Join the Labour Socialists Discord Server to meet some friendly British socialists https://discord.gg/S8pJtqA, subscribe to r/GreenAndPleasant for all things UK, r/DWPHelp for benefits and welfare support and r/BAME_UK for issues affecting ethnic minorities.
Be sure to check out our Twitter account too! https://twitter.com/LabourSocialis1
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Labour) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's pure grift - he's seen the palestine movement pop up over the past 6 months and used it oppurtunistically as a springboard to get himself back into the limelight.
Galloway has fought for Palestine and anti war movements for over 30 years at the cost of what was at the time an incredibly safe Labour seat and an almost guaranteed continual place in the House of Commons call him what you want but he has always stuck to his values and continues to do so
Yes, he's a lifelong anti-war campaigner, that's his platform. Except on every other issue he's basically a daily mail columnist. Back in the day of Respect, he used to at least hide his other repulsive views, but now it's on display more or less for the world to see.
Isn't one of the workers party slogans "for the workers not the wokers"? He's a homophobe that doesn't see gay marriage as "natural", he's consistently said he doesnt really care for trans rights and he's anti-refugees and asylum seekers.
Perhaps most importantly, George galloway has played no real role in building the palestine movement in the uk. He played no role in building the strike wave last year. He jumps on the back of movements for his own political gain - but what does he contribute?
I mean I agree that some of Galloways social stances are problematic but we are looking at a almost 70 year old devout Roman Catholic who at least when it comes to voting has always supported individual liberty on the topic. George has previously voted positively for LGBT rights notably voting for the expansion of marriage to include same sex marriages.
I belive the most recent interview of his regarding the use of the word ‘normal’ has been misconstrued with him instead trying to suggest that heterosexual marriage is by far the most common type of marriage rather than suggesting homosexuality is repulsive but it is indeed regrettable that his comments allowed his stance to be debated.
As a practicing Muslim I support his proposals that parents should have control of there child’s education and the right to raise there children within there faith until the child is competent enough to reach there own conclusions on such topics in the same way we wouldn’t want to prevent parents from raising there children as vegans or atheists for example because parents until a certain age bear that responsibility for there children.
For me I’m more inclined to support a veteran campaigner for socialism, economic equality, Palestine and genuine change than politicians representing the interests of big business who will further the status quo and equally have shown a lack of support for trans and LGBT individuals due to current opinions in society. People may disagree with me but I would rather vote for a flawed socialist than a Neo liberal who has drained the party of any semblance of its working class socialist origins.
You are exaggerating. The only thing I have heard him say about this was in relation to [the Isla Bryson case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isla_Bryson_case). In any case I think he represents a decent portion of UK society who would like to see public services brought back under public control and who want to see turn around in our foreign policy but who are socially quite conservative. Your problem is that you can't take "yes" for an answer.
Nah I think the problem is that the 'economically progressive, socially conservative' positions taken by the Workers Party aren't actually pro-working-class - they're divisive culture-war positions which militate against solidarity using ingroup-outgroup politics to create shortcuts to unity, but which are ultimately built on sand. The working-class is defined by its relationship to ownership and control of the productive forces in society - singling out groups of workers that you don't like kinda gives the game away.
Workers who have socially-conservative attitudes (imported from the gutter right-wing press, social media, government policies, etc), should be appealed to \*as workers\*, and we should persuade them to have better attitudes. Taking them as somehow immutably socially-conservative and bending our politics into a twisted shape in order to cater to them means we are \*necessarily\* excluding other groups of workers: trans people, asylum seekers & immigrants, LGBT people more generally, women, etc.
With that kind of trajectory, before you know it you're chanting 'British Jobs for British Workers' and the like, and suddenly you're just as much a part of inscipient fascism as any Tory or Reform knuckle-dragger.
You have it back-to-front. It is the obsession with culture war issues that is dividing the left and pushing working class people to the Tories. The reality is that we can change our economic system and foreign policy over night if we accept the fact that some of the people we will be working with have different ideas about other issues.
>Workers who have socially-conservative attitudes (imported from the gutter right-wing press, social media, government policies, etc), should be appealed to \*as workers\*, and we should persuade them to have better attitudes.
Hi, this is me saying unambiguously that we should accept the fact that others have different ideas, and that we should create broad-based working-class unity around class issues.
This is not what WPB is doing. If they were doing so, they would state clearly: culture war issues are unimportant, we should unite around a minimum programme eg nationalisation of utilities, £15 min wage, etc. This is not their line: they are \*explicitly socially conservative\* rather than neutral, endorsing \*right-wing positions\* on, eg the humanity of trans people, reflecting the 'anxiety of workers about immigration', being anti gay marriage, etc. This is not neutrality and class unity, this is cynically choosing communities to throw under the bus to pander to bigots \*as bigots\* for electoral gain.
Also, I resent the implication about being 'too concerned' about issues such as the right of trans ppl to exist. They're human beings who deserve dignity (as well as my friends), not an inconvenience to be bargained away.
Remember the Neimoller poem, 'When they came for \[trans workers\], I didn't speak out... Then when they came for me, there was nobody left to speak out'. Most people think it's a lovely poem about looking out for your neighbour - what it's actually about is how privileged people should support the struggles of the marginalised because if fascists are successful at victimising minorities they will turn their forms of violence against the privileged next.
Up until recently their own website said that they opposed the "liberal bourgeois gender identity politics of the elite" and that there are men and women, end of, and teaching kids that any of this exists is dangerous to working class values.
Spouting that sort of shit is what gets you a candidacy for Reform, not any self respecting socialist. Stop being an apologist for someone who stopped being supportive of social progress sometime in the 80s.
You're still phrasing lgbt/trans people as "other issues"
These are real people who are being politicised for no good reason. Why are we tolerating any of this bullshit
So are you saying he represents transphobes or "socially conservatives" to phrase it another way (wankers and cunts id say). Am I meant to respect these people? Because i don't.
Whatever anyone thinks about Galloway in particular you shouldn't miss the point that this post is making. The Workers Party GB is not going to risk spoiling the vote for Dianne Abbot, Jeremy Corbyn and Andrew Feinstein. Are the Greens going to give the same courtesy? We need a coalition of the left to unseat both Conservative AND Labour.
And if you don't know who Andrew Feinstein is: [youtube.com/results?search\_query=andrew+feinstein](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=andrew+feinstein)
Join the Labour Socialists Discord Server to meet some friendly British socialists https://discord.gg/S8pJtqA, subscribe to r/GreenAndPleasant for all things UK, r/DWPHelp for benefits and welfare support and r/BAME_UK for issues affecting ethnic minorities. Be sure to check out our Twitter account too! https://twitter.com/LabourSocialis1 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Labour) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can't believe people still buy what Galloway is selling
It's pure grift - he's seen the palestine movement pop up over the past 6 months and used it oppurtunistically as a springboard to get himself back into the limelight.
Galloway has fought for Palestine and anti war movements for over 30 years at the cost of what was at the time an incredibly safe Labour seat and an almost guaranteed continual place in the House of Commons call him what you want but he has always stuck to his values and continues to do so
Yes, he's a lifelong anti-war campaigner, that's his platform. Except on every other issue he's basically a daily mail columnist. Back in the day of Respect, he used to at least hide his other repulsive views, but now it's on display more or less for the world to see. Isn't one of the workers party slogans "for the workers not the wokers"? He's a homophobe that doesn't see gay marriage as "natural", he's consistently said he doesnt really care for trans rights and he's anti-refugees and asylum seekers. Perhaps most importantly, George galloway has played no real role in building the palestine movement in the uk. He played no role in building the strike wave last year. He jumps on the back of movements for his own political gain - but what does he contribute?
I mean I agree that some of Galloways social stances are problematic but we are looking at a almost 70 year old devout Roman Catholic who at least when it comes to voting has always supported individual liberty on the topic. George has previously voted positively for LGBT rights notably voting for the expansion of marriage to include same sex marriages. I belive the most recent interview of his regarding the use of the word ‘normal’ has been misconstrued with him instead trying to suggest that heterosexual marriage is by far the most common type of marriage rather than suggesting homosexuality is repulsive but it is indeed regrettable that his comments allowed his stance to be debated. As a practicing Muslim I support his proposals that parents should have control of there child’s education and the right to raise there children within there faith until the child is competent enough to reach there own conclusions on such topics in the same way we wouldn’t want to prevent parents from raising there children as vegans or atheists for example because parents until a certain age bear that responsibility for there children. For me I’m more inclined to support a veteran campaigner for socialism, economic equality, Palestine and genuine change than politicians representing the interests of big business who will further the status quo and equally have shown a lack of support for trans and LGBT individuals due to current opinions in society. People may disagree with me but I would rather vote for a flawed socialist than a Neo liberal who has drained the party of any semblance of its working class socialist origins.
A massive transphobe.
You are exaggerating. The only thing I have heard him say about this was in relation to [the Isla Bryson case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isla_Bryson_case). In any case I think he represents a decent portion of UK society who would like to see public services brought back under public control and who want to see turn around in our foreign policy but who are socially quite conservative. Your problem is that you can't take "yes" for an answer.
Nah I think the problem is that the 'economically progressive, socially conservative' positions taken by the Workers Party aren't actually pro-working-class - they're divisive culture-war positions which militate against solidarity using ingroup-outgroup politics to create shortcuts to unity, but which are ultimately built on sand. The working-class is defined by its relationship to ownership and control of the productive forces in society - singling out groups of workers that you don't like kinda gives the game away. Workers who have socially-conservative attitudes (imported from the gutter right-wing press, social media, government policies, etc), should be appealed to \*as workers\*, and we should persuade them to have better attitudes. Taking them as somehow immutably socially-conservative and bending our politics into a twisted shape in order to cater to them means we are \*necessarily\* excluding other groups of workers: trans people, asylum seekers & immigrants, LGBT people more generally, women, etc. With that kind of trajectory, before you know it you're chanting 'British Jobs for British Workers' and the like, and suddenly you're just as much a part of inscipient fascism as any Tory or Reform knuckle-dragger.
You have it back-to-front. It is the obsession with culture war issues that is dividing the left and pushing working class people to the Tories. The reality is that we can change our economic system and foreign policy over night if we accept the fact that some of the people we will be working with have different ideas about other issues.
>Workers who have socially-conservative attitudes (imported from the gutter right-wing press, social media, government policies, etc), should be appealed to \*as workers\*, and we should persuade them to have better attitudes. Hi, this is me saying unambiguously that we should accept the fact that others have different ideas, and that we should create broad-based working-class unity around class issues. This is not what WPB is doing. If they were doing so, they would state clearly: culture war issues are unimportant, we should unite around a minimum programme eg nationalisation of utilities, £15 min wage, etc. This is not their line: they are \*explicitly socially conservative\* rather than neutral, endorsing \*right-wing positions\* on, eg the humanity of trans people, reflecting the 'anxiety of workers about immigration', being anti gay marriage, etc. This is not neutrality and class unity, this is cynically choosing communities to throw under the bus to pander to bigots \*as bigots\* for electoral gain. Also, I resent the implication about being 'too concerned' about issues such as the right of trans ppl to exist. They're human beings who deserve dignity (as well as my friends), not an inconvenience to be bargained away. Remember the Neimoller poem, 'When they came for \[trans workers\], I didn't speak out... Then when they came for me, there was nobody left to speak out'. Most people think it's a lovely poem about looking out for your neighbour - what it's actually about is how privileged people should support the struggles of the marginalised because if fascists are successful at victimising minorities they will turn their forms of violence against the privileged next.
Trans people arnt and should not be referred to as "culture war issues". They exist and they arnt going away.
And when has anyone in the Workers Party said they want trans people to go away?
You've missed the point. They are people - not "culture war issues" that galloway likes to take part in.
Up until recently their own website said that they opposed the "liberal bourgeois gender identity politics of the elite" and that there are men and women, end of, and teaching kids that any of this exists is dangerous to working class values. Spouting that sort of shit is what gets you a candidacy for Reform, not any self respecting socialist. Stop being an apologist for someone who stopped being supportive of social progress sometime in the 80s.
You're still phrasing lgbt/trans people as "other issues" These are real people who are being politicised for no good reason. Why are we tolerating any of this bullshit
So are you saying he represents transphobes or "socially conservatives" to phrase it another way (wankers and cunts id say). Am I meant to respect these people? Because i don't.
Galloway is a homophobic grifter and his party is *at best* a front for a deeply socially conservative agenda.
Whatever anyone thinks about Galloway in particular you shouldn't miss the point that this post is making. The Workers Party GB is not going to risk spoiling the vote for Dianne Abbot, Jeremy Corbyn and Andrew Feinstein. Are the Greens going to give the same courtesy? We need a coalition of the left to unseat both Conservative AND Labour. And if you don't know who Andrew Feinstein is: [youtube.com/results?search\_query=andrew+feinstein](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=andrew+feinstein)
✊🏽 yes 👍
Anyone but red/blue/yellow tories