Flag
-
<p>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.</p>
<p>It is incredibly delusional to think otherwise. </p> -
Actually I think we will.<br><br>
I think this process has shown there is an appetite for change.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
So unfortunately it's become a series of side issues that has derailed the process. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
Given a couple of years I think there may be another crack at it.<br><br>
Hopefully NZ as a society may have matured a bit by then.<br><br>
BTW for those lucky enough to vote: vite for the new one
-
<p>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.</p>
<p>I am not quite sure you imagine would happen any differently next time?</p>
<p>Politicians are going to be waaaay to gutless to go down this path again, why potentially waste political capital on it?</p> -
<p>Those hoping for a full republic debate also need to get real.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p> -
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.
-
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>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="562012" data-time="1456955208">
<div>
<p>Process is to rigid???</p>
<p>That is a new one!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>We had someone else complain that the process was to flexible in letting in red peak.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="562255" data-time="1457054240">
<div>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Oh yeah totally.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>What better way for the "change" vote to win than by splitting it three ways.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Brilliant.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Don Frye" data-cid="562264" data-time="1457056021">
<div>
<p>Oh yeah totally.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>What better way for the "change" vote to win than by splitting it three ways.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Brilliant.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Under preferential voting this is not a concern. In fact without preferential voting in the first vote the other Lockwood design would have won.</p> -
<br><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="562220" data-time="1457044850"><p>
Those hoping for a full republic debate also need to get real.<br><br>
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.<br>
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.<br>
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.<br>
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.</p></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 . -
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.
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="562203" data-time="1457039816">
<div>
<p>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.</p>
<p>It is incredibly delusional to think otherwise. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Agree, wholeheartedly, it would surely be career suicide to touch it again unless we become a Republic. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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' </p>
<p> </p>
<p><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"></p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="562274" data-time="1457060462"><p>
Muppet :)</p></blockquote>
<br>
I've been called worse unless you meant one of the sad muppets like Sam the eagle or Beaker,<br><br>
Booboo, you didn't have to rub it in by liking it. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="562285" data-time="1457064132">
<div>
<p>I've been called worse unless you meant one of the sad muppets like Sam the eagle or Beaker,<br><br>
Booboo, you didn't have to rub it in by liking it.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Two likes now, I'm getting in on this action!</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="562277" data-time="1457062522">
<div>
<p>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. <strong>That's a shit load of cash for something that really would make very little difference to the country.</strong> There are those who seem to be forever stressing about how we are perceived by foreigners. News flash, foreigners couldn't give a shit.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>How many in this thread have bought an engagement ring or had a wedding?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Paekakboyz" data-cid="562291" data-time="1457065405">
<div>
<p>Two likes now, I'm getting in on this action!</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p><img src="http://www.h2g2.com/h2g2/skins/Alabaster/images/Smilies/f_facepalm.gif" alt="f_facepalm.gif"> ffs </p>
