Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Trotter on the Financial Veto
11 views
Skip to first unread message
JohnO
Apr 12, 2012, 4:52:31 PM4/12/12
to
He sums it up succinctly:
"The reason the Executive is able to exercise a veto over legislation
like Sue Moroney's PMB is quite simple - and actually quite
democratic.
Under our Westminster-based constitution the Crown (i.e. the Cabinet)
asks Parliament to appropriate a specified amount of money for the
purposes of governing the realm. This is the exercise we call The
Budget.
If it wants more money from the people, it must seek a further
appropriation.
The veto exists to prevent Parliament from legislating for an increase
in expenditure (in this case 12 more weeks of PPL) without, at the
same time, appropriating the money to offset it.
Only the Government gets to spend money - not Parliament. Parliament's
role is to vote money (in the form of taxes, duties and dividends) to
the Crown and monitor the way the Crown uses it.
The Government, in turn, cannot function unless it has a majority of
MPs willing to vote for it's Budget.
And we, the people, get to elect the MPs.
That's the way our democracy works."
"The reason the Executive is able to exercise a veto over legislation
like Sue Moroney's PMB is quite simple - and actually quite
democratic.
Under our Westminster-based constitution the Crown (i.e. the Cabinet)
asks Parliament to appropriate a specified amount of money for the
purposes of governing the realm. This is the exercise we call The
Budget.
If it wants more money from the people, it must seek a further
appropriation.
The veto exists to prevent Parliament from legislating for an increase
in expenditure (in this case 12 more weeks of PPL) without, at the
same time, appropriating the money to offset it.
Only the Government gets to spend money - not Parliament. Parliament's
role is to vote money (in the form of taxes, duties and dividends) to
the Crown and monitor the way the Crown uses it.
The Government, in turn, cannot function unless it has a majority of
MPs willing to vote for it's Budget.
And we, the people, get to elect the MPs.
That's the way our democracy works."
Pooh
Apr 12, 2012, 5:28:07 PM4/12/12
to
"JohnO" <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9e587b1e-c964-4f3e...@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...
pooh
Geopelia
Apr 12, 2012, 6:05:04 PM4/12/12
to
"Pooh" <pa...@bigots.lie> wrote in message
news:jm7hcc$4dr$1...@dont-email.me...
of this has been checked and the finance will be approved", or say what
finance for other purposes will be cut to pay for it.
Rich...@hotmail.com
Apr 12, 2012, 6:41:18 PM4/12/12
to
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:52:31 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
A majority of MPs can include a vote for additional funds if
necessary. Bills are presented to the house frequently for expenditure
that was not anticipated in the budget.
wrote:
necessary. Bills are presented to the house frequently for expenditure
that was not anticipated in the budget.
Rich...@hotmail.com
Apr 12, 2012, 6:42:26 PM4/12/12
to
MPs in the House would be a mob? Surely the exercise of powers by a
majority of members of parliament is the basis of our democracy!
Rich...@hotmail.com
Apr 12, 2012, 6:53:40 PM4/12/12
to
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:05:04 +1200, "Geopelia" <Geop...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Tha awas particualrly evident from National at the last two elections.
We certainly weren't told for example of the subsidies to Warner Bros,
or Fonterra for pollution. This bill has not yet been introduced, and
proper costing will need to be done before it is passed. That does not
mean that every proposal should be, or even can be. fully costed
before it is introduced to the house. If a majority of MPs do not vote
for the bill it will not pass anyway.
wrote:
We certainly weren't told for example of the subsidies to Warner Bros,
or Fonterra for pollution. This bill has not yet been introduced, and
proper costing will need to be done before it is passed. That does not
mean that every proposal should be, or even can be. fully costed
before it is introduced to the house. If a majority of MPs do not vote
for the bill it will not pass anyway.
JohnO
Apr 12, 2012, 7:13:57 PM4/12/12
to
On Apr 13, 10:41 am, Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:52:31 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1...@gmail.com>
Then why don't Moroney and Labour get that done first, or better still
amend the bill to make it budget neutral?
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:52:31 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1...@gmail.com>
amend the bill to make it budget neutral?
JohnO
Apr 12, 2012, 6:54:47 PM4/12/12
to
On Apr 13, 10:41 am, Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:52:31 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1...@gmail.com>
in the case of the Parental Leave bill. It might have had a chance but
Labour's fumbling so far has given it none.
Pooh
Apr 12, 2012, 11:56:55 PM4/12/12
to
<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lgmeo7lbi38co5gmp...@4ax.com...
that Nationals lot are much better. When it comes to a majority of members
agreeing, that needs to have a vote not just blindly believe any numbers you
might pluck out of your arse Richie.
Pooh
Liberty Pantryliner
Apr 17, 2012, 6:57:29 AM4/17/12
to
On , , Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:56:55 +1200, Re: Trotter on the Financial Veto,
Whereas you would suck it out of his, or indeed anyones, arse.
>Poo
>Poo
Pooh
Apr 17, 2012, 6:29:39 PM4/17/12
to
"Liberty Pantryliner" <Lib...@pantryliners.dripp.ing.> wrote in message
news:j3jqo7tk848qhqs98...@4ax.com...
Pooh
Liberty
Apr 17, 2012, 7:13:43 PM4/17/12
to
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:29:39 +1200, "Pooh" <pa...@bigots.lie> wrote:
>
>"Liberty Pantryliner" <Lib...@pantryliners.dripp.ing.> wrote in message
>
>"Liberty Pantryliner" <Lib...@pantryliners.dripp.ing.> wrote in message
.
>>>>>
>>>>>pooh
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mob rule - why would you think a majority of democratically elected
>>>> MPs in the House would be a mob? Surely the exercise of powers by a
>>>> majority of members of parliament is the basis of our democracy!
>>>
>>>I whatch howw Labor behaves both inside and outside the house Richie. Not
>>>that Nationals lot are much better. When it comes to a majority of members
>>>agreeing, that needs to have a vote not just blindly believe any numbers
>>>you
>>>might pluck out of your arse Richie.
>>
>> Whereas you would suck it out of his, or indeed anyones, arse.
>>
>
>Bugger off Scooter.
>
>Pooh
>
Pooh that is being far too polite.
>>>>>
>>>>>pooh
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mob rule - why would you think a majority of democratically elected
>>>> MPs in the House would be a mob? Surely the exercise of powers by a
>>>> majority of members of parliament is the basis of our democracy!
>>>
>>>I whatch howw Labor behaves both inside and outside the house Richie. Not
>>>that Nationals lot are much better. When it comes to a majority of members
>>>agreeing, that needs to have a vote not just blindly believe any numbers
>>>you
>>>might pluck out of your arse Richie.
>>
>> Whereas you would suck it out of his, or indeed anyones, arse.
>>
>
>Bugger off Scooter.
>
>Pooh
>
Pooh
Apr 17, 2012, 8:18:07 PM4/17/12
to
"Liberty" <libe...@live.com> wrote in message
news:f8uro7lp6881en8t3...@4ax.com...
Pooh
Liberty Pantryliner
Apr 18, 2012, 6:18:06 AM4/18/12
to
On , , Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:13:43 +1200, Re: Trotter on the Financial Veto,
You are just a coward who demands other people do things you won't do yourself.
Liberty Pantryliner
Apr 18, 2012, 6:18:45 AM4/18/12
to
On , , Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:18:07 +1200, Re: Trotter on the Financial Veto,
Oh diddums Poo.
Did you need a nappy change because of the poo.
>
>Pooh
>
Did you need a nappy change because of the poo.
>
>Pooh
>
Liberty
Apr 18, 2012, 6:33:55 AM4/18/12
to
Rich...@hotmail.com
Apr 18, 2012, 7:14:06 PM4/18/12
to
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 22:18:06 +1200, Liberty Pantryliner
<Lib...@pantryliners.dripp.ing.> wrote:
<Lib...@pantryliners.dripp.ing.> wrote:
National want to avoid. As they have shown in Canterbury, and the
Auckland Council, and increasingly in Chritchurch City, National
hates elected representatives beng allowed to exercise a majority
vote. If National and their coalition partners make up a majority
then their views will prevail, if not there will be a change in the
law. Why do teh "right" object to democratic voting?
Liberty Pantry-Rhymer
Apr 24, 2012, 9:31:04 PM4/24/12
to
On , , Wed, 18 Apr 2012 22:33:55 +1200, Re: Trotter on the Financial Veto,
Read my previous posts in the thread and you will find more than enough
citations to satisfy your little mind.
Liberty <libe...@live.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 22:18:06 +1200, Liberty Pantryliner
><Lib...@pantryliners.dripp.ing.> wrote:
>
>>On , , Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:13:43 +1200, Re: Trotter on the Financial Veto,
>>Liberty <libe...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:29:39 +1200, "Pooh" <pa...@bigots.lie> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Liberty Pantryliner" <Lib...@pantryliners.dripp.ing.> wrote in message
>>>
>>>.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>pooh
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mob rule - why would you think a majority of democratically elected
>>>>>>> MPs in the House would be a mob? Surely the exercise of powers by a
>>>>>>> majority of members of parliament is the basis of our democracy!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I whatch howw Labor behaves both inside and outside the house Richie. Not
>>>>>>that Nationals lot are much better. When it comes to a majority of members
>>>>>>agreeing, that needs to have a vote not just blindly believe any numbers
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>might pluck out of your arse Richie.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whereas you would suck it out of his, or indeed anyones, arse.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bugger off Scooter.
>>>>
>>>>Pooh
>>>>
>>> Pooh that is being far too polite.
>>
>>You are just a coward who demands other people do things you won't do yourself.
>Such as ? cite
Typical evasion from you.
>On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 22:18:06 +1200, Liberty Pantryliner
><Lib...@pantryliners.dripp.ing.> wrote:
>
>>On , , Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:13:43 +1200, Re: Trotter on the Financial Veto,
>>Liberty <libe...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:29:39 +1200, "Pooh" <pa...@bigots.lie> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Liberty Pantryliner" <Lib...@pantryliners.dripp.ing.> wrote in message
>>>
>>>.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>pooh
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mob rule - why would you think a majority of democratically elected
>>>>>>> MPs in the House would be a mob? Surely the exercise of powers by a
>>>>>>> majority of members of parliament is the basis of our democracy!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I whatch howw Labor behaves both inside and outside the house Richie. Not
>>>>>>that Nationals lot are much better. When it comes to a majority of members
>>>>>>agreeing, that needs to have a vote not just blindly believe any numbers
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>might pluck out of your arse Richie.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whereas you would suck it out of his, or indeed anyones, arse.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bugger off Scooter.
>>>>
>>>>Pooh
>>>>
>>> Pooh that is being far too polite.
>>
>>You are just a coward who demands other people do things you won't do yourself.
>Such as ? cite
Read my previous posts in the thread and you will find more than enough
citations to satisfy your little mind.
David
Apr 28, 2012, 6:49:41 PM4/28/12
to
On Friday, 13 April 2012 09:28:07 UTC+12, Pooh wrote:
> > That's the way our democracy works."
>
> Democracy rather than the mob rule Richie wants.
>
> pooh
Democracy is dictatorship by the majority...
> > That's the way our democracy works."
>
> Democracy rather than the mob rule Richie wants.
>
> pooh
JohnO
Apr 28, 2012, 10:10:42 PM4/28/12
to
Geopelia
Apr 28, 2012, 11:00:44 PM4/28/12
to
news:5d529e20-8fe5-4d85...@ot8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
....................................
The American Revolution had some noble ideas, if subsequent governments
could have lived up to them.
But the French Revolution was a bloody holocaust. It took Napoleon to sort
things out.
As dictators go, he was quite a good one for France itself, but became
involved in international wars.
Dictatorship could work with the right Dictator. But power may corrupt. And
what happens when the Dictator dies or retires?
Britain is fortunate to have got its Dictator (oops, Lord Protector) over
early. Countries that waited till the 20th Century didn't do so well.
Democracy with a Parliament and a Monarch as Head of State is still the best
way now, in my view.
But how about "dictatorship by computer" where everybody has an opportunity
for input?
Perhaps some computer genius will one day work out how to do it. But will
the public accept the computer's dictates?
And a Monarch with a Privy Council will still be a good idea as a last
resort.
The American Revolution had some noble ideas, if subsequent governments
could have lived up to them.
But the French Revolution was a bloody holocaust. It took Napoleon to sort
things out.
As dictators go, he was quite a good one for France itself, but became
involved in international wars.
Dictatorship could work with the right Dictator. But power may corrupt. And
what happens when the Dictator dies or retires?
Britain is fortunate to have got its Dictator (oops, Lord Protector) over
early. Countries that waited till the 20th Century didn't do so well.
Democracy with a Parliament and a Monarch as Head of State is still the best
way now, in my view.
But how about "dictatorship by computer" where everybody has an opportunity
for input?
Perhaps some computer genius will one day work out how to do it. But will
the public accept the computer's dictates?
And a Monarch with a Privy Council will still be a good idea as a last
resort.
0 new messages