Posts by linger
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The flagging referendum, in reply to BenWilson,
Better for what?
Better merely for registering protest (without caring about – or affecting – the outcome), in that failure to vote has no single assigned meaning, and no direct count; but “informal votes” are tallied, and can be interpreted less ambiguously as protest rather than apathy or laziness.
-
Hard News: The flagging referendum, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
A preferable method would commit us to spending only what there is support for. For example:
First referendum: ask if it's time to change from the current flag.
Only if that succeeds do we proceed to canvassing possible designs.
Consultation phase: ask public for submissions regarding design elements and colours (not necessarily complete designs).
Design phase: a team of actual design experts produces a shortlist of alternatives incorporating (combinations of) common suggestions from the consultation phase.
Second referendum: choose replacement from shortlist. -
Hard News: The flagging referendum, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
What fallacy? Bart's implication was clear enough: research with practical aims is more important than arguments about symbols.
-
Hard News: The flagging referendum, in reply to BenWilson,
All very well, but the process carries on regardless of how few people vote, and a flag still gets chosen for you. If you don’t care about either choice (you’re equally ‘meh’ about either the current or the proposed new flag), but you want to protest against the process, it would be better to submit an informal vote recording that [e.g. handwritten “(3) Neither"] than not to be counted at all.
If you don't mind the current flag, and want to protest the process, the even better option would be to vote for the current flag; but I appreciate that might not be your position. -
Hard News: The flagging referendum, in reply to Craig Young,
I would argue the exact reverse: those hoping for "more comprehensive redefinition of our political culture" need to consider carefully what this vote achieves. Voting for change would just reward a poorly-designed process that has subordinated democratic consultation to authoritarian decree and spin. This is a teachable moment for our present and future governments: changing the flag under these conditions goes against any definition I want for my country.
-
It’s not clear whether SMG’s “holier-than-thou […] irrational, unhealthy bullshit” is intended to describe those declaring an end to others’ grief, or those grieving, or both. I've tried my hardest, but I can’t see how those comments cohere as an argument.
-
* oops, I was wrong on one detail: while "Auckland region" is more extensive than the urban area, Kerikeri was included in the Northland region figures.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Steve Barnes,
“Sleepy village” life may well appeal to some immigrants from England, but they’re a small minority of those coming to Auckland. Kerikeri was actually included within Statistics NZ’s figures for Auckland (region) migration, but even so, Britons accounted for just 17% of the Auckland total (compared to 27% for the rest of NZ) from 1996-2013. If you found mostly Poms north of Auckland, that is not at all typical of the Auckland immigrant population, indirectly confirming that most Auckland immigrants aren’t looking for peace and quiet. (Sacha's point about cultural minorities seeking a local critical mass, leading them to stay in larger cities, stands, too; obviously, it's less relevant for Anglophone immigrants.)
I’d guess they were also atypical in terms of age: Auckland immigrants skew younger than those for other regions.
-
Conclusion: there has to be an effort to create permanent, meaningful jobs in the provinces before any attempt to divert migration flows away from Auckland can have any impact at all.
But job creation -- beyond shoulder-tapping their close mates -- has not exactly been a priority for the current government.
-
The Auckland migration report I linked to shows the effect of a policy change in 2003 which increased points for immigrants with job offers outside Auckland.
Arrivals to Auckland decreased 25% relative to the rest of the country. But net migration to other regions was … zero, implying most such jobs were short-term. Even the difference in arrivals tapered off, disappearing by 2012. I don’t know if this means the policy was reversed then, or if no further provincial job offers were available, rendering the policy moot, or if it's just the Christchurch effect (see below).—
To underscore the unpredictability of migrant flows:
In 2011, net migration was negative (Christchurch being an obvious factor).
But in 2014 and 2015, NZ’s population increase from net migration was twice that from natural increase.Net migration, year ending December 2011: -1,855
Net migration, year ending December 2014: +50,922
Net migration, year ending January 2016: +65,911