Why George Galloway won in Bradford

The election of George Galloway as the new MP for Bradford West is still to sink in.

I confess did not think that the constituency would ever be represented by anybody other than a Labour MP as has been the case for all my life. I remember I was with friends late on the night of Sunday 11 March 2012 when news came through that Imran Hussain, the deputy leader of the Council, had been selected as Labour’s candidate. As far as we were concerned the election was over because Imran would win and the discussion turned to what sort out MP he would be and how he might perform on Newsnight and Question Time. We know him well because we grew up with him in the Girlington area of the constituency which is where we have been brought up and our family home. He went to school with a couple of my younger brothers.

Over the course of the next few weeks we observed the support for George Galloway build and grow as the rallies got bigger and bigger. Even then I did not think that he would actually win. On election night I was saying to my friends that had it been a longer campaign (the campaign was barely three weeks) there was a good chance that George might have won. Even then I did not actually think that he had won and was as shocked as anyone else that he had pulled it off. The short campaign period is just one of a number of amazing things about George Galloway’s victory. He was actually out of the country when the election was called and some people accused the Labour party of attempting a “smash and grab” raid.

It is difficult to say why he won and won so convincingly. I guess the reason why there are so many competing theories is that there are a number of factors rather than just one factor.

Yes it is true that the anti-war message struck a chord with the large Muslim population in the constituency. But although that would explain why he did so well in the inner city wards of the constituency it does not explain why he did so well in the more mixed and even mainly white wards like Thornton, Allerton and Clayton. All the other reasons that have been given have validity such as the disaffection with the main parties particularly over their failure to deal with the economic challenges the city faces.  It might feel like I am stating the bloody obvious but I believe that George Galloway himself was the key factor. There was a Respect candidate in Bradford West for the 2010 election who barely registered on the Richter scale in the result. Yet George Galloway, as the young people in Bradford are saying “absolutely smashed it” with an incredible 10,000 more votes than Labour. He has incredible charisma, is a great orator and has a kind of star quality akin to celebs or sporting personalities. He really does have an impact on people and they become, I can only describe it as being, starstruck.  A few points below illustrate that for me.

I met George in an office car park quite early in the campaign and had a brief chat with him. He was travelling in his own car with one other person accompanying him. Whenever I saw him after that it was impossible to get any where near he was surrounded by a huge entourage as his support built up very quickly. There was a snowball effect.

What is amazing is the number of individuals that were part of his campaign team that had been leading and well known activists for the other parties. A friend of mine campaigned in November 2011 for a Labour party candidate in a local council by-election. The successful candidate credits his victory to this friend of mine. During the campaign his communication with me through telephone and text was relentless – “make sure you vote for x, get your family to vote for x”. When I met him I asked him if he would be active in the campaign for Imran Hussain. His response was “no” he would put in the same effort and vigour into the campaign for George Galloway that only five months ago he had put into a campaign for a Labour candidate. When I asked him why his answer was simply “because its George”.

What is not in dispute is the impact that George Galloway has had on young people. Young people who have not previously engaged in the political process. Some of them turned up to vote and did not know whether to put a cross or a tick on the ballot papers. Young people that are concerned about the country’s continued participation in the war but also concerned about the impact of tuition fees and their failure to get a job. Unemployment among young people in Bradford has increased by nearly 30% since February 2011. On of the things that particularly pleases me is the rejection by the young people of the so called “braderi” system through which you are obliged to give your loyalty and in this case your vote to someone based on the fact that they are from the same “clan” as you in Pakistan which more often than not the individual goes on to betray.

So these young people, who if you like are the Twitter generation, used social media very adeptly to deliver George Galloway his victory. In that respect as George says there are some parallels with the Arab spring. During campaigning one of George Galloway’s young supporters, 28 year old Abu-Bakr Rauf, collapsed and died of a suspected heart attack. This was literally a couple of days after the incident involving the footballer Fabrice Muamba and there was a similar outpouring of emotion. Social media sites were flooded with messages of sympathy and condolences and the young people stated their determination to support George Galloway and to win the election in the memory of Abu-Bakr.

Incidentally one other point that should not be missed is that a large number of women turned out to vote for George Galloway. I say George Galloway deliberately and not Respect. George Galloway in his campaign pro-actively focussed on women in the local community and women’s centres. Whilst it has been said, although I do not know if it is true or not, that the Labour campaign totally ignored this important constituency. If that is true then that was a grave tactical mistake.

The key thing to watch now is the impact of this election and George Galloway’s victory on the political scene generally. There are a whole generation of people who have got the taste for victory. There were 300 applications from candidates that want to stand as Respect candidates in the local council election on 3 May 2012. If the numbers voting for George were to vote for Respect on that day there would be a seismic change never seen before in my life time.

Ansar Ali is chief executive of Manningham Housing Association in Bradford

Recent Posts on Eagle Eye

• The Fiction of Gatsby
• Why "build more houses" is not The Answer
• Cameron on Gay Marriage Should Make Us Proud
• What Focus Groups Say About Ed Miliband
• Cameron's possibly winning position

• tyke87

   

  Sheikh Raed was invited to Britain for a 10-day speaking tour earlier this
  year primarily to appraise members of the Houses of Parliament on the situation
  faced by Israel’s non-Jewish citizens. A few days into his visit, it was
  claimed by the Home Office that his presence in the UK was not conducive to the
  public good, and that he was subject to a banning order. He was arrested under
  the Immigration Act and, following an initial spell in custody, released on
  bail. Mr Salah was subject to stringent bail conditions including having to
  report to a local police station daily and restrictions which prevented him
  from speaking in public. However, he opted to stay in Britain to clear his name
  of the prime allegations of incitement and anti-Semitism, and for the right to
  address Peers and MPs.

  The court’s decision was that Home Secretary Theresa May “was
  misled” and “under a misapprehension as to the facts”, was
  hailed as a victory and vindication for Sheikh Raed.

  It was made clear that the appeal had turned on the issue of facts; it has
  never been an issue of anti-Semitism, but rather of opposition to Israeli
  government policy. The information received by the Home Secretary from a
  pro-Israel organisation was misrepresented and misleading. She neglected to
  consult any Muslim organisation on the issue, or to examine the facts presented
  to her in a proper and considered manner, and was therefore misled by a single
  external organisation. This underscores the nature of the government’s open
  door policy to pro-Israeli organisations which needs to be addressed urgently.

  Theresa May’s credibility and conduct was brought into serious question on
  several other problematic issues of concern to the British public. These
  include inter alia the fact that she did not follow procedure; she sought
  specifically to prevent Sheikh Raed from addressing parliament; the nature of
  the course of action she took was inappropriate; and she made her decision in
  just 17 minutes.

  It was asserted that based on prejudice, Theresa May used her considerable
  powers to exclude, denigrate and cause the denigration of Sheikh Raed, a
  representative of the Palestinian people, by a large section of the British
  media. As such, a unanimous call was made for an “opening of all the
  books” and a thorough, independent inquiry into how this debacle was
  allowed to occur.

  The immigration tribunal asserted in its decision that it was necessary to
  look at Sheikh Raed’s profile as whole. The three quotes used against him
  represented the entirety of the body of evidence that could have potentially
  been brought against him. Moreover, “there is no evidence that the danger
  perceived by the Secretary of State is perceived by any of the other countries
  where the appellant has been, nor, save for the very tardy indictment, is there
  any evidence that even Israel sees the danger that the Secretary of State
  sees.”

  The question was raised if the government is now going to act in line with
  international law with regard to the situation of Israelis accused of war
  crimes being allowed to enter Britain. The current situation in which, it was
  alleged, one party to the Palestine-Israel conflict is feted and the other is
  excluded and silenced can no longer be allowed to continue. The focus cannot be
  allowed to continue to be on what is beneficial to the Israeli government;
  rather, it must be on what is conducive to the good of the British public. The
  government needs to justify itself and to act in line with the wishes of the
  electorate. Democracy requires those with power to be held to account.

• tyke87

   We should give all Jews, the Tebbit cricket test, meant for the Pakistanis.  Albeit better the football test as the French quote.  The result would show the size of the 5th column.

• mightymark

  Your views on “fascism” existing in the US and Australia as well as Israel suggest your veiws of fascism is as poor as that of Zionsim. I am not sure you are really worth engaging with on this – (e.g. quite why the exploitation of resources is “fascist” escapes me).
  I do want to come back on the law of return. Most if not all countries “privilege” some people not within their borders as regards citizrnship. Thus someone born abroad to British parents and so “British” born abroad has rights of entr, domicile and citizenshp in the UK. It doesn’t  of course mean no one else can become a citizen asis also true of Israel. The Israeli position on the law of return is the result of the fact that the Jews, who constitute not just a religion but  people, have not for over 2000 years had their own state. As regards “privileging” however it is not in practice very different from what other countries do in granting citizenship rights to people of a particualr background.

  I suspect you will disagree however I can see what I think your grounds will be frrom the final sentance of paragraph 2 – as there you will hold Israel to higher standards to other countries. As it happens I think given her circumstances and the hate that surrrounds her Israel actually does display higher standards than many other countries.

• mightymark

  Thats it then – enjoy the Waffen weekend. Do you know the words of the Horst Wessel song?

• http://www.facebook.com/people/Brian-Jamieson/629899261 Brian Jamieson

  The numerous definitions of zionism renders the term useless on online forums such as this. Most people online use the term in reference to narratives that legitimise Israeli occupation of stolen land. The “chosen people” in biblical terms have returned to Zion the “homeland”. The boundaries of this homeland keep expanding over time and the resulting bantustans are impoverishing the Palestinians. Hence why some of them form resistance movements. The land that has been stolen since 1967 is largely farming land taken from farmers, not land taken from organisations like the PLO or Hamas. 

  If you want to know why people are focusing more on Israel’s fascism and not other countries? It is because the ongoing conflict has international consequences for world peace. The Australian government may have dissolved the anti-discrimination laws protecting the indigenous people so that mining companies can readily steal resources from their land; it has not led to so much violence and international conflict. The difference with Israel is the scale hence why the focus. This is not applying “higher standards” simply applying commensurate focus.

  “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually-agreed swaps [of land], so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states” —Barack Obama, in a speech delivered on May 19, 2011

• mightymark

  Your first paragraph could not be more mistaken. Most references to “Zionism” in the media today are negative – part of the delegitimaisation campaign. Most Israeli supporters probably simply call themselves “pro Israel” tiough few I think would deny the wholly honourable label “Zionist ” I certainly wouldn’t. As for boundry expansion it rather depends on when you take the base date. Most territory taken in the 1967 war has been returned (Sinai and Gaza)and only the smaller West Bank and Golan Heights remain occupied. Since you say you accept the 1967 borders you presumably accept as legitimate the territory Israael gained during the 1948 war. Since you quote Obama (I take it)approvingly you also presumably accept that there could be changes to the actual 1967 borders (only 1948 ceasefire lines of course) which could legitimise some current Israeli settlements on the basis of agreed land swaps.

  I don’t disagree with any of that.

  Your second para is also wrong. The reason people focus on the suppsoed wrongs of Israel – and yes, use daft  words like “fascist” to describe it – is because they want to delgitimise Israel and come at it from a 5th form Marxist stance (or its even dodgier “resistance movement” successor”)where simply shouting “fascist” at anything you don’t like wins Brownie points.
  These people don’t want an Israel at all. By using their language you are outting your self on their side of the argument. If you want to be taken seriously in your claimto support an Israel wthin legally defined boundaries you need to drop that kind of language.

  You will also need to accept that Israel exists in a tougher neighbourhood than Australia. Merely to realise that Israel’s borders were under attack before the occupations of 1967 shows that the fundamental problems here go beyond the immediate occupation of the West Bank.

• lusty91a

   I remeber an interview with Amy GoodMan and Shuamit Aloni (Former Isralie Education Minister and I quote”It’s the the standard tactic of calling someone anti-Semitic” using defamation tactic against them.So if you want to label me an Anti-Semite that is fine with me I have called a lot worse it holds no water.

• WorthSaying

  Yes he does. Most of the people killed in Iraq were Iraqi’s killed by each other. Likewise in Afganistan. Likewise the Palestinains and the Jews fight with each other anyway, out with anything we do. Hamas are constitutionally committed to removing every single Jew from Israel. Their charter denies the Haulocaust. George Galloway agrees with that. Do you?

• http://www.facebook.com/people/Brian-Jamieson/629899261 Brian Jamieson

  Ask a Palestinian if Israel is a fascist state or not.

• mightymark

  Oh dear – and I was just beggining to think you were better than that!

  I’m pretty sure I could find one or two of the less cerebral of my fellow Zionists who would say all Palestinains were “fascist” – and it would be just as meaningless.

  Interestingly your post encouraged me to look up some defintioms of Fascism. Among them in “The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought” (Rev Ed 1988) I came across this:

  “Apart fromm its historical usethe term “Fascist” has been kept alive by the Communists who both before and after World War II have used it as a label to discredit their opponents”

  Back then of course Communism was a real force internationally and intellectually (though very close to the end of its life). A very great deal oif the personnel and mentality behind the pro Palestinian movement derives from Communist thought (including its use of the term “Zionism” somertimes to mean “Jews” – think of Stalin’s “Doctors Plot”).

  Do you really want to be associated with this sort of thing?