Polity: So who exactly placed conditions on that flag meeting?
56 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
I thought Key wanted a flag change? This sort of bullshit will just turn more people off the process.
-
"That move is as brazen as it is dishonest. Key obviously thinks New Zealanders, and the New Zealand media, are gullible fools."
Quod erat demonstrandum
-
Of course, National and its hangers-on can easily change the law to do this all by themselves. Why they won’t is a mystery to me.
I'd thought a law change wasn't needed, as has been pointed out multiple times? In any case, if Cabinet added a flag (or replaced one) then it would be a direct and obvious contradiction to the Prime Minister's earlier statement that it couldn't be done without going back to Parliament for a law change. Therefore it "can't" be done without some way to save face and make it look as if the PM wasn't wrong or lying at all. The claim that support is needed from all parties plays into that narrative, for everyone who might want Red Peak added but needs an excuse not to lose their faith/trust in the PM.
All this running around pretending it can't be done "because Labour won't meet us" is a mystery to me, except that someone's probably decided it's an easy way to try and deflect some blame onto Labour, at the expense of doing something that might actually be meaningful for the referendum. Thus a $26m spend on something which much of the population thought was of dubious value has become an outright $26m spend on political game-playing by the government, sacrificing integrity of the outcome for scoring cheap political points. Whatever their thoughts on flag changing, opposition parties need to do what they can to hold the government to account on this mess.
-
Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to
I'd thought a law change wasn't needed, as has been pointed out multiple times?
A law change is needed to add Red Peak as a fifth option. A law change is not needed to swap Red Peak for one of the other options. Adding Red Peak as a fifth option is preferable to swapping out (I think) because swapping out risks alienating those who had identified one of the first four as their preferred option and who would probably feel cheated to have their first choice option removed. Even if there is another one practically the same on offer (the Lockwood options) or basically only a really small proportion of the population actually like it (hypnoflag).
-
izogi, in reply to
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
-
The absolute worst thing Andrew Little could do now is meet with Key at all.
It is always a bad idea to meet behind closed doors with someone who outright lies.
Give him a very wide berth and just let him finish himself off all on his own.
If we're lucky - perhaps he'll step aside once the second referendum goes belly up.
The wasted $26 million on a glory project that went no where is exactly the legacy this PM deserves.
-
outright $26m spend on political game-playing by the government
Whether or not the flag changes, the process benefits National – not least, by free opinion polling about how to market itself in an image NZers identify with. And it didn’t exactly hurt their brand consciousness that the design submission phase was framed as a survey about national identity.
Even if Key doesn't get his preferred result, that doesn’t harm National much in the long term, if you believe this was going to be Key’s last term anyway. -
simon g, in reply to
I thought Key wanted a flag change?
He did - to his own choice. Polls suggest that won't happen, so now he wants to cut his political losses. To share the "blame" around.
The media words today have been "stoush", "squabble", "stand-off" ... which serves Key's (revised) purpose. That's what most voters will see and hear. He is doing what he has always done (Exhibits A-Z, see countless previous controversies, from Hager to Slater).
Somebody says: 2+2 = 4. So Key says "yeah, that's one point of view, but balance, coz some say 2+2 = 93." Resultant reports: "he said, she said".
He's been doing this for 7 years, and rewarded for it, why would he change?
-
I think the whole debate has become completely stuffed, mostly because of the process, which shaped the debate in weird ways.
The order of the questions matter in ways that go beyond 'fairness', and fairness is stupid anyway. The order they are in now introduces a cognitive bias towards the flag design you select as your favorite option for change. Not a huge one maybe, but still enough of a one that it is used as a sales technique.
The alternative order is maybe biased towards not changing the flag, but why is that a bad thing? Shouldn't there be hurdle to clear? Shouldn't we be sure? What the fuck has fair got to do with it?
And if fair is the metric, why the hell do people who don't want a fern have to rank one as their second best option? What's so bloody fair about that? It's fair that people who really want a fern should have one to pick, but three to choose from? That's just fucked.
If the first debate was 'should we change the flag', instead of 'what should we maybe change it too?', we would be debating whether or not the current flag works, and what flags ought to do, does our flag do it, and what sort of flag would do it better.
But the process set it up assuming that the current flag doesn't do the job, Key said as much when launching it, so that whole conversation has been missed. We haven't thought about flags and what they ought to do before being asked to decide between tweedle blah and tweedle nah.
I'm thinking now it would best for Red Peak to not be on the ballot, so that after a 'no change' vote this time, it can have a decent crack at next time around, and the Lockwood's will be the 'already rejected Lockwood designs'. -
SteveH, in reply to
The media words today have been "stoush", "squabble", "stand-off" ... which serves Key's (revised) purpose. That's what most voters will see and hear.
Perhaps. But if you take his claim at face value then it sounds like weakness to me, and I'm sure to a lot of others. He's saying he can't govern without Labour's help. At best a few gullible red peak supporters might blame Labour for cleaning up the panel's mess, but I doubt it'll have any significant impact on the polls. And the fact remains that Labour tabled a bill and National rejected it; people will see that at least Labour made a concrete effort.
-
SteveH, in reply to
If the first debate was ‘should we change the flag’, instead of ‘what should we maybe change it too?’, we would be debating whether or not the current flag works, and what flags ought to do, does our flag do it, and what sort of flag would do it better.
What if we'd had the "do you want to change?" referendum already and decided on change, and then the panel had presented these same four alternatives to choose from? There might have been rioting in the streets. At the very least there would be a lot of people saying "I wanted to change, but not to one of these disasters." The process has to be to choose the alternative first, then vote on whether to change to it. Because the vast majority of people will only want to change if the alternative is acceptable.
STV is a better choice because it means you still get a say if your preferred design is not first choice winner. If it was FTP and you didn't want a fern so you voted for the spiral and that lost, then your vote is gone. You might really hate the black and white fern and end up stuck with it because you didn't get to express that opinion. STV ensures that people's opinions about all the options are captured, and if people are not happy with the resulting choice then they still get the option to say no.
Labour's proposal essentially amounts to a "I don't want any of these alternatives" option. It doesn't really change anything in the process as everyone would still get to express that opinion in the second referendum. It just means we could save the cost of a second referendum if the result was going to be obvious (and since flags can grow on people over time I'd hope that second referendum would proceed unless the negative result for that question in the first referendum was overwhelming, not just a simple majority).
-
Not to over complicate the issue. All things considered as of right now.
What if we’d had the “do you want to change?” referendum already and decided on change, and then the panel had presented these same four alternatives to choose from?
I don’t see anyone proposing we also include the cost of building a time machine.
-
SteveH, in reply to
I don’t see anyone proposing we also include the cost of building a time machine.
It's an illustration of what sort of debacle asking "would you like to change?" first could result in. I didn't think the point was that hard to understand.
-
chris, in reply to
I hear you, and no offence intended SteveH, it’s certainly not personal. This process, this constant media barrage, our flim flam PM, the combined total emotional investment demanded, the waste of paper, time, school hours, Government sessions, fuel, electricity, news segments, crayons, felt tip pens and paint….
-
Alex Coleman, in reply to
I think the first referendum shouldn't have any flags at all on it. Just ask if we should change. Make it clear that the question is about investigating change.
If yes, *then* have the panel and start discussing alternatives. I don;t really care about the saving money from the referendums. I don't mind if there's three referendums.
But we have what we have, and it's a mess, I don't think it's salvageable from here.
-
linger, in reply to
It’s an illustration of what sort of debacle asking “would you like to change?” first could result in.
Of course, that counterfactual results from retaining the same problematic step that gave us the current selection: the undemocratic (and far from transparent) narrowing of choices by committee. If, after a successful vote to change, a popular vote had led to the current shortlist, that would be a very different thing. With neither of those preconditions, we have, as Alex says, an unsalvageable mess.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Rescue Me...
...an unsalvageable mess.
"...an unfathomable and unsalvageable mess!"
I still can't see why all the was money spent on the 'top 40 posters' when we had no input on choice.
Then further compounded by the cowed committee serving up three (3!!) 'versions' of Key's oft voiced preference, rather than selecting 4 discrete 'choices' - that alone should be a reason for a 'recount'.it's all feels like 'worthy' stalling and diversion tactics to me...
-
There should just be a single referendum with the 6 flags. Include the current one and Red Peak with the other four. People wanting to retain the flag can rank it as number one. That's the beauty of STV, it's an instant runoff.
-
hey but at least nobody's talking about TPP, saudi sheep, milk prices, unemployment, etc #jobdone
-
At last - a hero for our times - Blue Boy
setting hearts aflutter
and standards plummeting! -
Sacha, in reply to
half mast
-
linger, in reply to
clawing his way up a ponytail
-
New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In Committee
[Sitting date: 29 July 2015].
A veritable treasure trove of humour, anecdote trivia and more...
On the use of Fax machines for remote voting...Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): Mr Chairperson—
Jacinda Ardern : What is that?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD : This is the point. I know that we have gone beyond clause 24 now, but, luckily, I have been looking very carefully at clause 68, which is “Validation of irregularities”, and clause 68 refers back to clause 24. Therefore, I thought it would be a good idea for the members who earlier in the debate pleaded that they did not know what a facsimile machine if I found one for them and I brought it here.
To be absolutely fair, I could be just about accused of trawling through the rubbish to get it. I found this machine in a pile of things that were heading towards the rubbish and had been sitting outside a member’s office for some time. For members around this Chamber who are not aware what a facsimile machine is, this is one of them.
Hon Ruth Dyson : How does it work?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD : I am not absolutely certain, but there are plugs that go into a telephone line. To be absolutely fair, this is a modern version, because it can also act as a photocopier. It is one of the more modern machines around—
Dr Megan Woods : Where do you put the carbon?
BTW. there are also accusations of prejudice and all kinds of skulduggery.
-
I was at an event last night where the Prime Minister spoke - he was supposed to have 3 minutes. His first 3 minutes was filled with making jokes about the speed with which Australia replaces Prime Ministers, and how he'd visited the sheep in Saudi Arabia and they were fine and had flown first class (unlike him), and some facile tale about multiple marriages and how the Saudi prince he was with would be allowed 4 wives but his first wife wouldn't let him (I don't know, other people seemed to find the speech funny, maybe I'm just a humourless left-wing nanny-state wowser).
He then said he was going to exceed his time and talk about something important - so he spent the next 5 minutes on a rambling justification for changing the flag to a silver fern. People wave it at sports events, it's on the gravestones of soldiers overseas, people will be excited about it and want to own it (with an aside about how New Zealanders are patriotic but don't show it, but if we had a nice new flag with a fern on it, then everyone would want to wave one all the time). This was after he insulted the half of the audience who wanted to keep the existing flag by calling them not as bright as the ones who wanted to change. it was cringeworthy.....
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
Why am I not surprised at all. He's an FX dealer - diplomacy wasn't part of the JD.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.