The return of Declan Ganley

Scofflaw

Declan Ganley, bête noire of the Yes side in Lisbon 1 and failed European Parliament candidate, returns himself to public life with a somewhat threadbare excuse and an exclusive article in the Journal which seems to waver in focus between the usual cracks at the EU and a more national angle:

http://home.thejournal.ie/readme/the-road-to-perdition/

Long on rhetoric, short on solutions, populist as ever, and signing off with a flourish that reminds us he's a religiously-minded social conservative - will he make a full-scale return to public life in national politics as supporters hope, or will he be hurling from the ditch?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tender Hoop

i think he is a cock

ei.sdraob

oh NOes not that guy again

why oh why is Irish politics so dismal?!

duckysauce

hes like a piece of dog **** that you step in no matter how you clean your shoes on the grass the **** is still there

baaaa

Didn't he predict a loss of sovereignty and of our corporate tax rate?
It would really piss me off if he did.

galwayrush

baaaa wrote: »

Didn't he predict a loss of sovereignty and of our corporate tax rate?
It would really piss me off if he did.

He did, one extremely smug...I told you so... coming up.

Scofflaw

galwayrush wrote: »

He did, one extremely smug...I told you so... coming up.

He did indeed predict that - indeed, you could say he was the cause of the taxation guarantee in Lisbon 2.

Unfortunately:

a) he didn't predict it as a result of us having to survive on an ECB transfusion, but as a result of Lisbon granting powers which it didn't

b) it hasn't actually happened.

Not that that would prevent him saying "I told you so" or a some people believing it - those people are always with us, and they have votes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Lockstep

He canvassed me during the 2009 elections, very dodgy character.

IrishTonyO

Scofflaw wrote: »

Declan Ganley, bête noire of the Yes side in Lisbon 1 and failed European Parliament candidate, returns himself to public life with a somewhat threadbare excuse and an exclusive article in the Journal which seems to waver in focus between the usual cracks at the EU and a more national angle:

http://home.thejournal.ie/readme/the-road-to-perdition/

Long on rhetoric, short on solutions, populist as ever, and signing off with a flourish that reminds us he's a religiously-minded social conservative - will he make a full-scale return to public life in national politics as supporters hope, or will he be hurling from the ditch?

cordially,
Scofflaw

and you consider the 'threadbare excuse' to be what? He did say a year ago that he would comment in a year and he has. You may think it is populist but he has been more accurate than our government.
And finishing an article with 'God save Ireland' reminds you in what way that he is a 'religiously minded social conservative'. I would say that comment more reflects on your and your bias than on him

Happy Monday

Scofflaw wrote: »

a) he didn't predict it as a result of us having to survive on an ECB transfusion, but as a result of Lisbon granting powers which it didn't

We are now surviving on an ECB transfusion - care to comment on those politicans who created those conditions first and maybe Declan Ganley after?

Scofflaw

Happy Monday wrote: »

We are now surviving on an ECB transfusion - care to comment on those politicans who created those conditions first and maybe Declan Ganley after?

Not really, since most of the rest of the forum offers that opportunity, whereas this thread is about Declan Ganley.

and you consider the 'threadbare excuse' to be what? He did say a year ago that he would comment in a year and he has. You may think it is populist but he has been more accurate than our government.

Someone who claims "bad things will happen" for one set of reasons is not vindicated if they happen for an entirely different set of reasons. And "coming back to examine the Yes side's claims" is a laughably threadbare excuse for relaunching himself in public life, if that's what he's doing. Not, to be fair, that he requires any excuse, of course - but that just makes it sillier.

And finishing an article with 'God save Ireland' reminds you in what way that he is a 'religiously minded social conservative'. I would say that comment more reflects on your and your bias than on him

Perhaps, but on the other hand he is a religiously minded social conservative - something he made quite obvious through various interviews during the Euro elections. I'm not sure why you object to that characterisation, unless you feel it was simply a pose for the benefit of a certain class of voter.

cordially,
Scofflaw

evercloserunion

I hope this doesn't happen. Irish politics is in a dismal enough state without this chancer.

PeterIanStaker

I hope he stays in his bunker, stroking Bruce Arnold. The charade that is Irish politics is still better off without Declan Del-Boy. We've already enough shady characters promising the sun moon,stars and imaginary jobs as it is.

dsmythy

You want him to publish an entire manifesto on LiveJournal or something? Wait and see before commenting is the best thing here.

Orion

I particularly love that the link is "/the-road-to-perdition/" and the article is named "The road from perdition". Pretty much sums up the attention to detail of Ganley.

acer1000

kickoutthejams wrote: »

He canvassed me during the 2009 elections, very dodgy character.

That comment makes me laugh. What about all the other more dodgy characters that probably canvassed you?

Whatever one may say, think or subscribe to the guy, he sure makes nearly all our elected officials look like wimps in comparison. He’s one politician who at least speaks to us like we are intelligent adults, not like children being told what they want to hear.

He has conviction, intelligence and is very articulate. There are some elected officials that have the last 2 qualities, but I can’t think of any who seem to have any conviction with regard to what they are about. Okay, Eamon Ryan seems to have when he speaks about his green issues.

His sceptical stance on EU issues certainly now seem to have a lot of credibility, considering our current mess. I think we would be in a better position had we listened to more of what he had to say.

Somebody said he got it right on an issue for the wrong reason, that’s still a hell of a lot better than our mainstream politicians who obviously got it so wrong, yet having more reasons to get it right, in terms of the resources at their disposal. Shame on them.

Let’s hear more from this man. I hope he still thinks we’re worth it.

Scofflaw

dsmythy wrote: »

You want him to publish an entire manifesto on LiveJournal or something? Wait and see before commenting is the best thing here.

We tried that last time with the Libertas manifesto for the Euro elections, and they definitely hadn't published them on the 1st of June, 4 days before the vote. I'm not sure if they ever did publish a manifesto - the only summary of their position I've seen is on Wikipedia, scarily enough.

So "wait and see" is likely to prove rather drawn out and fruitless in this case, at least on Ganley's previous track record. Meanwhile, the absence of anything that resembles a positive program allows for even more populist latitude than is enjoyed by Eamon Gilmore. That serves well enough if his plan is to be part of the commentariat, but not really if he's going to go into politics - although admittedly charisma alone apparently suffices for some people.

amused,
Scofflaw

evercloserunion

dsmythy wrote: »

You want him to publish an entire manifesto on LiveJournal or something? Wait and see before commenting is the best thing here.

We waited for two years and got nothing.

IrishTonyO

Scofflaw wrote: »

We tried that last time with the Libertas manifesto for the Euro elections, and they definitely hadn't published them on the 1st of June, 4 days before the vote. I'm not sure if they ever did publish a manifesto - the only summary of their position I've seen is on Wikipedia, scarily enough.

So "wait and see" is likely to prove rather drawn out and fruitless in this case, at least on Ganley's previous track record. Meanwhile, the absence of anything that resembles a positive program allows for even more populist latitude than is enjoyed by Eamon Gilmore. That serves well enough if his plan is to be part of the commentariat, but not really if he's going to go into politics - although admittedly charisma alone apparently suffices for some people.

amused,
Scofflaw

You seem to have a set opinion on the subject without having any details or facts. Judgements, or opinions publicly expressed, based on nothing more than a personal belief is not a wise position to take. Most people like to know at least some facts and details before they make a decision or publicly state an opinion.
I think you are condemning someone / something before you have even heard their position.

Scofflaw

IrishTonyO wrote: »

You seem to have a set opinion on the subject without having any details or facts. Judgements, or opinions publicly expressed, based on nothing more than a personal belief is not a wise position to take. Most people like to know at least some facts and details before they make a decision or publicly state an opinion.
I think you are condemning someone / something before you have even heard their position.

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?

Is it therefore outrageous of me to suggest that I do have some passing familiarity with the man and his attitudes, built up over more or less two years of discussion of issues he and his band of merry men were really quite involved in? Or are you saying that he has, in fact, so completely changed the very convictions he's lauded for that I could have no familiarity at all with what is, in fact, a completely new and presumably improved Declan Ganley?

I think you'll need to pull the other one, because that one has fallen off...

now deeply amused,
Scofflaw

Poly

As a small business owner I feel he makes some very good points.





“We need a government that focuses all of its energies not on creating jobs, but on helping those who do. Instead of raising corporate taxation, we should be cutting it further. Instead of learning the false lesson that we did not have enough regulations, we should realise that the truth was that we had bad regulators.”


I know people will say he has a vested interested, but I agree with him on this. Not sure how we could get away with cutting CT further, but there is a lot of scope for the cutting of stealth business taxes i.e. quango bullsh1t charges.


“If anybody thinks that swamping our private sector with more red tape is the way out of this crisis, well. They are just wrong. It has never worked. Anywhere. Ever.”


What will the quangos do when there are no more businesses left to harass? regulate each other maybe?


Lets face it, we're not going to fire these clowns so what if we just set the quangos on each other and let businesses get on with doing business and generating tax returns?

IrishTonyO

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?

Is it therefore outrageous of me to suggest that I do have some passing familiarity with the man and his attitudes, built up over more or less two years of discussion of issues he and his band of merry men were really quite involved in? Or are you saying that he has, in fact, so completely changed the very convictions he's lauded for that I could have no familiarity at all with what is, in fact, a completely new and presumably improved Declan Ganley?

I think you'll need to pull the other one, because that one has fallen off...

now deeply amused,
Scofflaw

So you judge someone on things in the past before you have even heard their position in the present? Do you still hold the same positions and beliefs you did years ago and nothing has changed?. Or because you voted for Fianna Fail once does that mean you are a life long supporter or does your position change with the times and with information relevant to the present?

Amhran Nua

acer1000 wrote: »

His sceptical stance on EU issues certainly now seem to have a lot of credibility, considering our current mess.

Yes, because the ECB isn't lending us the money we need to keep the lights on...

...

Scofflaw

IrishTonyO wrote: »

So you judge someone on things in the past before you have even heard their position in the present? Do you still hold the same positions and beliefs you did years ago and nothing has changed?. Or because you voted for Fianna Fail once does that mean you are a life long supporter or does your position change with the times and with information relevant to the present?

We're only talking about a period of a year here, and about a man who is supposed to have "passionately articulated" "deeply held convictions" that put our "populist politicians" to shame.

Perhaps Declan is now a secularist socialist, but everything written in that article suggests he's exactly the same man as before - and if that's the case, why then, thank you, but I do know about him, and I see absolutely no reason to withhold judgement on the incredibly spurious basis that he hasn't issued a manifesto this time either.

Or do you believe - and please take that article into account - that he's a deeply changed man? That he has abandoned all those "deeply held convictions" in the space of a year?

And if so, is it not the case that you think very much less of him than I do?

cordially,
Scofflaw

IrishTonyO

Scofflaw wrote: »

Perhaps Declan is now a secularist socialist, but everything written in that article suggests he's exactly the same man as before - and if that's the case, why then, thank you, but I do know about him, and I see absolutely no reason to withhold judgement on the incredibly spurious basis that he hasn't issued a manifesto this time either.

Yes it is shocking that he doesn't have a manifesto on his first day back into the public eye.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Or do you believe - and please take that article into account - that he's a deeply changed man? That he has abandoned all those "deeply held convictions" in the space of a year?

I don't think he has made his position yet and therefore I would withhold my judgement until he does. I am one of those strange people, where politics are concerned, I like to make informed decisions

Scofflaw wrote: »

And if so, is it not the case that you think very much less of him than I do?

I was not a fan of him during the Lisbon debates, but that will not 'cloud' my judgement of him now until I have details and facts

Ben Hadad

Will Declan be heavily funded this time around from unknown sources, which may or may not have an affect on his political convictions?

Or is this the real Declan? If it is the real Declan can we trust him?

Has Declan anything actaully to say. I mean who the hell is he really?

K-9

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Yes it is shocking that he doesn't have a manifesto on his first day back into the public eye.


I don't think he has made his position yet and therefore I would withhold my judgement until he does. I am one of those strange people, where politics are concerned, I like to make informed decisions



I was not a fan of him during the Lisbon debates, but that will not 'cloud' my judgement of him now until I have details and facts

I think what Scofflaw and a few others, who did take a big interest in him during Lisbon and the Euros are saying is:

Don't hold your breath waiting on that manifesto. We didn't get one for Libertas over a period of a year or so and his choice of candidates throughout Europe was, shall we say, colourful!

Scofflaw

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Yes it is shocking that he doesn't have a manifesto on his first day back into the public eye.

No, it was shocking that he still hadn't issued a manifesto a week before the Euro elections he was standing in. At the moment, I don't even know that he should be issuing a manifesto, because he hasn't said what he plans on doing. Possibly all he's doing is commenting, which he hardly needs a manifesto for.

IrishTonyO wrote: »

I don't think he has made his position yet and therefore I would withhold my judgement until he does. I am one of those strange people, where politics are concerned, I like to make informed decisions

You may never be able to make one in this case, then.

IrishTonyO wrote: »

I was not a fan of him during the Lisbon debates, but that will not 'cloud' my judgement of him now until I have details and facts

I appreciate what you're saying - let's see what he has to offer before making a judgement - and usually you'd be right, obviously. The problem here, though, is that on previous form - and he has previous form - he won't commit to anything as solid as a manifesto before he starts making noise. He literally did not issue a manifesto for the Euro elections until the eve of the election (if then) - you had to vote purely on the basis of his public pronouncements and appearances. There was no option.

So "wait and see", while usually fine, is not fine in this specific case, because the last time he stood for election - stood as leader of a party that ran 100 candidates across Europe, no less, and spent a few million doing so - there was no manifesto.

So you could wait for a manifesto, but I'm betting Declan won't - so if he's going back into public life, you'll be hearing a lot from Declan before you'll be in a position to make your informed decision. If he's not going to be standing for election, there's no reason he would be issuing a manifesto, and the idea that I should wait for one before deciding on his public pronouncements becomes very silly indeed.

You could say I'm being harsh in expecting that once again we'll see style over substance, but I'm hardly making that call in a vacuum - and for all either of us know, he's going the standard route for failed Irish politicians, and becoming an opinion writer.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Lockstep

acer1000 wrote: »

That comment makes me laugh. What about all the other more dodgy characters that probably canvassed you?

None of the other MEP candidates were as vague and evasive when I questioned them about their policies.

acer1000 wrote: »

Whatever one may say, think or subscribe to the guy, he sure makes nearly all our elected officials look like wimps in comparison. He’s one politician who at least speaks to us like we are intelligent adults, not like children being told what they want to hear.

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

acer1000 wrote: »

He has conviction, intelligence and is very articulate. There are some elected officials that have the last 2 qualities, but I can’t think of any who seem to have any conviction with regard to what they are about. Okay, Eamon Ryan seems to have when he speaks about his green issues.

None of these mean he is a good politician. I met the man, hes intensely dissturbing. He kept talking about fishing and video games companies. WHen I asked him which group in the EP Libertas would sit with, his answer was delusional: "We'll get enough seats for form our own bloc)
Lawd!

acer1000 wrote: »

His sceptical stance on EU issues certainly now seem to have a lot of credibility, considering our current mess. I think we would be in a better position had we listened to more of what he had to say.

How on earth can you blame the EU for this? The ECB and the relative strentgth of the Euro is what is helping keep us afloat.

acer1000 wrote: »

Somebody said he got it right on an issue for the wrong reason, that’s still a hell of a lot better than our mainstream politicians who obviously got it so wrong, yet having more reasons to get it right, in terms of the resources at their disposal. Shame on them.

Declan Ganley is extremely wealthy and if you were around Connaught-Ulster during the European Elections you'd have seen just how much money Libertas was pumping into the campaign. Branded campaign buses, legions of tshirts, flyers delivered across the country etc.
Libertas sure as hell weren't underfunded. 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.

acer1000 wrote: »

Let’s hear more from this man. I hope he still thinks we’re worth it.

Suit yourself, I was extremely glad to see him lose. His policies were thin on the ground (TRANSPARENCY AND DEMOCRACY!)
Especially the fact that on the day of the election, the Libertas website was still saying "we'll put our policies up shortly".

c montgomery

kickoutthejams wrote: »

He canvassed me during the 2009 elections, very dodgy character.

He's qualified to be a TD so

sensibleken

This guys like Jason Voorhees but less entertaining. Just die already! politically speaking

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.