Flag?

[Moi]

Maybe I've never been persuaded by the media, etc that accepted that our existing flag was anything other than the nominal colonial nod it is.

Nobody asked us if we wanted it. It resembles many other flags similarly issued to British colonies. I don't agree that it adequately represents the ethnic origins of our people and I don't believe that's it's the function of a flag to describe where some of us came from anyway. Who we all are now, rather than where some of us came from.

And I think that in the rush to oppose the initiative of this govt on any convenient grounds the possibility to rationally select a better option is getting drowned in exactly that knee jerk and mass hysteria you claim drives the attempt to offer an alternative. Ask yourself, by way of a simple litmus test, whether the same people complaining about the process would be quite as vociferous if the proposal had been seen under a Labour watch.

Sans politics: I don't like the old colonial imposition, and personally I think the proposed alternative offers something we can actually say we chose, is far from ugly, bears some relevant iconography and above all is something I'd personally be happy to be seen as representing my country.

You have your reasons as to why the flag should be changed, however, your reasons are not persuasive enough for me to support a change of flag.

[gjm]

As I say, I am still awaiting a reasoned argument.

Me too. Rather than a blah blah blah it's all OK.

It is a reaction JK wanted to be visible and seen to do something. TPPA is in secret (or was...) and took up a lot of time. He wanted to demonstrate VFM from his party, rather than extended silence while they sell us down the river to the highest bidder.

And it's just possible he's been successful. As with the GCSB shambles when he said "Kiwis are more worried about their private fishing quotas" (or something like that) he's proved it again. You're more worried about the flag than you are about the TPPA. (Has anyone, anywhere, said what a great idea the TPPA or similar agreements are, other than government muppet mouthpieces?)

This flag business is a distraction. It is a waste of money debating it. Why else would NZ be different to every other country in the world?

C'mon. Wake up.

And coffee? Seriously?? That $26m would have made a huge difference in a lot of useful areas. Instead, you've been suckered into thinking spending it was a good idea.

[MarkH]

Thank you for your assessment of my mental state...

I was replying to what you had said...

Perhaps you need to check what vexillology means... it is not fictitious...

Certainly more than you are giving...
As I say, I am still awaiting a reasoned argument.

And I'm awaiting for you to develop some reading comprehension skills!

You were replying to what I said?
Yes I was aware that was what you were doing, but that doesn't change my reply to your reply.
What I typed was me replying to what you said. (why do I think we are going in circles here?)

Did I say that vexillology was fictitious? I did not!
I never saw this list of vexillology rules that you suggest the new flag would violate, you seem to have forgotten to back up your argument.
I would suggest that the rules that prohibit the proposed flag are fictitious, but feel free to post up a link to those rules if you want to prove me wrong.

You can keep waiting for what you would consider a reasoned argument, as I said - no such thing is required. We can just decide to keep the current flag or to change to another one. We don't even have to have a reason beyond liking one more than the other. We make a choice and we get what has been chosen, why would we possibly care if you are satisfied with the reasoning or not?

[MarkH]

I haven't even seen an answer to what I asked a few pages back:

Why do our Olympic athletes have a silver fern on their chests?
Why do our commonwealth games athletes use the silver fern?
Why did our rugby team go as far as trademarking a silver fern logo?
Why do our fallen soldiers buried in Europe have their graves marked with a silver fern?
Why do NZers on their OEs use the fern & the kiwi and not the flag? (probably because they get sick of "what part of aussie are you from mate?")
Our netball team is the silver ferns, our women's rugby team are the black ferns.
Why are so many keen on keeping the flag that so few actually use?

I've seen sporting teams of other countries with their national flag on their chests, isn't it interesting that our sports teams don't do this. We just don't use our flag except where only a nations flag is acceptable, if we have any option we seem to just go to a kiwi or a fern (or sometimes a koru which is also the same fern).
Then people say that they like our current flag and we shouldn't change it. For my whole life I've seen evidence that New Zealanders DON'T like our flag and we don't want to use it.

When Canadians travel abroad it isn't unusual for them to put their flag on their baggage.
When people from the USA travel abroad they often put their flag on their baggage, at least until they realise that many people in the world hate Americans and then the smart ones switch to using the Canadian flag.
Many poms use the Union Jack to proudly say they are British!
New Zealanders traveling abroad very rarely use the NZ flag and any that start with that flag change to something else, you can only take so many times being asked if you are Australian!
So, New Zealanders proudly flying their nations flag - nah, not so much.

What if we changed to the proposed flag?
I think then there would be more New Zealanders traveling abroad that would be happy to display our flag. It would no longer be the embarrassing flag we currently have.

[bogan]

Me too. Rather than a blah blah blah it's all OK.

It is a reaction JK wanted to be visible and seen to do something. TPPA is in secret (or was...) and took up a lot of time. He wanted to demonstrate VFM from his party, rather than extended silence while they sell us down the river to the highest bidder.

And it's just possible he's been successful. As with the GCSB shambles when he said "Kiwis are more worried about their private fishing quotas" (or something like that) he's proved it again. You're more worried about the flag than you are about the TPPA. (Has anyone, anywhere, said what a great idea the TPPA or similar agreements are, other than government muppet mouthpieces?)

This flag business is a distraction. It is a waste of money debating it. Why else would NZ be different to every other country in the world?

C'mon. Wake up.

And coffee? Seriously?? That $26m would have made a huge difference in a lot of useful areas. Instead, you've been suckered into thinking spending it was a good idea.

Then isn't you getting worked up about it playing directly into his hands?

What do you mean NZ different to every other country in the world? others have had flag referendums too, changed it, and never looked back.

You asked for reimbursement, to which I pointed out it was fuck all you'd be reimbursed. Do you really have no concept of just what a drop in the bucket 26m is in terms of running a country? Spending it is a good idea, regardless of the outcome; it's called democracy. Same reason we spend all that money having those election things. It think it's you who is trying to do the suckering, to bypass the democratic process because the will of the people might not be the one you want.

[gjm]

The Welsh have a dragon on their flag, and a national symbol is the daffodil.
The Scots have a white cross on a blue background. Their international emblem is the thistle.
The Australians (over on the west island) have their flag, yet their rugby team wears a wallaby.
The South Africans have quite an attractive flag (imho) and their sporting emblem is a springbok.
Britain has the Union Flag, but the sporting emblem is the lion.

There's many more such examples.

None of them, not one, has ever considered using any of these emblems as their national flag. I suggest the fern-on-the-flag argument is, based on that context, invalid.

[bogan]

The Welsh have a dragon on their flag, and a national symbol is the daffodil.
The Scots have a white cross on a blue background. Their international emblem is the thistle.
The Australians (over on the west island) have their flag, yet their rugby team wears a wallaby.
The South Africans have quite an attractive flag (imho) and their sporting emblem is a springbok.
Britain has the Union Flag, but the sporting emblem is the lion.

There's many more such examples.

None of them, not one, has ever considered using any of these emblems as their national flag. I suggest the fern-on-the-flag argument is, based on that context, invalid.

Which is why Red Peak should have been chosen, more of a symbol from simpler geometry is common as a flag.

But that's just my opinion, and I'll be happy with the outcome of the democratic referendum no matter what, because the outcome is much less important than the process.

So by all means argue your choice of flag, but don't spout that bullshit about us not having the right to choose.

[Moi]

And I'm awaiting for you to develop some reading comprehension skills!

Again, thank you for the personal attack...

Did I say that vexillology was fictitious? I did not!

May I quote you...

... new NZ flag and your fictitious 'rules of vexillology' wont suddenly appear from their current non-existence and deny us the flag we choose.

I never saw this list of vexillology rules that you suggest the new flag would violate, you seem to have forgotten to back up your argument.
I would suggest that the rules that prohibit the proposed flag are fictitious, but feel free to post up a link to those rules if you want to prove me wrong.

You have just reiterated the "fictitious" statement...

You could look here and here

You can keep waiting for what you would consider a reasoned argument, as I said - no such thing is required.

Wrong. If you are prepared to vote for something or against something then you need to have a reasoned argument for either supporting it or not. You may be happy with what has been presented so far as reasons to change the flag, but I am not, hence I am waiting for a reasoned argument...

We can just decide to keep the current flag or to change to another one. We don't even have to have a reason beyond liking one more than the other. We make a choice and we get what has been chosen, why would we possibly care if you are satisfied with the reasoning or not?

If that is the reason you are happy with, then so be it. Perhaps it has to do with making an informed choice...

[gjm]

Then isn't you getting worked up about it playing directly into his hands?

No... I'm well aware of what is going on. Sadly the majority are more interested in the waste of $26m than the much bigger picture.

What do you mean NZ different to every other country in the world? others have had flag referendums too, changed it, and never looked back.

I'm happy to be corrected. I wasn't aware of all that many flag changes at all, let alone other national flag referendums.

You asked for reimbursement, to which I pointed out it was fuck all you'd be reimbursed. Do you really have no concept of just what a drop in the bucket 26m is in terms of running a country? Spending it is a good idea, regardless of the outcome; it's called democracy. Same reason we spend all that money having those election things. It think it's you who is trying to do the suckering, to bypass the democratic process because the will of the people might not be the one you want.

Do you have any idea what a huge difference $26m would make if carefully spent elsewhere?

And don't forget - the $26m is potentially the tip of a flag change iceberg. The cost of the referendums will decide what. It will not implement anything, which will also be at the taxpayer's expense.

[bogan]

No... I'm well aware of what is going on. Sadly the majority are more interested in the waste of $26m than the much bigger picture.


I'm happy to be corrected. I wasn't aware of all that many flag changes at all, let alone other national flag referendums.


Do you have any idea what a huge difference $26m would make if carefully spent elsewhere?

And don't forget - the $26m is potentially the tip of a flag change iceberg. The cost of the referendums will decide what. It will not implement anything, which will also be at the taxpayer's expense.

Which is why I keep pointing out it's not a waste, and 26m isn't much; shouldn't you point out the same to promote interest in the bigger picture instead of whinging about the 'waste' and thus detracting focus from the bigger picture?

Canada is the main one.

Yeh, which is why my yearly taxes come to a little bit more than just the price of one cup of coffee.

Good thing they had the referendum then eh! otherwise we might have just changed and spent the whole iceberg... Don't forget the benefits for having a better flag to us as a country though eh, we do a lot of tourism remember.

[Berries]

At least the proposed replacement flag has a fern on it.

It's a feather to the rest of the planet.

[gjm]

Canada is the main one.

That was 50 years ago, when Canada din't actually have a national flag (they had an ensign). 80 per cent of Canadians wanted a change, and 60 per cent of those wanted a maple leaf on it. See any discrepancy in the numbers?

Don't forget the benefits for having a better flag to us as a country though eh, we do a lot of tourism remember.

You've been drinking JK's Koolaid! That was his line. Doesn't necessarily mean it is incorrect and I'll be honest - if he is right it'll be a bitter pill (for me) to swallow.

[Oakie]

T 26mil is about the price of a coffee per person.

Wow. Wish I'd come up with that. Kudos!

[Ocean1]

Not if they aren't demonstrably a waste of time, effort, money and resource.

If - and it is if - the current flag is retained, will we have wasted $26m?

In who's opinion is this spending a waste of time, effort etc?

'Cause there isn't a dime of taxpayer's money that actually generates a profit.

[bogan]

That was 50 years ago, when Canada din't actually have a national flag (they had an ensign). 80 per cent of Canadians wanted a change, and 60 per cent of those wanted a maple leaf on it. See any discrepancy in the numbers?


You've been drinking JK's Koolaid! That was his line. Doesn't necessarily mean it is incorrect and I'll be honest - if he is right it'll be a bitter pill (for me) to swallow.

Our flag looks just like their ensign though (with the obvious differences ofc), so it's only a technical difference between the name of it. Again, apathetic 'votes' can get fucked, whether it be 20% or 60% is irrelevant (and the actual poll for that has not been conducted). More than 60% want a fern on ours, so, no, not a lot of discrepancy in numbers there.

It makes sense though.