Micheal O'Leary v Declan Ganley on Prime Time tonight (Thu 24 Sep)

[Andromachus]

As someone in the aviation business in this country who knows him all too well, I'm glad the public are finally seeing the true face of O'Leary.
The man is a nasty piece of work.

[McDave]

You miss the point, Its the perception that count, the people half watching the TV at home
Miriam is a very successful lady at her job and most people would see it her way, Irish people are now quite educated and do not like been bullied she did put him in his place, he was a beaten docket, He lost everything in the last few minutes

The Apres Match skit on MOC would, I suggest, be closer to a lot of people's perceptions of Her Royal Hoighness.

And MOC, put MOL in his place? Don't be ridiculous. He'd eat her for lunch any day. Don't think people don't know this.

[Prole]

And MOC, put MOL in his place? Don't be ridiculous. He'd eat her for lunch any day. Don't think people don't know this.

All I saw was that he is an politically illiterate money grubbing accountant who didn't have the first about the EU, and has an emotional age of about 14. Schoolyard bully who will never grow up and sadly, willing to sell off Irish sovereignty for a few pieces of silver.

.

[Greg L-W.]

Hi,

it is good to see that the involvement of Declan Ganley, wheether one respects, hates or distrusts him, has led to 110 pages of discourse.

Beter still his somewhat obsequious but quite well informed presence has clearly shown O'Leary in his true colour for which few in Ireland would castigate Ganley I am sure.

Clearly O'Leary is motivated by no kind of patriotism but merely toadying to the authority which controls the purse strings as he makes his bid for Aer Lingus.

With loyalty like that one wonders when he plans to relocate to cheaper staffing, less expensive premises and less stringent rules. Will his new EU approved more profitable conglomerate in East EU be Ryanski Airvogel or Airzewski Lingvolk - as he follows Dell to better profit margins?

Both yes and NO supporters who found their vote on their knowledge of the facts limited as those of yes supporters clearly are, must, if they are honest, concede to a debt of gratitude to Declan Ganley for exposing this apparent charlatan and many like him who promote EU membership for personal gain.

Regards,
Greg L-W.
Regards,
Greg L-W.

[HaHa_U_Fools]

Both yes and NO supporters who found their vote on their knowledge of the facts limited as those of yes supporters clearly are, must, if they are honest, concede to a debt of gratitude to Declan Ganley for exposing this apparent charlatan and many like him who promote EU membership for personal gain.

Not to mention a debt of gratitude for seeing the look on O'Leary's face. Great that he saved it for the television debate.

[McDave]

Hi McDave, after reading that I don't know whether to admire your persistence in trying to keep spinning a case that's been buried by a tsunami of evidence, or take heart that the Yes side actually believe your conclusions.

Thanks for reading it!

I think it's natural that the No side would have agreed with the content of what Ganley said, and felt he made the greater number of positive points. Secure in that conviction, they would naturally be of the view that his coolness in doing so was admirable. And I suppose a lot of people don't care for MOL, and are happy to slag him off as a dress-down dictator. And they wouldn't have taken at all to MOL's attacks on DG. From that perspective, the No side thinking DG won the debate is understandable.

However, I personally think a lot of what Ganley says is rubbish, and that many of the points he made on the night were sorry distortions of treaty provisions (I've referred to them in my posts). Do other voters feel that way? Did Prime Time viewers have that sense?

A lot of the comment on this thread seems to think this was some kind of presidential debate. It was nothing of the sort. IMO, MOL's role was to put doubt in the minds of voters who had previously taken DG seriously. Puncture his credibility if you will. COIR have been eviscerated, UKIP were a flash-in-the-pan and other ginger groups are not really on the radar. That really put it up to Team No on Prime Time.

As to the Prime Time protagonists: you're never going to take out Joe Higgins! But his appeal is limited. The second debate sank SF as a force in persuading middle Ireland. The third took the shine off DG. Last time round he pretty much controlled his outings and maximised his appeal. This time he's had to operate in the cold light of debate, and lead with ideas. He has none. Only criticisms. And his credentials have been challenged. He's no longer the winner he was acclaimed as after Lisbon 1.

Finally, I got the distinct impression the Yes input into PT was a coordinated effort. MM was affable and got some light jabs in. Nothing serious. PC very much had substance, and made SF look rather one-dimensional on foreign and security policy (we can't expect them to shine there, can we?). MOL was very much a hit-man. Hammer home a few points people will believe you on, and then play the man as people would expect him to. Crude and effective. A very rounded and satisfactory team performance overall.

[NapperTandy]

Declan Ganley won, Michael O' Leary looked like a corner boy. I don't think the majority of Irish people would buy something from him unless they had too. Whatever he was selling, I wasn't buying it. Ganley crucified O' Leary. Think JFK & Nixon.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6Xn4ipHiwE"]YouTube - Kennedy-Nixon Debate 1/4 (1960)[/nomedia]



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbdfALM2sLk"]YouTube - Don Hewitt on the first televised Presidential Debate, 1960[/ame]
Analysis of the JFK & Nixon debate

[Baron von Biffo]

Thanks for reading it!

I think it's natural that the No side would have agreed with the content of what Ganley said, and felt he made the greater number of positive points. Secure in that conviction, they would naturally be of the view that his coolness in doing so was admirable. And I suppose a lot of people don't care for MOL, and are happy to slag him off as a dress-down dictator. And they wouldn't have taken at all to MOL's attacks on DG. From that perspective, the No side thinking DG won the debate is understandable.

Talking to people yesterday and today, Martin v Higgins was a huge turn off. That one seems to be viewed as a draw. I was amazed that most thought Cox won. Everyone I asked thought Ganley won by a mile.

The youngest person I spoke to who watched the programme was in his late 30s. It doesn't seem to have caught the imagination of younger people.

Thoroughly unscientific of course and no indication that it will influence how people vote, but interesting nonetheless.

[wombat]

Maybe its a generation thing, or maybe its an occupation thing but the consensus at tea break was that O'Leary was great crack and cut through the usual BS

[evercloserunion]

What has that got to do with the content of the Lisbon treaty? Nothing...therefore irrelevent to the treaty and the debate surrounding it. Play the ball not the man, but that might be too much to ask. BTW the green posters on lisbon are great...'we cant tackle climate change alone' LOL what a joke of an organisation, your coming demise pleases me greatly.

Do you think we can tackle climate change alone?