I don't need to say much about George Galloway, he is one of the most repulsive politicians in Britain today. As Christopher Hitchens once said "the man's search for a tyrannical fatherland never ends". He has been a sycophant of Saddam Hussein, Bashar Assad, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. He misses the Soviet Union - the stale stinking behemoth of blood stained lies, oppression, imperialism and terror. He supported the Islamist terrorists who festered in Iraq after the Western invasion, he supports Hamas, he said the Syrian people are lucky to be ruled by Bashar Assad. On top of it all, this Dundee Catholic fifth columnist lies - blatantly - denying that for which there is video evidence. He blames 9/11 on US foreign policy. He claims to not support the Iranian system, yet said explicitly he supported the campaign of Ahmadinejad on Iranian TV. His direct relationship with the Hussein regime was demonstrated with evidence, but he continues to deny it.
So how did such an odious creature get elected in a low profile Bradford West by-election? Simple.
He has a high public profile (he appeared in Celebrity Big Brother in 2006). He spent money and time in the constituency spreading his latest brand, of being a teetotaller who has always supported Muslims, who opposed the war in Iraq, opposes Western forces in Afghanistan, supports Palestinian militancy and opposes Western intervention in the Middle East. He played to the tribalist, anti-Western bigotry of many ethnic Pakistani voters in the constituency. He benefited from a week of appalling mismanagement by the government, and the continued ineptness of Labour leader Ed Miliband. It was a protest vote, apparently driven also by Galloway targeting young Pakistani voters who otherwise may not have voted. It has been alleged that some of his supporters voted for him as a rebellious action, for his shenanigans with Celebrity Big Brother were looked down upon by some of his Islamic support base.
Bear in mind also that turnout was low (25% or so down on the general election), and it was meant to be a safe Labour seat, which motivates less supporters for major parties to bother voting.
Yet while much analysis will focus on why the major parties, especially Labour, did so badly, the real menacing implication is that a man who has long provided succour to Islamists and dictators, can command such overwhelming support. Was there not sufficient media scrutiny of Galloway? If there had been much more, would his campaign have been harmed (and is it not for the other parties to do that?)? Or do his voters agree with him - that Iran doesn't have such a bad President, that Syrians are lucky to be ruled by Assad, that criticism of Syria is because of the "good things" Assad does, that Saddam Hussein deserved to be saluted for courage and indefatigability, that Hamas is a force for good, that Islamists who shot dead 58 people at a Catholic Cathedral in Baghdad were to be supported, or the ones who bombed 48 people at a restaurant, or who let off a bomb killing 54 Shia on a pilgrimage, etc?
George Galloway has always done well out of politics, he has connected himself to whoever he can who opposes open, free, liberal Western democratic capitalist societies, and embraced variously Marxist, Soviet, Islamist, Ba'athist dictatorships. He says one thing on the broadcast outlets of his favoured dictatorships and another in the West.
So it's about time that proper efforts are taken now to hold this friend of thugs to account, to reject his evasion and deception, and expose him once again. However, although I hope most of his supporters are naive young voters who see him as a high profile protest against the mainstream parties (and their parents), I fear more than a few embrace an agenda that is anti-British, anti-Western, sympathetic to Islamism and believers of the rampant conspiracy theory ridden nonsense that passes for "theories" in some parts of the world. Is anyone confronting this?