For what it's worth, although my views on Galloway are very mixed, I think he *does* substantially care about the Middle East. His voice on StWC marches and in local meetings around the country - whatever your views on the SWP - has been a great addition to visible anti-war sentiment in the UK. He gave the (Senate Committee?) in the US the verbal kicking they richly deserved, and used that very public platform to point out the list of US hypocrisies over Iraq.

At the time, I thought the Big Brother thing was a brave experiment in bringing international politics "to the people" - after all, the whole point was to use the show as an opportunity to discuss the war in Iraq and the issues around the Middle East. Perhaps it was naive of me to think that Channel 4 wouldn't censor the whole lot, thus making the whole exercise redundant - should Galloway and his team, operating in the sharp end of politics, have known this? I think they should have, to be honest. In the end of course the media judged him a fool - but I think much of this was from the reactionary right wanting to discredit anyone opposing the neoliberal agenda so strongly - and the public, stupid as ever, followed suit.

I don't have the stats to hand, but your best criticism is Galloway's lack of attendance in the Commons - he might not believe in the existing political infrastructure (and who can blame him) but a poor record in this area provides the right wing with yet another clumsy stick to beat him with.

I have a question though - you said "selling out ... in true SWP style". I am in two minds about the SWP at the moment - I attended Marxism 2008 and thought the event itself was amazing - but have heard one or two commenters on Indymedia having a go at the party. Would you be prepared to expand on your statement?

Dear Jon

Thank you for your email but you are wrong on my stats on Galloway although you are right about his speeches but people in the East End expect action not just speeches.

The stint in Big Brother you refer to was actually more helpful to the anti-Crossrail campaign than you can possibly imagine but this had nothing to do with George Galloway but is not relevant to your question so will not dwell upon it.

However, the stats I can rely on are as follows:

Please can you tell me what George Galloway has actually done for his constituents on Crossrail since August 2005 and that is the stat everyone affected by Crossrail relied upon to judge his record and that of the SWP - the answer is nothing.

On Tuesday 22 July 2008 the Crossrail Bill will gain Royal Assent, will this man make a speech like he did in July 2005, the answer is no and this could be something to do with the fact that he betrayed the area.

Galloway also went to work with Ken Livingstone and they both hatched up a plan for Galloway to become a London Assembly Member.

Galloway got nowhere because everyone knows that he is untrustworthy as the rest of them but worse because of his betrayal, no one could care less about Galloway apart from some disreputable Labour cronies and they are welcome to them both as London does not want either of them. Please show what community support he has, you will find it is none...

You talk about his record in the middle east. The areas impacted upon by Crossrail are largely Muslim and he betrayed them without hesitation. This says a lot about a man who claims to care about such issues. He did nothing and perhaps he only really cares about these matters because he gets funding and makes a lot of speeches but what does this man actually do... The experience of people in the East End is he deals in hierarchical power games, bullying but avoids helping communities and ordinary people and this is why he is ideally placed for the SWP and whatever his new group is called. These groups are welcome to George Galloway, they deserve him

I am sorry if this sounds angry but that is how people feel about him so no one will ever trust this man or anyone connected to him again. But everyone sees this as positive, they have outed someone like Galloway for what he truly was. Nothing

I've a few points to make in return. You've used the word "stat" several times out of context - when I used it, it was meant as an abbreviation of "statistics". I am uncertain about your criticism that I "was wrong on my stats on Galloway" - what numbers of yours did I get wrong?

Again, I would reiterate that I am not Galloway's biggest fan, but it's difficult to come back to many of your statements. You've made plenty but have offered little to substantiate them. Why was GG's time in Big Brother so helpful to the anti-Crossrail campaign? I would have thought his missing the debate - a good criticism of yours - would have been very damaging towards it. You say that the reason he will not make a speech could have "something to do with the fact he betrayed the area". How has he done so? You continue with "everyone knows that he is untrustworthy as the rest of them" but you don't explain why you believe this to be the case (or who "them" might refer to).

Even worse, you introduce one paragraph with something about the Middle East. You then use that as a link to talk about Muslims being affected by... Crossrail in London! That has nothing to do with the Middle East in the context I raised it - the Middle East is about Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, Pakistan/India etc. - and Galloway's record there is very good. (Of course there is plenty of debate and criticism over strategy - but that's another issue.) When you reference "the man's latest concern is Pakistan", you seem to be inferring that Pakistan is not an important issue in international politics - why do you think this is so?

You finish with "no one will ever trust this man or anyone connected to him again" - and that he has been "outed" as a "nothing". Again, there is no evidence or argument here, just a continuation of your ad hominem attacks.

I am happy to debate the merits and disadvantages of Galloway, but I think you need to offer some balance - especially in giving credit where it is due. Most importantly, though, you really do need to justify your statements, otherwise the whole exercise just turns into a name-calling session.