Flag?

[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 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]

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/publicat...0/10-01/25.htm




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!....

[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"

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

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. 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/publicat...0/10-01/25.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

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.