sharetrader
Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 71314151617
Results 241 to 248 of 248

Thread: National - FFS!

  1. #241
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    You are twisting my words again I see. All I meant to say was that there is no problem with parliament not consulting the people to enact new laws. ...
    No I did not. You have now used different words.

    Governments always do things which can be unpopular with segments of the community. If unpopular things were not part of their election manifesto, then they could be punished at the next election.

    NZ would be a laughing stock if each incoming PM (or government) changed the flag without consultation to whatever design they fancied. For John Key would that just be like a brand redesign?
    Last edited by Bjauck; 22-06-2019 at 08:08 AM.

  2. #242
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    South Canterbury
    Posts
    150

    Default

    No, they can’t consult with us on everything. I agree with you. But they should consult with us on things like the flag change because these are not “mission critical” decisions/expenditures and the cost in this case, was definitely not justified.

    You are correct in saying we expect them to make the hard decisions that benefit the country. These decisions include the post Christchurch attack decisions on gun control. The government acted quickly and confidently for the good of the country. They can never please everyone, but in this situation I believe they have the support of the majority, and they made the right calls.


    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    Rubbish. Jacinda and her mob have done a heck of a lot that the majority of kiwis do not necessarily want. And good on them. That is why they were elected, to make the hard decisions, not necessarily the most palatable ones, but ultimately ones that benefit this country. You cannot go and consult with the people at every whim. It is just not efficient. I may not have been happy if Key had changed the flag (I was in the keep existing camp) but I would have respected his and National's right to do so. If I felt strongly enough about it I then have a chance every 3 years to vote for another party.

  3. #243
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justakiwi View Post
    No, they can’t consult with us on everything. I agree with you. But they should consult with us on things like the flag change because these are not “mission critical” decisions/expenditures and the cost in this case, was definitely not justified.

    You are correct in saying we expect them to make the hard decisions that benefit the country. These decisions include the post Christchurch attack decisions on gun control. The government acted quickly and confidently for the good of the country. They can never please everyone, but in this situation I believe they have the support of the majority, and they made the right calls.
    What they did will achieve nothing. It was just ill-conceived knee jerk nonsense.

  4. #244
    always learning ... BlackPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Canterbury
    Posts
    4,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justakiwi View Post
    So you would have been perfectly happy if Key had simply gone ahead and changed the flag even though he knew full well the majority of us didn't want it? It would have an irresponsible waste if taxpayers money and would have served no good purpose. Jacinda "and her mob" as you put it, have consulted more with the public than National ever did. Not necessarily via referendums but they have sought and considered our input on a number of issues,so I think you are being a bit unfair. CGT is a prime example. Kiwis made it clear we didn't want it. The government didn't have to take that onboard but they did. For now, anyway. Whether you agree with CGT or not is irrelevant. The fact is, the government recognized that it wasn't what we want and they respected that.
    Hmm - with all due respect, but I think you should open the other eye ;

    CGT - the government realised that the voters will remove them if they go ahead with their CGT plans ... that's not doing the right thing because they wanted to, this is just avoiding the cull ...

    I don't remember that they asked for any public input related to their environmental as well as economical disastrous decision to stop further oil and gas exploration in NZ. We all will pay dearly for that by losing thousands of jobs and being required to pay others for importing more expensive and with lesser environmental protections produced gas and oil. The "Not in my backyard" government ...?

    I don't remember either that they asked the public (and definitely not the parents and students) when they disestablished charter schools. Their union buddies didn't like them because non performers hate competition - this was reason enough for Labour to remove them. Quite sad case of blunt corruption and ugliest politics, but certainly not consultation (well, other than their buddies).
    ----
    "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

  5. #245
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    South Canterbury
    Posts
    150

    Default

    Well then, once again, we will have to agree to disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    What they did will achieve nothing. It was just ill-conceived knee jerk nonsense.

  6. #246
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    South Canterbury
    Posts
    150

    Default

    Neither party is perfect. Neither party has all the answers. All we, as voters can do, is open our minds at election time, listen to each party’s policies, observe their leaders and decide for ourselves which party has the most positive offering - for us as individuals, for our families and for NZ as a whole. If we have a brain, we don’t blindly support one party simply because that is the party we have always voted for. As I’ve said, I’m a swinging voter. Always have been and always will be. If, at the next election, I feel Labour has not performed the way I had hoped they would, or their policies no longer meet my needs, I won’t vote for them. But right now, I am happy enough with how they are doing.

    I don’t expect them to consult with us over every decision. I wouldn’t expect National too either. Between elections I expect them to make responsible decisions for the good of the country. So far, I am ok with most of the decisions they have made. The status quo in this country has not been working. We need to start thinking outside the square in many areas. Labour right now is at least attempting to do that, so I am willing to give them a chance.

    In the mean time I will add you to the “let’s agree to disagree” list, because this discussion is, for the most part, pointless

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPeter View Post
    Hmm - with all due respect, but I think you should open the other eye ;

    CGT - the government realised that the voters will remove them if they go ahead with their CGT plans ... that's not doing the right thing because they wanted to, this is just avoiding the cull ...

    I don't remember that they asked for any public input related to their environmental as well as economical disastrous decision to stop further oil and gas exploration in NZ. We all will pay dearly for that by losing thousands of jobs and being required to pay others for importing more expensive and with lesser environmental protections produced gas and oil. The "Not in my backyard" government ...?

    I don't remember either that they asked the public (and definitely not the parents and students) when they disestablished charter schools. Their union buddies didn't like them because non performers hate competition - this was reason enough for Labour to remove them. Quite sad case of blunt corruption and ugliest politics, but certainly not consultation (well, other than their buddies).

  7. #247
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baa_Baa View Post
    Your summary is unfortunately absent of constitutional knowledge. Let's break it down.
    ...
    My points were a brief summary. I still stand by them.

    The PM is only PM for only as long as she has the confidence of parliament. She selects the government ministers ergo she and they are ultimately answerable (de facto but not de jure) to parliament - to the extent that parliament can lose confidence in the PM which would mean that the Governor-General would take away the PM's warrant and give it to another MP who could command a majority in parliament. If no-one can command a majority, that is when the GG dissolves that parliament. The governor-general (The Crown) only warrants a PM who has the confidence of parliament.

    MPs from the governing party (or largest or maybe majority Party) can decide to oust their leader who is also the Prime Minster and select a new leader. If their new leader can still command the confidence of a majority of MPs, then they will become PM and install a new cabinet. Consequently this new government, which may have different policies from the previous one even though it comprises members from the same political party, can arise in the same parliamentary term without facing a fresh election. If another MP can get the confidence of a majority of MPs, the GG can give that person the PM's warrant without dissolving parliament.

    Also, In the current parliament, it would be possible for NZF to switch support to National and for Simon Bridges to become PM without another election being held. As long as he could command the support of parliament, which would be possible if NZF MPs gave him their confidence. This type of scenario occurred before in NZ with William Massey becoming PM in 1912 after the previous PM lost a confidence vote. An election was held two years later.

  8. #248
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baa_Baa View Post
    ...This is largely correct in principle but in practice we elect MP's to represent their party views in Parliament. Not necessarily our own views, regardless of whether we thought they had views that we supported and voted for them to support. It's not a perfect system, the voters support them to 'get power' (elections) whereas the elected party's can do anything they like to 'retain power'.
    ...
    Another point..under our (amended) Westminster system we elect our electorate MP to represent our views and our electorate's views. They can have a Party affiliation or not. However they represent our views in both their Party caucus and parliament. It is why both main Parties have a broad range of opinions. With MMP we also elect MPs who represent our preferred political party.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •