Re: George Galloway
 

So you're blaming the people who voted them in before the war. By saying your vote was made at the political level, I'm guessing you either voted for a different party or not at all in 2005. Though I fail to see how this would have changed the decision to go into Iraq in 2003, two years earlier.

Re: George Galloway
 

I see you're right. But this tends to reinforce the view that, despite the LibDem attempt to cast it as such, the electorate didn't see the vote as a referendum on Iraq at all.

Re: George Galloway
 

What I am saying, and I think I am clear on that is that the electorate had an opportunity to express a view in 2005, which they did by reducing the majority of the Government, however it was not a majority view.


[quote=CaptainHook ] So you're blaming the people who voted them in before the war. By saying your vote was made at the political level, I'm guessing you either voted for a different party or not at all in 2005. Though I fail to see how this would have changed the decision to go into Iraq in 2003, two years earlier.[quote}

No my vote was made at the time by the representation of my views to my MP

Re: George Galloway
 

OK. There's no way to know what was in the mind of the average voter (whatever that is). Perhaps we've gone far enough down this sidetrack and could return to the topic at hand i.e. the rightness or otherwise of Canada refusing entry to George Galloway on grounds of national security.

Re: George Galloway
 

78% of voters did not vote for Labour in 2005: how can the opinion of the 78% of voters who _did not want Labour_ not be 'a majority view'?

How anyone can claim that Labour have the support of the majority of Britons when nearly four out of five did not vote for them is beyond me.

Assuming that Brown doesn't find an 'emergency' that requires him to put off the next election indefinitely, at this point I really think it will be the end of the Labour party; unless Cameron suddenly starts eating babies Labour will be unelectable for at least a generation, and given they're largely reliant on funding by people who want to buy their favors after they're elected, they'll be bankrupt in a couple of years.

Re: George Galloway
 

Tell me how often a democratically elected government in the UK or even in Canada get over a magical number that represents the whole electorate, a first past the post system always represents a result some will find unpalatable. I don't aspire to predict elections 12 months or more in the future and the Tories lead although seemingly firm has shown itself to be soft. I suppose funding for the Tories by people who do not pay UK taxes is acceptable.

I agree lets get back to GG

Re: George Galloway
 

Wrong. Galloway is not a threat to national security. He should be allowed to come and bluster.

Re: George Galloway
 

I agree with you there, but I also agree the Canadian government has the right to decide they don't want him to visit.

Re: George Galloway
 

While they have the right to bar him do it because he is a threat not just because he is George and has views they don't like

Re: George Galloway
 

Granted, the government has to decide on the part of the public, we can't have a referendum every time a George Bush or Tony Blair wants a blast of frigid air.

Re: George Galloway
 

That's likely for the courts to decide. It seems improbable (or at least undesirable), that the likes of Jason Kenney can ban a speaker who has been invited by a legitimate group to address them, without having due cause.

Surely no-one (even Kenney) can seriously think that George is a threat to our national security?

Re: George Galloway
 

Exactly. I don't think Jason Kenney's right in this case, but I hardly think he's going to overrule his department after a public announcement of his position on this. Oh wait, he's a politician. Of course he's going to. :p

Re: George Galloway
 

Bent over ready to be shafted..............................


Well thats their usual position isnt it???

Re: George Galloway
 

Actually since the Conservatives supported the war in Iraq, the question to ask is what proportion of voters did not vote for Labour or Conservative (or other parties similarly supporting the Iraq war) if you want to get to the bottom of a majority view.

In exactly the same way the Conservative government did in the '90s.


On the subject of "gorgeous" George, I can't see that he is a threat to national security but we all know that border control agencies are at liberty to make any decision they wish, witness the numerous threads on here about crossing the US/Canada border for example. I guess it saved him a wasted airfare to know in advance.

Just as an aside, Google the man right now and you'll see Google's caching in action for the Wikipedia listing (entry number 3 on the Google list). NOT suitable for those sensitive to bad language.

Re: George Galloway
 

If there is a form which asks "have you ever supported a terrorist organisation?"

George will have to tick the box yes, he did give Hamas money, and they are a terorrist organisation.

Its not really anyones opinion, its fact.