Paddick has flipped his lid

According to Iain Dale, Brian Paddick has given his second preference vote to Lindsey German, the Left List candidate who in 2004 stood under the RESPECT banner. I am shocked speechless.

Don't get me wrong, I think Paddick has been a very impressive mayoral candidate. He may not have the slickness of a career politician, but his interview performances have improved dramatically over the course of the campaign. His refusal to name a second choice was absolutely spot on. Quite why he's broken his silence now is beyond me.

But that's not the real problem. I suppose, now the polls are closed and the results are being counted, that Paddick's entitled to tell the media whom he cast his second preference for, that's his business. But a vote for Lindsey German? Is he mad, in a coma, or back in time?!

If Paddick had cast his second ballot for Ken or for Boris, I'd say fair enough. It may not be an appetising choice, but you've got to pick the least worst of the two. If he'd backed the Greens, he'd have thrown away a vote in a truly misguided fashion, but I could just about understand his decision. But what business does a Lib Dem have voting for a socialist, far-left, RESPECT candidate? A candidate who believes that economic freedom is the greatest threat to social justice? A candidate who supports Iraqi insurgents in their attacks on our own armed forces?

There should be a blacklist of parties that Lib Dems will never cooperate with, under any circumstances. The BNP and RESPECT (and its derivatives) should be on there without any question.

The rights and wrongs of George Galloway

What to make of George Galloway's 18-day suspension from the House of Commons?

I've probably made it fairly clear already on this blog that I'm not a fan of Mr Galloway, or of the RESPECT Party. Galloway's views on the Middle East are thoroughly counter-productive, and encourage hatred, rather than co-operation, between Muslim and Jewish communities in Britain. His record of attendance and participation in Parliament is beyond a joke, and his speeches, whilst oratorically very impressive, are truth-mangling bile fests which, rather than making peace more likely, actually set it back.

I'll never be able to forgive RESPECT for their behaviour at this year's NUS Conference, where they tried to block a motion to give Jewish students greater protection against anti-Semitism. The Union of Jewish Students wanted their members to be able to define anti-Semitic behaviour for themselves - a fundamental protection already enjoyed by ethnic minority groups since the Macpherson report. RESPECT argued that Jews should be denied that same protection, as they might abuse it in order to silence criticism of Israel.

With all that baggage, you might think I am delighted to see Galloway go down. In fact, I'm very disturbed that an elected MP can be thrown out of Parliament by his or her peers, on the say-so of the Standards and Privileges Committee. The only people with the power to get rid of an MP should be his own constituents. Much as I dislike Galloway, he was fairly elected, and should sit in Parliament until he stands down or gets voted out.

Unlike Galloway, I believe that the Committee acted in good faith and that their decision was a fair one. They claim they have strong evidence that Galloway failed to declare his charity's financial links with the Saddam Hussein regime, and I'm prepared to trust their judgement. But whatever an MP's misdemeanours, his constituents still deserve a representative in Westminster.

Who knows what might happen during the summer recess? When Parliament resumes, and Galloway's suspension begins, his constituents might have serious need of his help, and they don't deserve to be kept waiting for 18 days for somebody else's misbehaviour.