The M25 in England is up to 6+6 lanes in places and still jamming solid
The southern approach to the Auckland Harbour Bridge is already 5+5, and I believe the plan for the Northwestern is 6+6 through to Te Atatu once the causeway widening is completed.
The parts that expire inSeptember are those to do with establishing new SHAs and the rest rolls on until 2018.
Does that mean the designation also expires in 2018 unless utilised?
One thing that did bug me about the article was its bundling of Methanex (a local company) with profit-shifting multinationals for the sole reason that Methanex paid no tax on a reasonable profit. Methanex did so because it, entirely legitimately, had been carrying previous years' losses on the books and could thus deduct those losses from present profits. It's not at all like taking advantage of offshore parent companies and Irish offices and the other ways in which Apple et al avoid paying ethically-due taxes, and I was rather annoyed that the two were conflated.
Russian usually omits the copula verb (except in past tense), so that may well be the closest possible idiomatic translation.
Ran it past a Russian colleague, who said that Winnie’s claimed translation is correct and “a tidier translation is definitely available”.
ETA: hopefully voters who are relying on the translation have enough sense to know the intended meaning. I think Winston is being rather disingenuous on this matter.
If the flag changes and/or the coat of arms needs upgrading for whatever reason, I don’t share Mr Poole’s nonchalance that that won’t have a large implementation cost – web sites alone will mount up at the current consultant rate I read about elsewhere on PAS
At what point did I say the costs of revising the coat of arms would not potentially be significant, Ian? I said the costs of changing the flag are being hugely overblown by people who seem to think the national flag is used as logo and livery hither and yon within the public service, and not a single person has presented a shred of evidence to the contrary.
I also said that the coat of arms stands alone in its validity whether or not the flag within is representative of the national flag laid down by statute. My point about the crown is that it was added after Liz became the queen, and since the immediate heirs are all male it is unlikely that they will wear that crown at their coronations; thus, given the rationale for its inclusion, at the time one of them takes over it would be logical for the coat of arms to be revised. That will apply with or without a change to the flag.
From my understanding of flag etiquette, the convention is that the conquering flag flies over the conquered flag.
Interesting to hear how the voting paper ended up as it did then.
Given all the other psychological tricks that were apparently played in the guff that came with the ballot papers, I imagine it was a deliberate choice to try and eke out a few extra "yes" votes.
the Coat of Arms
So? It has the flag. It does not suddenly cease to be valid because it no longer displays the current flag. The crown that tops it was worn by Liz at her coronation (included in a re-design in 1956), so will we re-design again when Chuck takes over and presumably wears a different, more masculine crown?
You don’t think all our government departments will go through those changes as a result of the flag change?
Show me evidence of the use of the flag as a logo in government, Bart. Please, show me. I want to see the error of my understanding.
I have seen multitudes of individual departmental logos, and government offices certainly reflect the departmental logos, but I've seen no use of the flag as a logo and nobody has shown me the slightest shred of evidence to the contrary. So if you're going to harp on about massive unstated costs, now's the time to show your working. Because my working, based on research and evidence, is that there'll be a bunch of fairly-cheap flags that need to be replaced and a tiny handful of government-issue documents that are on a replacement cycle and can be re-branded over the ordinary lifetime of that cycle.
None of the other 300 flags around the country are the wrong colour, the spokeswoman said.
but still $4000 each?
No. Two specific flags were $4k each, made very large and very tough to fly from the Auckland Harbour Bridge.
One can buy 90cm-by-180cm outdoor-grade NZ flags for $49.95 inc GST; 90x180 seems to be the "standard" size for pole-flown flags.
The priciest NZ flag I could find online, at $505.88 inc GST (1.35x2.7m) would still only run the taxpayer $5m (inc GST) if we had to replace 10k of them, which sounds both ludicrous and excessive. Keep in mind, too, that these are retail prices. One would expect the government to get one hell of a bulk discount at any size.
That also indicates how far removed from the norm the AHB flags are in terms of price, as well as, to my thinking, dismissing the "It's going to cost squillions to replace all those flags" attempt at an argument.
which obviously has already been paid.
From the initial budget for the process, one would imagine. Like all the "demo" flags that have been sent around the place.