Hard News: Not yet standing upright
316 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 13 Newer→ Last
-
But I really don’t want to endorse another hundred years under some bleak clip-art that seems to leave out Maori altogether
So much this, it does my effin' head in. It's like the brief specifically tried to ignore our cultural heritage, in all its messed up glory.
Anyone want to guess how much it will cost to change every iteration of the flag in every government agency?
The Telecom/Spark re-brand, which was all local, cost around $20,000,000. Spark annual revenue in 2014 was $3.5 billion.
Our GDP in 2014 was around $290 billion.
Use that as a multiplier (because math is my play thing, and shut up), so 82 times 20 million = 1.64 billion dollars. Add the international factor, and great fuck tonnes of cash is the answer.
Yeah, keep the bloody one we have.
-
Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to
1.64 billion dollars. Add the international factor, and great fuck tonnes of cash is the answer.
Only if we decide everything must change immediately. Corporates do that because of branding, but if we decided to grandparent it, there'd be no need to change things in a rush, and that would keep the cost down.
Also, I'm not sure that a) it would be a multiplier, or b)that a corporate logo is the best analogy. Corporates have their brand on everything - all their stationery, their office signs, all sorts. But I'm struggling to think of many places the flag is used. There are a bunch of actual flags in council offices round the country, and a good quality flag is expensive. But I can't recall seeing it on letterhead. -
JacksonP, in reply to
Only if we decide everything must change immediately.
I’m kind of flattered that you took my massive logical leap missive seriously.
However, I do think it will cost much more than we realise, and, at whatever cost, the change hardly seems worth it, unless we can all ‘stand for’ the flag chosen.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
struggling to think of many places the flag is used.
Crest of Parliament (above)
and Hastings!
and Driver’s Licence
(I note the Ferndale Mob and their Fronds have claimed the passport well and truly)
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
these fair isles...
Wool is non-flammable
Surely NZ deserves a flag that anyone could knit at home!
...a fine expression of mathematical knot theory looking for polarity with support from the primary produce sector - all inclusive.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
Some form of cellulose nitrate based material is optimal if you really want a flag that deflagrates well.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
there’d be no need to change things in a rush
True, but a lot of things really would need to change quickly, passports, official documents bearing a seal, flags at embassys etc
The point is not that it might be billions but rather that the $26 million number is just the starting cost and it is real money that we need for other things.
So we better be bloody sure that the change is one that we really want.
-
simon g, in reply to
So we better be bloody sure that the change is one that we really want.
Imagine an underwhelming vote for change - low turnout, narrow majority. Unlike general elections, this can't get reversed any time soon. What then?
The best hope for "pro change" advocates is that by March people have had enough, and the new flag is accepted because most are fed up with the whole topic (many already are, just think what another six months will do). Shrug shoulders, move on.
But I think it's more likely that the antis will get antsy. The media love easy stories and it doesn't get any easier for them than grumpy Kiwis refusing to fly the new one, making a protest and hitting the headlines. Optimal optics!
When it's a free choice, this doesn't matter. Wave whatever you want at the rugby. But when it's an official event, when the occasion requires a degree of dignity and consensus - "I'm not marching under that, says War Hero Bert, 87 ... ". Oh dear.
A mess in the making.
-
Why publicly present a shortlist of 40 if only presenting 4 for the vote?
Until recently on a stroll around New Zealand suburbs you were generally likely to encounter three flags flying; the current National flag, Tino Rangatiratanga, and the All Black Flag, A very real outcome of this mess is that we will soon if we haven’t already become the country of many flags. The National Flag, whatever it may end up being, will not enjoy the same resonance until such time as this kerfuffle is forgotten and the flag changing process can be reset and approached in a pragmatic manner
Possible upshot, the flagpole industry is on the up and up.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Rowan Simpson makes a good case for the Dustin flag to be added.
Great. That will come in handy when I need to do some Dustin.....
/coat -
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Then I shall say we…
? We shall stand by our elected leader and not let petty squabbles and egos wreck our Party?
You do realise that most of what you think about Labour is what National want you to think, don't you?. -
I'm surprised John Key hasn't gone for the 'inverse koru'
a.k.a. 'the white wave' -
…and then there is always
the elephant in the room
Horton has a hoot -
Alfie, in reply to
Why publicly present a shortlist of 40 if only presenting 4 for the vote?
To present the illusion of choice.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
The initial shortlist of 20c piece designs for NZ's first decimal currency.
I quite like the one with the woman doing the washing. So apt for the time.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Why publicly present a shortlist of 40 if only presenting 4 for the vote?
Why indeed?
To eat up column centimetres and airtime...
and cash, perhaps a cosy little sinecure for the
Govt Printer or whoever owns that... -
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
So apt for the time.
Money laundering?
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
The Rank Organisation?
Would you like a gong with that?Govt Printer or whoever owns that...
Funny you should mention that....
Rank's next big move was the purchase of the Government Printing Office for $23 million.
The acquisition was due to be settled on January 31, 1990, but payment was delayed five months.
This had a positive impact on Rank because it had control of Government Printing for five months before it had to pay for the company.
The sale attracted considerable controversy.
Fay Richwhite valued the company at $71 million and it had a book value of $44 million, $21 million above Rank's purchase price.
A select committee inquiry into the sale concluded it had been poorly handled. A Herald editorial said "taxpayers are entitled to feel aggrieved about the way this asset sale was handled".
Hart took advantage of the botched process.
He isn't the only businessman to have benefited from the Government's poorly conceived and badly run asset sales programme.
Government Printing had a huge impact on Rank's earnings and share price. Net profit rose from just $1.1 million in the 1989 year to $10.4 million in 1991 and Rank became one of the sharemarket's best performers.
It should be noted that a "J.Arthur" was rhyming slang at the time.
ETA..
A little disingenuous of me really because it wasn't that Rnk, it was This one -
Welp, Nandor is certainly saying it for me right now: http://nandor.net.nz/2015/09/02/getting-our-flag-off-a-weetbix-box/
As for weirdo conspiracy theories going around on FB right now - somehow changing it endorses the TPP, and the first referendum is a "write in" option according to the RSA - what is up with all that?
It's a general thing on FB at present - people expressing their valid concerns by "sharing" some pre-baked nonsense that's a pack of lies. Certainly undermines their arguments, and lefties seem to be particularly prone to it right now.
Probably a symptom of distrust of the media, and getting all one's political news off FB. Bleh. (Actually, I get alerted to plenty of good stuff via FB, but as an authoritative source? Nup nup nup.)
-
Dylan Reeve, in reply to
Why publicly present a shortlist of 40 if only presenting 4 for the vote?
That's an interesting question actually - was there public consultation after the longlist was published? I don't remember any being promoted.
If not, what was the point of that?
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
...getting-our-flag-off-a-weetbix-box
I'd just like to say that I made this before Nandor's piece went out...
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
somehow changing [the flag] endorses the TPP
I've got so fucking sick of this particular piece I even wrote about it on FB:
I can't believe I'm dignifying this piece of drivel with time and analysis, but I'm getting tired of shooting it down. So, here goes.About this "due authority" piece that's doing the rounds regarding changing the flag:
1) NZ Bill of Rights Act was passed in 1990, not 1981, and it's nothing like an "entrenched constitution". Getting wrong details about fundamental legislation is not encouraging. Yes, I know the author has gone back and fixed the wrong date in some places, but you don't have to look far to find the incorrect original.
2) "Due authority" is a concept from heraldry (coats of arms and knights and stuff) about who has authority to authorise wearing of a "symbol of honour". Our Parliament gets its authority from centuries of legal precedent, a little bit of legislation, and from the fact that the Queen continues to accept our Governor General as her representative. Taking the Union Jack out of our flag and national Coat of Arms undoes none of that.
Ask Canada how they've been doing without the Union Jack in their flag since the 1960s!3) Australia isn't planning a flag change any time soon. How's that TPPA ratification working out for them?
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Piggy Muldoon made people so angry that they eventually voted for the next best thing.
Now you are spoiling for a fight.
Muldoon left the country virtually bankrupt.
The "Next Best Thing" as you put it, was the Lange government, the 4th Labour Government. They gave us our Nuclear Free legislation before being hijacked by Roger Douglas, a secret right wing monetarist who's stint as fundraiser for the Party sold us out to the "Free Marketeers" Fay, Richwhite and the Devil himself. (not to be confused with the "Three Musketeers" Athos, Porthos, and Aramis or Huey, Duey and Louie for the Warner Bros. version).
Then the shit hit the fan and we had to pay off Muldoon's Debt...
And this happened...
Asset Sales
The floodgates opened and the Rich and the White got richer and whiter.
Is it any surprise that a National Government wants to change the branding?. -
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
and from the fact that the Queen continues to accept our Governor General as her representative
I agree with everything apart from that. The Constitution Act defines the relationship between state, government, Governor-General and Monarch.
Should Charles III decide to assume personal sovereignty, he'd have to obtain the consent of the current NZ government to appoint himself as G-G, or persuade the NZ parliament to change the Constitution Act.
(Or he could decide to abdicate in respect of NZ, whilst remaining King of England &c - in that case, the NZ parliament would need to pass legislation either nominating another monarch or instituting a republic).
-
Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to
Thanks for that Matthew, I saw that "due authority" drivel doing the rounds too, thought about trying to respond to it, and then thought of the many, many more pressing things I had to do. So really appreciate seeing someone else do a better job of it than I would have anyway.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.