Shane Ross - Forming a New Political Party of the Centre-Right

Cork boy 55

Shane Ross was open about his intention to start a new political party before he was elected.

In an exclusive interview with Hot Press, Ross also talks about God, alcohol, cannabis, his attitude to abortion and the proposed new legislation on prostitution.

http://www.hotpress.com/news/7494272.html


This weekend, he's reported to be intending to start up a party in 2014, by which time I guess he assumes that all the existing parties will have totally failed and been rejected by the public.
The Sunday Times is reporting that Shane Ross is attempting to establish a new political party within the next year based on the pre-election Democracy Now (or later as some would call it) concept. Stephen Donnelly is also mentioned as being involved. The idea is that with FF/FG becoming more and more indistinguishable that there will be a gap for a new centre-right party in the next year.

irishh_bob

how about a party of the actual right

Dannyboy83

Long overdue.

Might finally have somebody to vote for, rather than against.

Count Dooku

centre right means that will be another populist party to give a shelter for unelectable FF/FG politicians like it was with PD's

bijapos

This is exactly how the PD's started, economy doing well, landslide election victory (1977/2007), then economy goes downhill, political turmoil for a year or two, new government takes over promising the earth moon and starts but delivers the same and a new party of the right sets up.

Deja Vu. Wonder how long they will last, seeing that it was the centre-right-PD's policies of low regulation and even lower controls that got us into this mess in the first place.

nesf

bijapos wrote: »

This is exactly how the PD's started, economy doing well, landslide election victory (1977/2007), then economy goes downhill, political turmoil for a year or two, new government takes over promising the earth moon and starts but delivers the same and a new party of the right sets up.

Deja Vu. Wonder how long they will last, seeing that it was the centre-right-PD's policies of low regulation and even lower controls that got us into this mess in the first place.

What got us into this mess wasn't low regulation but our regulations not even being applied at all by the people supposed to be the watchdogs. It makes **** all difference how little or much regulation you have if it's not being implemented.

Chuck Stone

irishh_bob wrote: »

how about a party of the actual right

Like the free market right?

Jesus no. Conservatives would be horrified!

Manach

Social conservative, free market, minimum government - analagous to the US Republicans as a roll model, that would be close to the conservative norm I believe.

Chuck Stone

Manach wrote: »

Social conservative, free market, minimum government - analagous to the US Republicans as a roll model, that would be close to the conservative norm I believe.

Being socially conservative and supporting minimum government are positions which are difficult to reconcile.

Being socially conservative includes support for the control of people's behaviour and this requires big government.



.

Lockstep

+1 to what Nesf said. We have extensive company and banking law but white collar crime laws and regulation weren't enforced.

mlumley

How about making party manifestoes a legal requirement that parties have to adhear too? All the crap we have of U turns in this government shows that they can promis the earth and give us the crap.

NSNO

Shane Ross likes seeing his name in large print. What's new?

View

Manach wrote: »

Social conservative, free market, minimum government - analagous to the US Republicans as a roll model, that would be close to the conservative norm I believe.

Shane Ross is going to be Ireland's answer to Sarah Palin? :eek:

imme

He'll have to leave the Technical Group,
no more 'miss piggy' for Ross.

Can't see much coming of this, just headlines for the attention seeker.
The quote from the Hot Press piece reads like something from the 1980's.

'God', who gives a goddam what a TD thinks about god.

Dannyboy83

Who else would feature in the party I wonder?

Duke Leonal Felmet

just feel the need to point out that a proper right wing party would have 'burned the bondholderz'. regulations or no. but that is in theory only, alas. in the end, all political parties are populist, or at least attempt to be.

Frank Black

bijapos wrote: »

Deja Vu. Wonder how long they will last, seeing that it was the centre-right-PD's policies of low regulation and even lower controls that got us into this mess in the first place.

There’s a lot of reasons for the mess we’re in and it can’t all be laid at the doors of the PD’s as most lefties would like to do – one could just as well say it’s down to socialist Bertie buying off the trade unions by massively increasing public sector numbers and pay through the laughably named “benchmarking” process.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

View

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ultimately, that "someone" will be the voters.

PS And, in case anyone has any doubt, ordinary voters are free to form political parties if they are unhappy with the existing ones.

later12

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Who else would feature in the party I wonder?

Various economists who use naughty language and say outrageous things on their blogs, Rachel Allen, Pat Kenny, a random sample taken from the queue in Donnybrook Fair, anyone who achieves a 2:2 from UCD and considers themselves an intellectual, Morgan Kelly, Venetia Crosby from Glenroe, Conservative-party-wannabes, Lucinda Creighton would jump ship, it pains me to go on, you get the picture...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mike65

As this thread illustrates part of the problem with starting parties is having an intellectual rigour and clear vision to underpin same. If it were to just end up a catch all for those feeling "a bit pissed off" with other parties or indeed frustrated with lack of promotion within other parties then it'll be a fuzzy waste of time. Ross will need to set the bar quite high and risk being seen as elitist and even "un Irish" by not inviting all comers/opportunists/chancers and wannabes.

mcmoustache

I didn't see much in the link but I would guess that this party would be more of an socially and economically liberal party.

The socially conservative, centre-right of our political system is already full with FF and FG. Our largest socially liberal party is left of centre and the next largest party is borderline marxist.

I think that there is room in the country for a party that rejects the church and all the social conservatism that comes with it while at the same time making life easier for small businesses* and working to reduce the strangle-hold that unions have over the country. There is also room for a party that believes people should be rewarded for working but not for choosing handouts over jobs**.

I hope that this is the kind of party that he is on about and not just another FF or FG.



* This does not mean removing regulation or encouraging monopolies. To me it means simplifying the process of starting companies with proper and enforced regulation of larger companies.

** This does not mean removing the safety net. It means having a social welfare system that gives less cash to recipients than workers on the minimum wage. It should never be a choice.

View

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That maybe just because voters don't see any reason to vote for them. It is probably a case of "The Devil you know being better than the one you don't".

In reality, the political landscape in most countries tends to be fairly static. Most of the European Political Parties tends to be indirectly or directly traceable to two particular times - one 1848 - the "year of revolution" - with the split there being essentially "conservative" V's "liberal" (or "radical"), the other 1918 - the "end of the war" year with the split there being "socialist" (or "communist") V's the "bourgeois" parties (i.e. the pre-existing conservative, liberal parties).

southsiderosie

View wrote: »

That maybe just because voters don't see any reason to vote for them. It is probably a case of "The Devil you know being better than the one you don't".

In reality, the political landscape in most countries tends to be fairly static. Most of the European Political Parties tends to be indirectly or directly traceable to two particular times - one 1848 - the "year of revolution" - with the split there being essentially "conservative" V's "liberal" (or "radical"), the other 1918 - the "end of the war" year with the split there being "socialist" (or "communist") V's the "bourgeois" parties (i.e. the pre-existing conservative, liberal parties).

The PDs came and went, as have the Greens. Small parties may not last forever, but if they form at a time when the big parties are in trouble, they can have an out-sized influence on policy

Also, it's quite easy to have a multi-party government in a PR system, and small parties with savvy leadership can further quite a bit of their own agenda if they are big enough to tip the balance in a given legislature. Certainly in Spain the regional small parties regularly have the two big parties by the balls in the national legislature when it comes to passing major reforms.

Byron85

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Have you ever considering running for office actually? I presume from your previous posts that you're pretty financially secure so that wouldn't be an issue for you. Has it ever crossed your mind before?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Fergus_Nash

mcmoustache wrote: »

I didn't see much in the link but I would guess that this party would be more of an socially and economically liberal party.

The socially conservative, centre-right of our political system is already full with FF and FG. Our largest socially liberal party is left of centre and the next largest party is borderline marxist.

I think that there is room in the country for a party that rejects the church and all the social conservatism that comes with it while at the same time making life easier for small businesses* and working to reduce the strangle-hold that unions have over the country. There is also room for a party that believes people should be rewarded for working but not for choosing handouts over jobs**.

I hope that this is the kind of party that he is on about and not just another FF or FG.



* This does not mean removing regulation or encouraging monopolies. To me it means simplifying the process of starting companies with proper and enforced regulation of larger companies.

** This does not mean removing the safety net. It means having a social welfare system that gives less cash to recipients than workers on the minimum wage. It should never be a choice.

That's the kind of party that I would like see. Maybe you should be forming it:D