Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: The flagging referendum

165 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last

  • linger, in reply to Alfie,

    Regarding TPPA and climate change, would the decisions have been worse?

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1886 posts Report Reply

  • John Farrell,

    My 5 year old granddaughter would support anything with Elsa and Anna.

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 485 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Attachment

    I just can't believe its BETTER

    </coat>

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Alfie, in reply to linger,

    Regarding TPPA and climate change, would the decisions have been worse?

    Good point linger… probably not. But at least we can’t blame kids’ immaturity and lack of vision for the poor decisions being made on our behalf in both cases.

    Dunedin • Since May 2014 • 1381 posts Report Reply

  • Brent Jackson,

    To sum up, we each have four possible actions :
    - Vote for the new flag
    - Vote for the current flag
    - return an invalid ballot
    - do not return a ballot

    However, there are only two possible results :
    - the flag is changed
    - the flag is not changed

    Only the first 2 actions, have any effect on the outcome. Even if the number of invalid votes outnumbers all the valid votes put together, they will still not affect the outcome.

    So I suggest people vote for the outcome they want, from the only 2 that are available.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 614 posts Report Reply

  • Alfie,

    Toby Manhire sums up the shemozzle of the flag process so far in one single, very long sentence.

    And, apart from the failure to put a designer on the consideration panel, the near-empty rooms at public consultations, the mockery from international media, the decision not to listen to public views after the longlist of 40 was published, the release of a shortlist with three out of the four dominated by a fern and two of them almost identical, the law change to introduce a fifth contender, the flying of the wrong alternative flag on the harbour bridge, the accusations of distraction and legacy fixation, the interminable demands that the $26 million budget might have been better spent on this or that, the swivel-eyed conspiracy theories and moronic Facebook memes, the objectionable attacks on public figures who express a view, the point-scoring, the politicising, the claims of politicising that really just amounted themselves to politicising, the general bickering, peevishness and name-calling - apart from that, it's all gone swimmingly.

    Dunedin • Since May 2014 • 1381 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh,

    My almost 5-year old daughter expressed a very clear preference for the new flag this morning. I said “tough, you’re too little to vote.” Count me among those who’d rather cast an active vote to keep the old flag than either vote for mediocrity or have my protest spoiled ballot or non-vote allow a mediocrity to scrape through.

    I’d also much rather first discuss our constitutional arrangements, then discuss symbols. That seems far more sensible than fiddling with superficialities but doing nothing substantial.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 2401 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to Steve Barnes,

    I just can’t believe its BETTER

    and Fernleaf use a realistic fern representation,
    if only that idea would spread...

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7886 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Chris Waugh,

    My almost 5-year old daughter expressed a very clear preference for the new flag this morning. I said “tough, you’re too little to vote.”

    lol.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell, in reply to Chris Waugh,

    fiddling with superficialities but doing nothing substantial.

    You have NO future in marketing :)

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 2090 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming,

    An exchange tonight on the Book of Faces in one of Matthew Poole's threads

    Him (who regularly comments on Matthew's posts, usually to take the opposite and, coincidentally I'm sure, vaguely National POV - Matthew will correct me if I'm misrepresenting this chap)

    I have been in both camps but I've decided I'm voting for a change. I'm not a big fan of the design but I think is time we grew up as a country and maybe this is the catalyst that starts that process.

    Me

    What's grown up about voting for something you don't want? It won't start anything. The time to change the flag is *after* you change the thinking, not before. It's not a magic cloth that will change people's attitudes overnight, or even start a process. It will send no message except that there are no consequences to a government gerrymandering due process. I despair about comments like yours.

    Him

    Read the comments on the flag issue, race issues, global issues. New Zealanders are becoming less and less connected to the real world. If you don't see flaws in how we interact as a people then I despair for you. We are immature and frankly pathetic as a nation. I've changed my thinking but the majority haven't and never well. That is why the Western society is doomed. I have spent hours thinking about the pros and cons of changing. I haven't jumped on the emotional bullshit arguments. I haven't made it a political issue. Despair those that have decided on a fabricated, fucked up view of the world.

    Please explain how do we know when the thinking is changed?. In general kiwis are shallow, racist and completely closed to being inclusive.
    To make this political issue is childish and frankly pathetic.

    Me

    I'm not arguing with that, though I'm a little more charitable than you in assessing the situation. What I don't get is how you think voting for a crappy excuse for a flag that you admit you don't even like is going to change all that? It *is* a political issue because John Key has made it a political issue from the start. That doesn't mean it has to be a partisan issue, which is what Key means when he says "political", but it sure as hell is a political issue. Just because you can't discuss it without getting emotional doesn't mean the rest of us can't.

    Him

    I'm not emotional. I have thought long and hard about my decision. I haven't bought into the bullshit arguments on both sides. This is about changing the crap direction this country is heading in. I'm sick of the petty political point scoring, the Maori vs the rest, the rich vs the poor arguments. People are directed by a media agenda which is actually dividing this country further. The fact we can't have a mature discussion about a range of issues show we can't exist as a civilised society.

    Me

    Yes, you've said repeatedly that you don't buy into "the bullshit arguments on both sides", but you haven't said what arguments you do buy into that would lead you to change the flag to a tea towel. And you seriously haven't explained how this will magically change society, or even lead to a mature conversation about it. I thought we were having one, here - I mean, no-one's called you or me an idiot, yet.

    Him

    I'm sure when Canada was looking to change tea towel comments were bandied around then. Can you name the PM or tell me what the arguments were for or against the change to the maple leaf? Probably not.
    After plenty of thinking and discussion I think this is an opportunity to change the global perception of what/who Nee Zealand is.
    I was drinking with 10 people tonight from various backgrounds. All have decided they are voting for the new flag.
    Imagine seeing a leg of lamb in Europe with the new flag on it. Imagine our wine with the fern across the back of the bottle, as a sign of where it is produced. We have an opportunity to improve the returns to the country through a massive marketing opportunity.
    I appreciate that you may not agree with me. That's your call. Do I think the flag will change? No. Do I now think we are missing a massive opportunity? Yes.
    I have taken the emotion out of my decision. It is just a shame we aren't mature enough as a country to have an honest discussion about this without name calling and immature bullshit.

    Me

    Oh, you're talking about "rebranding" New Zealand, not changing it. I see. I don't think you have taken your emotion out of it. Emotionally, you happen to agree with John Key.

    SMFH

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2929 posts Report Reply

  • Ben Austin,

    I don't see that the new flag would help or hinder global perception of our country in order to sell food or produce. That being said I don't claim to have a sophisticated knowledge of foreign consumers (despite living overseas). So far as I can see from the NZ products and brands in London they trade at best on the name not on flag.

    London • Since Nov 2006 • 1019 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Wylie, in reply to nzlemming,

    Imagine seeing a leg of lamb in Europe with the new flag on it. Imagine our wine with the fern across the back of the bottle, as a sign of where it is produced.

    Mark of the beast. This is pure vintage Mike Moore, in his lamburger incarnation as Minister of Overseas Trade and Marketing. Moore was given to appointing "cultural ambassadors" as part of his marketing push. When he anointed a couple of marching girls, one candidly admitted that explaining her role to foreigners might be a bit of a stretch, as "Australia and us are the only countries that have them".

    flat earth • Since Jan 2007 • 4591 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Attachment

    Am I too late for a flag suggestion?.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    John Roughan has changed his mind and thinks he'll vote no change.

    My god, he's wrestled with this.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22747 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Those who voted for no change just to disappoint John Key

    they do all love trotting out that line.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19680 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to Russell Brown,

    he’s wrestled with this

    he lost on points

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4450 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    I actually thought that only foreigners should be polled on the new flag, with against each flag the following non-exclusive choices:

    Would this flag make you want to:
    - buy New Zealand produce?
    - take your next holiday in New Zealand?
    - have carnal relations with a New Zealander?
    - bomb the fuck out of New Zealand, wherever it might be?

    I think that is a much more reasonable decisional basis.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to Russell Brown,

    it don't mean jack...

    John Roughan has changed his mind and thinks he’ll vote no change.
    My god, he’s wrestled with this.

    Try this on for sighs...
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/the-flag-debate/77586027/editorial-why-we-kiwis-are-such-a-sad-and-cynical-bunch-when-presented-with-the-chance-of-a-lifetime

    The sad truth is that we Kiwis are behaving like petulant children. For instance, Labour supporters – previously the most likely to call for a change – have swung in behind the old flag through (let's be honest) petty political loathing of John Key. That's the only possible explanation for their abrupt about-turn when Key took leadership of the flag campaign.

    'The only possible explanation...' indeed, pshaw... obviously this Jonathan Milne ( Sunday Star Times editor) is one deep thinker - well above my league - he then goes on to say:

    And worst of all, we are showing a childlike inability to compromise.
    You know what? You're never going to get a new flag that keeps all the people happy all the time. But if we all agree that we don't like the existing one, let's do our best to agree on something better. That's what the first flag referendum was for.

    Ultimately I think he implies he'll be sticking with the incumbent, or not?

    I am sick of being told this is the chance of a lifetime and we should compromise just because it's new and it isn't the old flag - that first referendum was virtually 'Hobson's choice' and no proper process at all - I still cannot figure why they needed to share the 40 possibles the 'selection panel' would choose from if we weren't allowed any say - especially as they spent so much money doing it - to what end? maybe they wanted to foment dissent and dissatisfaction ? But who in their right mind would plan something that way - did they get advice from Sir Lynton Crosby perhaps?

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7886 posts Report Reply

  • Soon Lee, in reply to Brent Jackson,

    To sum up, we each have four possible actions :
    - Vote for the new flag
    - Vote for the current flag
    - return an invalid ballot
    - do not return a ballot

    However, there are only two possible results :
    - the flag is changed
    - the flag is not changed

    Only the first 2 actions, have any effect on the outcome. Even if the number of invalid votes outnumbers all the valid votes put together, they will still not affect the outcome.

    So I suggest people vote for the outcome they want, from the only 2 that are available.

    Yes, this.

    Auckland • Since Apr 2013 • 141 posts Report Reply

  • Soon Lee, in reply to nzlemming,

    Auckland • Since Apr 2013 • 141 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    have carnal relations with a New Zealander?

    that'd be one charming fleg

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19680 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    guesstimates for the NZ flag change are $60 million and up, that’s not the cost of the referendum that’s the cost of changing letterheads, letterheads, passports etc

    Those guesstimates keep on coming up, and they never have any evidence attached. Yes, actual flags will have to be replaced. Uniformed services with ensigns may elect to have those redesigned and replaced, but that’s not mandatory as an ensign stands alone.
    For the rest, all the letterhead and documents and such, I’m calling BS. The flag is not a logo, and does not get used as such in government; that’s what those expensive, changed-every-few-years departmental logos are for.
    Yeah, the flag on the driver’s licence will no longer be correct, but the replacement of issued ones can be handled as part of the ordinary 10-year process and the cost to fix the card design will be negligible. And the velcro patches on military combat clothing will need to be replaced, but the cost of that will be sod-all too.

    If someone wants to show me evidence of widespread use of the flag on government paperwork other than for illustrative purposes, I really am keen to see it. Because for now all the hysteria and wailing about the downstream costs looks hugely over-blown. Actual flags are not overly expensive ($4k for the massive, heavy-duty one for the Auckland Harbour Bridge indicates the very, very top-end cost for a one-off), and those are the only things that appear to need immediate replacement.

    ETA: The flag isn’t on our passports, either.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Brent Jackson, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    $4k for the massive, heavy-duty one for the Auckland Harbour Bridge indicates the very, very top-end cost for a one-off

    ... which obviously has already been paid.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 614 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Brent Jackson,

    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.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.