Galloway's return to the Commons

Funnily enough I said Galloway is back and somebody said isn't he the one who pretended to be a cat, very creepy. 

He often says many of the right things guaranteed to appeal to left wing hearts. I find he is often capable of saying much that I agree with at times.

But we nevertheless need to understand that just because he spouts a lot of things  that many of us on the left might have some sympathy with, this does not guarantee that he is a paragon of virtue. He has his own agenda, which just happens to include appealing to left wingers. Some of my comrades are too easily taken in by him for this reason.

According to the BBC 


George Galloway has said he wants to oust Labour's deputy leader from Parliament, as he began work as an MP.



The Workers Party of Britain leader said his party could overturn Angela Rayner's majority in her Ashton-under-Lyne constituency at the next election.



He was sworn in as an MP, following his by-election win last week.



Speaking to reporters afterwards, he listed more areas with large Muslim populations and vowed to "win or make sure that Keir Starmer doesn't win".



He named the Labour deputy leader's seat as a target, saying: "There's at least 15,000 supporters of my point of view in her constituency."

When the GE comes out goes Galloway. By-elections are just a way to voice a protest.

I see Galloway has called on comrade Corbyn to step back into the political spotlight and revitalise British politics, lols. I laugh, but I rather wish he would. Corbyn and Galloway could form their own party, the Workers Party. Then hopefully all the virtuous brainwashed woke loving lefties, the Marxists, the appeasers and England haters, would all be in one tiny, if noisy, party of their own.

At the party conference they would look up to an image of Lenin, as they tearfully sang the Red Flag.

yeah...but...that's his charm I think...I mean that kindda defines the politics game though don't you think? They're all just a loose confederation of squabbling children 

Did you ever see that clip of Galloway giving evidence to the Senate committee about his oil thing with Saddam Hussain...that was fun...guy's a savvy git

Corbyn, in spite of his many faults, is essentially an honest man who tends to say what he thinks and think what he says and on a personal level is widely regarded as a decent man by those who know him.

Galloway is none of those things.

Both are expressing similar politics, but  Corbyn genuinely believes in what he expresses and believes it to be for the common good. He just happens to be prone to a few ideological blind spots in regards to people like Hamas.

Galloway however only expresses such things because it suits his purpose. He is much more in it for himself than Corbyn, and his ego feeds off any public acclaim he can generate amongst his followers. He sees himself as some sort of champion against the establishment and bigs himself up in his own head on this basis. But it is all essentially about feeding his own ego.

Corbyn is much less of an egotist and is in it for others rather than himself, however misguided he is on some issues. Of the two Corbyn is the better character on a personal level.

I would welcome a new party on the left, and Corbyn could be useful in the sense that were he to take a prominent part in it many on the left would follow. But the inclusion of Galloway, whilst it would likely increase support from some quarters in the short term, in the longer term would likely prove disastrous for the left. The problem is that Galloway's ego is far too big to fit into any small party unless he is in charge of it. And he cannot brook dissent but likes to surround himself with sycophants who will feed rather than challenge his ego. Any cause is far less important to George Galloway than George Galloway.

Corbyn doesnt care much about his ego. If he genuinely believed he could make this country and the world a better place by emigrating to Outer Mongolia, he'd be living in a yurt attending yaks this time next week.

Corbyn's flaws are mainly those of a well meaning man prone to ideological blind spots which often means he can be misguided on important issues. And too ideologically inflexible.

Galloways flaws are far more central to his own flawed narcissistic and egotistical character.

Corbyn may be wrong about many things but he genuinely believes in what he says. Galloway does not. Galloway only believes in Galloway, the heroic challenger to the establishment as he sees himself to be. 

The two are very different characters and Corbyn would be making a mistake if he teamed up with him. Unfortunately, his tendency towards ideological blind spots might well lead to him being taken in by Galloway, just because on the surface of it the latter appears to be spouting a similar ideology. The motives of the two men are very different.