There is no way this clown is ever getting back into the Labour party. He can win the occasional protest vote but he stands for literally nothing.

"In east London, Galloway won by exploiting divisions. In Bradford he won by offering entertainment, and stimulating a constituency where voters felt taken for granted". This must be a different Bradford to the one I live in and a differen by election to the one I helped out at two weeks ago today, where exploiting racial and religious divisions was at the heart of this by-election. I had to gasp when I read Galloways intervention as "stimulating a consituency". I am not a member of the Labour party but went to help on the day after being "stimulated" by the truly dreadful things I overheard before the election. Bradford is a city deeply divided along racial and religious grounds and these were cynically and succesfully exploited. Bradford West will become a marginal conservative constituency under the proposed boundary changes (minus the innre city wards that I believe voted for GG in droves). If GG stands again I would even be prepared to vote conservative - something I have never done - if it meant unseating this dreadful politican.

I think GG is more than comfortable in his new found position as agent provocateur and its a role he was born for. He is no more or less vainglorious than his parliamentary peers and has been consistent in his foreign policy views for decades. Labour should use him as a gauge for the populist view far more than any focus group and not dismiss his views without giving them serious thought. Yes, he is entertaining and adds a bit of spice to politics but personal attacks should not distract us from his core message to the Labour leadership : an expensive and futile interventionist foreign policy is simply not tenable.
Afghanistan? Iraq? and now Iran? I think GG is spot on in terms of his stance and so clearly, do the majority of voters.

Interesting piece (which, before reading, I balked at) but I think that since his dismissal from the Labour Party Galloway's appeal has rested on the fact that he is a maverick, a cause unto himself. If he rejoined the party he would either be emasculated by the Whips (and lose a lot of his appeal in elections), or promptly booted out again for essentially acting as a lone wolf.

Labour try to smear George with the party's own unpopularity. Ingenious, but completely bonkers.

It's nice to see that Labour's lack of talent and intelligence doesn't stop at Gretna Green. Whoever this man is should have a think about what he's saying before putting pen to paper. Why on Earth would Galloway return to the Labour party? I don't see anything realistic in this piece.

Stick to photography, matey.

If the Labour Party accepts him back, they will lose my vote again (the first time was when Ed Miliband somehow appeared as its leader).

"So what role could George Galloway have back in the Labour Party? There can be no question of George occupying a position in the Foreign Office. The salute to Saddam Hussein will never be forgotten. "

Galloway should certainly be criticised for toadying to Saddam. But the idea of the Labour Party taking a credible moral stand on such matters is laughable.

Didn't Tony Blair describe Hosni Mubarak, during last year's Egyptian revolution, as "immensely courageous and a force for good"? I believe this was just as the courageous force for good was unleashing armed thugs on the civilian demonstrators in Tahrir Square.

And of course, Labour backed and armed some of the worst tyrannies in the Middle East during its time in office, as well as rendering Libyan dissidents to the Gaddafi regime for torture.