Flag

Tim

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Billy Tell" data-cid="561818" data-time="1456861853">
<div>
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.designassembly.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/DA-flags-long-list-large.jpg'>http://www.designassembly.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/DA-flags-long-list-large.jpg</a>
 
Someone who considers themself a designer went through all 10,000+ designs submitted, and choose this group of 40 flags. Which tells me why I don't think designers are that necessary. Flags and art are not the same thing imo. Some of these designs appeal, but there is no way you are going to get more than 50% of the voting public rallying behind one of these flags. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I like this one, reminds me of an 80's Labour Party logo.
 
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/DrCXZB6.png" alt="DrCXZB6.png">

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tim" data-cid="562075" data-time="1456968438">I like this one, reminds me of an 80's Labour Party logo. <img src="http://i.imgur.com/DrCXZB6.png" alt="DrCXZB6.png"></blockquote> Looks like a railway company logo to me.

booboo

View from Toby Manhire that I find myself not completely disagreeing with ... <a class="bbc_url" href="http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11599575">http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11599575</a> <blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
At last the Great New Zealand Flag-Off has entered the final furlong, with voting in the second referendum starting today. 
And, apart from the failure to put a designer on the consideration panel, the near-empty rooms at public consultations, the mockery from international media, the decision not to listen to public views after the longlist of 40 was published, the release of a shortlist with three out of the four dominated by a fern and two of them almost identical, the law change to introduce a fifth contender, the flying of the wrong alternative flag on the harbour bridge, the accusations of distraction and legacy fixation, the interminable demands that the $26 million budget might have been better spent on this or that, the swivel-eyed conspiracy theories and moronic Facebook memes, the objectionable attacks on public figures who express a view, the point-scoring, the politicising, the claims of politicising that really just amounted themselves to politicising, the general bickering, peevishness and name-calling - apart from that, it's all gone swimmingly. 
Still, the course of flag love never did run smooth; it could be that all the turbulence is a good omen. In Canada and South Africa, remember, the changing of the flag was full of mishap, muddle and animus, too. 
If the polls are right and we stick with the current design, maybe we'll have another bash and do it better in 10 or 20 years. 
If the polls are wrong, and the Lockwood design sneaks through, maybe those of us who today squint at the sight of it will grow to like it over time. You never know. 
Promises of "robust debates" and "public conversations", however well intentioned, tend usually to produce either tumbleweed or rancour. But this one has felt worse than most. If filling out one of those intermediate-school sheets the Flag Panel distributed, asking "What do we stand for?", on the basis of the debate, I'd write simply: "Adolescent squabbling." 
I can't help but wonder if some of the vileness, on both sides, in the flag debate stems from the essential shallowness of the debate. "Let's have a big discussion about nationhood and what it means!" 
Great, you mean, for example, should we revisit our unusual constitutional status? "No, God no, not that! A big discussion about nationhood but just not that bit. Carry on!" The inevitable, almost intrinsic, superficiality gave rise to an argument that became a proxy for all sorts of other beefs and agendas: a baffling great symbolic soup. 
In hindsight, it was probably inevitable that the debate was going to become a lightning rod of anti-Key sentiment for the PM's most zealous enemies. Inevitable, but daft. To vote against the Lockwood alternative because you don't like John Key is, I think, as daft as imputing Key-loathing on the part of anyone who simply doesn't like the alternative flag. 
One more daft thing, while we're at it: the argument that declining to vote against the Union-Jacked incumbent now is to kiss goodbye the opportunity to change forever. It may not happen again for some years, but moods change like tides; who's to say it won't return to the fore in, say, 2025 or 2040? Were that to happen as part of a debate on our constitutional status, all the better. 
Key reckons that sticking with the status quo will mean no new flag without becoming a republic. But, however charming William and Kate and their children might be, a republican shift is not nearly as implausible as he implies. Key also said, a few years back, that New Zealand becoming a republic was "inevitable". 
The real political risk for Key in pushing for a flag change was never the hardcore antagonists wanting to give him a bloody nose. 
As he pointed out this week, his advocacy does not appear to have hurt his personal poll rating. What could have hurt, however, would have been a vocal keep-the-historic-flag voice from within the ranks. 
Just look, by way of contrast, at the other side of the world, where Key's friend and centre-right counterpart David Cameron is having a miserable time making a case for Britain to stay in the European Union ahead of their own, albeit miles more important, referendum. 
Last week Boris Johnson, the Old Etonian, faux-baffled, bicycle-mounted mayor of London and Tory MP, revealed that he would campaign for an Out vote. 
This wasn't about Cameron, no, no, no, of course not. It was about principle and not for a minute motivated by long-held ambitions of becoming prime minister himself. 
That no National MP with sights on the leadership has done anything remotely similar - and there are plenty of conservative-minded senior caucus members who strongly prefer the incumbent, thank you very much - just shows how solid Key's position is. The fealty runs deep. 
In the meantime, as those orange-flecked envelopes land in mailboxes, my outlandishly radical advice, for what it's worth and at risk of stating the bleeding obvious, is to vote for the flag you like the best, or dislike the least. 
On this, I'm firmly with the Prime Minister. The other day he told breakfast TV viewers that New Zealanders should "make the call on what they believe - if they like it they should vote for it, and if they don't, they shouldn't". That pretty much covers it.</blockquote>

Baron Silas Greenback

I completely and utterly disagree with his assertion that we might look at it again in 10 or 20 years. If it fails this time, no politician will have the fortitude to look at for a VERY long time.
It is incredibly delusional to think otherwise.

booboo

Actually I think we will. 
I think this process has shown there is an appetite for change. 
It's missed it's chance because the proponents gave too much credit to their personal enemies thinking the argument would be about the issue at hand. 
So unfortunately it's become a series of side issues that has derailed the process. 
Rather than a strict "I want change v I want same", and "I like new flag v I don't like new flag" decision it's become "I don't like John Key", "It costs too much think of the children", "I didn't get what I wanted", "vexology", "tea towel", "marketers with money", "I don't like the All Blacks so get the fern off there" weirdness and bullshit. 
Given a couple of years I think there may be another crack at it. 
Hopefully NZ as a society may have matured a bit by then. 
BTW for those lucky enough to vote: vite for the new one

Baron Silas Greenback

I disagree, NZ is getting more tribal not less. We have crossed a Rubicon with this one. Usually votes on this like this are supposed to be politically neutral, the left in NZ have decided to make a political football out if it, and the right will do the same in the future.
I am not quite sure you imagine would happen any differently next time?
Politicians are going to be waaaay to gutless to go down this path again, why potentially waste political capital on it?

Crucial

Those hoping for a full republic debate also need to get real.
 
There is a very good reason why we trundle along under the pretence that the Queen is something more than magazine filler and that is that we can't afford to be a republic.
If you think $29M is a lot then think of the cost to adjust Laws, public service documentation/charters, court processes etc etc etc to remove references to our current system and add the new ones. The printing/website change billing alone would cripple us.
Then we have to probably set up an upper house of government. Who the hell are we going to put in there? Long term shoulder-tapped politicians? It will continue the gravy train for life.
We have a system that pretty much works. The Queen is a figurehead only and is Queen of NZ as well as Queen of England.

jegga

I think history is going to judge the ferals, leftards and rsa types stuck in the past quite harshly over this and deservedly so too. The bullshit excuses they've invented as reasons why we shouldn't change and the lies they have spread about suggest that more than a few of them are unhinged to some degree.

jegga

Interesting , this guys a Green Party supporter and even tried the process was flawed bullshit a couple of weeks back but the penny had dropped with him about pathetic the left look over thd flag <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='https://dimpost.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/salon-des-refuses/#comments'>https://dimpost.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/salon-des-refuses/#comments</a>

rotated

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="562012" data-time="1456955208">
<div>
Process is to rigid???
That is a new one!
 
We had someone else complain that the process was to flexible in letting in red peak.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Yes too rigid. The key part is the election of one candidate first and then the separate run off. A better model would have been a model similar to the one Australian anthem plebiscite where three candidates went against God Save the Queen in a preference battle. The notion of changing our general elections to somewhere where all the challengers must first battle out to find one candidate who then goes against the incumbent in a separate run off seems nonsenical, biased to the incumbent and the least efficient way of getting an accurate gauge of the electorate's wishes.
 
However, even if you wanted to go with the process they decided on the inability to make minor amendments to the selections is counter productive. Many, many flags seem to have a two prong design process where someone has come up with the general design and another perfects the actual execution. We denied our-self that opportunity. 
 
But many seem to think that this process was handled pretty well (and resulted in a an excellent candidate being chosen) so obviously the outcome of this run-off will be an accurate reflection of the NZ appetite for changing the flag. I disagree and think the process will result in Lockwood being soundly beaten despite substantial appetite for change. The only people to blame are those who designed the process and who prosecuted the argument for change.
 
I'm not saying the process was flawed to negate the final result or to accuse Key of any deviousness. I'm saying the process is flawed because the final vote is going be a ringing endorsement of the current flag and the actual electorate favours change.

Hooroo

The only thing I would have changed in this process was the actual vote of choosing old flag or new flag, should have been done at General Election. That way, more people would vote.

Frye

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="562255" data-time="1457054240">
<div>
Yes too rigid. The key part is the election of one candidate first and then the separate run off. A better model would have been a model similar to the one Australian anthem plebiscite where three candidates went against God Save the Queen in a preference battle. The notion of changing our general elections to somewhere where all the challengers must first battle out to find one candidate who then goes against the incumbent in a separate run off seems nonsenical, biased to the incumbent and the least efficient way of getting an accurate gauge of the electorate's wishes.
 
However, even if you wanted to go with the process they decided on the inability to make minor amendments to the selections is counter productive. Many, many flags seem to have a two prong design process where someone has come up with the general design and another perfects the actual execution. We denied our-self that opportunity. 
 
But many seem to think that this process was handled pretty well (and resulted in a an excellent candidate being chosen) so obviously the outcome of this run-off will be an accurate reflection of the NZ appetite for changing the flag. I disagree and think the process will result in Lockwood being soundly beaten despite substantial appetite for change. The only people to blame are those who designed the process and who prosecuted the argument for change.
 
I'm not saying the process was flawed to negate the final result or to accuse Key of any deviousness. I'm saying the process is flawed because the final vote is going be a ringing endorsement of the current flag and the actual electorate favours change.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Oh yeah totally.
 
What better way for the "change" vote to win than by splitting it three ways.
 
Brilliant.

rotated

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Don Frye" data-cid="562264" data-time="1457056021">
<div>
Oh yeah totally.
 
What better way for the "change" vote to win than by splitting it three ways.
 
Brilliant.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Under preferential voting this is not a concern. In fact without preferential voting in the first vote the other Lockwood design would have won.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="562220" data-time="1457044850">
Those hoping for a full republic debate also need to get real. 
There is a very good reason why we trundle along under the pretence that the Queen is something more than magazine filler and that is that we can't afford to be a republic. 
If you think $29M is a lot then think of the cost to adjust Laws, public service documentation/charters, court processes etc etc etc to remove references to our current system and add the new ones. The printing/website change billing alone would cripple us. 
Then we have to probably set up an upper house of government. Who the hell are we going to put in there? Long term shoulder-tapped politicians? It will continue the gravy train for life. 
We have a system that pretty much works. The Queen is a figurehead only and is Queen of NZ as well as Queen of England.</blockquote>
I'm not disagreeing with except for the need for an upper house, why would we need one? We had one and got rid of it years ago .

Hooroo

I'm confsed as to why you have quoted me??

jegga

So am I , I didn't intend to

Hooroo

Muppet :)

Rancid Schnitzel

Just regarding a republic, I don't know the cost for NZ, but for Aus I believe the minimum would be 1 billion dollars. That doesn't include the cost of a referendum which would also be hundreds of millions. That's a shit load of cash for something that really would make very little difference to the country. There are those who seem to be forever stressing about how we are perceived by foreigners. News flash, foreigners couldn't give a shit.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="562203" data-time="1457039816">
<div>
I completely and utterly disagree with his assertion that we might look at it again in 10 or 20 years. If it fails this time, no politician will have the fortitude to look at for a VERY long time.
It is incredibly delusional to think otherwise. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Agree, wholeheartedly, it would surely be career suicide to touch it again unless we become a Republic. 
 
Been out and about the past 3 days with TR Jnrs school doing things all about, and I am genuinely surprised with the number of flags have have seen where I have never done before, and once I started taking note I started making a mental note when I saw the current and then the proposed one, and I reckon it was about even.
 
Took this pic out at the beach we went surfing at today, and as I said earlier in the thread, I think the new flag is much more appealing blowing in the wind than it is as a 'graphic' 
 
<img src="https://scontent-syd1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfl1/v/t1.0-9/12806072_10154036572096834_3899162767930942354_n.jpg?oh=f7f90ae69cf7f342857787d3702a9218&oe=5763040E" alt="12806072_10154036572096834_3899162767930">

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="562274" data-time="1457060462">
Muppet :)</blockquote>
 
I've been called worse unless you meant one of the sad muppets like Sam the eagle or Beaker, 
Booboo, you didn't have to rub it in by liking it.

The Silver Fern

Flag