The Privatisation of Irish Politics

Edo wrote:

Heres the wiki gig on the Late Jimmy Goldsmith for those of you lazy feckers who couldnt be arsed - ie all the anti Lisbon folks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Goldsmith

and please tell me you see no similarities what so ever with Deco Ganley - I think its quirkly the same!

I am anti-Lisbon and have made the point several weeks ago that i believe a pan-European election campaign by Libertas will go down in flames just as Goldsmith's Referendum Party did in Britain. My knowledge of Goldsmith is much greater than my knowledge of Ganley. As far as I am aware Ganley is not an asset-stripping scumbag who, along with a worse asset-stripping scumbag, Jim Slater, made fortunes by putting thousands out of work and destroying working businesses for his own short-term gain. Nor do I see a comparison with Goldsmith's 'colourful' private life, nor his friendship with nanny-murderers.

There is a big differerence between having neck in business and being a trader/gambler Albanian.

Now Goldsmith was a rake with at least 4 sets of children and numerous mistress's as well. He is a legend.

Correct me if I am wrong but Ganley is a staunce Catholic.

I don't see any similarity between the two at all so point out where Ganley is similiar to Goldsmith

toxic avenger wrote:

Edo wrote:

Heres the wiki gig on the Late Jimmy Goldsmith for those of you lazy feckers who couldnt be arsed - ie all the anti Lisbon folks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Goldsmith

and please tell me you see no similarities what so ever with Deco Ganley - I think its quirkly the same!

I am anti-Lisbon and have made the point several weeks ago that i believe a pan-European election campaign by Libertas will go down in flames just as Goldsmith's Referendum Party did in Britain. My knowledge of Goldsmith is much greater than my knowledge of Ganley. As far as I am aware Ganley is not an asset-stripping scumbag who, along with a worse asset-stripping scumbag, Jim Slater, made fortunes by putting thousands out of work and destroying working businesses for his own short-term gain. Nor do I see a comparison with Goldsmith's 'colourful' private life, nor his friendship with nanny-murderers.

Ganley was rather more involved in stripping state assets, I think - mostly in newly 'capitalist' countries who'd caught the privatisation bug.

Here is Ganley's first feature in the Irish Times
from October 1995. Note his claim to have turned over 150 mil $ plus the airfield he was let buy complete, it seems, with 40 Tupelov Bear F long range anti marine bombers.

Quote :

The Irish Times
October 27, 1995, CITY EDITION
Russian Front

BYLINE: By BARRY O'KEEFFE

SECTION: BUSINESS THIS WEEK; Pg. Supplement page 16

LENGTH: 1334 words



DEEP in Russia, 540 kilometres from Moscow, lies 5,400 square
kilometres of woodland. Stretching as far as the eye can see, it is one
small part of one of the country's major assets, apart from coal and
oil.For Galway based Declan Ganley,
whose company Ganley International owns the land at Kipelova, one hour
by plane, north of Moscow it represents a key to further acquisitions
in one of the world's biggest "emerging markets".Ganley
is one of only a handful of Irish business people who have invested
directly in Russia, since the move towards privatisation began five
years ago.According to the Irish Trade Board about
25 per cent of the 100 Irish firms trading in Russia have bought
directly into companies there.

In
contrast to Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, the privatisation
process and Irish business investment in Russia, is a slow one, the
Trade Board says. The majority of firms are engaged in trading services
such as accountancy or in food retailing and distribution.One
trade board representative says many Irish companies have pulled back
from investing, because of the political and economic uncertainty which
is associated with business in Russia."It is difficult for Irish companies to find the right Russian partner," says the representative.Ganley
has managed to overcome this problem. The company identifies
enterprises which it is interested in buying. In cases of State owned
assets the firm has to wait until the government decides to sell. The
sale is conducted by public tender.If Ganley
identifies a company which is owned by shareholders other than the
state, it approaches the individual shareholders through a Russian
bank. The bank acquires the company shares on Ganley's behalf.When
the former Soviet Union moved from a centralised to a market economy
workers acquired shares in the enterprises for which they worked
through privatisation vouchers.Often the government retains a 25.5 per cent share of the business, but in some cases it offers its own share holding for sale.In
the case of Ganley International's latest acquisition 5,400 square
kilometres of Forest at Vologda it was bought outright from the local
government administration.The deal for which Mr
Ganley refuses to disclose figures means that he has a 75 year lease on
the land. Using World Bank figures for forestry, the trees could be
worth in excess of $ 1 billion, he says.The deal
also includes an airfield, which was home to a squadron of Soviet Navy
long range, nuclear bombers. With the end of the Cold War, 40 Bear F
aircraft stationed at the base stand idle on the 3.5 kilometre runway.It's
a long way from Glenamaddy for someone who began his working life nine
years ago he is now 27 on the building sites of London.With
interests in five forestry plantations and 28 sawmills in Russia and
forestry export interests in neighbouring Latvia, Ganley
International's turnover last year was $ I 50 million.Ganley
refuses to disclose the profits of his private company. He does say he
paid himself $ 1.3 million last year. The firm employs 35 people in its
headquarters in Riga, Latvia, nine in London and three in New York. In
addition to this, several thousand Russians, working in remote,
economically undeveloped regions, are employed at the sawmills which
are owned by Ganley companies.Born in London, of Irish parents, Declan Ganley moved to Ireland as a 13 year old and finished his secondary school education here.
While
working on building sites in London, he took night classes in insurance
at London University. He got a job with a Lloyd's brokerage "doing
menial tasks".He managed to obtain a sales
position dealing in marine cargo insurance. He approached companies
which were transporting large volumes of cargo and offered to quote for
marine insurance. "Eight out of 10 were interested," he says.Mr
Ganley had always been interested in communications and loosely
followed the development of Soviet communications satellites. "It was
much cheaper to launch satellites from Russia, using mobile launchers,
than from the West," he says.Mr Ganley discovered
that a US company, Hughes Aerospace, was negotiating the launch of a
satellite from Russia. He contacted Hughes and asked if it would be
interested in an insurance quote for the project and they said yes. In
the event, the Hughes' deal with the Russians fell through because the
US Government blocked it, according to Mr Ganley.However,
through that project he met officials from a Soviet trade delegation,
won their trust and was asked to assist with other projects.He
then established a small company, called Continental Commodities, to
investigate the possibility of trading goods to and from Russia. He
acted as the middle man, finding markets for various goods.DecIan Ganley decided he needed to go to where things "were really happening". He went to Riga.With
ready access to Europe and a high volume of trade leaving through the
port from Russia the Latvian capital became his first centre of eastern
operations and led to a major contract shipping aluminium slabs from
Siberia through Riga. The slabs were sent to Amsterdam and Rotterdam,
where they were melted down and shipped on. Mr Ganley had to convince
western buyers that the metal was sufficiently pure. He commissioned
western metallurgists to assey the goods. Once purity was established
he sold the aluminium on the London Metals Exchange.Mr
Ganlev paid for the metal in roubles, and sold it for dollars a
transaction which allowed the build up of company cash reserves.From metal Declan Ganley turned his attention to timber. The company currently exports timber supplied by 700 sawmills in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania.
Later he moved into forestry in Russia. Approximately 25 per cent of the world's woodlands are in Russia, he says."Trading
in timber is straightforward," he says. "It is in demand
internationally and does not, require much technology to produce.Mr
Ganley sells the timber to companies in Sweden, Finland and Britain. He
claims to have no borrowings, but does have "quite a good cash pool".Each
asset is held in a separate holding company. If he needs to raise money
to spend on infrastructure, for example, he sells part of the company
to Wall Street investors, but retains a controlling interest.Mr
Ganley has applied for a licence to install a mobile phone system in
the Vologda region. While the regions is well served by road and rail,
electronic communications are poor.Declan Ganley
reckons it will cost $ 15 million to install a system for 30,000
subscribers. He is currently waiting for approval on frequencies.He
also intends to raise finance to turn the airfield at Kipelova into a
cargo distribution hub and hopes to establish a free trade area around
it. He estimates the project will cost around $ 25 million.Mr
Ganley says there is increasing competition, especially from
Scandinavian firms, which are scouring Russia for business
opportunities. "There is risk in trading in Russia," he says,"but not
as much as people think," he says. "I haven't failed to make money
since I started doing business in Russia."Firms
from just about all EU countries except France have bought Russian
companies in Vologda, over the past couple of years, according to Mr
Anatoli Pak, the Deputy Governor for the Vologda region.Mr
Pak, who is chairman of the State Property Committee, which oversees
privatisation, refutes suggestions that there is a danger the majority
of companies will pass into foreign hands. He says there are more than
2,000 state and private enterprises in the region. Of these 1,500 are
privatised, 400 are joint stock companies and there are 400 left to
privatise.In addition to his foreign interests Mr
Ganley, through his company GCI, is a 13 per cent shareholder in
Cellstar which was one of six contenders for Ireland's second mobile
phone licence.

ibis wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Edo wrote:

Heres the wiki gig on the Late Jimmy Goldsmith for those of you lazy feckers who couldnt be arsed - ie all the anti Lisbon folks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Goldsmith

and please tell me you see no similarities what so ever with Deco Ganley - I think its quirkly the same!

I am anti-Lisbon and have made the point several weeks ago that i believe a pan-European election campaign by Libertas will go down in flames just as Goldsmith's Referendum Party did in Britain. My knowledge of Goldsmith is much greater than my knowledge of Ganley. As far as I am aware Ganley is not an asset-stripping scumbag who, along with a worse asset-stripping scumbag, Jim Slater, made fortunes by putting thousands out of work and destroying working businesses for his own short-term gain. Nor do I see a comparison with Goldsmith's 'colourful' private life, nor his friendship with nanny-murderers.

Ganley was rather more involved in stripping state assets, I think - mostly in newly 'capitalist' countries who'd caught the privatisation bug.

I certainly don't approve of what happened in early 90s East-European countries, particularly Russia. He bought cheap, then sold on at profit, as far as I'm aware. But he didn't destroy working industry and lay off thousands for short-term self-gain.

toxic avenger wrote:

ibis wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Edo wrote:

Heres the wiki gig on the Late Jimmy Goldsmith for those of you lazy feckers who couldnt be arsed - ie all the anti Lisbon folks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Goldsmith

and please tell me you see no similarities what so ever with Deco Ganley - I think its quirkly the same!

I am anti-Lisbon and have made the point several weeks ago that i believe a pan-European election campaign by Libertas will go down in flames just as Goldsmith's Referendum Party did in Britain. My knowledge of Goldsmith is much greater than my knowledge of Ganley. As far as I am aware Ganley is not an asset-stripping scumbag who, along with a worse asset-stripping scumbag, Jim Slater, made fortunes by putting thousands out of work and destroying working businesses for his own short-term gain. Nor do I see a comparison with Goldsmith's 'colourful' private life, nor his friendship with nanny-murderers.

Ganley was rather more involved in stripping state assets, I think - mostly in newly 'capitalist' countries who'd caught the privatisation bug.

I certainly don't approve of what happened in early 90s East-European countries, particularly Russia. He bought cheap, then sold on at profit, as far as I'm aware. But he didn't destroy working industry and lay off thousands for short-term self-gain.

How do you know? According to the Irish times above Ganley employed "several thousand Russians, working in remote,
economically undeveloped regions, are employed at the sawmills which
are owned by Ganley companies"
He collaborated in the widely publicised aluminium sell offs at the beginning of the nineties, they were hardly worker friendly deals!! He also seems to have had an adverse effect on Albanian investors according to Primetime.!!

If you are going to hop to Ganley's defence some facts would be of use.

Quote :

How do you know?
In the above Irish Time s article he claims to have 35,000 employees? he also seems to have had an adverse effect on Albanian investors according to Primetime.

If you are going to hop to Ganley's defence some facts would be of use.

The onus, unfortunately, is not on me to provide facts, it is not me making the comparison or any allegation. If I were to describe you as a murderer, with no evidence, should the onus be on you to prove you are not one? In Ganley's case, you're asking me to prove he is not an asset stripper responsible for laying off thousands from workable industries. The question is, 'how do you know he did'? And if you don't, then this argument is nonsense.

And I am not jumping to Ganley's defence, merely commenting on the comparison with Goldsmith.

toxic avenger wrote:

Quote :

How do you know?
In the above Irish Time s article he claims to have 35,000 employees? he also seems to have had an adverse effect on Albanian investors according to Primetime.

If you are going to hop to Ganley's defence some facts would be of use.

The onus, unfortunately, is not on me to provide facts, it is not me making the comparison or any allegation. If I were to describe you as a murderer, with no evidence, should the onus be on you to prove you are not one? In Ganley's case, you're asking me to prove he is not an asset stripper responsible for laying off thousands from workable industries. The question is, 'how do you know he did'? And if you don't, then this argument is nonsense.

And I am not jumping to Ganley's defence, merely commenting on the comparison with Goldsmith.

I have to agree with toxic - buying up state assets at bargain basement prices and selling them on at market prices is not the same as Goldsmith's activities. Since they were mostly environmental assets, and the governments concerned probably had little idea of their real value, I don't see Ganley's actions as much better, but that's a personal (and, I suppose, green/left) perspective.

ibis wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Quote :

How do you know?
In the above Irish Time s article he claims to have 35,000 employees? he also seems to have had an adverse effect on Albanian investors according to Primetime.

If you are going to hop to Ganley's defence some facts would be of use.

The onus, unfortunately, is not on me to provide facts, it is not me making the comparison or any allegation. If I were to describe you as a murderer, with no evidence, should the onus be on you to prove you are not one? In Ganley's case, you're asking me to prove he is not an asset stripper responsible for laying off thousands from workable industries. The question is, 'how do you know he did'? And if you don't, then this argument is nonsense.

And I am not jumping to Ganley's defence, merely commenting on the comparison with Goldsmith.

I have to agree with toxic - buying up state assets at bargain basement prices and selling them on at market prices is not the same as Goldsmith's activities. Since they were mostly environmental assets, and the governments concerned probably had little idea of their real value, I don't see Ganley's actions as much better, but that's a personal (and, I suppose, green/left) perspective.

Just for the record, I have always regarded these actions as morally wrong, assets that belonged, by moral right if nothing else, to the Russian people, were sold off by shady figures on the cheap to speculators. This I have always regarded as little better than theft by elements within the Russian state and Russian local authorities. Ganley isn't without moral responsibility here, either, but if it hadn't been him it would have been someone else. But I regard Goldsmith's activities as much, much worse.

toxic avenger wrote:

Quote :

How do you know?
In the above Irish Time s article he claims to have 35,000 employees? he also seems to have had an adverse effect on Albanian investors according to Primetime.

If you are going to hop to Ganley's defence some facts would be of use.

The onus, unfortunately, is not on me to provide facts, it is not me making the comparison or any allegation. If I were to describe you as a murderer, with no evidence, should the onus be on you to prove you are not one? In Ganley's case, you're asking me to prove he is not an asset stripper responsible for laying off thousands from workable industries. The question is, 'how do you know he did'? And if you don't, then this argument is nonsense.

And I am not jumping to Ganley's defence, merely commenting on the comparison with Goldsmith.

You were the first person to mention it in comparing Ganley to Goldsmith. however it is obvious that the aluminium business seems likely part of an Russian aluminium industry practice that was part and parcel of turning the companies into oligarchies. The standard modus operandi was that deals structured by management allowed huge hidden profits in foreign cash that were used to buy out workers who had ofetn not been paid for months on end .
The Bull Bykov typifies the business in the early nineties.

Quote :

There is a cemetery in the city of Krasnoyarsk where many of Mr
Bykov's early business rivals are buried; their young faces engraved on
lavish tombstones. Local police sources estimate at least 30 gang
leaders were killed in the early 90s. No one has ever been charged with
the murders.
Krasnoyarsk is the regional capital of a chunk of
Siberian wilderness 10 times the size of Great Britain. It is Russia's
treasure chest, with timber, oil and rich mineral deposits.
The
biggest jewel is the Krasnoyarsk aluminium smelter (Kras) - the second
largest in the world. In a country littered with ageing, unprofitable
enterprises, Kras is a lucrative exception, earning $1bn a year.
Naturally,
Mr Bykov seized control of Kras. "They were privatising it," he says.
"All the workers were given shares, but no one believed in them. You
could buy them for almost nothing at the factory gates. My partner and
I bought 20%."
The battle for ownership was furious. Business
groups, politicians and mafia gangs from all over Russia fought over
the company. "There were several attempts to get rid of me... to kill
me," Mr Bykov says.
But the Bull emerged triumphant. By 1997 he was chairman of the board of directors at Kras, giving him huge political clout.

Guardian nov 27 1997

It is fair to assume that if Ganley was not dealing with Bykov he was dealing with his rivals.

Was Continental Commodities a British based company FA ?

cactus flower wrote:

Was Continental Commodities a British based company FA ?

Yes


Mrs Delia Ganley and Gary Hunter
are shown as directors of Continental Commodities Limited (Registration
Number 02469349). Mr Hunter is shown as Company Secretary before 9th June 1992.

"Disaster Capitalism" and asset stripping are part and parcel of our economic system, not aberrations.

Ganley didn't invent these things but he seems to unerringly gravitate towards them - the dismantling of public resources in Russia and Eastern Europe, the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina and Homeland Security:Homeland Security like a 'networking bootcamp' for 'future private contractors' http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Frank_Rich_Bushs_Homeland_Security_just_0624.html

How does this all sit with "morality"?

Whatever dealings Ganley has, he should not have been likened to Goldsmith as there appears no similarity whatsoever from a financial, personel or social background aspect.

More attacks on Ganley by people who insist he has no support.

youngdan wrote:

Whatever dealings Ganley has, he should not have been likened to Goldsmith as there appears no similarity whatsoever from a financial, personel or social background aspect.

More attacks on Ganley by people who insist he has no support.

gentle probing not attacks.

youngdan wrote:

Whatever dealings Ganley has, he should not have been likened to Goldsmith as there appears no similarity whatsoever from a financial, personel or social background aspect.

More attacks on Ganley by people who insist he has no support.

We agree that the comparison with Goldsmith is not useful. However painting Ganley as injured innocence really won't wash.

I have nothing against probing Ganley and he does appear like an individual having less than savory dealing. Is he worse than most politicians?, I doubt it.

I believe some here dislike him and fear him. Is it that he is right wing or is it because he is a strong Christian. Many hated Huckabee and later Palin for this reason.

If he had no support why the worry.

Is he a Dana with cash and stature. I know not

youngdan wrote:

I have nothing against probing Ganley and he does appear like an individual having less than savory dealing. Is he worse than most politicians?, I doubt it.

Most politicians have led lives both blameless and sheltered - their peccadilloes are nothing worse than could be expected from any career civil servant, sadly.

youngdan wrote:

I believe some here dislike him and fear him. Is it that he is right wing or is it because he is a strong Christian. Many hated Huckabee and later Palin for this reason.

He's no strong Christian, anyway.

youngdan wrote:

If he had no support why the worry.

Is he a Dana with cash and stature. I know not

He can buy publicity and as per this thread, he can provide material (and logistical?) support to those who are convenient.

Did Dana do business in Russia and Albania? Religion has nothing to do with anything being discussed here it's a complete tangent.

Well does everyone agree then that Ganley's religous feeling is a non issue as I understood him to be a devout person.

Yes he can buy publicity, but if he has no support then it is all wasted. Counteract his claims and the voters will decide very quickly and he will be a flash in the pan. If he taps into support he won't even need his money

youngdan wrote:

Well does everyone agree then that Ganley's religous feeling is a non issue as I understood him to be a devout person.

Yes he can buy publicity, but if he has no support then it is all wasted. Counteract his claims and the voters will decide very quickly and he will be a flash in the pan. If he taps into support he won't even need his money

The normal rules don't seem to apply. Politicians who want to build a party as you say rely on publicising their position and gaining support for it. I have never come across a politician before who hides his political position.
Ganley is a right winger who calls himself a centrist, whilst conceding that his associates in the EU are right wing. Now why would a politician do that sort of thing?

youngdan wrote:

Well does everyone agree then that Ganley's religous feeling is a non issue as I understood him to be a devout person.

Hmm. You'd need to understand the idea that "Catholic" is more of a social marker than a religious one in Ireland. Ganley is a 'conservative Catholic', which carries a complex of attitudes towards abortion, divorce, family, society etc. Overall, yes, he's socially on the right, and economically as well - his instincts appear authoritarian, if you like.

youngdan wrote:

Yes he can buy publicity, but if he has no support then it is all wasted. Counteract his claims and the voters will decide very quickly and he will be a flash in the pan. If he taps into support he won't even need his money

That may turn out to be the case - it may yet turn out to be all media buzz and no support. He's doing a reasonably good job of being a focus for a protest vote, though, largely by being against everything except motherhood and apple pie.

ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:

I believe some here dislike him and fear him. Is it that he is right wing or is it because he is a strong Christian. Many hated Huckabee and later Palin for this reason.

He's no strong Christian, anyway.

Oh no ? What is it about him that would have you say that about him ?

I think comparisons between Jimmy Goldsmith and Declan Ganley only stand up in that they both created astroturf political organisations with similar objectives. Time will tell if Libertas gains grassroots and becomes a permanent part of the Irish political establishment.

However I do not dismiss Ganley's religious orientation as being something harmless and not worth commenting about. He chose Gerry McGeough's Hibernian Magazine. McGeough in turn put him on the cover. Ganley has allied himself with those who believe that the Republic took a wrong turn in the 1980s and 1990s in the legalisation of contraception, divorce and gay rights. If you don't believe me look at the Hibernian's archive and ask yourself if this is the sort of future you want for this country. I certainly don't.

I make no apologies for absolutely distrusting anyone who has chosen to play footsie with the far right in this country.

Auditor #9 wrote:

ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:

I believe some here dislike him and fear him. Is it that he is right wing or is it because he is a strong Christian. Many hated Huckabee and later Palin for this reason.

He's no strong Christian, anyway.

Oh no ? What is it about him that would have you say that about him ?

If he were genuinely religious, he would be upfront about it. He's not - it's not something he mentions at all, really. However, I'd also agree with Ronald Binge there - he's a Catholic conservative. Hibernian magazine all but blew the trumpets for the second coming in their coverage of him, he's associated with COIR, one of the leading Libertas lights is a Pro-Life campaigner, he rejects the current set of EU values - or rather he doesn't see them as having any, which is an even more Catholic-conservative thing to do.