The return of Declan Ganley

Lockstep

c montgomery wrote: »

He's qualified to be a TD so

As long as this sort of attitude prevails, we'll be stuck with the ignorant gombeens in the Dáil.
Still, I'd rather them than Ganley.

acer1000

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm confused now - is this not the same Declan Ganley that fought Lisbon 1, then the Euro elections, then had a cameo role in Lisbon 2? The guy who people laud for being a conviction politician, albeit one who apparently does his best to hide his convictions?

Scofflaw

Give me a politician with conviction over one without, any day. The Irish political landscape doesn’t seem to have any, except for a few individual politicians, even though they have never been more needed, since the foundation of the state.

You claim that you don’t know what convictions he holds, but I think you are being disingenuous. I guess you are referring to his associations and the source of his funding that our mainstream politicians/public media investigated at our considerable expense, to not much avail. They would have served us better had spent the money on informing themselves on EU matters. Remember a certain politician who hadn’t even bothered to the read The Lisbon Treaty?

He’s a man who seems to love Ireland and has a commitment to it. I guess his early upbringing in the UK and his dealings in dishevelled countries gives him an appreciation of what it means to belong to a country and how as a result he may have come to appreciate the importance of place/country with regard to having a strong identity. Another politician of note, Shane Ross, with his probable fractured identity i.e. his Anglo Irish heritage may not have been a coincidence in how well he has served his country in terms of his role as an opposition politician. Now compare that with most of our mainstream politicians?

He’s a man who has made a fortune before he came political, so there isn’t a suspicion he isn’t in it for the money. You may say that he’s now in it to further increase his wealth, but there is also every reason to believe that his involvement in politics may very well impede such. How do our mainstream politicians rate in relation to this matter?

He’s smart enough to know that if there isn’t a strong country for his children, they will be impoverished no matter what wealth they may have.

If people go on about how he acquired his wealth, I’d ask them to consider the wealth of our current bunch of elected politicians and their families with their millionaire lifestyles that they have robbed from us, right from under our noses. For all that we have given them, they gave us a wrecked country in return, all with help of an opposition who also failed in their duty, to us.

OhNoYouDidn't

acer1000 wrote: »

Give me a politician with conviction over one without, any day. The Irish political landscape doesn’t seem to have any, except for a few individual politicians, even though they have never been more needed, since the foundation of the state.

You claim that you don’t know what convictions he holds, but I think you are being disingenuous. I guess you are referring to his associations and the source of his funding that our mainstream politicians/public media investigated at our considerable expense, to not much avail. They would have served us better had spent the money on informing themselves on EU matters. Remember a certain politician who hadn’t even bothered to the read The Lisbon Treaty?

He’s a man who seems to love Ireland and has a commitment to it. I guess his early upbringing in the UK and his dealings in dishevelled countries gives him an appreciation of what it means to belong to a country and how as a result he may have come to appreciate the importance of place/country with regard to having a strong identity. Another politician of note, Shane Ross, with his probable fractured identity i.e. his Anglo Irish heritage may not have been a coincidence in how well he has served his country in terms of his role as an opposition politician. Now compare that with most of our mainstream politicians?

He’s a man who has made a fortune before he came political, so there isn’t a suspicion he isn’t in it for the money. You may say that he’s now in it to further increase his wealth, but there is also every reason to believe that his involvement in politics may very well impede such. How do our mainstream politicians rate in relation to this matter?

He’s smart enough to know that if there isn’t a strong country for his children, they will be impoverished no matter what wealth they may have.

If people go on about how he acquired his wealth, I’d ask them to consider the wealth of our current bunch of elected politicians and their families with their millionaire lifestyles that they have robbed from us, right from under our noses. For all that we have given them, they gave us a wrecked country in return, all with help of an opposition who also failed in their duty, to us.

A passionate defence, but a load of shíte nonetheless. The simple reality is that until he is on a level playing field with other politicians and declares who funded his campaign, the allegations of the involvement of a foreign military intellegence agency will dog him. Its in his interest to clarify. Yet he won't. If our democratic process has been subverted, its very much newsworthy.

Other than that all I see is a man with ties to the US defence industry and the US neo-con movement trying to block European integration and having nothing to say on any other issue of national importance.

And I was very much a no-to-Lisbon person.

Palmach

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You're right, scaremongering and misrepresenting what the EU can do is speaking to people like adults.

Having worked with the commission let me tell you he wasn't far wrong.

The ECB and the relative strentgth of the Euro is what is helping keep us afloat.

I think you'll find being in the EURO is what helped get us into this mess and is making it worse.

He got hauled over the coals by the other candidates during a debate for having resources well beyond what he should have, given the cap for campaigns and he refused to answer.

I am sure those politicians questioning Ganley were paragons of virtue.

OhNoYouDidn't

Palmach wrote: »

I am sure those politicians questioning Ganley were paragons of virtue.

But thats not quite the point. At least we know who FF are and where they get their funding and how much they spent.

FF have 65,000 members and corporate backers and still had a fraction of the budget Libertas had on running less candidates.

Libertas didn't even issue a manifesto and ran an eclectic mix of candidates whose only common cause was anti-EU sentiment.

Then they disappeard refusing to answer the funding questions as is required by law.

There is a stench off them and they could easily have clarified these issues but chose not to. Now he is running for domestic politics? On what policy platform, with whose backing etc? Its all fur coat no knickers and no-one can quite put the finger on where he got the money for the fur coat...

Scofflaw

acer1000 wrote: »

Give me a politician with conviction over one without, any day. The Irish political landscape doesn’t seem to have any, except for a few individual politicians, even though they have never been more needed, since the foundation of the state.

You claim that you don’t know what convictions he holds, but I think you are being disingenuous. I guess you are referring to his associations and the source of his funding that our mainstream politicians/public media investigated at our considerable expense, to not much avail. They would have served us better had spent the money on informing themselves on EU matters. Remember a certain politician who hadn’t even bothered to the read The Lisbon Treaty?

No, in fact I was being sarcastic, although I accept that doesn't always come across properly in text. I agree that Ganley is a man of strong convictions, so I was being rather heavily sarcastic at the idea that one should have to suspend judgement on his latest re-entry into Irish public life, because I assume his convictions haven't changed.

However, Ganley hides his convictions, which in my book means he wins no real kudos for them. Research into Ganley during the Lisbon debates and Euro elections show a man with strong religious convictions and a socially conservative bent, both of which were hidden away from the general public because they're not attractive to the voting demographic Ganley was aiming at. His final break from cover in the last week of the euros, with the public endorsement of various social conservative groups, was something of a desperate fling by a candidate who realised his only vote was going to be the Dana vote.

acer1000 wrote: »

He’s a man who seems to love Ireland and has a commitment to it. I guess his early upbringing in the UK and his dealings in dishevelled countries gives him an appreciation of what it means to belong to a country and how as a result he may have come to appreciate the importance of place/country with regard to having a strong identity. Another politician of note, Shane Ross, with his probable fractured identity i.e. his Anglo Irish heritage may not have been a coincidence in how well he has served his country in terms of his role as an opposition politician. Now compare that with most of our mainstream politicians?

I'm Anglo-Irish myself in exactly the same way, and Ganley's origin story doesn't particularly affect me either way. You might be right in what you say, but it's too close to flattery for me to accept it unequivocally.

acer1000 wrote: »

He’s a man who has made a fortune before he came political, so there isn’t a suspicion he isn’t in it for the money. You may say that he’s now in it to further increase his wealth, but there is also every reason to believe that his involvement in politics may very well impede such. How do our mainstream politicians rate in relation to this matter?

My experience of them is that they want the power to influence things, but don't always have a clear idea of what it is they want to influence. It's very rarely about the money, at least initially. Ganley fits in perfectly well there.

acer1000 wrote: »

He’s smart enough to know that if there isn’t a strong country for his children, they will be impoverished no matter what wealth they may have.

He's by no means the only person of whom that's true.

acer1000 wrote: »

If people go on about how he acquired his wealth, I’d ask them to consider the wealth of our current bunch of elected politicians and their families with their millionaire lifestyles that they have robbed from us, right from under our noses. For all that we have given them, they gave us a wrecked country in return, all with help of an opposition who also failed in their duty, to us.

I don't doubt that in his personal dealings and personal life, Ganley is a man of irreproachable character. Unfortunately, that wasn't even remotely true of the political campaigns he ran, any more than Ian Paisley's lack of bigotry on a personal level was reflected in his political stance. Ganley gave us campaigns full of self-serving lies, dodgy dealings, questionable 'friends', disinformation, and sharp practice on the donations front. He spoke out of both sides of his mouth on subjects from CAP (he's on public record as saying that CAP should be utterly abolished, but he was all for it when speaking to farmers, and chose an ex-IFA man for his Leinster candidate) to immigration (famously saying here that he'd restrict immigration from the accession states, while saying in Poland that he'd seek to open new opportunities for them in the old EU), and never published his policies in written form - it was all just what he said on the day, which changed with the day and the audience.

You're welcome to consider that an addition to Irish public life, but I don't, and I can't see why, when a man has so clearly blotted his public copybook in such a way, he should get a free pass because he happens to have "strong convictions". Being honest in public life is the first conviction a politician should have - and the evidence accumulated over three campaigns suggests that Ganley, from that point of view, is no improvement on the shabbiest chancer in the Dáil.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nodin

Well, we need comic relief in these grim times.

Lockstep

Palmach wrote: »

Having worked with the commission let me tell you he wasn't far wrong.

Sorry, I'd need more concrete evidence than some anonymous person claiming to have worked with the Commission, without going into any specifics.

Palmach wrote: »

I think you'll find being in the EURO is what helped get us into this mess and is making it worse.

How so?
We can't devalue our currency but given the size of our budget deficit, it's a good thing.

Palmach wrote: »

I am sure those politicians questioning Ganley were paragons of virtue.

OhNoYouDidn't beat me to it.

Palmach

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But thats not quite the point. At least we know who FF are and where they get their funding and how much they spent.

FF have 65,000 members and corporate backers and still had a fraction of the budget Libertas had on running less candidates.

Actually we don't know for sure. Remember the Galway Tent?

On what policy platform, with whose backing etc? Its all fur coat no knickers and no-one can quite put the finger on where he got the money for the fur coat...

First of all he isn't running for anything. If you want to see vacuousness nothingness I suggest Labour's website where there isn't a sausage except high minded rhetoric. I also find it strange that when we are undergoing the worst economic crisis due to egregious mismanagement and we have politician after politician after civil servant living high on the hog at our expense people seem to get angrier about Ganley spending his own money.

OhNoYouDidn't

Palmach wrote: »

Actually we don't know for sure. Remember the Galway Tent? .

We do know. Builders gave FF tons of money and they STILL HAD LESS than Libertas who we are expected to believe beat them on small donations from supporters, despite a 65,000 person machine in FF.

Not buying it.

Palmach wrote: »

First of all he isn't running for anything. If you want to see vacuousness nothingness I suggest Labour's website where there isn't a sausage except high minded rhetoric. I also find it strange that when we are undergoing the worst economic crisis due to egregious mismanagement and we have politician after politician after civil servant living high on the hog at our expense people seem to get angrier about Ganley spending his own money.

10 mins surfing and I would know who Labour are, their officers, what they broadly stand for, who funds them, what they spend per campaign and who they are linked in with internationally.

NONE of that information is available to either the general public or the regualators for Libertas.

If Declan Ganly is a person of strong patriotic and moral fibre, simply tell us where the money comes from. Otherwise there will still be a stench of something off him and the allegations will remain in play. Its not rocket science.

Palmach

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Sorry, I'd need more concrete evidence than some anonymous person claiming to have worked with the Commission, without going into any specifics.

This thread isn't about those claims so to avoid the ever officious jobsworth moderators lets stick to the topic.

How so?
We can't devalue our currency but given the size of our budget deficit, it's a good thing.

If we could devalue it would make industry cheaper and boost exports getting us out of this mess. David Mac explains how >>>>>> http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-mcwilliams/rich-get-richer-as-rest-of-us-pay-for-their-mistakes-1925851.html

Scofflaw

Palmach wrote: »

Actually we don't know for sure. Remember the Galway Tent?

First of all he isn't running for anything. If you want to see vacuousness nothingness I suggest Labour's website where there isn't a sausage except high minded rhetoric. I also find it strange that when we are undergoing the worst economic crisis due to egregious mismanagement and we have politician after politician after civil servant living high on the hog at our expense people seem to get angrier about Ganley spending his own money.

It's not that he spent his own money, but that he seems to have done so while claiming he wasn't. Libertas claimed they were supported by "public donations", but turned out to be supported by a large loan from Declan, which he pretended wasn't the case until admitting it was utterly unavoidable. That claim of "public donations" sufficient to support Libertas' expensive campaign was a fake claim to grassroots support they didn't have - a lie, made entirely for political ends. The whole Libertas edifice was a pretence, propped up with money from Ganley, with Ganley in sole command, pretending to be a grassroots democratic movement.

Bringing an entirely new set of lies to the political table really doesn't represent an improvement over the old lies.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Palmach

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

We do know. Builders gave FF tons of money and they STILL HAD LESS than Libertas who we are expected to believe beat them on small donations from supporters, despite a 65,000 person machine in FF.

Not buying it.

Squeaky clean are FF. Yesiree



[/quote] 10 mins surfing and I would know who Labour are, their officers, what they broadly stand for, who funds them, what they spend per campaign and who they are linked in with internationally.

NONE of that information is available to either the general public or the regualators for Libertas.

If Declan Ganly is a person of strong patriotic and moral fibre, simply tell us where the money comes from. Otherwise there will still be a stench of something off him and the allegations will remain in play. Its not rocket science.[/QUOTE]

I was talking about polices. The rest of your post is the sort of conspiracy theory stuff used to smear him.

Happy Monday

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

A passionate defence, but a load of shíte nonetheless.

Can you not find any others words to express your viewpoint?

OhNoYouDidn't

Palmach wrote: »

Squeaky clean are FF. Yesiree

Read back through my posts on here. I think FF are a cancer on Ireland. Corrupt, morally bankrupt and inept.

But I know who they are, who funds them and the strength of their party machine.

Palmach wrote: »

I was talking about polices. The rest of your post is the sort of conspiracy theory stuff used to smear him.

Well what are his policies then?

Its not a smear if its true. Libertas have refused to declare where they get their money. Fact.

OhNoYouDidn't

Happy Monday wrote: »

Can you not find any others words to express your viewpoint.
Or have you fallen out of a 12 hour binge and onto the floor to give your considered analysis?
Taoiseach - is it yourself - that damn Ganley might close the pubs before 5am that damn fine talking b*ll*cks!!

Jaysis, thats twice today I've been called a FF'er on this thread... :eek:

Beats my normal list of dissident republican, Hamas member, commie and fascist I suppose....

Palmach

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Jaysis, thats twice today I've been called a FF'er on this thread... :eek:

You have my condolences.

djpbarry

Palmach wrote: »

If we could devalue it would make industry cheaper and boost exports getting us out of this mess.

Temporarily. It would do absolutely nothing to address the underlying problems.

Lockstep

Palmach wrote: »

This thread isn't about those claims so to avoid the ever officious jobsworth moderators lets stick to the topic.

If you're not willing to substantiate a point, then don't bring it up in the first place.

Palmach wrote: »

If we could devalue it would make industry cheaper and boost exports getting us out of this mess. David Mac explains how >>>>>> http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-mcwilliams/rich-get-richer-as-rest-of-us-pay-for-their-mistakes-1925851.html

Devaluation is a double edged sword: while it *could* boost exports, it would mean that our currency is worth less, making it even more difficult to pay off our colossal deficit.
It's grand in a country with an in-demand export and low public debt (which is why it worked so well for Russia)
Given our massive public debt and the structural weaknesses of our economy, it'd give a short term boost without doing anything to help the long-term problems (high debt, no reform of the economy)

IrishTonyO

kickoutthejams wrote: »

How so?
We can't devalue our currency but given the size of our budget deficit, it's a good thing.


OhNoYouDidn't beat me to it.

Being part of the Euro and the years preceding it lead to record low interest rates, which is one, if not the main cause of the banking problem we are experiencing now.

OhNoYouDidn't

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Being part of the Euro and the years preceding it lead to record low interest rates, which is one, if not the main cause of the banking problem we are experiencing now.

So DG's economic rescue plan is based on anti-EU sentiment.

All together now, HMMMMMM.....

Lockstep

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Being part of the Euro and the years preceding it lead to record low interest rates, which is one, if not the main cause of the banking problem we are experiencing now.

The main problem with the banking sector is a lack of financial regulation.
Low interest rates can be a good thing, encouraging consumer spending and start-up businesses, whereas high interest rates can do the opposite (but encourage saving)
Low interest rates can cause the overheating of the economy if they are not held in check but the Euro can't be blamed for the recklessness and irresponsibility of the Fianna Fáil government.

K-9

He's no Des O'Malley if that's what people are looking for.

Palmach

kickoutthejams wrote: »

If you're not willing to substantiate a point, then don't bring it up in the first place.

This thread is about Ganley not a re-run of Lisbon. I raised to point out that a lot of what he said is close to the truth but you won't see any official docuemnts for obvious reasons.

Devaluation is a double edged sword: while it *could* boost exports, it would mean that our currency is worth less, making it even more difficult to pay off our colossal deficit.
It's grand in a country with an in-demand export and low public debt (which is why it worked so well for Russia)
Given our massive public debt and the structural weaknesses of our economy, it'd give a short term boost without doing anything to help the long-term problems (high debt, no reform of the economy)

I wasn't suggesting devaluation on its own. Obviously there are other things that need to be done in tandem.

Scofflaw

This thread is about Ganley not a re-run of Lisbon. I raised to point out that a lot of what he said is close to the truth but you won't see any official docuemnts for obvious reasons.

No, seriously - if you can't substantiate your claim to have worked with the Commission and to be in on some sort of privileged information allowing you to make authoritative statements, don't make the claim. Definitely don't make the claim and then say it doesn't need to substantiated because it's not what the thread is about, or claim that "officious jobsworth moderators" wouldn't want you to say it.

All boards.ie threads should at least aspire to levels above the kind of utter drivel that passes for similar debate elsewhere - you can assist in that by not claiming authority you can't substantiate.

officiously,
Scofflaw

Lockstep

Palmach wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting devaluation on its own. Obviously there are other things that need to be done in tandem.

It doesn't change the fact that it makes it even harder to pay back our debt. Devaluation is not a good idea when combined with crushing debt. Devaluations aren't a panacea that boost exports with no ill effects, otherwise governments would be doing it the whole time.

IrishTonyO

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, seriously - if you can't substantiate your claim to have worked with the Commission and to be in on some sort of privileged information allowing you to make authoritative statements, don't make the claim. Definitely don't make the claim and then say it doesn't need to substantiated because it's not what the thread is about, or claim that "officious jobsworth moderators" wouldn't want you to say it.

All boards.ie threads should at least aspire to levels above the kind of utter drivel that passes for similar debate elsewhere - you can assist in that by not claiming authority you can't substantiate.

officiously,
Scofflaw

Just curious, but how would someone substantiate that on an internet forum?

Scofflaw

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Just curious, but how would someone substantiate that on an internet forum?

To be honest, they almost certainly can't, which is why it's better not to make such claims, or at least not to make them part of your argument. Someone could go into a thread on clerical child abuse claiming to be an expert in child psychology, and say that in their expert opinion nobody had ever been abused. Clearly that would be little different from trolling - there's a wide grey area, but the net effect is fairly similar.

Or, of course, you could claim to be an expert in running a national economy because you've run a business - or because you're a lawyer...

cordially,
Scofflaw

acer1000

SCOFFLAW WROTE:
‘My experience of them is that they want the power to influence things, but don't always have a clear idea of what it is they want to influence. It's very rarely about the money, at least initially. Ganley fits in perfectly well there.’


I think one can assume he wants to influence the people of Ireland to give it a shape or form to his liking, within the context of a Europe that he would also like to mould to his liking. Fair enough? Isn’t that what our mainstream politicians are supposed to be about, too.? Of course that requires a vision, which our mainstream politicians don’t seem to have. The only vision they have in relation to Europe is plum jobs for themselves, their families and their friends. For that, they weren’t going to inform themselves and in turn us, of any potential difficulties that they may have noticed, had they done so, unlike Mr Ganley who did, and spent his own money to tell us so. The same old theme, they want to fill their pockets, while he empties his quite a fair bit for what he believes in. Mr Ganley’s alleged thwarting of the democratic process pales in comparison. Remember those times when the people voted ‘no’, we were manipulated by scare tactics into voting ‘yes’. So much for Mr Ganley’s scare tactics.

SCOFFLAW WROTE:
‘ I don't doubt that in his personal dealings and personal life, Ganley is a man of irreproachable character. Unfortunately, that wasn't even remotely true of the political campaigns he ran, any more than Ian Paisley's lack of bigotry on a personal level was reflected in his political stance. Ganley gave us campaigns full of self-serving lies, dodgy dealings, questionable 'friends', disinformation, and sharp practice on the donations front. He spoke out of both sides of his mouth on subjects from CAP (he's on public record as saying that CAP should be utterly abolished, but he was all for it when speaking to farmers, and chose an ex-IFA man for his Leinster candidate) to immigration (famously saying here that he'd restrict immigration from the accession states, while saying in Poland that he'd seek to open new opportunities for them in the old EU), and never published his policies in written form - it was all just what he said on the day, which changed with the day and the audience.

You're welcome to consider that an addition to Irish public life, but I don't, and I can't see why, when a man has so clearly blotted his public copybook in such a way, he should get a free pass because he happens to have "strong convictions". Being honest in public life is the first conviction a politician should have - and the evidence accumulated over three campaigns suggests that Ganley, from that point of view, is no improvement on the shabbiest chancer in the Dáil. ‘

It boggles the mind how anybody can write the above about one Irish political entity in full cognisance of the current Irish political landscape. You know it isn’t teeming with honesty and integrity, quite the opposite.

I think Irish people in the political/media world are still in some form of denial, hoping that by changing the deckchairs on The Titanic, it’s going to make a difference.

djpbarry

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Being part of the Euro and the years preceding it lead to record low interest rates, which is one, if not the main cause of the banking problem we are experiencing now.

I would say poor management was the main cause of the crisis – had banks no control over the interest rates they were offering on their financial products?

Palmach wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting devaluation on its own. Obviously there are other things that need to be done in tandem.

Such as?