The emergence of new political parties is to be expected in a time of profound economic upheaval. The credibility of the old parties to rule is shaken. People look for new solutions, and some look for a "strong man" (or woman) leader to feel more secure in a dangerous world.

In difficult times there is the possibility that people will come together with genuine energy and ideas to tackle the problems in a way that will benefit society as a whole.

There is also the possibility that fear and confusion can be capitalised
on with demagoguery and lies, to enable selfish elites to maintain or grab power. A recent post by Myk on Politics.ie pointed to a process known as "astroturfing" - behind the scenes sponsorship of a new movement or party by political or commercial interests to promote their own agenda.

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

Myk linked to the recent article on Libertas by Chekov in Indymedia.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87311

There have been a number of posters to this site and P.ie in the last number of weeks who have speculated on the need for a new party/parties in Ireland. We have seen the first appearance of the PATS ( but not yet their policy statement) and we have also seen Libertas launched as a "movement" with the overt intention of starting a possibly pan-european party.

We await with interest to hear what the PATS have to say for themselves. At this stage we probably know enough about Libertas to fathom out where they are coming from.

myk wrote:
I never could put my finger on what Libertas were until I heard reference to "Astroturfing". The goal of such a campaign is to disguise the efforts of a political or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity—a politician, political group, product, service or event. Astroturfers attempt to orchestrate the actions of apparently diverse and geographically distributed individuals, by both overt ("outreach", "awareness", etc.) and covert (disinformation) means. Astroturfing may be undertaken by anything from an individual pushing one's own personal agenda through to highly organized professional groups with financial backing from large corporations, non-profits, or activist organizations.

Astroturfing is not new, and one of the more striking historic cases is that of Adolf Hitler's role as a paid Reichswher (Military Intelligence) agent in building up the German Workers Party – National Socialist or NAZI partyfrom its infancy as a tiny group meeting in the back rooms of Munich bars.

http://www.h-net.org/~german/gtext/kaiserreich/hitler2.html

The second of these links is particularly detailed and interesting with an account by Capt. Karl Mayr, Hitler's Reichswehr's boss, of Intelligence steering of the inception and development of the Nazi party. Hitler is portrayed very much as a "gun for hire" rather than a political strategist. In 1919, Mayr's " influence in the Munich Reichswehr extended beyond his rank as captain, and he was endowed with considerable funds to build up a team of agents or informants, organize the series of 'educational' courses to train selected officers and men in 'correct' political and ideological thinking, and finance 'patriotic' parties, publications, and organizations. Mayr first met Hitler in May 1919, after the crushing of the (German) "Red Army'."

Mayr became an active opponent of Nazism and died in Buchenwald.

Link to Karl Mayr's Statement

This is not to say that Ganley will become another Hitler. It is to say that "astroturf" intervention, when people are hungry, unemployed or otherwise desperate, can be horribly successful if allowed to build a movement on people's fears and use it to consolidate the interests of an "elite".

I may not agree with every line of the Indymedia article but I congratulate the writer on assembling and publishing "the facts" about Libertas and its main sponsor, Declan Ganley. There is plenty more similar material for anyone who wants to google for it. I particularly recommend reading Ganley's own writing "Cure of Troy" - anti-islamic diatribe - and his seminar and conference contributions, including those in which he backs the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Ullick McEvaddey has to some extent done a favour by joining Libertas, because his background, track record and published statements complete and confirm the picture of a US military-friendly cabal.

Libertas has been laughed at for the perceived crudity of its campaign. I won't be laughing too much until Libertas has gone the way of Ganley's failed jewelry business, Adornis.

I have repeated the last half of this post from a post made on P.ie, but wanted to open up for discussion here the issue of new parties, what they stand for, and where we stand in relation to them

This is a very thought provoking Post. Thanks for taking the time Cactus.

We're at a very interesting time, both in a global sense and indeed in a national sense. The world's stage is changing and there are many new actors waiting in the wings.

The thing that troubles me is that in spite of the fact that there is a need for new political parties, the scene is set for exactly more of the same.

Look at the care with which we must take when even writing on this forum, for fear that we might offend someone and end up getting shafted in court, regardless as to whether we win lose or draw.

Do political parties and politicians face the same risks regarding what they say and write, with regard to policy documents, election promises and party manifestos? It seems to me that there is a huge double standard here. That we accept this double standard is a prime ingredient that facilitates 'astroturfing.'

Why is it that you and I are very accountable for what we say, right down to the punctuation, whilst those, whose very words can shape destiny and lives, can rattle off any old shite at all and never be held accountable.

When will we see:

i. Party manifesto affidavits?
ii. Policy affidavits?
iii. Election promises affidavits?

If everyone is equal before the law, why are we the only ones held accountable?

I suppose you could say that we have 2 new parties in the Dáil compared to when we only had FF, FG, Labour and a couple of independents. Now, we have 3 others - the Greens, SF and the PDs, although SF are not a new party, having essentially been around as long as the big 3.

The Greens are an example of a "bottom-up" party - they were formed by unknown people at grass-roots level and gradually worked their way up to win council, Dáil and Euro seats.

The PDs are a "top-down" party - they were formed by well-known politicians and had a parliamentary party from the start. The actual party members came later.

I think that the electoral system we use means that politics is less of a marketing game than it would be if we used a list system. In a Dáil election, every candidate has to put themselves personally before the people. This is not the case in a list system - if you have a charismatic leader, you can populate the list with nobodies.

If you look back at Irish political history, there are a number of cases where a list electoral system would have lead to a new parties. For example, Neil Blaney could have commanded enough support in the 70's and 80's to bring a number of people into the Dáil.

With regard to Libertas, the referendum is an opportunity for them to get their name known, if they are genuinely interested in becoming a party (which I doubt). While I could see them running candidates in the Euro elections, are they really going to contest the locals? They give the impression of being a commercial enterprise rather than a political party. I wonder will anyone be paid a bonus if the treaty is defeated?

I think that it is very difficult for small parties to establish themselves, unless they stand for something different. The Greens have a specific ideology as did the PDs. Trying to be a better version of FF, FG or Labour is not going to work.

That is indeed a good post Cactus. I was making the point that Hitler was a right winger only because it was the easiest route to power. So the suspicion is that Libertas has spotted a segment of people who would be opposed to Europe and intend to piggyback on them. I have yet to read up on these but if my understanding that they want to be a European wide group is correct then how can they oppose the treaty. Maybe they intend to shine later when they say I told you so.

Of course, youngdan, Hitler's specific guiding ideological position, that of anti-Semitism did really position him on the right, if not absolutely, certainly in the context of German conservative thinking. But, I'd agree that he readily used a mix of 'radical' ideological positions until he was cemented in power. Rohm and Strasser et al had a sort of crude populist thinking that while not in any sense left wing certainly tried to cover some of that ground...

As regards parties, having been through three (WP, DL and UK Labour) I'd tend to think that astro-turfing only works in political vacuums. Burlosconi's various vehicles have essentially locked into the old CD vote in Italy, but aren't truly 'new'. In Ireland, PD was a split from FF (with a leavening of FG), WP was an evolution from OSF, etc, etc. And to construct a base outside of pre-existing ones is bloody difficult, look at, what was it Veritas in the UK? That one created by Robert Kilroy Silk... It lasted a wet weekend. I could of course further argue about the necessity to have some level of class affiliation in political party development, being the good post-Marxist that I am, but...

De Gaulle said

Quote :

I think that it is very difficult for small parties to establish themselves, unless they stand for something different. The Greens have a specific ideology as did the PDs. Trying to be a better version of FF, FG or Labour is not going to work.

youngdan said

Quote :

So the suspicion is that Libertas has spotted a segment of people who would be opposed to Europe and intend to piggyback on them. I have yet to read up on these but if my understanding that they want to be a European wide group is correct then how can they oppose the treaty. Maybe they intend to shine later when they say I told you so.

WorldbyStorm said

Quote :

But, I'd agree that he (Hitler) readily used a mix of 'radical' ideological positions until he was cemented in power. Rohm and Strasser et al had a sort of crude populist thinking that while not in any sense left wing certainly tried to cover some of that ground...

Quote :

As regards parties, having been through three (WP, DL and UK Labour) I'd tend to think that astro-turfing only works in political vacuums. Burlosconi's various vehicles have essentially locked into the old CD vote in Italy, but aren't truly 'new'. In Ireland, PD was a split from FF (with a leavening of FG), WP was an evolution from OSF, etc, etc. And to construct a base outside of pre-existing ones is bloody difficult... I could of course further argue about the necessity to have some level of class affiliation in political party development, being the good post-Marxist that I am, but...

There seems to be a measure of agreement that for a new party to be established, whether it is a bottom up party like the Greens or top down like the PDs or the Libertas movement, there has to be a social segment or class that is, or feels, represented by it. Irish politics are notoriously subtle in terms of class interests, but there are still clear class affiliations.

With the former aristocracy substantially disposessed and powerless in Ireland, there is no equivalent to the English Tory Party. There is no big capitalist class in Ireland, only a few individuals with big money. FG was and is the big farmers and FF the shopkeepers and small people. Labour has represented a limited, comfortable section of workers and people of social conscience. SF was FF with guns, and is now evolving into a new party that wants to benefit from the spoils of compromise. The PDs, representing Boston and capitalist efficiency on behalf of inward investors, are clearly unwanted by Irish voters. Ireland has had, with or without the PDs, a union free environment for globalised industry, and a tax regime that is the massive gift to it. However disintegration of the PDs does open the question as to who will represent big business interests in Ireland.

McEvaddy as we remember has been close to Harney and the PDs and this was not accidental. Libertas may be primed in part to step into the void left by the disintegrating PDs, more street, rougher and tougher than the PDs, and not afraid of piggybacking on disaffected people with a simple, and cynical programme giving a fairly flimsy covering over their Atlanticist/Neo Con affiliations and agenda.

A further question is whether FF with its very broad church will hold together through the tough economic times ahead: its traditional working class vote has had some relief from poverty under the boom, in spite of the widening gap between the property owning rich and those dependent on wages.

Now, with a lot of anger about failure to deliver services, soaring unemployment and rising prices, FF will have to choose whether to continue to look after the rich (with little cover from the PDs), or to shift to a more egalitarian economic stance. There are going to be a lot of angry and frightened people about. As the money will not be there to keep everyone happy, a seismic shift may be on the way.

cactus flower, I really do see Libertas as a sort of therapeutic activity for former PDs who still want to 'do' something, anything. That it is so nebulous is neither here nor there. I wonder though can it take up the PD slack. The PD support base wasn't instinctively averse to Europe, and the sort of rhetoric that Libertas espouses seems to run counter to this. Moreover, what are we talking about in terms of electoral percentage? Two to four per cent? Not huge and easily easily assimilated by the bigger parties, particularly since Europe (outside of referenda) simply doesn't impact on people...

I think there's nothing there for them - FF assimilated the business side in the Galway tent and now they are trying to assimilate Borg-style the potentially highly successful ground-up Green Party.

I reckon there is no room for such a PD party because FF probably deal with the potential supporters of it but what there is is plenty of room for grassroots - SF may not increase in strength but they will have strong support for the medium to long term in this country.

Auditor #9 wrote:

I think there's nothing there for them - FF assimilated the business side in the Galway tent and now they are trying to assimilate Borg-style the potentially highly successful ground-up Green Party.

I reckon there is no room for such a PD party because FF probably deal with the potential supporters of it but what there is is plenty of room for grassroots - SF may not increase in strength but they will have strong support for the medium to long term in this country.

I would very much like to know from Kate P who were the enthusiastic punters at the meeting the other night at Tallaght. I think Libertas are looking for disaffected/followers not too critical of their spiel and looking for a bit of action for themselves. I haven't heard them speak, but I would not be surprised, if they last at all, if we don't start to hear some pretty nasty scapegoating from them. One of Declan Ganley's few written pieces is anti-Islam. I think youngdan in one way has got their point: they may represent a similar US agenda to the PDs, but they will piggyback off anyone they can pull in.

You suspect they are an incipient neo-con party ready to launch candidates on the electorate? Their support base is tiny from what I get reading p.ie - does anyone actually have figures for their support numbers? That might not matter as much as the Big Business parties who might be interested in them and behind them. Aren't their SIPO figures kept until after the campaign according to ibis so nobody knows their funding. We presume it is totally above board.

I really think there is too much fuss made of Libertas and I wonder if it's because Cochrane is a fine easy target with his website. Really and truly can Libertas really have an impact on the referendum and how could you assess that impact?

Auditor #9 wrote:

You suspect they are an incipient neo-con party ready to launch candidates on the electorate? Their support base is tiny from what I get reading p.ie - does anyone actually have figures for their support numbers? That might not matter as much as the Big Business parties who might be interested in them and behind them. Aren't their SIPO figures kept until after the campaign according to ibis so nobody knows their funding. We presume it is totally above board.

I really think there is too much fuss made of Libertas and I wonder if it's because Cochrane is a fine easy target with his website. Really and truly can Libertas really have an impact on the referendum and how could you assess that impact?

That is an interesting question. I certainly wouldn't have been aware of Libertas to any great extent if it wasn't for Politics.ie. I had heard Ganley on the radio and thought there goes another rich man's hobby project - good luck to him. There are certainly some people who have made money who want to put something back. Without the existence of Politics.ie and promotion and discussion of Libertas on it, I probably wouldn't have given him or it another thought and would have voted No.

The reluctance of Libertas and David Cochrane (campaign director) to deal with policy issues made me look closer and I didn't like what I saw. Libertas may never come to anything. There have been plenty of failed interventions marked down to experience.

As to whether they have influenced the campaign, I think yes they have, and the shift of 8% towards a No vote (tonights news) is as much to do with them as it is to do with the WTO negotiations, the "credit crunch" and the fact that the EU gravy train has pulled away from the station.

A No win would undoubtedly add to Libertas's public image and credibility. Whether they grow or disappear at this stage is anyone's guess. But for me the very fact of what they represent and what they are doing is of great interest and worthy of careful watching. The demise of the PDs may create an opening for them.

And your last paragraph illustrates the justification for and aim of Astroturfers. I'd nearly equate them with the West Cork Road-Curling Association's contribution to the No campaign (don't google it) which is zip I'd say.

I really wonder why we're going to vote No and I'd really say it has little enough to do with Libertas (though their voices didn't hurt)

Every successful campaign for the EU I can remember was all about how much we were going to get off "them". Now we are net contributors, we will vote No.

cactus flower wrote:

Every successful campaign for the EU I can remember was all about how much we were going to get off "them". Now we are net contributors, we will vote No.

I don't think that this is entirely true.

Europe also represents independence from Britain. We have left a currency union with Britain and joined in a currency union with France and Germany, something that was literally unthinkable 40 years ago.

Nothing would encourage a Yes vote more than a fight over the CAP, with Ireland and France on one side and Britain and Germany on the other. It would make us feel more European.

cactus flower wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

You suspect they are an incipient neo-con party ready to launch candidates on the electorate? Their support base is tiny from what I get reading p.ie - does anyone actually have figures for their support numbers? That might not matter as much as the Big Business parties who might be interested in them and behind them. Aren't their SIPO figures kept until after the campaign according to ibis so nobody knows their funding. We presume it is totally above board.

I really think there is too much fuss made of Libertas and I wonder if it's because Cochrane is a fine easy target with his website. Really and truly can Libertas really have an impact on the referendum and how could you assess that impact?

That is an interesting question. I certainly wouldn't have been aware of Libertas to any great extent if it wasn't for Politics.ie. I had heard Ganley on the radio and thought there goes another rich man's hobby project - good luck to him. There are certainly some people who have made money who want to put something back. Without the existence of Politics.ie and promotion and discussion of Libertas on it, I probably wouldn't have given him or it another thought and would have voted No.

The reluctance of Libertas and David Cochrane (campaign director) to deal with policy issues made me look closer and I didn't like what I saw. Libertas may never come to anything. There have been plenty of failed interventions marked down to experience.

As to whether they have influenced the campaign, I think yes they have, and the shift of 8% towards a No vote (tonights news) is as much to do with them as it is to do with the WTO negotiations, the "credit crunch" and the fact that the EU gravy train has pulled away from the station.

A No win would undoubtedly add to Libertas's public image and credibility. Whether they grow or disappear at this stage is anyone's guess. But for me the very fact of what they represent and what they are doing is of great interest and worthy of careful watching. The demise of the PDs may create an opening for them.

He could yet be another Oswald Moseley. I'm interested by the way the anti-immigrationists on p.ie are very Libertas-friendly.

I think we have an unusual position in this referendum, and after. There's a generation of voters who've never really experienced anything but the boom, and who've actually stayed in Ireland rather than leaving. If the economy slows down uncomfortably, they're going to be left feeling hard done by, and calling for drastic, and probably right-wing, solutions. Libertas, if they have the money to stay in the game (and they do) can probably pick up a lot of those disaffected younger voters.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

You suspect they are an incipient neo-con party ready to launch candidates on the electorate? Their support base is tiny from what I get reading p.ie - does anyone actually have figures for their support numbers? That might not matter as much as the Big Business parties who might be interested in them and behind them. Aren't their SIPO figures kept until after the campaign according to ibis so nobody knows their funding. We presume it is totally above board.

I really think there is too much fuss made of Libertas and I wonder if it's because Cochrane is a fine easy target with his website. Really and truly can Libertas really have an impact on the referendum and how could you assess that impact?

That is an interesting question. I certainly wouldn't have been aware of Libertas to any great extent if it wasn't for Politics.ie. I had heard Ganley on the radio and thought there goes another rich man's hobby project - good luck to him. There are certainly some people who have made money who want to put something back. Without the existence of Politics.ie and promotion and discussion of Libertas on it, I probably wouldn't have given him or it another thought and would have voted No.

The reluctance of Libertas and David Cochrane (campaign director) to deal with policy issues made me look closer and I didn't like what I saw. Libertas may never come to anything. There have been plenty of failed interventions marked down to experience.

As to whether they have influenced the campaign, I think yes they have, and the shift of 8% towards a No vote (tonights news) is as much to do with them as it is to do with the WTO negotiations, the "credit crunch" and the fact that the EU gravy train has pulled away from the station.

A No win would undoubtedly add to Libertas's public image and credibility. Whether they grow or disappear at this stage is anyone's guess. But for me the very fact of what they represent and what they are doing is of great interest and worthy of careful watching. The demise of the PDs may create an opening for them.

He could yet be another Oswald Moseley. I'm interested by the way the anti-immigrationists on p.ie are very Libertas-friendly.

I think we have an unusual position in this referendum, and after. There's a generation of voters who've never really experienced anything but the boom, and who've actually stayed in Ireland rather than leaving. If the economy slows down uncomfortably, they're going to be left feeling hard done by, and calling for drastic, and probably right-wing, solutions. Libertas, if they have the money to stay in the game (and they do) can probably pick up a lot of those disaffected younger voters.

That would be my fear. The lack of an alternative - the vacuum of ideas and leadership - adds to the risk.

Some stormfront posters are sympathetic to Ganley.

That doesn't surprise me - a lot of Stormfronters would get behind anyone who looked like they might be a strong leader - and No to the EU, however politely put, is a "strong" move.

Is it not a given that the immigrants are going to get the blame for anything that can be even remotely linked to them. The support of the blamers is a sure thing.

i don't libertas as a politcal movement as such,

astroturfing is usually referred to inrelation to say a new group called 'small tobacco growers of america' lobbying for subsidies or lower taxes andthen finding out the group is being run from the offices of lawyer for philip morris.... i see libertas as a astroturf campaign for american and libertas is pretending to be the poor hard-done-by farmer and ganley motivation is his contracts it about money.

people have been talking about how the EU will prevent the US from bilaterally dealer with weak eastern european states, as i said before its the same for ganley.

i think you're way off with the hilter/ new party using bad economy and angry worker/people to rise, libertas we're started during the worldwide boom.

Quote :

I really do see Libertas as a sort of therapeutic activity for former PDs who still want to 'do' something, anything

lol exactly


did you notice that the first mention of denclan ganley is during the what does europe really think of american levithan where ganley was invited, go see, you can download the podcast, is that where they all met first? naoise,david,mcqurk etc. or were they aware of libertas before that, What Do Europeans Really Think of America? way back in 2006

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=103&t=12185

who is this naoise guy, i see he used to work for the gov...as civil servant or consultant or what ?

see he is described as
Declan Ganley - CEO of the Ganley Group, Chair of the Forum on the European Constitution


which is bitch to differentiate in searches...

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enIE236IE236&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=%22Forum+on+the+European+Constitution%22+declan+ganley&spell=1

ooh one result for '"Forum on the European Constitution" declan ganley'

i wonder how active he was before the constitution, isee the national forum on europe has been going since atleast 2006.

http://www.albca.com/aclis/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=889


how far away from a referendum were we when the constitution was abandoned? how many months?

Quote :

In November 2003, Declan was appointed to chair the organisation of the
‘Forum to Debate the Constitution for Europe’ The Forum is a
non-government initiative, initiated by the Chambers of Commerce of
Ireland, Eurochambres, the National University of Ireland and the
leading Irish technology institute. The Forum includes the
participation of universities from across Europe, including INSEAD.
Imperial College, Leiden University, the Charles University (Prague),
ICADE University (Madrid), Cambridge, and other leading universities.
The Forum will take place on the 27th and 28th of May in Galway,
Ireland, during the term of Ireland’s EU Presidency.

2003,the constitution was being floated way back then. time flys.
need to find all their positions now, i see the chambers of commerce are the ones quoted in the sunday post article last week who were wobbling on the tax issue


btw where the hell did that 'kneecapping your opponents' phrase come
from a mcguirk special methinks. somehow libertas are now sinnfein/ira.

lostexpectation wrote:

i don't libertas as a politcal movement as such,

astroturfing is usually referred to inrelation to say a new group called 'small tobacco growers of america' lobbying for subsidies or lower taxes andthen finding out the group is being run from the offices of lawyer for philip morris.... i see libertas as a astroturf campaign for american and libertas is pretending to be the poor hard-done-by farmer and ganley motivation is his contracts it about money.

people have been talking about how the EU will prevent the US from bilaterally dealer with weak eastern european states, as i said before its the same for ganley.

i think you're way off with the hilter/ new party using bad economy and angry worker/people to rise, libertas we're started during the worldwide boom.

Quote :

I really do see Libertas as a sort of therapeutic activity for former PDs who still want to 'do' something, anything

lol exactly


did you notice that the first mention of denclan ganley is during the what does europe really think of american levithan where ganley was invited, go see, you can download the podcast, is that where they all met first? naoise,david,mcqurk etc. or were they aware of libertas before that, What Do Europeans Really Think of America? way back in 2006

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=103&t=12185

who is this naoise guy, i see he used to work for the gov...as civil servant or consultant or what ?

Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors... did the Forum meet just twice, in Galway? Ganley wraps a cloak of titles around himself. The cheek of using the name Libertas Institute when there is already existing a reputable european research institute of that name. Institute of what - the papers on energy look like they were written in a cafe on the back of a menu, they are so flimsy. But will we see Ganley on the strength of Libertas's 'interest in energy' as a player in trying to get massive public licenses ?

from Libertas web site

There was an interesting interview with a Galway paper in which he spelled out the Seminar Conference route to making friends and influencing as a key element in his modus operandi.

The Libertas people were obviously made for each other. Was Gurdjiev the link? Is it the case that he supports Libertas/Ganley longterm but is standing back as in favour of a Yes vote?

I would still be very interested to know what brought together the "founders" of Libertas first published on their website and now removed: mainly academics from the west of Ireland, to the best of my memory.

I think it is impossible to say whether Libertas will or will not evolve into a party with any kind of numbers supporting it, because that is not something that is just in the control of Libertas. I think that we are facing into times of very severe economic difficulty and social upheaval, and I have the whiff off these lads of what they are about.
The desire for licenses for Rivada would not rule out political ambitions.

I missed out on the Freedom Institute first time around, although most posters seem to know about them.

As their own website is defunct, I am posting this Indymedia link which is the least uninformative think I could find

* Indymedia Link *

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

You suspect they are an incipient neo-con party ready to launch candidates on the electorate? Their support base is tiny from what I get reading p.ie - does anyone actually have figures for their support numbers? That might not matter as much as the Big Business parties who might be interested in them and behind them. Aren't their SIPO figures kept until after the campaign according to ibis so nobody knows their funding. We presume it is totally above board.

I really think there is too much fuss made of Libertas and I wonder if it's because Cochrane is a fine easy target with his website. Really and truly can Libertas really have an impact on the referendum and how could you assess that impact?

That is an interesting question. I certainly wouldn't have been aware of Libertas to any great extent if it wasn't for Politics.ie. I had heard Ganley on the radio and thought there goes another rich man's hobby project - good luck to him. There are certainly some people who have made money who want to put something back. Without the existence of Politics.ie and promotion and discussion of Libertas on it, I probably wouldn't have given him or it another thought and would have voted No.

The reluctance of Libertas and David Cochrane (campaign director) to deal with policy issues made me look closer and I didn't like what I saw. Libertas may never come to anything. There have been plenty of failed interventions marked down to experience.

As to whether they have influenced the campaign, I think yes they have, and the shift of 8% towards a No vote (tonights news) is as much to do with them as it is to do with the WTO negotiations, the "credit crunch" and the fact that the EU gravy train has pulled away from the station.

A No win would undoubtedly add to Libertas's public image and credibility. Whether they grow or disappear at this stage is anyone's guess. But for me the very fact of what they represent and what they are doing is of great interest and worthy of careful watching. The demise of the PDs may create an opening for them.

He could yet be another Oswald Moseley. I'm interested by the way the anti-immigrationists on p.ie are very Libertas-friendly.

I think we have an unusual position in this referendum, and after. There's a generation of voters who've never really experienced anything but the boom, and who've actually stayed in Ireland rather than leaving. If the economy slows down uncomfortably, they're going to be left feeling hard done by, and calling for drastic, and probably right-wing, solutions. Libertas, if they have the money to stay in the game (and they do) can probably pick up a lot of those disaffected younger voters.

That would be my fear. The lack of an alternative - the vacuum of ideas and leadership - adds to the risk.

Some stormfront posters are sympathetic to Ganley.

Well, that in fairness is simply a convergence of seeming interest on a single issue and doesn't reflect on Ganley. But, yes, I think the idea that as the boom ends the space for more hard-edged right of centre 'solutions' increases considerably is broadly correct. A lot depends on how much the major parties assimilate that sort of thinking into their approach. That can, as happened in the UK in the late 70s/early 80s really kill proto-fascist moves. Still, in the early to mid 1970s British politics was full of 'movements' generated on one issue or another by right of centre individuals.

Quote :

Well, that in fairness is simply a convergence of seeming interest on a
single issue and doesn't reflect on Ganley. But, yes, I think the idea
that as the boom ends the space for more hard-edged right of centre
'solutions' increases considerably is broadly correct. A lot depends on
how much the major parties assimilate that sort of thinking into their
approach. That can, as happened in the UK in the late 70s/early 80s
really kill proto-fascist moves. Still, in the early to mid 1970s
British politics was full of 'movements' generated on one issue or
another by right of centre individuals.

Mm. I have to admit that in some ways I would consider Libertas' entry to Irish politics - if they intend more than opposing Lisbon - as somewhat more important than Lisbon.

ibis wrote:

Quote :

Well, that in fairness is simply a convergence of seeming interest on a
single issue and doesn't reflect on Ganley. But, yes, I think the idea
that as the boom ends the space for more hard-edged right of centre
'solutions' increases considerably is broadly correct. A lot depends on
how much the major parties assimilate that sort of thinking into their
approach. That can, as happened in the UK in the late 70s/early 80s
really kill proto-fascist moves. Still, in the early to mid 1970s
British politics was full of 'movements' generated on one issue or
another by right of centre individuals.

Mm. I have to admit that in some ways I would consider Libertas' entry to Irish politics - if they intend more than opposing Lisbon - as somewhat more important than Lisbon.

I'm inclined to agree. Almost by definition if something happens in the EU that I don't like it is not the result of a well-publicised document thrashed around in public for weeks, but more a matter of drift, culture or expediency. There are a lot of things more interesting going on, and the US relationship with Europe is one of those things.

I've commented on this thread over on the CLR because I think party formation and the Libertas situation in particular are very interesting. How important is it in the scheme of things? It could be as you propose ibis that Libertas is a significant newcomer to the Irish political scene, but I tend to doubt that for the moment. Without a base it's going nowhere, and I can't see a base yet. Maybe post-Lisbon one will appear, but...

cactus flower, what you say about not paying it any heed unless you'd read about it on p.ie may well be a very important insight into the reality, as distinct from the superheated rhetoric, of Libertas and its impact more broadly. I'd love to hear some statistics on name recognition...