Flag?

[Berries]

You might need to read carefully what I typed to understand why though.
I could explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Classic. So what percentage of New Zealanders that travel overseas support a change of flag? I am genuinely interested as I only have my personal view based on my own interaction with travelling New Zealanders over the last 30 odd years while you have your "suspicion". I don't recall that many backpacks with feathers on them. When you are in Mali or Peru it doesn't really matter that a local mistakes you for an Australian does it? I am talking the flag here, not the fact you have the same accents, look the same and live similar lives other than the chup on the shoulder that some New Zealanders have about their closest neighbour.

Out of interest, do you know the difference between the Irish flag, the Italian flag and the Mexican flag without using Google? What is the difference between the Danish flag, the Norwegian flag and the Swiss flag? In the end, who really cares and what does it matter? All flags are shit.

[MarkH]

I assume everyone has read about the 'campaign' meeting that was called by National this morning with regard to the flag referendum? 32 National MPs were invited (those believed to be in support changing the flag), and about 10 attended.

I fail to see what the big deal is there.
I'm pretty sure that lots of people opposed to the flag change have publicly voiced their opinion so why would it be wrong for those in favour of change to put out a message about their support of the flag?

Right here you are expressing your opinion on the matter and I'm expressing mine, what is wrong with some debate?
I have no problem with anyone on either side of this getting organised and promoting their viewpoint, isn't that one of the great things about living in a free society?

Maybe it is just that this is National and the National haters will find something wrong with anything that National does?

[MarkH]

Classic. So what percentage of New Zealanders that travel overseas support a change of flag? I am genuinely interested as I only have my personal view based on my own interaction with travelling New Zealanders over the last 30 odd years while you have your "suspicion". I don't recall that many backpacks with feathers on them. When you are in Mali or Peru it doesn't really matter that a local mistakes you for an Australian does it? I am talking the flag here, not the fact you have the same accents, look the same and live similar lives other than the chup on the shoulder that some New Zealanders have about their closest neighbour.

Out of interest, do you know the difference between the Irish flag, the Italian flag and the Mexican flag without using Google? What is the difference between the Danish flag, the Norwegian flag and the Swiss flag? In the end, who really cares and what does it matter? All flags are shit.

a. I never claimed to know the percentages, maybe re-read what I typed a few more times until you understand. I didn't even make a claim that it was the majority of those overseas, just that it quite a high percentage.
b. If it all doesn't matter bugger all then I guess that you are fine if we change the flag and also fine if we dont?

There are a lot of European flags that I'm not a fan of, as you rightly point out they are not easy to remember & recognise.
You make an excellent point about many other countries that should be looking at changing their flags, but as a New Zealander I'm certainly not going to travel to Italy or wherever to start a campaign to change to a better flag - that is something for them to worry about, or not, as the case may be.
I'm not sure the Mexican flag is a good example, that has some sort of picture in the middle that Irish & Italian flags don't - are you sure you didn't mean Irish, Italian & French flags?
You are right about the Danish, Norwegian & Swiss flags all being a bit similar, I have no idea of whether the people of those nations like their flags or not though.
I would have no problem pointing out which flag is the Swiss one, but I'd probably need google to be sure which was the Danish and which was the Norwegian flag - I'd be able to see that they were different but damned if I'd remember which is which.

I'm not quite sure of the point with the other flags I don't like.
What about the flags I do like?
The UK flag is pretty distinctive, I never have any trouble recognising that one.
Canada, USA & Japan all have flags that I find quite recognisable too.

[bogan]

I thought the referendum was to allow NZ voters to make an informed decision as regards changing the flag. This sounds much more like National trying to persuade people they want to change it.

Hmm, if only there was some sort of setup whereby multiple groups of governmental representatives could promote different ideas to the people, maybe they could even be called parties, just to make it sound like fun... Reckon that could ever catch on? :facepalm:

[Erelyes]

32 National MPs were invited (those believed to be in support changing the flag), and about 10 attended.

I'm amazed that 10 attended given the meeting time was 7.30am the very next morning. MPs are humans too and might have wives/husbands to fuck, children to yell at, prior commitments to businesses/charities/organisations, etc.

I like how Ocean's point about $26m being a drop in the bucket went unanswered by you. Fact of the matter is $26m only seems like a lot of money for those who don't understand context.

A bit like your case about how a DHB has asked for $10m for something from Central and been told 'We don't have the money'. Ocean mentioned health spending is 15.6bn. Perhaps more telling, and what he didn't mention, is that last year (14-15) it was 15.1 bn (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/expenditure/health). So perhaps your 'we don't have the money' should be rephrased as 'We already gave you more money, what did you do with it?'

But tell me more about how the National govt and JK are a bunch of cunts despite increasing health spending half a bill.
Oh and increasing education spending .2 bill (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/expenditure/education).
And increased spending in both, in 14-15, compared with 13-14. (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/financialstatements/yearend/jun15/18.htm)

And for the record, I didn't even vote for em, I just get grumpy when people cherry-pick things they see as a minus and ignore everything else.

[Berries]

b. If it all doesn't matter bugger all then I guess that you are fine if we change the flag and also fine if we dont?
Yep, I really couldn't give a shit. I do enjoy all the frothing at the mouth that accompanies the idea though.

[bogan]

I'm amazed that 10 attended given the meeting time was 7.30am the very next morning. MPs are humans too and might have wives/husbands to fuck, children to yell at, prior commitments to businesses/charities/organisations, etc.

I like how Ocean's point about $26m being a drop in the bucket went unanswered by you. Fact of the matter is $26m only seems like a lot of money for those who don't understand context.

A bit like your case about how a DHB has asked for $10m for something from Central and been told 'We don't have the money'. Ocean mentioned health spending is 15.6bn. Perhaps more telling, and what he didn't mention, is that last year (14-15) it was 15.1 bn (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/expenditure/health). So perhaps your 'we don't have the money' should be rephrased as 'We already gave you more money, what did you do with it?'

But tell me more about how the National govt and JK are a bunch of cunts despite increasing health spending half a bill.
Oh and increasing education spending .2 bill (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/expenditure/education).
And increased spending in both, in 14-15, compared with 13-14. (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/financialstatements/yearend/jun15/18.htm)

And for the record, I didn't even vote for em, I just get grumpy when people cherry-pick things they see as a minus and ignore everything else.

They have mint taste in cars though... (http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/road-tests/76967512/bmw-ministers-to-the-fortunate-few-with-new-7series) Since they only got 30 odd, instead of like 130 to cover all members of parliament, we can afford this flag referendum with the savings right there...

[Madness]

You make an excellent point about many other countries that should be looking at changing their flags...

Where did he say that? The bastard must have edited his post :facepalm:

[mashman]

A bit like your case about how a DHB has asked for $10m for something from Central and been told 'We don't have the money'. Ocean mentioned health spending is 15.6bn. Perhaps more telling, and what he didn't mention, is that last year (14-15) it was 15.1 bn (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/expenditure/health). So perhaps your 'we don't have the money' should be rephrased as 'We already gave you more money, what did you do with it?'

Likely paid for the ever increasing costs associated with running DHB's, inflation etc...? When the budget is that large lots of stuff is being consumed/paid for, and all of those things are subject to inflation i.e. price rises? Surely $10 million is a drop in the ocean? ;)

[mashman]

I agree with John Oliver. If NZ had have been serious about having a flag that was highly distinguishable and highly marketable, they would have chosen:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMl9aJKUEAAmWi2.png

You're never going to forget it once you've looked at it.

[Ripperjon]

All flags are shit.

Bar one...

http://nathenamin.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/welshflag.jpg

[Berries]

You make an excellent point about many other countries that should be looking at changing their flags.

Where did he say that? The bastard must have edited his post :facepalm:
Nah, MarkH was assuming that because I said some flags were similar to each other that I meant that one or the other should be changed which was not the case at all.

[Daffyd]

I was going to stay out of this debate, but for what it's worth, I was lucky enough to attend the 2009 British F1 GP at Silverstone, and for anyone that hasn't been to one, it's a bit like the old A & P shows in NZ. Row upon row of sideshows, thrill rides, and stalls. One such stall was selling flags so I moseyed on up and asked if they had an NZ one.

"Of course, we have all flags." And then proudly brought out an Australian one.

"No," says I, "A New Zealand one."

"This IS a New Zealand one."

"No, this is an Australian one."

"Is there a difference?"

I said, "Look it up, you might learn something!" And walked away. Arrogant fucken Poms!

For this reason, I support the change.

[oldrider]

I was going to stay out of this debate, but for what it's worth, I was lucky enough to attend the 2009 British F1 GP at Silverstone, and for anyone that hasn't been to one, it's a bit like the old A & P shows in NZ. Row upon row of sideshows, thrill rides, and stalls. One such stall was selling flags so I moseyed on up and asked if they had an NZ one.

"Of course, we have all flags." And then proudly brought out an Australian one.

"No," says I, "A New Zealand one."

"This IS a New Zealand one."

"No, this is an Australian one."

"Is there a difference?"

I said, "Look it up, you might learn something!" And walked away. Arrogant fucken Poms!

For this reason, I support the change.

That problem is not the flag - I predict little of that will change even if the flag does! :thud:

[Daffyd]

That problem is not the flag - I predict little of that will change even if the flag does! :thud:

You could be right John but the inference I got was that they knew the difference between Australia and New Zealand, but that the flags were too similar to tell the difference.

[Berries]

I said, "Look it up, you might learn something!" And walked away. Arrogant fucken Poms!
Why would you expect someone who lived on the opposite side of the planet to know the flag of little old New Zealand? Can you draw the Portuguese flag off by heart?

That's what I don't get about the whole debate. Is it to get rid of the union jack in the corner to ditch the association with the mother country, which I completely understand, or is it simply to get some distinction from your nearest neighbour because half of your own population can't be arsed to learn the difference between the two?

[jonbuoy]

I was going to stay out of this debate, but for what it's worth, I was lucky enough to attend the 2009 British F1 GP at Silverstone, and for anyone that hasn't been to one, it's a bit like the old A & P shows in NZ. Row upon row of sideshows, thrill rides, and stalls. One such stall was selling flags so I moseyed on up and asked if they had an NZ one.

"Of course, we have all flags." And then proudly brought out an Australian one.

"No," says I, "A New Zealand one."

"This IS a New Zealand one."

"No, this is an Australian one."

"Is there a difference?"

I said, "Look it up, you might learn something!" And walked away. Arrogant fucken Poms!

For this reason, I support the change.

I´m sure he thought highly of you too. How many could tell the difference between a Syrian and Iraqi flag, Romanian and Chad? Austria and Latvia anyone? Monaco and Indonesia?

[Daffyd]

Well, I have two replies to both of you...

Firstly, They were a shop that specialised in international flags. They, of all people, should know the difference. If you walked into a motorbike shop and asked for a spare part for an R1 would you be happy if they tried to sell you the equivalent part for an R6?
Or maybe went into an appliance store to buy an LCD TV set and they tried to sell you an LED one, saying that it was an LCD?

Secondly, NZ and Australia are part of the British Commonwealth. Syria, Iraq, Romania, Chad, Latvia, Monaco. Indonesia and Portugal are not and AFAIK never have been. Besides, I did say I was from New Zealand, as did my son who was with me and they still argued that it was a New Zealand flag.

BTW I was quite polite about it; as most of my KB friends will attest, I'm not the abusive type.

[oldrider]

Is it to get rid of the union jack in the corner to ditch the association with the mother country, which I completely understand,

You are probably right!

Part of the agreement for USA intervention in WW2 - dismantling of the British Empire, on which the sun never sets! (power games Churchill lost to Roosevelt)

Simple continuation of the deal/debt? - It won't be long before Australia is declared a republic - good bye pork pie and two more Union Jacks! :kick: all :done:

[Banditbandit]

It won't be long before Australia is declared a republic - good by pork pie and two more Union Jacks! :kick: all :done:



http://ianstuart.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/7/4807875/6559413_orig.png

[bogan]

Stumbled across a really interesting Ted talk on city flags and good flag design. A lot of it is relevant to national flags too of course. One comment stuck out though:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pnv5iKB2hl4?start=775" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

https://youtu.be/pnv5iKB2hl4?t=12m55s

And then I did some research, the horrors...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RQORN_JTNW4/VkNIpHgyClI/AAAAAAAAEIU/NlQhAHNeaTo/s1600/palmerston-north.png

[Katman]

One comment stuck out though:

Did he call you Shitforbrains?

[gjm]

I'm amazed that 10 attended given the meeting time was 7.30am the very next morning. MPs are humans too and might have wives/husbands to fuck, children to yell at, prior commitments to businesses/charities/organisations, etc.

I like how Ocean's point about $26m being a drop in the bucket went unanswered by you. Fact of the matter is $26m only seems like a lot of money for those who don't understand context.

A bit like your case about how a DHB has asked for $10m for something from Central and been told 'We don't have the money'. Ocean mentioned health spending is 15.6bn. Perhaps more telling, and what he didn't mention, is that last year (14-15) it was 15.1 bn (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/expenditure/health). So perhaps your 'we don't have the money' should be rephrased as 'We already gave you more money, what did you do with it?'

But tell me more about how the National govt and JK are a bunch of cunts despite increasing health spending half a bill.
Oh and increasing education spending .2 bill (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/expenditure/education).
And increased spending in both, in 14-15, compared with 13-14. (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/financialstatements/yearend/jun15/18.htm)

And for the record, I didn't even vote for em, I just get grumpy when people cherry-pick things they see as a minus and ignore everything else.

Apologies for my delayed reply. Been a bit busy.

I don't regard $26m as a 'drop in a bucket'. I've responded to this comment (or very similar ones) many times. Anyone who considers $26m unimportant could pass a few million to me. No-one would notice, eh?
Compared to the NZ GDP, national debt, or many other things, $26m represents a very small percentage. However, it is still a very significant amount of money.

Government spending on health. This is something I know more than most about. In real terms health spending has dropped year on year. Increased costs due to an older population, increased immigration, lack of investment in healthcare infrastructure - all have taken a toll. A South Island DHB was taken to task for mismanagement of budget; what wasn't made clear was that they had stabilised their budget, weren't incurring additional losses, and were actually in a better position than several other larger DHBs. That doesn't make a good headline, and doesn't let the government look like they're trying to do something.

The DHB [edit: I work for] needs an extra $30m (another drop in that bucket) to maintain standards and services from last year, but are expected to actually save in numerical (never mind real) terms, while improving services to an increased population.

Health Minister Jonathan Coleman has ordered DHBs to find $163.5 million in ‘efficiencies’. That’s Coleman speak for ‘cuts’, although he's called them ‘reprioritisations’. I suppose, given $26m is 'a drop in a bucket' that a little over $20m per DHB is insignificant and easily found.
This follows $1.7 billion cut from the health budget over six years since National’s been in Government. Health staff are owed close to $500 million in holidays, with many due more than four weeks of leave but unable to take it. Imagine the impact of paying out that overdue holiday.

The list of things $26m could have been better spent on is endless, and there is absolutely no way that $26m would have addressed all the financial ills of NZ. The actual cost of changing the flag is estimated at nearly as much again (how many drops make up a whole bucket?) - is that also money well spent?

If you are in any doubt as to how far a drop in a bucket can go, visit your local DHB or social services office, and ask what they could do with $1.3m. That's how much each DHB could have received. It certainly wouldn't have solved everything (as I've always said) but it would have been money well-spent, contributing to improvements in many people's lives.

Equally, I'm sure that there are plenty of things to point fingers at to show poor budgeting, planning, or expenditure in all walks of life, not least the health service. Taking money away is hardly going to change that.

Unfortunately we live in a world where spending $1000 to save $1m is welcome, but spending $100000 to save $10m is frowned on.

I have no issue with people wanting to change the flag. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. My gripe is with the expenditure, and the way the process is now being run. The government was facilitating a referendum so the NZ public could make an informed decision. That same government is now actively campaigning for a change. Guess who is paying for that?


[ Edited for clarification in the line starting 'The DHB.' ]

[bogan]

Apologies for my delayed reply. Been a bit busy.

I don't regard $26m as a 'drop in a bucket'. I've responded to this comment (or very similar ones) many times. Anyone who considers $26m unimportant could pass a few million to me. No-one would notice, eh?
Compared to the NZ GDP, national debt, or many other things, $26m represents a very small percentage. However, it is still a very significant amount of money.

Government spending on health. This is something I know more than most about. In real terms health spending has dropped year on year. Increased costs due to an older population, increased immigration, lack of investment in healthcare infrastructure - all have taken a toll. A South Island DHB was taken to task for mismanagement of budget; what wasn't made clear was that they had stabilised their budget, weren't incurring additional losses, and were actually in a better position than several other larger DHBs. That doesn't make a good headline, and doesn't let the government look like they're trying to do something.

The DHB needs an extra $30m (another drop in that bucket) to maintain standards and services from last year, but are expected to actually save in numerical (never mind real) terms, while improving services to an increased population.

Health Minister Jonathan Coleman has ordered DHBs to find $163.5 million in ‘efficiencies’. That’s Coleman speak for ‘cuts’, although he's called them ‘reprioritisations’. I suppose, given $26m is 'a drop in a bucket' that a little over $20m per DHB is insignificant and easily found.
This follows $1.7 billion cut from the health budget over six years since National’s been in Government. Health staff are owed close to $500 million in holidays, with many due more than four weeks of leave but unable to take it. Imagine the impact of paying out that overdue holiday.

The list of things $26m could have been better spent on is endless, and there is absolutely no way that $26m would have addressed all the financial ills of NZ. The actual cost of changing the flag is estimated at nearly as much again (how many drops make up a while bucket?) - is that also money well spent?

If you are in any doubt as to how far a drop in a bucket can go, visit your local DHB or social services office, and ask what they could do with $1.3m. That's how much each DHB could have received. It certainly wouldn't have solved everything (as I've always said) but it would have been money well-spent, contributing to improvements in many people's lives.

Equally, I'm sure that there are plenty of things to point fingers at to show poor budgeting, planning, or expenditure in all walks of life, not least the health service. Taking money away is hardly going to change that.

Unfortunately we live in a world where spending $1000 to save $1m is welcome, but spending $100000 to save $10m is frowned on.

I have no issue with people wanting to change the flag. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. My gripe is with the expenditure, and the way the process is now being run. The government was facilitating a referendum so the NZ public could make an informed decision. That same government is now actively campaigning for a change. Guess who is paying for that?

So, as Erelyes mentioned, they already increased it by half a billion, do you not understand the concept of budgeting or something? Or do you just think your decision is somehow worth more than those who wish to democratically determine if it is time for a flag change?

Let's get some perspective, it's 26mil, around 5% of the health spending increase last year; which is around 0.2% of the total health spending for the year. And this is not a recurring cost, it's a one off, and we all (should) know govt shouldn't be bailing out institutions who can't work a budget, so really you'd want to spread that over 10 years, so it's getting even smaller than those tiny amounts listed before.

And that doesn't even begin to account for the other services that would also have hands firmly extended; education, roading, etc. Then you've also got the financial investment types which can turn such $ into more $$ for govt use (perhaps even pay for next years DHB increases), like tourism, export, etc. Actually those last two have a little bit to do with branding, perhaps we should look at changing an icon to better represent the country and make money that way...

So what could each DHB end up doing with $5 and a bag of chips?

[Katman]

So what will be the real benefits to the country should we end up with a new flag?

[bogan]

So what will be the real benefits to the country should we end up with a new flag?

Branding, like it or not, the country is a commercial entity; and given the current similarity to other flags, a rebrand is overdue.

That, and giving the people what they want.

[Katman]

Branding, like it or not, the country is a commercial entity; and given the current similarity to other flags, a rebrand is overdue.

That, and giving the people what they want.

So no tangible benefits then.

[Akzle]

Branding, like it or not, the country is a commercial entity; and given the current similarity to other flags, a rebrand is overdue.

That, and giving the people what they want.

it shouldn't be.

I dont want it. Any of it. And i didnt vote for it (or anything else). Where's my option.

[bogan]

So no tangible benefits then.

Depends entirely on your understanding of what re-branding is...


it shouldn't be.

I dont want it. Any of it. And i didnt vote for it (or anything else). Where's my option.

Your option is to vote that you don't want it; it couldn't be much simpler.

[Katman]

Depends entirely on your understanding of what re-branding is...

My understanding of re-branding is changing a logo.

[Akzle]

Your option is to vote that you don't want it; it couldn't be much simpler.

the government/flag/corporate country?
I missed that referendum...

[Madness]

If the next referendum results in no change, I wonder how long it takes before the issue is raised again.

DOC Rangers come cheap.

[bogan]

My understanding of re-branding is changing a logo.

Then you need to get a better understanding of what that means. I'll give you a hint, corporate entities do it often, specifically because the process offers tangible benefit to offset the cost of changing.


the government/flag/corporate country?
I missed that referendum...

Just the flag one, lets see how you cope with that before getting too carried away...

[Katman]

Then you need to get a better understanding of what that means. I'll give you a hint, corporate entities do it often, specifically because the process offers tangible benefit to offset the cost of changing.

Interesting that you should use the word 'corporate'.

I don't think a nation's flag should be viewed as a corporate logo.

(And I also note that you still can't name any tangible benefits).

[bogan]

Interesting that you use the word 'corporate'.

I don't think a nation's flag should be viewed as a corporate logo.

(And I also note that you still can't name any tangible benefits).

It's the most apt and numerous example of such changes.

And I think it should, thus the referendum.

Money, revenue, tourism business... tangible enough? or are you going to be all 'money isn't a thing, but I object to this referendum cos they are wasting money which is a thing sometimes' :facepalm:

[Katman]

Money, revenue, tourism business... tangible enough?

Are you seriously suggesting those will all increase simply because we have a new flag?

[Katman]

.....or are you going to be all 'money isn't a thing, but I object to this referendum cos they are wasting money which is a thing sometimes' :facepalm:

You're the one equating the $1.3 million (with which each DHB could have been better off) with $5 and a bag of chips.

Perhaps it's you that doesn't have an understanding of the value of money.

[scumdog]

That, and giving the people what they want.


The 'people' wanted a new flag?
How many 'people'?

[oldrider]

Funny thing - the more I see of the proposed new flag - the less I seem to like it - the more I see of them flying together - the more acceptable the old flag becomes!

Especially so when it's printed in the true rich colours! :yes:

If there is any attempt to brainwash in the new flag - it's not doing it for me!

Still if the flag change is unsuccessful this time - like Arnold Schwarzenegger and General MacArthur - it will be back - and back - and back - until? :rolleyes: - :wait:

[bogan]

Are you seriously suggesting those will all increase simply because we have a new flag?

It's a certain possibility, indeed it's the desired outcome for a rebrand.


You're the one equating the $1.3 million (that each DHB could have been better off) with $5 and a bag of chips.

Perhaps it's you that doesn't have an understanding of the value of money.

Obviously by way of reductio ad absurdum; how do you miss this sort of shit? the reasoning was even explained directly in that post.


The 'people' wanted a new flag?
How many 'people'?

Given the context (the change happening) that was in answer to, over 50% of relevant ones (those who vote). Tune in at the end of march to see if it is the case or not...

[Katman]

It's a certain possibility, indeed it's the desired outcome for a rebrand.

Really?

Do you actually think that there will be a sudden surge of people visiting New Zealand because they want to see our new flag waving in the breeze?

I've said it before and I'll say it again - what a fucking moron.

[Katman]

I don't think a nation's flag should be viewed as a corporate logo.



And I think it should, thus the referendum.

While I don't necessarily buy into the theory that men and women have died over the years for our flag, your suggestion that it should be viewed simply as a corporate logo is probably one of the most repulsive things to have ever escaped your gob.

[nerrrd]

So we swap 'no it's different to Australia's one' to 'no it's a silver fern, not a fish skeleton/feather', which is what most of the rest of the world will see it as.

Got to love our democracy, where the opinion of less than 50% of eligible voters is a consistently seen as a 'mandate'. Still, better than nothing I guess.

[oldrider]

So we swap 'no it's different to Australia's one' to 'no it's a silver fern, not a fish skeleton/feather', which is what most of the rest of the world will see it as.

Got to love our democracy, where the opinion of less than 50% of eligible voters is a consistently seen as a 'mandate'. Still, better than nothing I guess.

True! - The only thing that will change will be the flag its self - if it changes! :shifty:

[gjm]

So, as Erelyes mentioned, they already increased it by half a billion, do you not understand the concept of budgeting or something? Or do you just think your decision is somehow worth more than those who wish to democratically determine if it is time for a flag change?

Let's get some perspective, it's 26mil, around 5% of the health spending increase last year; which is around 0.2% of the total health spending for the year. And this is not a recurring cost, it's a one off, and we all (should) know govt shouldn't be bailing out institutions who can't work a budget, so really you'd want to spread that over 10 years, so it's getting even smaller than those tiny amounts listed before.

And that doesn't even begin to account for the other services that would also have hands firmly extended; education, roading, etc. Then you've also got the financial investment types which can turn such $ into more $$ for govt use (perhaps even pay for next years DHB increases), like tourism, export, etc. Actually those last two have a little bit to do with branding, perhaps we should look at changing an icon to better represent the country and make money that way...

So what could each DHB end up doing with $5 and a bag of chips?

<sigh>

Who increased what by $0.5bn? (To be fair, I've not looked into this.) As I said, the value of finance provided to the DHBs has decreased by $1.7bn over 6 years, and this year a further significant 'reduction in inefficiencies' (damn, that's funny coming from the government!) is expected from the DHBs nationwide.
If the $0.5bn is a recent addition (increase) to budgets, that suggests the actual decrease was closer to $2.2bn. Yay! Let's be happy the benevolent government has given a little of the money they took away, back to those who need it. :rolleyes: Maybe even they realised it was impossible to provide adequate service while underfunding.

Perspective is required. $26m is a lot of money. (And not the end of the story, either, but you don't comment on that.) You seem to be suggesting $26m is insignificant. Does that mean the $350m for a US F22 fighter plane is also insignificant because it is such a small percentage of the US military budget ($580bn or more)? When does a small percentage become a significant quantity? I suggest the actual numbers are important (contrary to the message our lord and master keeps spouting on Breakfast TV) and entirely relevant.

Bail outs are not always appropriate, especially if there is evident poor management involved. However, the DHB I work for has met budgetary criteria, year on year on year, in the face of decreasing funding (in real terms). And then this year, in light of further cuts, they are $30m over budget to maintain the same service (while being wexpected, by the government, to increase service provision to an ever-growing client base). Is it fair that the $30m will be A Big Deal later and doubtless mentioned in the press as a shortcoming? After all, it's only a little more than $26m, so it doesn't really matter, right?

That doesn't mean I think the $26m for the flag referendum should have come to this DHB, but it does highlight poor governmental budgeting when they need economies and cut funding, but can suddenly shrug and throw $26m into the wind.

There's lots of other points I raised in trying to answer your earlier questions. Please could you comment on those, too? I'm especially interested to hear your thoughts regarding the government facilitation of the referendum allowing the people a free choice, while they then actively campaign for the change the referendum could bring. Doesn't sound at all unbiased, does it?

[gjm]

So we swap 'no it's different to Australia's one' to 'no it's a silver fern, not a fish skeleton/feather', which is what most of the rest of the world will see it as.

Got to love our democracy, where the opinion of less than 50% of eligible voters is a consistently seen as a 'mandate'. Still, better than nothing I guess.

Lol. :)

Interesting the endless stream of comments made around the fern being on gravestones and how if the flag is so important, why doesn't it appear there?

The fern on the wargraves is a closed fern, and a Maori symbol for death. It was chosen over the Manaia for several reasons, one being the overseas nature of the burials - I understand complexity of design was also a factor. What a great inspiration for a national flag!

[Trade_nancy]

So...if the silver fern is the iconic symbol to represent us on the new flag - if it wins...why is it WHITE and not silver?

[Moi]

So...if the silver fern is the iconic symbol to represent us on the new flag - if it wins...why is it WHITE and not silver?

There are only two "metals" used in heraldry - or which is gold and argent which is silver. These are shown on heraldic devices, such as coats-of-arms, as yellow or white. A flag is considered to be a heraldic device, hence the use of white for the silver fern.

The present flag uses azure [blue], gules [red] and argent.

[Banditbandit]

While I don't necessarily buy into the theory that men and women have died over the years for our flag, your suggestion that it should be viewed simply as a corporate logo is probably one of the most repulsive things to have ever escaped your gob.

I agrere .. however the neo-liberal bullshit since 1984 has turned Godzone into an international trading corporation ...

[Madness]

why is it WHITE and not silver?

Ever tried to dry the dishes using tinfoil?

[Erelyes]

That doesn't mean I think the $26m for the flag referendum should have come to this DHB, but it does highlight poor governmental budgeting when they need economies and cut funding, but can suddenly shrug and throw $26m into the wind.

First off, the bulk of the 26m is going to NZPost. Falling sales are causing them trouble. We could just bail them out, but getting them to post some mail seems like a better idea instead.

Let's have some more perspective then.

Are you 19 times more pissed off about the bailout of $500m to AMI?
Are you 46 times more pissed off about the bailout of $1.2bn to South Canterbury Finance?

Both companies that no doubt have overseas ownership (instead of being wholly NZ owned like the SOE that is NZPost) and in both cases was 'here's some money', rather than 'here's some money, do <this> with it'.

Now, your 1.3m for each DHB - where are you going to find this each and every year? Or when I go to the DHB and ask what they could do with it, should I clarify that this is a one-off not to be repeated for the forseeable future (if ever)?

[Moi]

Have a wee read... http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11595044

[Akzle]

Just the flag one, lets see how you cope with that before getting too carried away...

i object.
There needs to be option c) i dont need or want a flag, fuck off crackerjews.

[Akzle]

DOC Rangers come cheap.

it's a lifestyle job

[Akzle]

Still if the flag change is unsuccessful this time - like Arnold Schwarzenegger and General MacArthur - it will be back - and back - and back - until? :rolleyes: - :wait:

until it becomes the governator of nz and legalises weed.
This idea has merit.

[gjm]

First off, the bulk of the 26m is going to NZPost. Falling sales are causing them trouble. We could just bail them out, but getting them to post some mail seems like a better idea instead.
Good point. I do have figures around where the $26m has bee spent - I'll try to dig them out.


Let's have some more perspective then.

Are you 19 times more pissed off about the bailout of $500m to AMI?
Are you 46 times more pissed off about the bailout of $1.2bn to South Canterbury Finance?

Both companies that no doubt have overseas ownership (instead of being wholly NZ owned like the SOE that is NZPost) and in both cases was 'here's some money', rather than 'here's some money, do <this> with it'.

Someone, somewhere, decided the consequences of not bailing out AMI and SCF exceeded the cost of doing so. The figures involved are huge, and as so often happens in the Western world of finance, those responsible for the financial failure probably got a pat on the back and a bonus for getting government help. I disagree with this approach - the bailout may have been necessary (I've never looked into it) but those responsible for the initial failure should be punished in whatever way is appropriate. Compare with the Icelandic approach to banking failures, which I feel is laudable and more correct.


Now, your 1.3m for each DHB - where are you going to find this each and every year? Or when I go to the DHB and ask what they could do with it, should I clarify that this is a one-off not to be repeated for the forseeable future (if ever)?
Simple. Yes - it's a one-off. Done. The government has been effectively taking money away from the DHBs, year after year, so a one-off boost to funds would be very welcome. Perhaps tie in a clause saying the money must be used to repair or improve an existing facility or situation (or plural, of either), or replace something that cannot be repaired or continue to be used despite it's necessity. It should not be used to implement something new - that would lead to an increase in ongoing maintenance costs and present a burden to the receiving authority rather than a boon.
Regardless, the money would be much better spent helping communities in this way, than on a flag referendum which, if successful by change merits, would actually impose further (albeit small) costs on those areas already short-funded.

See also Moi's link to the disparagement of the flag design, the process used to select that design, and the way the fern has been introduced into the Kiwi psyche. Way too much stink of fait accompli.

The more I hear "it's only $26m" the less inclined I am to give any credence to the process used, or the actual need for change (especially to the Aoteatowel :) ).

[Katman]

I wonder how many of those who are claiming it is time for a new flag that better represents who we are as a people would feel the same way if someone decided it was time to find a new name that better represents us.

I mean, we don't have any real ties to Holland anymore, do we?

[Ocean1]

<sigh>

Who increased what by $0.5bn? (To be fair, I've not looked into this.) As I said, the value of finance provided to the DHBs has decreased by $1.7bn over 6 years, and this year a further significant 'reduction in inefficiencies' (damn, that's funny coming from the government!) is expected from the DHBs nationwide.

Source?

Only, I know it's "The Man", and therefore not to be trusted, but they seem to disagree with you:

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2010/10-01/25.htm

319927


However, you'll no doubt be disturbed to know that the "drop in the bucket" in question is, in fact somewhat more than that. Given that there are 'prox 20,000 drops in a bucket then compared to your miserable health budget a single drop amounts to a paltry two million five hundred thousand. So the profligate twentymumble million spent on a thankfully rare and hideously over priced actual democratic event amounts to almost ten drops.

Sorry 'bout that.

[Banditbandit]

I wonder how many of those who are claiming it is time for a new flag that better represents who we are as a people would feel the same way if someone decided it was time to find a new name that better represents us.

I mean, we don't have any real ties to Holland anymore, do we?

Don't we live in Aotearoa ???

[Erelyes]

Don't we live in Aotearoa ???

Thats the one.

We could consider changing the anthem while we're at it, as demographics indicate that less than 50% are Christian and around 41% are 'no religion'. Although, to it's credit, the Anthem doesn't specify which God is to be defending us.

[Katman]

I doubt anyone overseas has ever heard of the Government of Aotearoa.

[Ocean1]

We could consider changing the anthem while we're at it


Oh, aye!....

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/i9nnnM-__JQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Banditbandit]

I doubt anyone overseas has ever heard of the Government of Aotearoa.

And we should care because ???

[PrincessBandit]

it shouldn't be.

I dont want it. Any of it. And i didnt vote for it (or anything else). Where's my option.

Sunk at the bottom of the S bend? Oh, sorry, I thought you said "where's my opinion" :bleh:


If the next referendum results in no change, I wonder how long it takes before the issue is raised again.



That's what I wonder too. Even if they got a 2% "for" and 98% "against" changing the existing flag for the new contender TPTB will still be convinced that the dead horse is still worth a good flogging. I find it interesting that "tv celebrities" and well respected sportsmen are being given an outing on the airwaves to push for the change (how much $ crossed their palms for that, one wonders) - is this a sign of how desperate the government is getting to shore up support for this shemozzle? (slipped that one in for ya, akx baby)

[Katman]

And we should care because ???

Where did I ever suggest that we should care?

[bogan]

Really?

Do you actually think that there will be a sudden surge of people visiting New Zealand because they want to see our new flag waving in the breeze?

I've said it before and I'll say it again - what a fucking moron.

The aim is more people knowing NZ is a place which isn't australia. You might find NZ gets more tourism $ when the tourists land here instead of across the ditch.


While I don't necessarily buy into the theory that men and women have died over the years for our flag, your suggestion that it should be viewed simply as a corporate logo is probably one of the most repulsive things to have ever escaped your gob.

Why did you add the 'simply' qualifier? I never asserted that. Obviously the most repulsive thing that has ever escaped my gob was so benign you needed to massage the wording to make it more repulsive :facepalm:


<sigh>

Who increased what by $0.5bn? (To be fair, I've not looked into this.) As I said, the value of finance provided to the DHBs has decreased by $1.7bn over 6 years, and this year a further significant 'reduction in inefficiencies' (damn, that's funny coming from the government!) is expected from the DHBs nationwide.
If the $0.5bn is a recent addition (increase) to budgets, that suggests the actual decrease was closer to $2.2bn. Yay! Let's be happy the benevolent government has given a little of the money they took away, back to those who need it. :rolleyes: Maybe even they realised it was impossible to provide adequate service while underfunding.

Perspective is required. $26m is a lot of money. (And not the end of the story, either, but you don't comment on that.) You seem to be suggesting $26m is insignificant. Does that mean the $350m for a US F22 fighter plane is also insignificant because it is such a small percentage of the US military budget ($580bn or more)? When does a small percentage become a significant quantity? I suggest the actual numbers are important (contrary to the message our lord and master keeps spouting on Breakfast TV) and entirely relevant.

Bail outs are not always appropriate, especially if there is evident poor management involved. However, the DHB I work for has met budgetary criteria, year on year on year, in the face of decreasing funding (in real terms). And then this year, in light of further cuts, they are $30m over budget to maintain the same service (while being wexpected, by the government, to increase service provision to an ever-growing client base). Is it fair that the $30m will be A Big Deal later and doubtless mentioned in the press as a shortcoming? After all, it's only a little more than $26m, so it doesn't really matter, right?

That doesn't mean I think the $26m for the flag referendum should have come to this DHB, but it does highlight poor governmental budgeting when they need economies and cut funding, but can suddenly shrug and throw $26m into the wind.

There's lots of other points I raised in trying to answer your earlier questions. Please could you comment on those, too? I'm especially interested to hear your thoughts regarding the government facilitation of the referendum allowing the people a free choice, while they then actively campaign for the change the referendum could bring. Doesn't sound at all unbiased, does it?

The govt http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2010/10-01/25.htm shows that your 1.7bn decrease is clearly fiction, so you should now be 30x happier as the DHBs get more than you thought.

Focusing on just one item is like the opposite of perspective dude.

That says it all really, you think spending money on the democratic process is throwing it into the wind.

I commented on that one, to reiterate though, parts of the govt have always promoted and campaigned for one side of the debate or another; it's why we have multiple parties, so the other parties can campaign for the other side. Nor does it actually matter, since the govt are not deciding this one.

[MarkH]

That's what I wonder too. Even if they got a 2% "for" and 98% "against" changing the existing flag for the new contender TPTB will still be convinced that the dead horse is still worth a good flogging. I find it interesting that "tv celebrities" and well respected sportsmen are being given an outing on the airwaves to push for the change (how much $ crossed their palms for that, one wonders) - is this a sign of how desperate the government is getting to shore up support for this shemozzle? (slipped that one in for ya, akx baby)

Do you have any decent basis for believing that these sportspeople are not just giving their own personal opinion?

I disagree about TPTB will flog a dead horse, my best guess is that if the public vote for retaining the current flag then we wont see another referendum on that matter any time soon, probably not within the next couple of decades anyway. Throughout my lifetime this is the first and only time there has been such a referendum, what evidence is there that the government wouldn't just let the matter go if the public vote against it?

[Katman]

Why did you add the 'simply' qualifier? I never asserted that. Obviously the most repulsive thing that has ever escaped my gob was so benign you needed to massage the wording to make it more repulsive :facepalm:


And I think it should.....

Sounds decidedly simple to me.

[Woodman]

My understanding of re-branding is changing a logo.

Branding is all around you. Companies do not spend millions on it for no reason, they spend millions on it because it makes them more millions. But I think you know that and you are just being deliberately stupid.

[Ocean1]

deliberately stupid.

Are you sure that's a valid diagnosis?

Only it sounds sorta oxymoronic.

And he comes across as perfectly natural and completely unstudied. :laugh:

[bogan]

Sounds decidedly simple to me.

Simply put, my suggestion was never that it should be viewed simply as a corporate logo.

I think it should be viewed as one in addition to all the roles it performs as a flag, it is this later point you sought to trivialise by adding the 'simply' qualifier, thus changing the meaning of the suggestion to one in which you could find some mock indignation.

[mashman]

Branding is all around you. Companies do not spend millions on it for no reason, they spend millions on it because it makes them more millions.

How does it make more millions? If every "shop" had nothing but their name available, no logo etc... I would imagine people would still shop with that "shop". You sure about millions being spent on marketing and advertising really makes millions? I'm not so convinced...


But I think you know that and you are just being deliberately stupid.

:bleh:

[Woodman]

How does it make more millions? If every "shop" had nothing but their name available, no logo etc... I would imagine people would still shop with that "shop". You sure about millions being spent on marketing and advertising really makes millions? I'm not so convinced...



:bleh:

:killingme At IF.


"If" every shop was the same, but they are not all the same in the real world, you know the one we are in?. So they brand stuff and then convince people that x brand is better,cooler,faster than y brand so they sell more x brand ergo making more milions.

[oldrider]

How does it make more millions? If every "shop" had nothing but their name available, no logo etc... I would imagine people would still shop with that "shop". You sure about millions being spent on marketing and advertising really makes millions? I'm not so convinced...:bleh:

Tax breaks! :whistle:

[mashman]

:killingme At IF.


"If" every shop was the same, but they are not all the same in the real world, you know the one we are in?. So they brand stuff and then convince people that x brand is better,cooler,faster than y brand so they sell more x brand ergo making more milions.

:killingme@claiming to convince people ;).

[mashman]

Tax breaks! :whistle:

Better than spending money on wages :wari:

[Katman]

Branding is all around you. Companies do not spend millions on it for no reason, they spend millions on it because it makes them more millions. But I think you know that and you are just being deliberately stupid.

If that's what you see as the purpose of a nation's flag then I think it's you that's being deliberately stupid.

[Ocean1]

I'm not so convinced...

Yeah. But it's not your money. And neither is the millions that result from marketing campaigns.

Which sort of says it all, really.

[Ocean1]

Tax breaks! :whistle:

There's tax breaks in marketing costs?

Well I'll be fookt.

[mashman]

Yeah. But it's not your money. And neither is the millions that result from marketing campaigns.

Which sort of says it all, really.

It's not yours either.

Which does indeed say it all.

[Katman]

For those of you who see the purpose of a nation's flag as nothing more than a marketing ploy, I don't know whether to feel a sense of pity or total contempt.

[Woodman]

:killingme@claiming to convince people ;).

Now you are being deliberately stupid.


If that's what you see as the purpose of a nation's flag then I think it's you that's being deliberately stupid.

Fair call, but my stance on the flag is that I don't give a fuck what it looks like, its just a symbol on a sheet. If you want to worship symbols then go to church.

[Ocean1]

It's not yours either.

Which does indeed say it all.

Correct.

Glad to see you can admit you're wrong for a change.

[Ocean1]

For those of you who see the purpose of a nation's flag as nothing more than a marketing ploy, I don't know whether to feel a sense of pity or total contempt.

As opposed to those who see the current flag as something that represents NZ?

[Katman]

Fair call, but my stance on the flag is that I don't give a fuck what it looks like, its just a symbol on a sheet. If you want to worship symbols then go to church.

So what do you see as a nation's flag's purpose?

[Woodman]

So what do you see as a nation's flag's purpose?

A symbol. Like I said.

[mashman]

Now you are being deliberately stupid.

What does it convince people of?


Glad to see you can admit you're wrong for a change.

You must have misrepresented and projected something that I never meant.

[Ocean1]

You must have misrepresented and projected something that I never meant.

No need to explain dude, you were clearly wrong and you clearly said so.

But you can be wrong about that, to make up for the earlier failure to be wrong, eh?

[mashman]

No need to explain dude, you were clearly wrong and you clearly said so.

But you can be wrong about that, to make up for the earlier failure to be wrong, eh?

I didn't realise that I was trying to prove anything right... but thanks for doing that for me. Chur.

[Woodman]

What does it convince people of?



.

I know that you know the answer.

[mashman]

I know that you know the answer.

But I like hearing you saying it :love:

[idb]

Before worrying about a new NZ flag we need a KB wave...ya know...so we can recognise each other on the road.

It's surprising no one has thought of it before.

[oldrider]

Before worrying about a new NZ flag we need a KB wave...ya know...so we can recognise each other on the road.

It's surprising no one has thought of it before.

I was in the wavy navy - could I be of any assistance? :whistle:

[husaberg]

Before worrying about a new NZ flag we need a KB wave...ya know...so we can recognise each other on the road.

It's surprising no one has thought of it before.
Yeah.............:nya:
319928319929

[idb]

I was in the wavy navy - could I be of any assistance? :whistle:

By all means.

Maybe we should start a thread about it...I don't want to derail this one.

[bogan]

For those of you who see the purpose of a nation's flag as nothing more than a marketing ploy, I don't know whether to feel a sense of pity or total contempt.

Try feeling total confusion, cos you're the only one banging on about it being nothing more than that...

[HenryDorsetCase]

Laser Kiwi or no change.

[AllanB]

CHANGE.


But disappointed in the 'contest' options presented as finalists. That was a absolute crop and should have been arse kicked.

[idb]

Laser Kiwi or no change.

Amen brother!

[HenryDorsetCase]

CHANGE.


But disappointed in the 'contest' options presented as finalists. That was a absolute crop and should have been arse kicked.

Hey - spotted you today.

no idea why its upside down...

[gjm]

The aim is more people knowing NZ is a place which isn't australia. You might find NZ gets more tourism $ when the tourists land here instead of across the ditch.

https://scontent-syd1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/10441322_1011197772293800_3621296862355984901_n.jp g?oh=198fd6c01e663b9bfd7470aab21c29d6&oe=5724D4D3

So... Why is the NZ government suggesting the NZ flag is changed?


The govt http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2010/10-01/25.htm shows that your 1.7bn decrease is clearly fiction, so you should now be 30x happier as the DHBs get more than you thought.
The Treasury website should tell the truth. I will check my source(s) again to ensure what I have suggested is true - those sources are closer to the health sector and may have a slant that misrepresents the information. Or they may not, and the representation of the information on the Treasury website while being accurate, may not tell the whole story.

There are several points in the Treasury piece that I would immediately take issue with. For example, clinicians are not receiving 2.5% per annum increases in pay as 'modelled in an illustrative scenario' (aka - estimate, not fact), and the population demographics and growth are not considered. I can be absolutely categoric when I say the biggest issue facing the DHB I work for is the aging population, and the immigration to the area of people who typically have very poor (in terms of health) lifestyles and typically require significantly more care than people of a European-type descent. That won't be as common an issue across many other DHBs, but is certainly prevalent in the Auckland region.

Incidentally, the increase in health sector spending looks dramatic, but is only bringing NZ up to the same standard as other countries of similar population, when that spending is considered a percentage of GDP.


Focusing on just one item is like the opposite of perspective dude.
That wasn't the intention. I focused on something I know about. I'm sure others could do the same for education, military, transport and roading or any one of many other areas.


That says it all really, you think spending money on the democratic process is throwing it into the wind.
The government says it has no money, then 'magically' comes up with $26m to spend on something no-one asked for, and which is then vehemently opposed. The government ignores known public opinion, instead choosing to spend yet more money campaigning for the solution a significant majority of people have said they don't want. Admittedly, that has not (yet) been said in a public referendum and only in many dozens of online and other surveys carried out across the country.
I am all in favour of democratic process, but this referendum is moving away from that to one of political persuasion. Sure, you do still get to pick whichever flag you prefer, but you're being sold the result before it happens.

Regardless, I don't regard this as money spent on democratic process, however it is dressed up. I regard it as money wasted, money spent unnecessarily. Money that would have been better spent elsewhere. (But I think we've established my view on that! :) ) I have absolutely no doubt there is much more money also wasted in official spending, but not in situations as publicly flaunted as this. (Unless Tim Groser spending $200k in 3 months on travel counts.)


I commented on that one, to reiterate though, parts of the govt have always promoted and campaigned for one side of the debate or another; it's why we have multiple parties, so the other parties can campaign for the other side. Nor does it actually matter, since the govt are not deciding this one.
In this case we have a government pretending to give the public a choice. When the supposedly desired choice of said government looks to be on a hiding to nothing, they then start to advertise, publicise and distort public opinion to get the result they want. This extends beyond just promoting their preferred candidate, but into persuasion.

This is the back page of the Hamilton Press, dated February 24th 2016. (Apologies for the poor quality of the image. You can find the online version here (http://www.hamiltonpress.co.nz/?xml=Hamilton_Press_V3&iid=137491#folio=1).)

https://scontent-syd1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/12321422_1062619717132447_3151255794220513745_n.jp g?oh=45a24f98e5d7fe85b092ea2663becb8f&oe=575232BF

This is Spin Doctoring for Dummies masquerading as a full-page advertisement. (Celebs may well have presented their own opinions on the flag change f.o.c., but this will certainly have cost money.)
Note how the official governmental preferred option is on the left. OK... One of them has to be to the left, or the top.
Note how the text for the official governmental preferred option is crisp and clear, in black on a blue-grey background for enhanced contrast. (I appreciate you'll have to take my word that it is crisp and clear.)
Note how the text for the existing flag is on pale blue for reduced contrast. Again, I know you can't see it in this image, but the published text does appear marginally less distinct.
Also note that the provenance of the advertisement is not prominently stated, and written in white on pale blue for even less contrast and immediate visibility.

Now, it is entirely possible an independent advertising agency supports the flag change and has taken an opportunity to publish this item. To me, that seems unlikely. Regardless, anyone in advertising will tell you at a glance that this page is designed for one thing - to emphasise the flag on the left while nullifying as far as possible the flag on the right.

One last thing... I've shown the fern flag to some people I regularly speak with from overseas to seek their opinion on the design. "Here's a proposed new flag for NZ - what do you think?" The responses, frankly surprised me. Not one single person knew what the fern was. Almost everyone wanted to know why NZ wanted a feather on it's flag. One person asked if it was some bizarre and rare skeleton from a animal or fish only found in NZ.

If this is to advertise NZ overseas, shouldn't it be obvious to the people living overseas what is being portrayed?

Based on this (laughably small review sample: 20-30 people), rather than boost NZ's image overseas the new flag is more likely to damage the NZ image and consign it to obscurity. Many people in NZ feel the reference to the British Empire should be deleted not just from the flag, but from memory. While it probably won't impact on Kiwi thinking, most people in the UK are proud NZ is (or was) a part of the British Empire, look upon NZ as a wonderful place (it is) and aspire to visit here. I'd hope that changing the flag won't adversely affect that, but I really can't see anyone thinking "Oh wow, what a great country to change their flag! I must go there!"

I'm surmising, of course.

Change is not a bad thing. Changing the flag is not necessarily a bad thing. But if it is to change, let's change it to something we can all be proud of, something meaningful, rather than a rework of John Key's own design from 20-or-so years ago. What we have is a piece of tat - the Aoteatowel - being pushed like cheap crack on to an unsuspecting public by a government who should know better.

IMHO. :)

[Katman]

A symbol. Like I said.

A symbol of what?

[Woodman]

A symbol of what?

Stop trying to be intelligent, it doesn't suit you.

[HenryDorsetCase]

A symbol of what?

"Don't shoot us we can't afford to shoot back"?

[bogan]

So... Why is the NZ government suggesting the NZ flag is changed?


The Treasury website should tell the truth. I will check my source(s) again to ensure what I have suggested is true - those sources are closer to the health sector and may have a slant that misrepresents the information. Or they may not, and the representation of the information on the Treasury website while being accurate, may not tell the whole story.

There are several points in the Treasury piece that I would immediately take issue with. For example, clinicians are not receiving 2.5% per annum increases in pay as 'modelled in an illustrative scenario' (aka - estimate, not fact), and the population demographics and growth are not considered. I can be absolutely categoric when I say the biggest issue facing the DHB I work for is the aging population, and the immigration to the area of people who typically have very poor (in terms of health) lifestyles and typically require significantly more care than people of a European-type descent. That won't be as common an issue across many other DHBs, but is certainly prevalent in the Auckland region.

Incidentally, the increase in health sector spending looks dramatic, but is only bringing NZ up to the same standard as other countries of similar population, when that spending is considered a percentage of GDP.


That wasn't the intention. I focused on something I know about. I'm sure others could do the same for education, military, transport and roading or any one of many other areas.


The government says it has no money, then 'magically' comes up with $26m to spend on something no-one asked for, and which is then vehemently opposed. The government ignores known public opinion, instead choosing to spend yet more money campaigning for the solution a significant majority of people have said they don't want. Admittedly, that has not (yet) been said in a public referendum and only in many dozens of online and other surveys carried out across the country.
I am all in favour of democratic process, but this referendum is moving away from that to one of political persuasion. Sure, you do still get to pick whichever flag you prefer, but you're being sold the result before it happens.

Regardless, I don't regard this as money spent on democratic process, however it is dressed up. I regard it as money wasted, money spent unnecessarily. Money that would have been better spent elsewhere. (But I think we've established my view on that! :) ) I have absolutely no doubt there is much more money also wasted in official spending, but not in situations as publicly flaunted as this. (Unless Tim Groser spending $200k in 3 months on travel counts.)


In this case we have a government pretending to give the public a choice. When the supposedly desired choice of said government looks to be on a hiding to nothing, they then start to advertise, publicise and distort public opinion to get the result they want. This extends beyond just promoting their preferred candidate, but into persuasion.

This is the back page of the Hamilton Press, dated February 24th 2016. (Apologies for the poor quality of the image. You can find the online version here (http://www.hamiltonpress.co.nz/?xml=Hamilton_Press_V3&iid=137491#folio=1).)



This is Spin Doctoring for Dummies masquerading as a full-page advertisement. (Celebs may well have presented their own opinions on the flag change f.o.c., but this will certainly have cost money.)
Note how the official governmental preferred option is on the left. OK... One of them has to be to the left, or the top.
Note how the text for the official governmental preferred option is crisp and clear, in black on a blue-grey background for enhanced contrast. (I appreciate you'll have to take my word that it is crisp and clear.)
Note how the text for the existing flag is on pale blue for reduced contrast. Again, I know you can't see it in this image, but the published text does appear marginally less distinct.
Also note that the provenance of the advertisement is not prominently stated, and written in white on pale blue for even less contrast and immediate visibility.

Now, it is entirely possible an independent advertising agency supports the flag change and has taken an opportunity to publish this item. To me, that seems unlikely. Regardless, anyone in advertising will tell you at a glance that this page is designed for one thing - to emphasise the flag on the left while nullifying as far as possible the flag on the right.

One last thing... I've shown the fern flag to some people I regularly speak with from overseas to seek their opinion on the design. "Here's a proposed new flag for NZ - what do you think?" The responses, frankly surprised me. Not one single person knew what the fern was. Almost everyone wanted to know why NZ wanted a feather on it's flag. One person asked if it was some bizarre and rare skeleton from a animal or fish only found in NZ.

If this is to advertise NZ overseas, shouldn't it be obvious to the people living overseas what is being portrayed?

Based on this (laughably small review sample: 20-30 people), rather than boost NZ's image overseas the new flag is more likely to damage the NZ image and consign it to obscurity. Many people in NZ feel the reference to the British Empire should be deleted not just from the flag, but from memory. While it probably won't impact on Kiwi thinking, most people in the UK are proud NZ is (or was) a part of the British Empire, look upon NZ as a wonderful place (it is) and aspire to visit here. I'd hope that changing the flag won't adversely affect that, but I really can't see anyone thinking "Oh wow, what a great country to change their flag! I must go there!"

I'm surmising, of course.

Change is not a bad thing. Changing the flag is not necessarily a bad thing. But if it is to change, let's change it to something we can all be proud of, something meaningful, rather than a rework of John Key's own design from 20-or-so years ago. What we have is a piece of tat - the Aoteatowel - being pushed like cheap crack on to an unsuspecting public by a government who should know better.

IMHO. :)

Because the current one is too similar to australia's, and it also strongly references our colonial nature, the time for which has passed.

The points you take issue with on the treasury website are utterly irrelevant, doubly so when you have no data to back them up.

You focused on the 26mil, instead of the wider picture to gain perspective on how much 26mil actually is.

When did the govt say they had no money? You've probably misinterpreted them saying we have over-run the health spending budget or something...

:facepalm: how do you know it is money wasted, if you don't ask the people. That literally is the democratic process, and that is what this is being spent on.

The govt is giving us a choice, there is no pretending about it. If they didn't give us a choice the flag would already be changed.

Dude we've been over this, there is no problem with the govt (if that was indeed even a govt paid for message?) pushing for one side of the debate over another, they are giving us the final choice. You think the other side needs pushing to0? find some support to do so, it's how representative democracy works after all.

Firstly, why were they not shown the current NZ flag so as to give comparitive data. Secondly, it's not our flag (yet), so (unless they avidly follow rugby) how do you expect them to know what it is? :scratch:

The shot at JK is entirely redundant, as we chose the design, from the first referendum. They even updated the referendum option that time due to public pressure. That's why this is an example of good democratic process.

You clearly have a problem with JK and whatever he wants to do, and you clearly have a problem with changing the flag, do try and look beyond your own bias's and evaluate the process, because that is the important part here.

[Madness]

I reckon if it's time we had a new flag then maybe it's also time we had a new colour(s) for our national sporting teams. I'm thinking orange and purple at this stage, maybe with some silver edges - maybe even glitter or tinsel for a proper silver finish. It's a pretty contemporary mix of colours and would almost certainly result in better awareness of our country and hopefully lead to increased tourism. We could still call the All Blacks the All Blacks seeing as most of them are well, black...

[Banditbandit]

I doubt anyone overseas has ever heard of the Government of Aotearoa.


And we should care because ???


Where did I ever suggest that we should care?

The implication in your first statement implies that it is impoertasnt that overseas people recognise the name of the country ..

My response would probably have been better expressed as "who gives a shit ..."

[Katman]

The implication in your first statement implies that it is impoertasnt that overseas people recognise the name of the country ..

My response would probably have been better expressed as "who gives a shit ..."

No, your implication was that New Zealand already has a replacement name. It doesn't.

Aotearoa is a very subordinate alternative.

Therefore the use of the name Aotearoa has no similarity to the replacement of the flag whatsoever.

[Banditbandit]

No, your implication was that New Zealand already has a replacement name. It doesn't.

Aotearoa is a very subordinate alternative.

Therefore the use of the name Aotearoa has no similarity to the replacement of the flag whatsoever.

OK. You win . I concede :mellow:

[Katman]

So therefore, what do you think would be the reaction if it was proposed to ditch the name New Zealand all together and have Aotearoa (or another name chosen by referendum) as the only official name for the country?

[mashman]

So therefore, what do think would be the reaction if it was proposed to ditch the name New Zealand all together and have Aotearoa (or another name chosen by referendum) as the only official name for the country?

Maybe we should have 2 flags to go with the 2 names. Then everyone will be happy as NZ will become twice as rich.

[Katman]

Maybe we should have 2 flags to go with the 2 names. Then everyone will be happy as NZ will become twice as rich.

Good thinking.

Bogan would be overjoyed.

[Banditbandit]

So therefore, what do think would be the reaction if it was proposed to ditch the name New Zealand all together and have Aotearoa (or another name chosen by referendum) as the only official name for the country?

We've made that suggestion several times in the past - went down like a lead balloon ..

But some are still trying ...

http://aotearoarenamemovement.blogspot.co.nz/

[mashman]

Good thinking.

Bogan would be overjoyed.

It'll have to be the Kiwi with Lazers coming from its eyes though.

[bogan]

Good thinking.

Bogan would be overjoyed.

Generally a product will dual brand to cater for different price points, however a little difficult to apply that theory to a country. You seem to forget a country's flag is so much more than just a branding logo...

[Swoop]

But it's all the rabid anti Key brigade can drum up against the change.

It distracts attention from the fact their opposition party hasn't "had a clue" (let alone a leader) in a decade.

[Voltaire]

I reckon if it's time we had a new flag then maybe it's also time we had a new colour(s) for our national sporting teams. I'm thinking orange and purple at this stage, maybe with some silver edges - maybe even glitter or tinsel for a proper silver finish. It's a pretty contemporary mix of colours and would almost certainly result in better awareness of our country and hopefully lead to increased tourism. We could still call the All Blacks the All Blacks seeing as most of them are well, black...

Yeah, get rid of the Black, its depressing, we should probably look at driving on other side of road too as I went to Aussie recently and its like...almost the same.

[oldrider]

Yeah, get rid of the Black, its depressing, we should probably look at driving on other side of road too as I went to Aussie recently and its like...almost the same.

What? - I thought it was customary to drive in the middle of the road over here - maybe so many are unsure which side so they just split the difference! :scratch:

[gjm]

I'll respond to earlier comments at some point but, if... IF Australia were to change their flag, would that obviate 50% of the reasons for changing the Kiwi flag?

Cos, that is exactly what they are looking to do... Has anyone seen that in the Kiwi press? No? Might it be because the flag similarity is a cornerstone of the publicised 'reason' for debating change?

Their reasons for change make interesting (comparitive) reading. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/the-six-alternatives-for-new-australian-flag/news-story/61bdf154b1082bba1045384cf437c953

[MarkH]

I'll respond to earlier comments at some point but, if... IF Australia were to change their flag, would that obviate 50% of the reasons for changing the Kiwi flag?

For me:
I'd still like a new flag because I dislike having the UK flag on our flag. I feel like the New Zealand I was born and raised in and lived all my life in is its own country and shouldn't have another country's flag on its flag.
I view the similarity with the aussie flag as only one of the things I don't like about our current flag.
I'd say at most it would only obviate about 33% of the reasons for changing our flag.

Of course others will have their own opinions on this matter.

[bogan]

I'll respond to earlier comments at some point but, if... IF Australia were to change their flag, would that obviate 50% of the reasons for changing the Kiwi flag?

Cos, that is exactly what they are looking to do... Has anyone seen that in the Kiwi press? No? Might it be because the flag similarity is a cornerstone of the publicised 'reason' for debating change?

Their reasons for change make interesting (comparitive) reading. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/the-six-alternatives-for-new-australian-flag/news-story/61bdf154b1082bba1045384cf437c953

Nope.

Yup, see here http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/76276622/Southern-Horizon-favoured-for-Australias-new-national-flag-survey

If you think we should vote not to change because aussie might change, then just be aware they have not even started the official process yet. It's some blokes with some online exposure trying to get the ball rolling for change. The best way to help them get change, is to show em how it is done :yes:

[Katman]

Nope.

Yup, see here http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/76276622/Southern-Horizon-favoured-for-Australias-new-national-flag-survey

If you think we should vote not to change because aussie might change, then just be aware they have not even started the official process yet. It's some blokes with some online exposure trying to get the ball rolling for change. The best way to help them get change, is to show em how it is done :yes:

Australia has proposed the idea of becoming a Republic for a number of years now.

A new Republic would automatically introduce a new flag.

[gjm]

Nope.

Yup, see here http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/76276622/Southern-Horizon-favoured-for-Australias-new-national-flag-survey

If you think we should vote not to change because aussie might change, then just be aware they have not even started the official process yet. It's some blokes with some online exposure trying to get the ball rolling for change. The best way to help them get change, is to show em how it is done :yes:

I've not spent any time looking at what the west island is doing.

I do quite like their alternative flag (if the one I saw is the prime candidate).

I do not like the design we're being offered. As I have said - a change is not necessarily a bad thing. But let's change for the right alternative, not one of 60% of similar designs selected by an unqualified, unelected group of people.

[Ocean1]

I've not spent any time looking at what the west island is doing.

I do quite like their alternative flag (if the one I saw is the prime candidate).

I do not like the design we're being offered. As I have said - a change is not necessarily a bad thing. But let's change for the right alternative, not one of 60% of similar designs selected by an unqualified, unelected group of people.

And yet, it's the flag we chose as a possible alternative.

And I don't really give a fuck if the version of Britain's colonial shipping flag we were instructed to use is similar to Australia's or not. The issue with it is that it's not ours, it's symbolism is pure Colonial era Britain, nothing to do with our nation.

So I want change because the current flag is boring, isn't ours and never has been, even less so since Blighty cut us out of their market in joining the EU. And if the alternative is the currently agreed one then so be it, I personally quite like it, we could do a lot worse, have been doing so for a century.

So there.

[Katman]

And yet, it's the flag we chose as a possible alternative.

And I don't really give a fuck if the version of Britain's colonial shipping flag we were instructed to use is similar to Australia's or not. The issue with it is that it's not ours, it's symbolism is pure Colonial era Britain, nothing to do with our nation.

So I want change because the current flag is boring, isn't ours and never has been, even less so since Blighty cut us out of their market in joining the EU. And if the alternative is the currently agreed one then so be it, I personally quite like it, we could do a lot worse, have been doing so for a century.

So there.

You sound as convincing as the fuckwit sportsmen who have decided to voice their (sic) opinion for a price.

[husaberg]

You sound as convincing as the fuckwit sportsmen who have decided to voice their (sic) opinion for a price.

So do you have any actual proof that they were paid or is it just your opinion? Because its sure worded by you as if its a known and provable fact.

[Ocean1]

You sound as convincing as the fuckwit sportsmen who have decided to voice their (sic) opinion for a price.

I'm sure I do.

To an illiterate fuckwit with no credibility on the subject whatsoever.

And to think, nobody's even paying you to behave like that...

[Katman]

And to think, nobody's even paying you to behave like that...

At least I have my integrity.

[bogan]

selected by an unqualified, unelected group of people.

Not a fan of democracy then?

[husaberg]

At least I have my integrity.

Really as you state you have integrity.
Were you speeding when you got that speeding ticket that you subsequently fought in court?
As a man of Integrity it should not be an issue to answer this simple question. Were you speeding or not?

Plus you should be able to answer the other question I asked you also.
This shouldn't be an issue for a someone who claims he has integrity


You sound as convincing as the fuckwit sportsmen who have decided to voice their (sic) opinion for a price.

So do you have any actual proof that they were paid or is it just your opinion?
Because its sure worded by you as if its a known and provable fact.

[Ocean1]

At least I have my integrity.

And no doubt illiterate fuckwits with no credibility worldwide rejoice in your dedication to the cause.

And as such, and given your usual MO I'd have thought you'd be dead set against the continued use of the establishment's duly authorised corporate logo.

Or is it different when you say it is?

[gjm]

I've not spent any time looking at what the west island is doing.

I do quite like their alternative flag (if the one I saw is the prime candidate).

I do not like the design we're being offered. As I have said - a change is not necessarily a bad thing. But let's change for the right alternative, not one of 60% of similar designs selected by an unqualified, unelected group of people.


Not a fan of democracy then?

Democracy is great in principle and theory (and based on that I am a fan), but rarely succeeds in keeping many people happy, or achieving the best result for the majority. It's a 'best efforts' approach to ruling. Benevolent dictatorship may be better, if you could count on the benevolence. We live with what we have and the current 'western' thought is that democracy is the best available solution.

The people of NZ had absolutely no say (beyond persuading the government to include the quickly dropped red triangle design) whatsoever in what the selection of flags might be. There were four, chosen without reference or democratic process by a self-admittedly unqualified group of people appointed by the gopvernment, plus the triangle. I suppose it would have been fair to say 75% of the designs included a fern, and 50% were all-but identical, but I was feeling generous.

Ocean1 has presented a valid case for change, which is more than I have typically seen elsewhere. I don't agree with him (her? I dunno!) but that's fine. It'd be boring if we all wanted the same thing.

I've made a case for it being a waste of money, and all you've done is tell me $26m isn't very much. That's your opinion. Me? I think $26m is a lot of money, regardless of circumstance. Did you see Bill English on TV earlier, trying so very, very hard to not say $millions is a lot of money while admitting the government doesn't have any spare funds?

And, just to keep you happy, I do think John Key is a despicable individual. I make this judgement by the way he is presented to the public, his history in banking, and by the number of lies we know he has told. I feel he has tainted the National Party and while I would consider the National Party position and policy, if it means he stays as Prime Minister I will not vote for them. That is specifically anti-John Key, not anti-new flag or anything else. (I keep saying a new flag may be a good idea, but you've chosen to ignore that.)

[Katman]

....but you've chosen to ignore that.)

Bogan ignores lots of things.

[bogan]

There were four, chosen without reference or democratic process by a self-admittedly unqualified group of people appointed by the gopvernment, plus the triangle. I suppose it would have been fair to say 75% of the designs included a fern, and 50% were all-but identical, but I was feeling generous.

There was ample time for submissions and consultation, that is democratic process. The people then decided the list was lacking and got another choice added, again this is democratic process. You just still seem bitter than the democratic process didn't give the result you wanted :facepalm: Newsflash, it didn't give the result I wanted either, which makes the process just as sound as if it did.

Btw, I was infrefering the referendum's participants (kiwis) were the 'unqualified, unelected group of people.' to select the flag when I questioned your enthusiasm for democracy.


I keep saying a new flag may be a good idea, but you've chosen to ignore that.

Is it relevant?

[gjm]

Btw, I was infrefering the referendum's participants (kiwis) were the 'unqualified, unelected group of people.' to select the flag when I questioned your enthusiasm for democracy.

And I was referring to the government-chosen and paid-for 'Flag Consideration Panel.' I don't expect the general public to be expert in all matters, but I do expect them to know what they like (and not need to be told or persuaded by someone else.)

As for relevancy of the change - you have assumed that I don't want it. I have said I would prefer to keep the current flag, but that relates to the current situation (any permutation of which, given the unqualified panel-selected subset of flags).

[bogan]

And I was referring to the government-chosen and paid-for 'Flag Consideration Panel.' I don't expect the general public to be expert in all matters, but I do expect them to know what they like (and not need to be told or persuaded by someone else.)

As for relevancy of the change - you have assumed that I don't want it. I have said I would prefer to keep the current flag, but that relates to the current situation (any permutation of which, given the unqualified panel-selected subset of flags).

Hang on, you say the panel didn't have experts on it (which it did), then say the general public is better suited to chose; which made up the rest of the panel. Can you outline exactly what process to select the flag shortlist would have made you happy?

So I assumed you don't want the change, and you don't want the change; I've also assumed you don't want the change because it isn't the change you wanted. Where is the relevance again?

[oldrider]

Between 3 March and 24 March 2016, you’ll get to vote in the final binding referendum on the future of the New Zealand flag.

Can't come soon enough for me ..... stupid? pitiful? waste of money? pathetic? - so many men so many opinions - whatever the outcome! :zzzz:

[gjm]

Between 3 March and 24 March 2016, you’ll get to vote in the final binding referendum on the future of the New Zealand flag.

Can't come soon enough for me ..... stupid? pitiful? waste of money? pathetic? - so many men so many opinions - whatever the outcome! :zzzz:

I'm going to blame you for this - you started the thread! :p ;)
Lol

[gjm]

Hang on, you say the panel didn't have experts on it (which it did), then say the general public is better suited to chose; which made up the rest of the panel. Can you outline exactly what process to select the flag shortlist would have made you happy?

So I assumed you don't want the change, and you don't want the change; I've also assumed you don't want the change because it isn't the change you wanted. Where is the relevance again?

I quit. I've tried to be as clear as possible.

[bogan]

I quit. I've tried to be as clear as possible.
It's a simple question, perhaps the clarity of the answer is what you shy away from. Is it just because jk is involved you are against the process? Or is it because the outcome differs from that which you desire?

[gjm]

It's a simple question, perhaps the clarity of the answer is what you shy away from. Is it just because jk is involved you are against the process? Or is it because the outcome differs from that which you desire?

Oh, the answers are easy. No, and no.

As I have tried to explain.

[bogan]

Oh, the answers are easy. No, and no.

As I have tried to explain.

Oh you've explained a propensity to knock what has been done or suggested, but you've yet to suggest a process (not outcome) that would satisfy you.

[gjm]

Oh you've explained a propensity to knock what has been done or suggested, but you've yet to suggest a process (not outcome) that would satisfy you.

Edit: I was going to respond, but I can see it wouldn't help me.

[bogan]

Edit: I was going to respond, but I can see it wouldn't help me.

It's a simple question, but if answering it wouldn't help you it speaks poorly of how rational that answer might be.

[puddytat]

Edit: I was going to respond, but I can see it wouldn't help me.

The ignore function will though...

[bogan]

The ignore function will though...

Are you still bitter I red'd you for off topic thread posting?

[Stylo]

I'm actually quite pro changing the flag, time for something different and been too long with the old one, time for a change !

Problem I have is the options presented leave me cold and the final option is merely a tea-towel lying on it's side, or even a big beach towel. A good T-shirt design ? As a National flag however it's a 2D joke. The rest of the world must be laughing at New Zealand...

Might look good on a cake tin but I'm voting for the status quo, JK can only blame himself

[oldrider]

I'm actually quite pro changing the flag, time for something different and been too long with the old one, time for a change !

Problem I have is the options presented leave me cold and the final option is merely a tea-towel lying on it's side, or even a big beach towel. A good T-shirt design ? As a National flag however it's a 2D joke. The rest of the world must be laughing at New Zealand...

Might look good on a cake tin but I'm voting for the status quo, JK can only blame himself

What is it they say? - laugh and the world laughs with you! - sounds like a success story in the making. :niceone:

[gjm]

I chuckled earlier... After some of the comments that suggested I was anti-flag change because I'm anti-John Key, I read in the press that John Key feels people might vote for the old flag for political reasons. "Critics of the Government should not vote against changing the flag solely to spite them," Key said.

Presumably talk of Republics and suchlike are also not political methods of persuasion!

Lol. :laugh:

Can I vote yet? :)

[bogan]

I chuckled earlier... After some of the comments that suggested I was anti-flag change because I'm anti-John Key, I read in the press that John Key feels people might vote for the old flag for political reasons. "Critics of the Government should not vote against changing the flag solely to spite them," Key said.

Presumably talk of Republics and suchlike are also not political methods of persuasion!

Lol. :laugh:

Can I vote yet? :)

Yeh, I dropped him a txt :whistle:

[Banditbandit]

I'm actually quite pro changing the flag, time for something different and been too long with the old one, time for a change !

Problem I have is the options presented leave me cold and the final option is merely a tea-towel lying on it's side, or even a big beach towel. A good T-shirt design ? As a National flag however it's a 2D joke. The rest of the world must be laughing at New Zealand...

Might look good on a cake tin but I'm voting for the status quo, JK can only blame himself

Yes .. and many people will feel exactly the same .. which is why we will not get a flag change ..

[gjm]

Someone else's opinion.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/77298833/the-argument-against-changing-the-flag

Which pretty much covers it for me.

When is March 4th, again? Friday? :soon:

[Ocean1]

Someone else's opinion.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/77298833/the-argument-against-changing-the-flag

Which pretty much covers it for me.

When is March 4th, again? Friday? :soon:

I thought your reasons to keep the old flag had nothing to do with your dislike of JK or National.

Only that's exactly the reason you just agreed matched yours.

[gjm]

I thought your reasons to keep the old flag had nothing to do with your dislike of JK or National.

Only that's exactly the reason you just agreed matched yours.

There's 11 points listed. One of them - point number 2 - does (on reflection) suggest what you say. I'd not taken that into account when posting the link.

I'll not amend my post now, but perhaps I should have said that I feel points 1, and 3 thru 11, make a good case for keeping the current flag over the alternative which will be shown on the voting papers issued later this week. :)

[oldrider]

Mmm-kay - Posts 652 - 654 above make a lot of sense and the 11 points just about sum up my feelings bout this flag fiesto - can't actually see the change happening!

If the change does take place I can live with it but would totally suspect foul play was involved in the process somewhere and will be ironing my best tin foil hat! :innocent:

[bogan]

There's 11 points listed. One of them - point number 2 - does (on reflection) suggest what you say. I'd not taken that into account when posting the link.

I'll not amend my post now, but perhaps I should have said that I feel points 1, and 3 thru 11, make a good case for keeping the current flag over the alternative which will be shown on the voting papers issued later this week. :)

1) is irrelevent, as the national consensus is about to be checked.

3) makes no mention of the flag historian on board the panel, nor of those with design experience (albeit not flags, specifically); nor is adding a flag at the last minute due to public support a farce, it shows the ability to listen to the people

4) either way, the 26mil is spent; so change is not a waste. The cost to change all flags after the fact (if so decided) is a cost, not a waste; waste implies a judgement already formed.

5) then lets have the republic discussion; whether we change the flag or not will obviously have some bearing on that discussion, but not having discussed it is no reason to not change our flag.

6) personal judgement only

7) answered its own question, the silver fern is not an option...

8) maori symbolism was put forward, the people chose other symbolism instead

9) it was chosen, thus popular with the people

10) this is a valid point, somewhat mitigated by the time such people had to put in their designs for consideration though

11) is much like 2 actually, why worry who promotoes it, or how irritating the campaign was.

So really, 1(ish) out of 11 isn't too bad?

There is one reason to keep the current flag, and one reason to change it; it's a personal judgement call. Which flag do you think is the best symbol for New Zealand?

Interesting to note, it's the anti-changers who are playing the most smarmy political games, with all these other bullshit reasons (as above) while JK's camp put forward points focused on that one reason.

[gjm]

[John Key] "sounds like he's panicking. He's actually using sort of fear tactics, saying 'this is your last chance if you don't change the flag.'"
"But you know, when you're running with a fetish of a change and the people don't agree with you, including half the people in your political party, then you're on a hiding to nothing frankly."

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/297763/flag-vote-pm-accused-of-scare-tactics

:whistle:

[bogan]

[John Key] "sounds like he's panicking. He's actually using sort of fear tactics, saying 'this is your last chance if you don't change the flag.'"
"But you know, when you're running with a fetish of a change and the people don't agree with you, including half the people in your political party, then you're on a hiding to nothing frankly."

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/297763/flag-vote-pm-accused-of-scare-tactics

:whistle:

You know you're doing well when you start quoting winnie :bleh:

"Mr Holden said the real problem was the flag debate had become too political."

:whistle:

Btw, you just used the same scare tactic to avoid flag change in you agreement with #10 :facepalm:

[gjm]

Quoting John Key:

"If they don't vote for change now, they'll never get another chance until we become a republic. They'll wake up in a few months' time and they'll realise what a terrible mistake they made, because it's not going to make a blind bit of difference to me."

[Voltaire]

A good time to change the flag will be when NZ becomes a republic, probably after Australia.

Oh but that won't happen till John Quay gets his knighthood and cosy job as ambassador somewhere like London or in that flash pad in NY.

[MarkH]

[John Key] "sounds like he's panicking. He's actually using sort of fear tactics, saying 'this is your last chance if you don't change the flag.'"
"But you know, when you're running with a fetish of a change and the people don't agree with you, including half the people in your political party, then you're on a hiding to nothing frankly."

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/297763/flag-vote-pm-accused-of-scare-tactics

:whistle:

What a load of shit!

I'd be surprised if JK is wrong, with all the whiners going on and on about the waste of 26m I can't see any chance of another referendum on this matter within the next couple of decades.
This idea that the proposed flag isn't what you really want so you should reject it and wait for a better flag to choose is a bit silly, we don't go having a referendum every 5 years to consider what to change our flag to, this is the ONLY time in the 48 years of my life that I've seen the opportunity to vote on a flag change.

I suspect that anyone who thinks JK is wrong about this is rather delusional.

[MarkH]

Someone else's opinion.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/77298833/the-argument-against-changing-the-flag

Which pretty much covers it for me.

When is March 4th, again? Friday? :soon:

#1 is really retarded
Not voting to change because there isn't a consensus for change? Well, if over 50% of voters voted for a change then how would that NOT be a consensus for a change?

#11 is interesting, to me the most pathetic arguments have come from the opponents to changing the flag.
I've seen some seriously stupid logic from the anti-change crowd including calling someone disrespectful for promoting change - I have no idea whatsoever how that is in any way disrespectful or even to whom or to what it is supposed to be disrespectful to.
I've seen the idea that to honour the soldiers who fought for this country we shouldn't change the flag - what war did they fight to ensure our flag would never change?
Now we can add this list of 11 reasons for voting against change as another ridiculous anti-change argument that wants me even more to support change.

[Katman]

This idea that the proposed flag isn't what you really want so you should reject it and wait for a better flag to choose is a bit silly, we don't go having a referendum every 5 years to consider what to change our flag to, this is the ONLY time in the 48 years of my life that I've seen the opportunity to vote on a flag change.

Are you really suggesting that people should vote to change the flag even if they don't like the new design? :scratch:

[Woodman]

Are you really suggesting that people should vote to change the flag even if they don't like the new design? :scratch:

I say yes. The 26 million is spent pretty much whether we change the flag or not, so we may as well get something different. Again it is just a pattern on a sheet.

[Madness]

I can't see any chance of another referendum on this matter within the next couple of decades.

Excellent!

[Katman]

I say yes. The 26 million is spent pretty much whether we change the flag or not, so we may as well get something different. Again it is just a pattern on a sheet.

:facepalm:

[bogan]

I've seen the idea that to honour the soldiers who fought for this country we shouldn't change the flag - what war did they fight to ensure our flag would never change?

I heard rumour they fought for our freedom, democracy and such things; you could almost say what they fought for, is for us to be able to change things like the flag...


Are you really suggesting that people should vote to change the flag even if they don't like the new design? :scratch:

I think he is suggesting to compare only those two flags in the running, just because you think a third flag would be better, doesn't mean you shouldn't pick between the two options we have based on the idea the choice is more likely to present itself later if it does not change this time around.

[Katman]

I think he is suggesting to compare only those two flags in the running, just because you think a third flag would be better, doesn't mean you shouldn't pick between the two options we have based on the idea the choice is more likely to present itself later if it does not change this time around.

I'm actually in the enviable position of not giving a fuck whichever way the decision goes - it will be the will of the people. (I certainly hope that there's a better voter turn out than the 48% that decided the first referendum though).

I don't even know if I can be fuck bothering to vote. There's far more important shit going on in the world today than whether we should have a new flag. Unfortunately most of us seem too fucking stupid to notice.

Personally I can't think of one compelling reason to change the flag and can only think of two compelling reasons why the question should probably have stayed mute. The first would probably only matter to those whose lives the 26 million could have saved and the second is the ugly divisiveness it has brought out in us.

I do wonder though how much extra it is going to cost if we do have to implement a change.

[bogan]

and the second is the ugly divisiveness it has brought out in us.

Which is a pity, but it does suggest the NZ public are not really mature enough to get away from a representative democracy, to one in which we have more direct input.

[Woodman]

I'm actually in the envious position of not giving a fuck whichever way the decision goes - it will be the will of the people. (I certainly hope that there's a better voter turn out than the 48% that decided the first referendum though).

I don't even know if I can be fuck bothering to vote. There's far more important shit going on in the world today than whether we should have a new flag. Unfortunately most of us seem too fucking stupid to notice.

Personally I can't think of one compelling reason to change the flag and can only think of two compelling reasons why the question should probably have stayed mute. The first would probably only matter to those whose lives the 26 million could have saved and the second is the ugly divisiveness it has brought out in us.

I do wonder though how much extra it is going to cost if we do have to implement a change.

Ugly diviseveness? Where? i have talked to many people about it, and whille the subject may generate a bit of lively debate, "ugly divisiveness" would be drawing a very very very long bow indeed.

[bogan]

Ugly diviseveness? Where? i have talked to many people about it, and whille the subject may generate a bit of lively debate, "ugly divisiveness" would be drawing a very very very long bow indeed.

People were saying bad things about richie, mate...

Seriously though, it's the focus on all the irrelevant but loosely related parts to the debate that is the ugly bit. This 'waste of money', 'JK's a dick', 'process is a farce', I mean did you even see those 11 points some fuckwit made up?

[Woodman]

People were saying bad things about richie, mate...

Seriously though, it's the focus on all the irrelevant but loosely related parts to the debate that is the ugly bit. This 'waste of money', 'JK's a dick', 'process is a farce', I mean did you even see those 11 points some fuckwit made up?

Why would you even take notice of someone who says bad things about Richie? They are obviously fuckwits. Negative fuckwits.

[Katman]

Seriously though, it's the focus on all the irrelevant but loosely related parts to the debate that is the ugly bit. This 'waste of money', 'JK's a dick', 'process is a farce', I mean did you even see those 11 points some fuckwit made up?

That's the one positive about the question being raised though - we get to see you at your most ridiculous, smarmy best.

[bogan]

That's the one positive about the question being raised though - we get to see you at your most ridiculous, smarmy best.

That sounds like some sort of ugly divisiveness...

We, as citizenry, have not distinguished ourselves. We, will not do so until we gain the capability to rationally evaluate issues from an unselfish viewpoint. And we certainly won't get there by pointing fingers and blaming (and in the worst cases, insulting) others.

[Voltaire]

What a load of shit!

I'd be surprised if JK is wrong, with all the whiners going on and on about the waste of 26m I can't see any chance of another referendum on this matter within the next couple of decades.
This idea that the proposed flag isn't what you really want so you should reject it and wait for a better flag to choose is a bit silly, we don't go having a referendum every 5 years to consider what to change our flag to, this is the ONLY time in the 48 years of my life that I've seen the opportunity to vote on a flag change.

I suspect that anyone who thinks JK is wrong about this is rather delusional.

Name the last 5 referendums..... John Key does not give a shit about the flag but hope the 'sheeple' are distracted enough to think they have some say.
48 years, and your big day is voting for a flag :laugh:

[husaberg]

Name the last 5 referendums..... John Key does not give a shit about the flag but hope the 'sheeple' are distracted enough to think they have some say.
48 years, and your big day is voting for a flag :laugh:

He certainly didn't give a shit about the we don't want asset sales one.:laugh:

[Madness]

48 years, and your big day is voting for a flag :laugh:

Have you not been to Morrinsville?

[Voltaire]

Have you not been to Morrinsville?

I'm not some ignorant Jaffa, of course I've been there.

Pic to prove it....
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p235/rednzep/IMAG2332_zps5e07a713.jpg

[1billyboy]

I'm not some ignorant Jaffa, of course I've been there.

Pic to prove it....
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p235/rednzep/IMAG2332_zps5e07a713.jpg

FFS thats Matamata:killingme

[Voltaire]

FFS thats Matamata:killingme

Yeah....same thing, petrol station and pub.:rolleyes:

[1billyboy]

Yeah....same thing, petrol station and pub.:rolleyes:

And a hobbit house:brick:

[nerrrd]

I wish I could feel as motivated to vote for a change as some others appear to be.

For me there's no compelling reason why it should change, I don't see the flag as a 'brand/logo'. I'm happy to wait until NZ becomes a republic, and the longer that takes, the better – "marry (or in this case divorce?) in haste, repent at leisure" as the saying goes.

If it was a compelling alternative design, I might be motivated.

Don't care what JK, DC etc etc think.

However...having listened to some kids on the radio having a flag debate in class, I feel like maybe it should be more up to them than me, and they voted for change. I think it will be a close result.

[Banditbandit]

I'm not some ignorant Jaffa, of course I've been there.

Pic to prove it....



FFS thats Matamata:killingme

Not an ignorant JAFFA - a lost JAFFA ...

[Moi]

Not an ignorant JAFFA - a lost JAFFA ...

I thought a lost JAFFA was what was found at the front of the cinema... :innocent:

[Banditbandit]

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2012/01/04/1226236/546199-jaffas.jpg

[MarkH]

48 years, and your big day is voting for a flag :laugh:

I'd hardly call it a big day, but if it makes you happy then yeah, biggest day ever . . . or something.

[Swoop]

Laser Kiwi or no change.
Fuckin' A!!!


Good thinking.

Bogan would be overjoyed.
Axle would be overjewed.

You sound as convincing as the fuckwit sportsmen who have decided to voice their (sic) opinion for a price.
You mean the "gamesmen".
They play a game, not a sport.

Name the last 5 referendums.....
Good point. We haven't been informed if this is a "binding" referendum yet. Like all the others, a politician can come along and ignore the wishes of the voters.
The colourful fishbone-in-the-corner of the corporate souvenir tea-towel it is then.

[awa355]

I'z voted. :niceone: and not for the tea towel either.

[oldrider]

They rigged the vote paper as much as they could by presenting the new flag on the top! - And how many languages does this country have? ffs! :scratch:

It should have been the current flag on top and/or the new proposed flag on the bottom - I.E. Question? retain the current flag or replace it with this flag?

I currently don't have strong preference for the old flag or the new one - just do not think it important enough issue to warrant the expense and attention!

Think I will return my paper and vote for the old flag simply as a protest toward their blatant bias and dishonesty! - Cheeky pricks! :sick:

[MarkH]

It should have been the current flag on top and/or the new proposed flag on the bottom - I.E. Question? retain the current flag or replace it with this flag?


Do you know the difference between fact & opinion?
I seriously doubt that anyone will fail to identify the flag they want and just select the first option based on your logic.
Why not: Question? Change to the new flag or not?

I don't see anything dishonest or deceptive about the order of the flags.

[oldrider]

Do you know the difference between fact & opinion?
I seriously doubt that anyone will fail to identify the flag they want and just select the first option based on your logic.
Why not: Question? Change to the new flag or not?

I don't see anything dishonest or deceptive about the order of the flags.

Manipulative at best - or do you still think supermarkets don't stack their shelves etc in a purposeful manipulative manner to control desired outcomes? $$$$$

[trufflebutter]

They probably do, but it doesn't mean you have to buy what they are trying to sell you........does it?

[oldrider]

They probably do, but it doesn't mean you have to buy what they are trying to sell you........does it?


They rigged the vote paper as much as they could by presenting the new flag on the top! - And how many languages does this country have? ffs! :scratch:

It should have been the current flag on top and/or the new proposed flag on the bottom - I.E. Question? retain the current flag or replace it with this flag?

I currently don't have strong preference for the old flag or the new one - just do not think it important enough issue to warrant the expense and attention!

Think I will return my paper and vote for the old flag simply as a protest toward their blatant bias and dishonesty! - Cheeky pricks! :sick:

Like I said earlier I don't think I will buy it now but I was ambivalent toward the change - may even do all I can to obstruct it by voting for the old flag now! :kick:

[Banditbandit]

They rigged the vote paper as much as they could by presenting the new flag on the top! - And how many languages does this country have? ffs! :scratch:

It should have been the current flag on top and/or the new proposed flag on the bottom - I.E. Question? retain the current flag or replace it with this flag?

I currently don't have strong preference for the old flag or the new one - just do not think it important enough issue to warrant the expense and attention!

Think I will return my paper and vote for the old flag simply as a protest toward their blatant bias and dishonesty! - Cheeky pricks! :sick:

See .. that's why we won't get a flag change ...

[bogan]

They rigged the vote paper as much as they could by presenting the new flag on the top! - And how many languages does this country have? ffs! :scratch:

Rigged? fuckin hell mate, that's a bit of a stretch. It's actually consistent with newsfeed and other picture related media to have the newer items at the top, so if anything, it'd be rigged if it were anywhere else.

In case you haven't noticed, NZ is a multicultural country, and requires languages to suit... perhaps a point for the reasons to change, let curmudgeonly old bastards know we have culture now :innocent:

[oldrider]

Rigged? fuckin hell mate, that's a bit of a stretch. It's actually consistent with newsfeed and other picture related media to have the newer items at the top, so if anything, it'd be rigged if it were anywhere else.

In case you haven't noticed, NZ is a multicultural country, and requires languages to suit... perhaps a point for the reasons to change, let curmudgeonly old bastards know we have culture now :innocent:

What took you so long? - Our culture used be polite once too - before bogan! :blip:

[mr bucketracer]

The silver fern was used in the bush to show the track at night , . Also used as bush toilet paper , so we are being led up the garden path to the toilet .:msn-wink:

[Moi]

The silver fern was used in the bush to show the track at night , . Also used as bush toilet paper , so we are being led up the garden path to the toilet .:msn-wink:

Sorry to spoil a good story...

True about the silver fern however, bushman's friend - also known as bushman's toilet paper - is rangiora [brachyglottis repanda] whereas the silver fern is cyathea dealbata...

[Tazz]

Sorry to spoil a good story...

True about the silver fern however, bushman's friend - also known as bushman's toilet paper - is rangiora [brachyglottis repanda] whereas the silver fern is cyathea dealbata...

Here is a picture so those that are unsure can easily identify 'bushman's toilet paper' if the need ever arises:


https://hereweka.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/urtica-ferox.jpg

[bogan]

What took you so long? - Our culture used be polite once too - before bogan! :blip:

Kb used to be polite? well fuck me sideways three ways from sunday, certainly had to have been long before I read anything here :laugh: let alone wrote a thing :bleh:

[husaberg]

Here is a picture so those that are unsure can easily identify 'bushman's toilet paper' if the need ever arises:

https://hereweka.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/urtica-ferox.jpg

I spent a whole day in close contact with that one time, the rash wasn't an issue, but fever and headaches numbness and heart palpitations for a week after was.

[Moi]

here is a picture so those that are unsure can easily identify 'bushman's toilet paper' if the need ever arises:

ouch......

[Stylo]

We received our voting envelopes in the post today, very good.

Signed, sealed and in the red box tomorrow.

We talked about it first, Me and her.

We'd both like a change but, the process became evident and the subsequent political debacle that ensued pissed us both off.

Plus the 'New flag' looks like a tea towel. What a shocker.

So ....we've both voted for retention of the old standard, there you go.

[Akzle]

everyone should cross out every option on their referendum and make a new checkbox:

akzle

[Woodman]

everyone should cross out every option on their referendum and make a new checkbox:

akzle

yeah, that'll show em.

[Stylo]

everyone should cross out every option on their referendum and make a new checkbox:

akzle

Thanks Axzle, confirms we've made the right decision with the box ticking thing.

Cheers

[MarkH]

Plus the 'New flag' looks like a tea towel. What a shocker.


No, it doesn't. We have tea towels in the house, they don't look anything like either flag.
I guess if someone made a NZ flag tea towel then it might have a striking resemblance to a flag, but most tea towels I've seen look nothing like a flag.
I've tried googling for images of tea towels, still couldn't find a thing that in any way reminded me of the proposed flag.
So yeah, I call bullshit on this one!

[Oakie]

everyone should cross out every option on their referendum and make a new checkbox:

akzle

Do you want to be a flag?

I dare say some here would like to oblige by tying a rope to you and hoisting you aloft.

[mr bucketracer]

ouch......yip , stick to the siver fern lol:laugh:

[BuzzardNZ]

Kb used to be polite? well fuck me sideways three ways from sunday, certainly had to have been long before I read anything here :laugh: let alone wrote a thing :bleh:


It was at one point ;)


http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/133375-Shorai-LFX-lithium-batteries?p=1130336707#post1130336707

[Voltaire]

Flags..pfft.... slavery to fucking banks should be more of a concern, and the uncontrolled immigration policy that is leading to unaffordable housing for the generations to come.

Hands up who has a mortgage of $300 000 or more and believe that not having a $4.50 flat white every day could make you mortgage free years earlier?

[Ocean1]

Flags..pfft.... slavery to fucking banks should be more of a concern, and the uncontrolled immigration policy that is leading to unaffordable housing for the generations to come.

Hands up who has a mortgage of $300 000 or more and believe that not having a $4.50 flat white every day could make you mortgage free years earlier?

Slaves? Last time I looked nobody was being forced to borrow money at gunpoint.

And if housing is more expensive than it used to be then maybe we shouldn't be making them twice the size, with twenty times the compliance costs.

[oldrider]

Slaves? Last time I looked nobody was being forced to borrow money at gunpoint.

And if housing is more expensive than it used to be then maybe we shouldn't be making them twice the size, with twenty times the compliance costs.

slavery has many guises - if you think you are a victim of slavery - I guess you are! :blip:

[bogan]

slavery has many guises - if you think you are a victim of slavery - I guess you are! :blip:

Correct, negative self delusion is a very insidious form of slavery, but the slave-master is only your own unenlightnment :Punk:

[Maha]

48 pages of mostly 'well over thought' posts, it's a simple vote...nothing more.

[Ocean1]

slavery has many guises - if you think you are a victim of slavery - I guess you are! :blip:

Nah, any slavery round this neck of the woods is just an attempt to blame someone else for your own failures.

[Laava]

Do you want to be a flag?

I dare say some here would like to oblige by tying a rope to you and hoisting you aloft.

Like some kind of pinata?

[Woodman]

Nah, any slavery round this neck of the woods is just an attempt to blame someone else for your own failures.


Agree in every way. Too many looking for excuses.

[Voltaire]

I'm a slave to Triumph projects...

[Oakie]

Slaves? Last time I looked nobody was being forced to borrow money at gunpoint.

And if housing is more expensive than it used to be then maybe we shouldn't be making them twice the size, with twenty times the compliance costs.

I blame the real estate agents. They are the ones who profit from higher sale costs being way over valuation. If I was in power I'd legislate that houses could not be sold for more than 10% above G.V. Of course it would require more frequent valuations but hey!

[ellipsis]

...If I was in power I would give you all a day off school...Sunday...

[nerrrd]

Flags..pfft.... slavery to fucking banks should be more of a concern, and the uncontrolled immigration policy that is leading to unaffordable housing for the generations to come.

It's property investment that's the problem, and most of that is being done by locals, not immigrants (although no doubt they're helping stir things along.)

And why wouldn't you, it's a bloody good investment, obviously. Much better than a flag referendum.

[mashman]

Je Suis Earthling (https://www.instagram.com/p/BCi2Nk4htU1/)

[Voltaire]

It's property investment that's the problem, and most of that is being done by locals, not immigrants (although no doubt they're helping stir things along.)

And why wouldn't you, it's a bloody good investment, obviously. Much better than a flag referendum.

What like borrow 4 hundy off said Bank, buy a rental outside Jaffa land, get some tenants, and have a yield of 6-9% Vs having money in bank getting 3.5% and the Govt taking 33%.
Now that's a thought :msn-wink:

[mashman]

It's property investment that's the problem


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_juHR5uodjU

NZ gets a mention too.

[Stylo]

No, it doesn't. We have tea towels in the house, they don't look anything like either flag.
I guess if someone made a NZ flag tea towel then it might have a striking resemblance to a flag, but most tea towels I've seen look nothing like a flag.
I've tried googling for images of tea towels, still couldn't find a thing that in any way reminded me of the proposed flag.
So yeah, I call bullshit on this one!

Then a Beach Towel it is !

[Maha]

If you were to tick to keep the current flag, and write on the form ''Keep the Flag'' will that make your vote void giving the fern flag an advantage?

[Stylo]

If you were to tick to keep the current flag, and write on the form ''Keep the Flag'' will that make your vote void giving the fern flag an advantage?

No, it wouldn't .

[Maha]

No, it wouldn't .

I have been informed that writing a note on a voting paper will spoil that vote.

[Berries]

If you were to tick to keep the current flag, and write on the form ''Keep the Flag'' will that make your vote void giving the fern flag an advantage?
Surely ticking the box means exactly keep the current flag? IMO it should make the vote invalid for retardnessness.

[Maha]

But there has been wide spreed talk of people spoiling their vote, which would add weight to those voting (who wont spoil their vote) for the alternative flag.
My personal view is that, the result will closer than most may think.

[Berries]

But there has been wide spreed talk of people spoiling their vote, which would add weight to those voting (who wont spoil their vote) for the alternative flag.
My personal view is that, the result will closer than most may think.
I don't know why you would spoil your vote if you were voting as well, I can understand if you are not voting.

I am not voting and can't be arsed spoiling the papers so they went in the bin. Should have thought along these lines - usual Stuff shit. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/77577682/protesters-attempt-to-sell-flag-referendum-vote-on-trade-me-fails)

[gjm]

Just browsed through the 'Stuff' link. Read would be too strong a word.

I did see "New Zealand Flag Referendums Act..." Hmm. Referndums. There's going to be another? If not, why do we need a specific Act for Flag Referendums?

Or is this an example of National legislation where they try to make it illegal for people to oppose something National want to do?

Whatever.

It's a voting paper, and this time it will actually produce a result, unlike the first referendum which gave us the option of 'which fern flag would you like.' OK, not quite, but sort of.

Put a tick in the box. It really is that easy. :) (This comment not directed at KB readers. :hug::drinknsin )

[bogan]

Just browsed through the 'Stuff' link. Read would be too strong a word.

I did see "New Zealand Flag Referendums Act..." Hmm. Referndums. There's going to be another? If not, why do we need a specific Act for Flag Referendums?

Or is this an example of National legislation where they try to make it illegal for people to oppose something National want to do?

Whatever.

It's a voting paper, and this time it will actually produce a result, unlike the first referendum which gave us the option of 'which fern flag would you like.' OK, not quite, but sort of.

Put a tick in the box. It really is that easy. :) (This comment not directed at KB readers. :hug::drinknsin )

No, there's already been one. Remember how this was split into two parts? (you should cos you make mention of it in that post)

And the act itself is pretty much just a copy paste of a standard referendums act. Ie, still illegal to sell your vote; as it always has been, and always should be.

[oldrider]

Shit a brick will I ever be pleased when this flag crap has moved on - whatever piece of rag ends up on the end of a stick! :zzzz::doh:

[trufflebutter]

After this issue is over, should barista's stop putting the that bloody pesky fern on bought coffees, and attempt the Union Jack instead?

[James Deuce]

Just browsed through the 'Stuff' link. Read would be too strong a word.

I did see "New Zealand Flag Referendums Act..." Hmm. Referndums. There's going to be another? If not, why do we need a specific Act for Flag Referendums?


There were two referenda. One to pick the one going up against the existing flag and one to pick between them. Therefore, plural.

Anyone who thinks the second referendum is in any way binding is one Cabinet Member short of a late night Parliamentary session to confirm the new flag as the official one.

[WNJ]

Misses said she not voting but it seems her vote paper was filled in and has been posted back :innocent:

[Woodman]

Has all the debate and discussion around changing the flag etc de-valued the current flag?

[Berries]

Shit a brick will I ever be pleased when this flag crap has moved on - whatever piece of rag ends up on the end of a stick! :zzzz::doh:
You started it.

[Voltaire]

Has all the debate and discussion around changing the flag etc de-valued the current flag?


It does show that we are more interested in bling than the running of the country.

[Ocean1]

Has all the debate and discussion around changing the flag etc de-valued the current flag?

It only ever had any value to those who thought it was a symbol for this country.

And they were always wrong.

[James Deuce]

It only ever had any value to those who thought it was a symbol for this country.

And they were always wrong.

Definitely the flag of a Dominion.

[oldrider]

You started it.

True! ...................... :facepalm:

[Akzle]

Misses said she not voting but it seems her vote paper was filled in and has been posted back :innocent:

shit's illegal nigga!

I do wonder though, if my names have been used to vote for some shit... Fuck knows where they send the paperwork...

[Woodman]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UTduy7Qkvk8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

.................

[WNJ]

shit's illegal nigga!
..

So are drugs but that don't stop me doing them :woohoo:

[Voltaire]

shit's illegal nigga!

I do wonder though, if my names have been used to vote for some shit... Fuck knows where they send the paperwork...

Only under whitey occupation laws, Gews and shit.

[Akzle]

Only under whitey occupation laws, Gews and shit.

well. Duh .?

[Voltaire]

well. Duh .?

Oh forgot they signed a Treaty with the British, all good.