Can we keep Galloway though, I like a lot of what he says.
He's forthright enough, and at times reasonably eloquent - but seems to be under some illusion about how connected he is with "normal" or "young" people - and also, you'd have to say, a bit insidious and downright exploitative at times.
Don't disagree with you Neil but I used to listen to his radio show on Talksport a few years back and have followed him since so don't think he's the idiot the right wing press would have you believe. He has talken apart other politicians in debate by simply knowing his stuff and believing in what he's saying which is more then can be said for many at Westminster. Check out youtube etc.
I don't agree with everything he says but I think his position is closer to my own then Cameron/Clegg/Miliband.
I wouldn't say he's stupid, either - I think he has a reasonably keen mind, for the things that suit his alignment.
All the same, merely having a reasonable intellect, and good enough research to bluster other MPs isn't good enough to win me over. And I'm not talking about the oil thing, I just thing there's some decidedly specious aspects to his political ethos - or at least alignment / sympathies - that are truly dubious. I wouldn't find him anything like as odious, were it not for the things he attacks, compared with the things he defends / sides with / acquiesces to / hand-waves about / deftly sidesteps.
As to youtube, Hitchens put him in his place on more than one occasion - that said, that's just because he met his match in somebody of at least equal, if not greater intellect, as much, if not more research and background knowledge, and as much if not greater degree of assertion.
I can see how some could find him / his bombasticness appealling, but consider less how he says things, and who he bluffs and blusters, to what he's actually saying, and what he decides to keep quite about / keep schtum about.
This page intentionally left blank