UK Politics Thread

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 irishmufc wrote:

 Het-field wrote:

 irishmufc wrote:

 Het-field wrote:

 irishmufc wrote:

 Het-field wrote:

 irishmufc wrote:

 Het-field wrote:

 irishmufc wrote:

 Het-field wrote:

Attention seeker George Galloway intends to stand against Tom Watson at the next election.

You might not like Galloway but there's a lot more to him than simply being an attention seeker. 

He certainly knows how to debate and deal with hostile interviewers. 

In fairness you could say the same about people like Ben Shapiro.

Galloway is one of those politicians I like seeing losing elections.

Ah come on Hetfield 
You're comparing a skilled politician like Galloway with helium boy. Galloway irrespective of whether you like his political viewpoints can at least argue his case. There's no substance to Ben Shapiro who just parrots right talking points over and over. 

All you need to do is to compare Andrew Neil's interviews with Galloway and Shapiro and see how they handle a skilled interviewer like Neil. 

You're probably more of a Christopher Hitchens man yah? 

You could also consider several of the interviews between Galloway and Paxman where Paxman managed to get Galloway to lose his rag, and hilarity ensued. Galloway’s a good debater, but that about the height of it. He enjoys the sound of his own voice, and on a simple political level I never liked him or his platform.

But you probably call me right on Hitchens, even if light struggles
to penetrate some of his writings!

If you're going to charge Galloway with loving the sound of his own voice then you should not be praising Jeremy Paxman above all people in the same sentence. His interviews with Galloway after he was elected in Bradford and in London before that were very unprofessional and petty. Galloway handled those intervews very well. 

David Mitchell (the comedian) sums up Paxman to a tee on how he conducts himself in political interviews. Paxman is more concerned with making himself look good rather than engage in any meaningful discourse.  

Andrew Neil is a conservative but a fantastic interviewer who calls it out on both sides. He's a much better example to give when an interviewer really tests Galloway. 

Hitchens's debate with Galloway was brilliant but his support for the Iraq War was disgraceful. 

I wouldn’t say I praised Paxman. But Galloway lost the rag.

Hitchens volte face on Iraq was his downfall in my eyes. But he had been breaking with the “anti-war” movement for most of the 1990s, so it was probably a likely outcome, notwithstanding what we knew then and know now.

Not to labour the point (excuse the pun) too much but Paxman's opening question was outrageous to ask someone who was just elected if he was proud of getting rid of the only black woman MP (of her party?) in parliament. That's a pathetic cheap shot and Galloway was right to tackle him on it. I don't see that as him losing the rag tbh. 

Agree regarding Iraq, Tony Blair would've probably went down as one of Britain's best PM's (Good economy/ Good on the Northern peace process, ) if he didn't go into Iraq and cosy up to that buffoon in the White House. Same with Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam War. Johnson had hugely popular domestic policies on social and environmental issues and would've went down in history as a decent U.S. president but for the Vietnam War. 

The guy threatened to walk off the interview in a huff, as he wasn’t congratulating him on what was the most “sensational electoral victories of modern times”.

The problem with Iraq it came after a relatively successful period of intervention, and the general political consensus was that it worked all the time. Equally what happened in Rwanda was prescient on the minds of a lot of politicians who failed to act. The mass public opinion against it and the dubious acceptance of information was at odds with what Blair had generally been like, who know how to court public opinion. He was very much on the ropes from then.  

Well it was a surprise in fairness to Galloway to take a labour seat but leaving his blusterous self-praise aside Paxman was very bit as at fault as Galloway was in that interview. When you start an interview in bad faith and deliberatly set out to 'win' the argument rather than ask legitimate probing questions, then you're primarily the reason for the interview going tits up. It's hard to blame someone for wanting to walk off an intervew in those circumstances. It was more of a hit job. 

I enjoyed Paxman's interview with Martin McGuinness where he was professional but he has an awful petty streak about him too. 

But it was a often asked question at the time. Especially as there were vulnerable seats elsewhere that could have been chosen. As such, I wouldn’t consider it a bad faith question, even if it could have been asked in a more tactful way. In fairness, Galloway didn’t walk off, and it’s a rarity that somebody does. That particular campaign was especially hostile and it spilled over quite a bit.

I’ve actually never seen the MMG interview, but will make sure to watch it.