OnPoint: Yeah nah, but what *do* we stand for?
73 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
frond memories...
Starry Fern wins
Makes me think of the reality of shortland Street as shorthand for NZ - surely their flag would be a 'Red Fern'
:- ) -
Matthew Hooton, in reply to
The polls. Also, I thought there would be a bigger and better campaign creating momentum for change. But you reminding me of that analysis I did means I am slightly more confident there could be an upset win for the fern than yesterday (although the polls are usually pretty accurate).
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Now all sir has to choose is
Arrrg! The choosing! It burns!!
-
Sacha, in reply to
I think we'll head to the 22nd century with current flag and King George.
Demographic change may disagree on that - depending how many of our new citizens defer to hereditary authority.
-
linger, in reply to
Or indeed whether they still have voting rights under Prymincer For Life Maximillion Key II.
-
Matthew Hooton, in reply to
Demographic change may disagree on that – depending how many of our new citizens defer to hereditary authority.
True. But I think (guess) that many new citizens are attracted to things like political stability, the Common Law, the Westminster system etc and may not be so keen on a change to a republic, especially with an elected president, if they perceive any risk to those things as a result. Note, that perception of risk doesn't have to be well founded.
-
Yeah sure, I went to my wife's citizenship ceremony - she swore to the current crown and all her legal heirs .... we wondered out loud whether of not she could add "except for Charlie", several of the people around us agreed that that would be a good thing
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
I’d imagine there were some deep pockets amongst their members and supporters.
I wonder why you think that, you pinko unwashed arty type…
;-)I had to post a comment on the YouTube site just in case foreigners thought our country stupid.
Feel free to add your own comments on the YouTube site…/ ;-)
Many, many of them… -
Steve Barnes, in reply to
I went to my wife’s citizenship ceremony – she swore to the current crown and all her legal heirs ….
I will have been in this country for 30 years next Thursday.
All this time I have wondered why I should have to swear allegiance to the Monarch of the country I chose to leave. I must add that I quite like the Queen, she bakes awfully nice scones, it was more the handbag wielding, war mongering monetarist, Union smashing, monster Margaret Hilda Thatcher (nee Roberts), the grocer's daughter from Grantham, that encouraged me to emigrate. -
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
Well, no, that's the point of monarchy. You get whatever the previous monarch's offspring grew up into. If the (British, I guess) government starts picking and choosing, then basically we move to having our head of state be whoever the British government of the day wants to nominate*.
* This of course has happened. Edward VIII got the shove, and earlier William of Orange was co-opted when Parliament wasn't having the pro-Catholic James II and VII. -
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
polls are usually pretty accurate
Flag polls - give 'em a halyard and they'll take a mile...
:- ) -
Rochelle Wilson, in reply to
expects their children, close friends and colleagues to call them “sir”.
Certainly, children calling their parents "sir" and ma'am" is common in the USA [according to films etc].
-
Amidst the onslaught of famous people say change the flag stories scattered throughout the MSM at the moment, there's this little breath of fresh air.
The Herald allows writer Bruce Logan and designer Michael Smythe to explain why the Weetbix-packet emulating aoteatowel (Smythe's term) is such a poor choice for a national flag.
-
I did read Smythe's piece, but won't bother with Logan's. The Herald should do a lot better than just "XX is an Auckland writer" when they label their op-ed pieces. It's disingenuous, or even lying by omission. They should give readers full disclosure - or preferably, not take his pieces at all.
(And no, I don't like the tea towel either. But I'm no more listening to Logan than McCaw).
-
Alfie, in reply to
I did read Smythe’s piece, but won’t bother with Logan’s.
I really have no idea who he is but Google shows a connection to the Maxim Institute. Sorry if I accidentally offended anyone.
-
Today's Herald cartoon.
The same paper also has I don't give a hoot what Richie and Dan think -- a heartfelt opinion piece from Lizzie Marvelly describing the process as ...a taxpayer-funded national "best drawing" competition judged by a group of people with absolutely no design experience.
With all due respect, I don't give a hoot what the Prime Minister, Richie McCaw and Dan Carter think about the flag. To me, the relationship Kiwis have with their flag should be wholly their own. They are absolutely entitled to their own views, but it is not for All Black legends or a leader democratically elected to serve all New Zealanders, to try to tell us what to think, much less how to vote in this ballot of lasting national significance.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
What goes around, comes around…
I’d just like to make a case for the prescience of Chris Knox –
my evidence the above two Max Media cartoons from 2005!(sorry about dodgy focus)
-
Sacha, in reply to
bottom panel looks more like Mr Horan's water polo days.
(h/t Ben Wilson) -
Former Listener editor Finlay Macdonald writing for RNZ -- Has the PM mistaken himself for a flag?
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
The Herald allows serial plagiarist Bruce Logan
That's okay, I fixed it for you.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
The Herald allows serial plagiarist Bruce Logan
That’s okay, I fixed it for you.
Some strange bedfellows are being made over this. Not that Bruce Logan would approve of that sort of carry-on.
It's funny that the new world in which columnists are not worth paying allows in known plagiarists.
And when I say "funny", I mean "sad".
-
-
I posted this in Russell's flag thread :
I just received my ballot paper. In the information leaflet (English, only, unlike the "How to vote" leaflet, although you can download other language versions from their website) I find:
Silver Fern Flag
Designer: Kyle Lockwood
The designer considers the silver fern a New Zealand icon which has been proudly worn by generations for over 160 years. The designer's intent is that the multiple points of the fern leaf represent Aotearoa's peaceful, multicultural society, a single fern spreading upwards representing one people growing onward into the future.
The bright blue represents our clear skies and the Pacific Ocean, and the Southern Cross guided early settlers to our islands and represents our location in the South Pacific.Current New Zealand Flag
Designer: Admiral Sir Albert Hastings Markham, KCB
The royal blue background has come to represent the blue sea and sky surrounding us. The stars represent the Southern Cross constellation which can only be seen in the Southern Hemisphere, emphasising New Zealand's location in the South Pacific Ocean. The Union Jack in the top left-hand corner recognises New Zealand's historical foundations as a former British colony and dominion. This flag was officially adopted in 1902.One of these things is not like the other, to me. Am I alone in reading loaded language here?
Also, according to Te Ara, the first use of the fern as a symbol of New Zealand was when it was "first worn by players in the 1888 New Zealand Natives rugby team which toured Britain." It's a long time since School C. maths, but that's not 160 years by any measure except dog (where it's a lot more).
Also:
This flag was officially adopted in 1902.
This carefully misses the fact that it was designed and submitted to Governor George Bowen, and accepted by him in 1869, though based on the British naval Blue Ensign.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.