Labour Party on Libertas/CIA CT.

dresden8

What value have Libertas to the voter if they're just another bunch of bent shysters pursuing their own advantage?

Absolutely none. If Libertas went for election tomorrow you might be surprised with how little support they get. You won't find me voting for the w@nkers.

We seem to agree that there is a problem with Irish politics and money. I think you're unfair singling out Libertas. Let's hang them all. How does that sound?

molloyjh

dresden8 wrote: »

I think you're unfair singling out Libertas.

We're only singling Libertas out for the purposes of this conversation. The problem with political parties and their funding sources is one we have a problem with too, but that deserves at least one whole thread to itself.

dresden8 wrote: »

Let's hang them all. How does that sound?

Pretty good, but hanging one isn't dependant on hanging any of the others. I'll take whoever I can get now and continue to press for the rest after. I think we are all of the same opinion, just coming at it from different directions.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

What value have Libertas to the voter if they're just another bunch of bent shysters pursuing their own advantage?

Absolutely none. If Libertas went for election tomorrow you might be surprised with how little support they get. You won't find me voting for the w@nkers.

We seem to agree that there is a problem with Irish politics and money. I think you're unfair singling out Libertas. Let's hang them all. How does that sound?

Like a start...however, I've explained my reasoning behind being 'singling out' Libertas. Someone like FF have been around for decades. We know they're in the pockets of the builders and developers, we know there's money sloshing around that results from bent planning. We know they've had money from Ireland's "great and good" (including Declan Ganley) - and we can see the favours flowing back the other way.

We don't know whose pockets Libertas are in, and what favours they will be expected to pay back - that's the point. I'm singling them out because I have a singular lack of knowledge about them, and also because it's pretty clear that their original claims are so much whitewash. They worked hard to promote the impression that they were funded by grassroots donations - but it turns out instead that Declan Ganley simply put his hand in his pocket.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

The question still stands, do you think Roche and Labour, (yes Oscar, I know, that wasn't in the original question) were surprised to find out that money influences politics?

For someone who was so offended earlier about so-called innuendo and smear tactics, you're continuing to imply that the Labour Party are being corruptly funded by rich business people without coming forward with any specific allegations.

What was that about hypocrisy?

dresden8

As a great man once said;

oscarBravo wrote: »

And I've already pointed out that that's not an answer to the question. Did you think I wouldn't notice you dodging question the second time, when I noticed the first time?

Oh sorry, I've already asked you that, and you've pointedly refused to answer it. Twice.

Except I think I've asked it three times.

studiorat

Just to point out, Libertas aren't a political party.

Scofflaw

studiorat wrote: »

Just to point out, Libertas aren't a political party.

They're a campaign group, and they've stated that they'll stand in the Euro elections. Politics is not restricted to standing for the Dáil.

cordially,
Scofflaw

studiorat

^^^

Should have said that too!:D
In reference to funding etc. it may be an important point though.

Scofflaw

studiorat wrote: »

^^^

Should have said that too!:D
In reference to funding etc. it may be an important point though.

True enough - the rules are different for 'third parties'. However, when you spend a couple of moments thinking about it, you wonder why - if a 'third party' wants to influence the outcome of a vote, why is it not appropriate to require complete transparency?

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

True enough - the rules are different for 'third parties'. However, when you spend a couple of moments thinking about it, you wonder why - if a 'third party' wants to influence the outcome of a vote, why is it not appropriate to require complete transparency?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

You are a third party who has influenced the vote through this forum. Congrats. Not taking the piss by the way.

Should you be required by law to divulge your private business?

I'd like to think I influence the vote in my own little way. No way I want my stuff out there.

Where does this third party business end?

sink

dresden8 wrote: »

Scofflaw

You are a third party who has influenced the vote through this forum. Congrats. Not taking the piss by the way.

Should you be required by law to divulge your private business?

I'd like to think I influence the vote in my own little way. No way I want my stuff out there.

Where does this third party business end?

Did Scofflaw put any funds towards his campaign? It's pretty difficult to track donations that don't exist. :rolleyes:

studiorat

sink wrote: »

Did Scofflaw put any funds towards his campaign? It's pretty difficult to track donations that don't exist. :rolleyes:

I'm sure a percentage of his monthly broadband subscription could be written off against it. Unless of course he's using a computer in work.

That opens a whole new can of worms.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Scofflaw

You are a third party who has influenced the vote through this forum. Congrats. Not taking the piss by the way.

Should you be required by law to divulge your private business?

I'd like to think I influence the vote in my own little way. No way I want my stuff out there.

Where does this third party business end?

At a donation of €126.97 - that being the SIPO definition of 'third party':

"Under the Electoral Act 1997 as amended (the Act) a third party means any individual or group, other than a registered political party or election candidate, who or which accepts, in a particular calendar year, a donation exceeding the value of €126.97."

That is, I think, a fairly tight limit.

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm sure a percentage of his monthly broadband subscription could be written off against it. Unless of course he's using a computer in work.

That opens a whole new can of worms.

That would work only if someone donated it to me though - if someone gave me internet access so that I could campaign, I'd be a third party...

Essentially, you can spend as much of your own money as you like, but as soon as you start soliciting money from other people to spend, you come under the SIPO legislation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

I think you said before that you're self-employed. If it's a computer that's listed as one of your work assets or your broadband access is part of your work and you write them off against your income, where does that sit?

bauderline

Scofflaw wrote: »

Essentially, you can spend as much of your own money as you like, but as soon as you start soliciting money from other people to spend, you come under the SIPO legislation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

By that definition then Ganley should be in the clear if what the press are plugging at has any merit....

So let me get this straight, you can spend as much of your own money as you want to influence the outcome of ballot, but your only a third party if you use others peoples money to do it?

Vote for none of the above ?

P.

Scofflaw

bauderline wrote: »

Essentially, you can spend as much of your own money as you like, but as soon as you start soliciting money from other people to spend, you come under the SIPO legislation.

By that definition then Ganley should be in the clear if what the press are plugging at has any merit....

So let me get this straight, you can spend as much of your own money as you want to influence the outcome of ballot, but your only a third party if you use others peoples money to do it?

Vote for none of the above ?

P.

That's pretty much it - you're rich, you can do what you like with your money. You're not rich, you have to account for the money. Best little democracy money can buy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Deleted

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

I think you said before that you're self-employed. If it's a computer that's listed as one of your work assets or your broadband access is part of your work and you write them off against your income, where does that sit?

As an ordinary business expense. It's fair to point out that I am as entitled as the rich to spend my own money and time on campaigning - and without accounting for it.

The more money I make, of course, the more influence I can obtain through the use of my money, which tends - insofar as a dedicated socialist is unlikely to be a successful capitalist - to favour the right wing. The balance is redressed slightly by successful social democrats, but the thrust of money in the republic is undoubtedly towards the right.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

As an ordinary business expense. It's fair to point out that I am as entitled as the rich to spend my own money and time on campaigning - and without accounting for it.

And so we come back to Ganley again. We seem to finally agree here.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

As an ordinary business expense. It's fair to point out that I am as entitled as the rich to spend my own money and time on campaigning - and without accounting for it.

And so we come back to Ganley again. We seem to finally agree here.

That it's right and proper for Ganley to spend his own money without accounting for it, or that it's not right and proper? I'm of the latter opinion, but the bit you've quoted might make it look like I was of the former!

To put it in respect of Ganley - it looks like he's stayed within the letter of the SIPO regulations, while driving a coach and horses through the intent of them. For no other reason than to see how he did it - and tighten up the legislation - I'm OK with his funding of Libertas being investigated.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Now you're displaying double standards.

You're a private person because you're on the yes side, he's open to investigation because he's on the no side.

I'd thought better of you.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Now you're displaying double standards.

You're a private person because you're on the yes side, he's open to investigation because he's on the no side.

I'd thought better of you.

And you're a private person, and on the No side, yet I have no interest in your accounts. Ganley, however, has crossed the line somewhere between private and public - I don't think you'll find many who disagree with that, either.

It's about the ability of any given individual to drive a coach and horses through our 'transparency' legislation. Consider it this way - if Ganley can do it, so can the government. All they need to do is to get one of their rich supporters to follow the pattern set by Ganley with Libertas - and voila, there goes the coach and four through the McKenna judgement. The supporter can then be given board membership of one of our umpteen 'agencies', or a Senatorship, or some other reward.

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

dresden8 wrote: »

Now you're displaying double standards.

You're a private person because you're on the yes side, he's open to investigation because he's on the no side.

I'd thought better of you.

Ah now come on dresden, I thought better of you. There's a world of difference between open and free discussion on a bulletin board and active campaigning. It's not like Scofflaw was taking out ads in the paper or setting up YouTube videos or appearing on national TV. We're getting into symantics here in a big way. At the end of the day Ganely invested money into his campaign and we don't really know why. People like Ganley don't get to where they are by being purely altruistic. And so therefore its not unreasonable to strongly suspect a personal stake in the whole thing beyond what has been stated thus far. Given the impact that Libertas had on the result it is therefore also reasonable to question Ganley as opposed to the likes of Scofflaw, who had little relative impact - so far as we can tell anyway!

Scofflaw

molloyjh wrote: »

Ah now come on dresden, I thought better of you. There's a world of difference between open and free discussion on a bulletin board and active campaigning. It's not like Scofflaw was taking out ads in the paper or setting up YouTube videos or appearing on national TV. We're getting into symantics here in a big way. At the end of the day Ganely invested money into his campaign and we don't really know why. People like Ganley don't get to where they are by being purely altruistic. And so therefore its not unreasonable to strongly suspect a personal stake in the whole thing beyond what has been stated thus far. Given the impact that Libertas had on the result it is therefore also reasonable to question Ganley as opposed to the likes of Scofflaw, who had little relative impact - so far as we can tell anyway!

I'm hurt now - are you saying I didn't have the same impact as Libertas, simply because I couldn't afford to spend hundreds of thousands on posters and billboards and ads, or spend time touring the country in my battlebus and appearing on TV and radio? Admittedly it might explain why the press mysteriously failed to cover my posts here, but still.

Surely one poster on boards.ie is exactly the same weight in a national campaign as a man who can afford to bankroll a dedicated campaigning organisation to the tune of roughly a million euro?

I certainly don't see any difference.


miffed,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

The question still stands, do you think Roche and Labour, (yes Oscar, I know, that wasn't in the original question) were surprised to find out that money influences politics?

No, I don't think that comes as a surprise to anyone.

Does this mean I'll get an answer now?

dresden8

Yes you will. I have no evidence of how Labour come by their money and what their donors motivations are and therefore withdraw my alleged allegations

Now we've establish that, maybe they should be investigated to establish these facts.

dresden8

What form will this investigation of Ganley take?

Scofflaw: "Mr. Ganley, how do you plead?"

Ganley: "Innocent"

Scofflaw "Innocent of what?"

Kafkaesque how are ya.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

What form will this investigation of Ganley take?

Scofflaw: "Mr. Ganley, how do you plead?"

Ganley: "Innocent"

Scofflaw "Innocent of what?"

Kafkaesque how are ya.

Hmm. It's not about "investigating" Ganley as if he had done something wrong - I'd be amazed if he isn't 100% SIPO-compliant, so the question of 'pleading' doesn't arise at all.

What's at issue here is that the present SIPO legislation allowed for the funding of a high-spending campaign group in a way that was entirely opaque. The aim of the SIPO legislation is to provide transparency for the public, and it was made very obvious that it's not doing its job.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

So, are we agreed that Ganley quite possibly is compliant and the general rules need to be examined.

Stop Press, Ganley in clear.

molloyjh

dresden8 wrote: »

Stop Press, Ganley in clear.

I don't think anyone here said he did anything illegal so I don't know what the big deal is over these pedantics. At the end of the day some of us are concerned about his motives from an ethical and practical standpoint regardless of the law.