except that any change could be vetoed in the first referendum by a majority who have no confidence in the alternatives.
So why ask them twice, if the objective is not to give people two opportunities to say no, and only one to say yes?
I ask you if you want a new t-shirt you’ll wear everywhere. Your existing t-shirt is old but comfortable. I show you the choices, you can then decide to keep your existing T-shirt as well as choosing an alternative.
That satisfies you if you want the existing alternative. If you want a different alternative you are essentially voting 'yes' in blind faith that an alternative you consider desirable or acceptable may be chosen.
I suggest that a plurality or even a majority of those who want change would vote no in the face of that uncertainty. It's a very poor way of expressing preferences.
The Greens were presented with the option of either showing solidarity with Labour’s hypothetical proposal which could have potentially saved millions of pages of paper, litres of ink and petrol and kilowatts of electricity or the chance to satisfy a tiny movement running a lucrative fundraising campaign whose petitioned numbers amounted to about 20% of the party’s popular vote.
It is my firm understanding that the referendum would be held anyway, since it was already the subject of legislation. And on that basis, claims about cost and complication are highly disingenuous
handed the Key government a club with which to beat the only other party – Labour – with which the Greens can hope to form a government in 2017. Was Red Peak such a compelling cause that the Greens needed to expend so much political capital on it?
If Labour were intransigent in their opposition to a process that would allow people to vote on their preferred flag before choosing whether to change the flag, then they created the club themselves.
The Government could have run this better, from start to finish. And they've taken a fair bit of political flak for that. But that history could not be unwritten, and the last two weeks were about what could be created from what already exists, not some hypothetical more successful process. And what already exists is four chosen by a panel, and another chosen by a large number of vocal New Zealanders. Demanding a stitch up of the process in order to have that one included is the definition of bad faith, and doesn't deserve a reward.
Are you being facetious? A lot of people are.
And if all else fails, we get another typset, somewhat reminiscent of the Hillary 2016 set.
Does PAS support GIFs?
I’m surprised at how much vitriolic dislike there is of John Key, and how it has been expressed through this process. It’s mostly incoherent, and reasonably unfocused – which makes it useful for populism (Little this week, Peters every week).
So, as disappointing as it is, it’s fairly straightforward that Andrew Little tried to play politics with this.
Let’s explain by way of example: I ask you if you want a new t-shirt you’ll wear everywhere. Your existing t-shirt is old but comfortable. You ask which one, and you’re told that you have to decide if you want it before you’ll be told. A non-preferential yes/no process is designed to produce a no, and Labour know this.
They’re particularly angry on Twitter and Facebook today because their opposition moment has been snatched away by a party in favour of giving more people a chance to choose. It doesn’t help them that Gareth Hughes got a glowing endorsement on the front page of the DomPost today.
It shouldn't cost tens of thousands of dollars to consent a house though. The lack of lower-cost options in the market seems to be due in part to the fact that consenting makes the margin on smaller houses considerably lower.
Su Yin Khoo asked: Which of these four flag designs do you feel best represent our refusal to help refugees?
Lyndon Hood answered.