George Galloway. Almost.”
I’d agree with all the above about the specific on Galloway and the two-facedness of Labour. In theory, I suppose someone could take money from the Al-Sauds and then produce a pamphlet with the cash attacking them. That’d be ‘clean’ but of course such a course isn’t going to happen. But if some multinational wants to give me cash for my site I promise to take the cash and gratutiously attack them as well (unlike Spiked Online)
But on the more fundamental point who are MPs to say that a fellow elected MP should have his rights removed? S/he was elected by their electors and should not be answerable to them as an MP, not to fellow MPs. Never mind the fact that MPs act for their party or personal advantage, regardless of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.
There should be no bars on who can be an MP nor anything other election by their constituents should curtail their rights. If the inhabitants of somewhere in NI want to elect a ‘criminal’ who served time for IRA membership, that’s their choice or if the electors in Surrey wanted to elect a convicted fraudster, or an undischarged bankrupt, then that should also be their choice.
Elected representatives should be just that, they should ‘represent’ (and not just decide) and be subject to immediate recall. Failing that nothing should be done, even if they are found with a dozen bodies buried in their garden, to curtail their rights.
Most of us would draw the line at taking money from Saudi royals, Rupert Murdoch or Richard Desmond but formally speaking GG is in the clear on this. A more substantial basis for accusing him of damaging the reputation of the House of Commons would be because he devotes no time to his constituency. He’s a bad joke now in these parts.
The issue is not a comparison with other instances of financial malpractice.
The issue is that Galloway is a kenspeckle bent – above all politically – politician.
Those of us who are part of the labour movement’s core heard tales about his activities in War on Want years ago (like the famous taxi payment). A left member of Labour’s NEC told me whilst she formally protested at his explusion she personally couldn’t give a shit when he was expelled. And a leading member of the British Communist Party said to me that she couldn’t thole the man.
This piece of cack, apart from grovelling to Saddam, and Islamicim and who knows what other murderers, recently tried to link the kinghthood for Salman Rushdie to the attempted recent bombings.
He hasn’t yet met an Islamicist murderer he hasn’t taken a shine to.
Weary on Galloway.
Suspend him from something more substantial than the Commons.
I’ve been tryign to explain exactly this to loony ‘un at his Tomb – yer capitalist chapy would not see this as coruption, but it is corruption, Galloway ahs hawked his ego, and bought status and power in the workers’ movement off the back of dodgy dealings. You’re right, this is as bad as that corrupt little sod David Sainsbury and his peerage/ministry…
There are a number of points here.
1.The biggest being that The Report (and the Charity Commission) point to the fact that Galloway perjured himself at the Senate hearing and probably in the Telegraph trial.
Hes an Archer/Aitken figure.
2.As i’ve pointed out on here before,Galloway happily allowaed the Socialist Worker editor Chris Bambery to claim that the documents linking him to the Oil Fraud were forgeries.
Galloway knew at the time that this was a lie,because he’d had them examined.
3.None knows just where the cash went.
As Stuart Halford (A Galloway ally on the Mariam Appeal) points out George lied about the Mariam documentation,and then asked him to destroy what he had left.
“The Commissioner asked about the records that Stuart Halford had held. Stuart Halford said that the records had consisted of letters, petitions, stationery and so on. He had been uncomfortable about George Galloway’s instruction that they be destroyed but at this point the records had been held in his house and he had been the sole employee of the Appeal for some time. He did what he was told and George Galloway was not someone to argue with.”
And as for the money that went into the Galloways bank accounts,well thats anyones guess.
As the Report points out.
His wife had $270,000 dollars.Untraced.
where’s Snowball? I’d like to hear his view on the matter
The line has gone out on Lenins Tomb.
I’d like to here from Galloways wife,Zureikat ans Bambery.
All lied to,and about.
Modernity – where’s Snowball? I’d like to hear his view on the matter
Is it only my imagination, or have the SWP stopped commenting generally on blogs in the last couple of weeks? (except for their own ones of course)
Andy,
in a spirit of unanimity and factual accuracy, I am compelled to agree with you!
for the last 2-3 weeks it seems that none of the significant SWP posters (JohnG, Snowball, etc) are participating on non-SWP blogs, etc
it’s as if they been told to be quiet, granted with just cause: violence at Thugism 2007, Galloway and other matters, their heads must be spinning just trying to keep up with the ever-changing “line”
of course, now we’ve said that 3 will come along all at once, like buses
Dave, not going soft on Galloway are you? (dig)
I’m in some general agreement with your line, however on the broader principle of never taking money from bourgeois sources I have some differences.
What should socialist and workers’ organisations do, say, if they are elected to the European parliament, which pays generous subsidies to run political offices? I’d say take the money and declare how it is spent in a very transparent and accountable manner.
While I oppose state funding of political parties, I wouldn’t say no to the money if it was on offer. Would you?
“neither individual socialists nor socialist organisations should take financial support from bourgeois sources”
But what does this have to do with the case at hand? The Mariam Trust was not a socialist organisation, and Galloway was not claiming to be acting as a socialist in setting it up.
Huh? Surely you are a socialist all the time or not at all.
If George Galloway is the answer to a Left alternative to New Labour then I reckon the wrong question is being asked!
My sister lives in a middle east country and the way Indian workers are treated is on a par with apartheid South Africa. It is unacceptable that someone who claims to represent the Left could accept money from a country that treats people in such an immoral way.
When I was in Palestine last year a left palestinian activist in Beit Sahour said to me: “We know that Galloway is a shit in your country, but he has done a good job raising our issue internationally”
As Jeffrey Archer raised the issue of the Kurds.
Two good causes.
Two crooked perjurers.
Is it just me or does anyone else have a sense that the SWP are slowly, gradually, silently laying the Respect project to rest? I was expecting – in the aftermath of McDonnell’s failure and Brown’s ascent – a consequent growth in exhortations to join Respect, as a rising ‘left force on the march’, but there appears to have been very little of that.
Yes they’re all hypocrites – but the real point is that someone who is supposed to be a leader of the left – as Dave correctly points out – must have a higher standard than other sleaze ball politicians. Galloway has done nothing of the sort and has acted even worse than some of those in the mainstream parties. He’s an embarrassment and a cancer on the left – let him rot, I couldn’t care less.
I think TWP has it spot on. Yes mainstream politicians are sleazy hypocrites when it comes to things like party funding and we shouldn’t fail to point this out but the point is we are supposed to be better than they are.
Not only does it make us look like just another set of slimy politicians it also gives our political opponents a great big stick to beat the left with.
Marcus
G’day cobber, nice to hear from you.
Yes, I did think about this. Of course LO/LCR are right to take every euro of their entitlement for votes won, which are handsome enough to fund professional poster campaigns for instance.
But there is a difference between such ‘anonymous’mechanisms of state funding for parties based on electoral performance and grace and favour donations from individual capitalist bastards, no?
Again, I’ve heard it said that one of the international Bordigist currents gets support from a wealthy backer.
I suppose if it can be shown that an individual genuinely supports the far left, things might be slightly different.
For instance, Piers Corbyn – either ex-IMG or ex-close fellow traveller, and still of general leftist sympathies – is reputedly a multimillionaire.
That’s largely from being a super clever clogs long distance weather forecaster rather than the blood, sweat and tears of the working class.
If somebody like that was so minded to give a Trot outfit a bung, that’s a slightly different matter.
There are also cases of businessmen of the ‘working class boys made good’ variety giving Labour large donations back in the Wilson period.
Again, that’s borderline acceptable. We just have to draw the line at ‘pimp my politics’.
I remain baffled by this We are talking about a charitable organisation. Are you seriously stating that if you set up a charitable organisation you would only accept money from socialists?
I don’t know about only accepting money from socialists, but whether you should accept money from feudal tyrants ought to be a no-brainer.
I’m sorry, why is this a “no brainer”? We are talking about a charity devoted to saving lives. Why should anybody care where the money comes from, providing there are no strings attached? (I have no idea if that was the case here)
It seems to me the issue isn’t really ‘bourgeois money’ in general; and it’s not really specific, definable strings. It’s that if you have a campaign about a country ruled by a dictator, and take money from that dictator, you are – in principle – spitting on the dictator’s victims – the people he’s murdered, the people rotting in his jails, and so on. Overt strings or not, the act of taking this money taints what you do politically.
If you want to ‘save lives’ surely there are other sources of finance. Or should every charity just send begging letters to the richest available tyrant…?
I take your point, Clive, but surely the issue is – did Galloway knowingly take money from Saddam, or, a weaker point, did he pay insufficient regard to the source of the money, knowing that the money could well be tainted. For all his sins, I’m not sure that GG’s detractors can deal the conclusive blow.
As an aside, it says something about the left in the UK that two of its most prominent ‘leaders’ are embroiled in ongoing cases to do with their probity. In neither case can it be argued that they were acting in the greater socialist good, rather they are defending their own self-interest.
For all his sins, I’m not sure that GG’s detractors can deal the conclusive blow.
I think we can take that pretty much as proven.
As an aside, it says something about the left in the UK that two of its most prominent ‘leaders’
…are Galloway and Sheridan. But I’m not sure if it’s “unhappy the Left that needs leaders” or “unhappy the Left that trusts leaders”.
Conclusive blow?
What if the Oil Money that went through his wife ended up in Georges account.
Marcus Ström writes:
on the broader principle of never taking money from bourgeois sources I have some differences.
On that front, nobody can deny that the CPGB/PCC is indeed whiter-than-white. Very clean indeed.
BTW Marcus: your own website has the address http://www.labortribune.net/ (not .com).
The address must’ve got lost in the wash?
BTW Marcus: your own website has the address http:// www. labortribune. net/ (not .com).
The address must’ve got lost in the wash?
I don’t know what you mean washing instructions. Perhaps you could sketch it out for us?
Where’s the money George?
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/07/19/wheres_the_money_senator.php
Is Piers really a millionaire? The last I heard was that he still lived in Bermondsy – not known as Millionaire’s Row. Mind you from I’ve heard from local activists he does live in a world of his own.
On state funding. Dave, the LCR and LO in the last French elections got below – in LO’s case well below – the 5% needed to get state funding.
On Galloway again. The man is an egomacical spiv.
I realise some may like an anti-abortion, Catholic bigot, who lives the life of Riley from the most dubious sources of income. Who takes Murdoch’s shilling (never seen a shilling Galloway hasn’t taken a shine to). Who meets up and allies with racist Islamicists or other anti-Semites (including, if you recall, the French Nouvelle Droite and the Belgium former Rexists), and who dresses like a New York pimp.
Strangely I don’t.
And this view is widely shared on the left.
Old spot is spot on – the money was for a charity devoted to saving the lives of Iraqi children being killed by UN sanctions. And as John Pilger notes, ‘George Galloway’s work has saved countless lives, especially in Iraq’.
Those who are now joining up with New Labour to smear Galloway perhaps ought to read more about these devastating sanctions – which killed over 1 million Iraqis during the 1990s – and then tell us what they were doing to highlight and bring this suffering to a halt at the time. If what Galloway was doing was ‘criminal’, then what about those who did nothing?
Suspend him from something more substantial than the Commons.
This is, of course, a statement that an elected left-wing politician deserves to be killed. A disgrace from the point of view of working class democracy, among other things. As is the presence of scum like Tim Robinson in this ‘debate’ between witchhunters about just how far to take support for the anti-Galloway witchhunt. Robinson’s real aspirations are pretty simple – he wants anyone who is remotely effective on the left either in jail or dead. He doesn’t give a shit about the niceties of democracy. Proto-fascists generally don’t.
People who make these kinds of statements will be held to account and punished in due course.
Crush them with an iron fist!
I do not think that an 18-day suspension from the House of Commons is anything like enough punishment for what Galloway has done, first on behalf of a sadistic and genocidal megalomaniac and second to steal food and medicine from the mouths of desperate Iraqis. We ran into each other a few times on his debate-tour, and on the last occasion on which we exchanged views, when he told me that he would never debate with me again (which he has since consistently refused to do), I told him that we were not done with each other. I would, I told him, be waiting to write a review of his prison diaries. The Senate subcommittee referred his “false and misleading” statements under oath (a crime under 18 USC Section 1001) to the Department of Justice in November 2005. Prosecutors in Manhattan (location of the banks through which some of the shady transfers were made) have also been handed the relevant papers. And the evidence adduced by the House of Commons must necessarily be considered by Scotland Yard, because it goes far beyond the damage done to the honor of Parliament. In the meantime, it will be interesting to discover whether Galloway’s former wife, or the associates of his campaign who also received “Oil for Food” money, ever declared the income or paid any tax on it. And if I was the editor of the Daily Telegraph in London, whose printed documents about Galloway appear to have been vindicated by the parliamentary inquiry, I would want to revisit the judgment for libel that Galloway astonishingly managed to win, even under a notoriously oppressive law, in an English court. His troubles are only now beginning.
Just look at the gang that strove to prevent the United Nations from enforcing its library of resolutions on Saddam Hussein. Where are they now? Gerhard Schroeder, ex-chancellor of Germany, has gone straight to work for a Russian oil-and-gas consortium. Vladimir Putin, master of such consortia and their manipulation, is undisguised in his thirst to re-establish a one-party state. Jacques Chirac, who only avoided prosecution for corruption by getting himself immunized by re-election (and who had Saddam’s sons as his personal guests while in office, and built Saddam Hussein a nuclear reactor while knowing what he wanted it for), is now undergoing some unpleasant interviews with the Paris police. So is his cynical understudy Dominique de Villepin, once the glamour-boy of the “European” school of diplomacy without force. What a crew! Galloway is the most sordid of this group because he managed to be a pimp for, as well as a prostitute of, one of the foulest dictatorships of modern times. But the taint of collusion and corruption extends much further than his pathetic figure, and one day, slowly but surely, we shall find out the whole disgusting thing.
My understanding is that the idea of Piers Corbyn being a multimillionaire would be based on a dot com era valuation of his weather forecasting company; I would guess that he’s doing all right, but WeatherAction is not currently a listed company.
One tangential point that I suppose I ought to write about on my own blog is that Hitchens is not the only one to describe GG as “taking money from the starving”. That’s not accurate (and this matters, as it clearly has the effect of blowing up the UN Oil-for-food scandal and minimising the genuine scandals of theft of Iraqi oil money post-invasion, which really did take money from the starving).
If all the accusations are true (which is my personal belief, but I don’t think it could be proved to the standard of either a criminal trial or a libel defence of justification), then what happened is that GG received payments which had their origin as the profits of trading in oil allocations under the oil-for-food program. However, *this program was meant to generate profits for the oil traders*. Otherwise the oil traders wouldn’t have taken part. The fact that some of the money ended up in Zureikat’s pocket was part of the normal and correct functioning of the system, which because it was set up by the sane, had as part of its design that the people who bought and sold the oil would make money doing so.
The illegal thing about oil-for-food was that the Iraqi government used the oil allocations as a slush fund to reward political cronies, and that they occasionally demanded cash kickbacks for doing so. But a) you can see straight off that the bribes in the system didn’t actually reduce the amount of money going to buy food, and b) if people are dying as a result of sanctions, it doesn’t seem all that illegitimate a use of funds to pay someone to campaign against the sanctions. There is certainly a political case to be made against GG but I really wish the Decents would stop trying to drag the poor ickle Iraqis into it.