Flagging a dead horse

Written By: - Date published: 12:31 pm, September 23rd, 2015 - 213 comments
Categories: greens, identity - Tags: ,

Gareth Morgan pulls no punches on the flag fiasco:

Gareth Morgan: Mangled flag process has lost the public
…
When the flag change campaign was first announced the number were 88 per cent against change. As the public discussion and debate progressed over subsequent months (mainly online) that resistance fell dramatically and just prior to the announcement of the final four, to down as low as just above 50 per cent.

But the failure of the Flag Consideration Panel to present any real choice to the public, coupled with the intensified campaign by the prime minister to push the silver fern down the throats of the public, has resulted in public kickback. In short a whole new group of voters have now decided they would rather not change than be forced to pick between one of John Key’s favourites.

It is a condemnation of the cynicism of the $26m spend of the public’s money to finance a Key political initiative. Many believe that third-term governments become intensely cynical and arrogant, and this sequence of events certainly doesn’t dispel those expectations.
…
Having preached the properties a national flag should have, having implored New Zealanders to express what we actually stand for, in the end all the panel could produce was three variants of the flag the prime minister favoured, plus one that is so disliked and meaningless that no competition was assured.

At the same time the prime minister expressed how “wonderful” the options were and since then has embarked on an intensive campaign to promote the fern-based flags. Every day, in every speech, he just can’t resist telling his audience how great it is. The public disagree.
…
So the public is rightfully upset and what we see now, evidenced by the latest poll, is that the “progressives” on this issue, who demand real choice and have called for Red Peak to represent that choice, have thrown their lot in with the “regressives” and the “middle” to oppose any change. The rationale is simple – the process will be done again in a few years without the cynicism of Key to contaminate it. We are headed to a $26m folly.

Given that 69% oppose changing the flag for one of the four shortlisted travesties, even Key has realised that he has a major fiasco on his hands. The only sign of genuine public interest and engagement with the process has been around the Red Peak design. After blocking, stalling, and trying to blame Labour, Key will very likely throw himself at the life-raft of this breaking development:

Flag debate: Red Peak may be included on ballot

The Red Peak flag may be put to the public vote – after the Green Party waved a white flag.

Green Party MP Gareth Hughes will seek the leave of Parliament to introduce the New Zealand Flag Referendum Amendment Bill. The Greens’ move needs the support of every MP in Parliament – however NZ First’s deputy leader Ron Mark has confirmed his party will deny leave.

That means the Government will have to pick up the bill for it to progress, and move it to the top of the order paper. Hughes said he was calling on the Government to put politics aside and agree. ….

Interesting move by the Greens.

213 comments on “Flagging a dead horse ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Draco T Bastard 1
    23 September 2015 at 12:40 pm

    The Red Peak flag may be put to the public vote – after the Green Party waved a white flag.

    That’s not the Greens waving the White Flag but National. they know that they’ve fucked up badly on this and are trying to lie themselves out of having to take the blame.

    • Chooky 1.1
      23 September 2015 at 1:06 pm

      +100…and the Greens should be careful about being seen/perceived to help jonkey nactional out again!

      ….as they did with their attack on the Labour Party with the accusation of “crude racial profiling”…when Labour was trying to address the housing shortage crisis for New Zealanders in Auckland…The Greens bought into the Nactional Party framing of the housing crisis issue as ‘racism’ when it is patently not…and helped out jonkey nactional at the same time taking a crude swipe at their supposed coalition partner Labour

      http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/wall-of-chinese-capital-buying-up-australian-properties-20150628-ghztdf.html

      Lets face it most New Zealanders want the existing flag ….and if jonkey’s vanity flag project is defeated ….the Greens will wear it as well as jonkey nactional

      NOT a smart move on the Greens’ part and it will lose them votes imo

      • Macro 1.1.1
        23 September 2015 at 2:07 pm

        Totally agree – not a good move if this is correct about the Greens. They should stand clear and let National stew.

      • tinfoilhat 1.1.2
        23 September 2015 at 2:52 pm

        What rubbish Chooky.

        The greens called the Labour party on their bigotry as they saw it, as you are well know as one of the most vocal bigots on this site it’s hardly surprising that you are unable to see it for what it was.

        In relation to the flag issue, the Greens are looking to be the voice in parliament for those who favour the “red peak” flag. While I’ll be voting to keep the current flag I have no problem with the greens going down this path.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.1.2.1
          23 September 2015 at 3:30 pm

          The greens called the Labour party on their bigotry as they saw it

          And the Greens, along with National, were wrong on that. It wasn’t bigotry – just data. Limited data to be sure but still just data.

          This is OT though so I’ll leave it there.

          • Enough is Enough 1.1.2.1.1
            23 September 2015 at 4:41 pm

            It was a dog whistle data dump.

            The data (accurate or not) meant nothing, as we have no idea whether the Asian names were New Zealanders or foreigners.

            • RedBaronCV 1.1.2.1.1.1
              23 September 2015 at 7:26 pm

              Actually they doid a bayesian regression on the data

            • D'Esterre 1.1.2.1.1.2
              23 September 2015 at 9:25 pm

              @ Enough is Enough: “It was a dog whistle data dump.”

              The data (accurate or not) meant nothing, as we have no idea whether the Asian names were New Zealanders or foreigners.”

              Really, do stop repeating canards of this sort; you’re simply wrong. It was neither racism nor bigotry. An apt parallel is discussion about the overrepresentation of Maori in our prison system. It’s an inescapable fact, uncomfortable as it may make some people to have it pointed out.

              If you’ll recall, there was actually some analysis done on that list – as has been pointed out here and elsewhere. That analysis suggested that it was plausible to argue that those buyers were disproportionately non-resident Chinese. Which, I might add, matches up with what people have reported over and over from property auctions in Auckland.

              Be all that as it may, what relevance does it have to the topic under discussion?

          • Yoza 1.1.2.1.2
            23 September 2015 at 8:05 pm

            Yeah, data selectively publicised to demonize a specific ethnic group. If it wasn’t intentional bigotry it was appalling stupidity.

            • Stuart Munro 1.1.2.1.2.1
              24 September 2015 at 8:24 am

              Rubbish.

              It’s pretty clear when real estate agencies are employing Chinese speaking agents and advertising in Chinese that this group are becoming significant in the market. Resident or citizen Chinese people don’t need such provisions.

              National merely want freedom to lie that they are not selling NZ out from under us – they do not and never have cared a whit about racism.

              • D'Esterre …
                24 September 2015 at 11:57 am

                @ Stuart Munro: “It’s pretty clear when real estate agencies are employing Chinese speaking agents and advertising in Chinese that this group are becoming significant in the market. Resident or citizen Chinese people don’t need such provisions.”

                Exactly so. People would have to be living under a stone not to see what’s going on up there. It’s nothing whatever to do with racism.

        • Chooky 1.1.2.2
          23 September 2015 at 3:35 pm

          @ tinfoilhat …lol…well being one of the best known right wingers on this site you would say that wouldnt you?….

          nevertheless the facts and the data speaks for itself …as DTB says

      • Dialey 1.1.3
        23 September 2015 at 2:54 pm

        I don’t think you can say most NZers don’t want to change the flag. Most just don’t want the 4 options John Key has chosen for them.

        • Chooky 1.1.3.1
          23 September 2015 at 3:47 pm

          @ Dialey….a Massey University study showed very clearly that most young people and most older people did not want to change the existing flag ….and this together with other NZers in the middle age groups added up to a very clear majority NOT wanting change

          ….this was before jonkey’s $26 million dollar vanity project was advertised… and before the expensive flag change committee chose their picks

          …I am not sure that this study is still online (last time I looked it wasnt) but if you look back through the Standard you will find references and links to it

          ( I wonder if the Greens have done their homework?…they either seem to be inept or are doing their level best to help jonkey nactional out of a hole…either way they will lose votes from core Green supporters…but maybe this is the new Blue Greens?…at least we have been warned)

          • Enough is Enough 1.1.3.1.1
            23 September 2015 at 4:46 pm

            How is asking New Zealanders if they want to change the flag a “vanity project”.

            If he was changing it without consultation or a mandate then yes I would agree with you.

            As it stands Key is likely to look like a loser for backing the wrong horse. It is anything but a vanity project.

            • Hanswurst 1.1.3.1.1.1
              23 September 2015 at 11:02 pm

              It’s clearly a vanity project. Your argument that it can’t be, because he will end up looking like a tosser, is flawed on two counts:

              1. That is exactly what he is.
              2. It’s like arguing that a cosmetic rhinoplasty on the normally proprotioned face of a healthy individual is not a vanity project if it goes wrong.

        • save NZ 1.1.3.2
          24 September 2015 at 9:38 am

          +1 Dialey – and I’m not sure people want the red peak that ‘labour and Greens’ have ‘chose’ for them either. There are so many terrible issues going on that are really unpopular like TPPA why oh why does Greens/Labour have to get in the media over this?

          Even heard the term (opposition) about ‘out of touch’. It’s the Natz dream, they are out of touch… but wait so is everyone else. Message, don’t vote people we are all the same.

          The flag is a known distraction while our country is being destroyed and sold off, why do the opposition keep falling for it?

      • leftie 1.1.4
        23 September 2015 at 3:15 pm

        +100 Chooky.

      • Liberal Realist 1.1.5
        23 September 2015 at 5:17 pm

        “+100…and the Greens should be careful about being seen/perceived to help jonkey nactional out again!”

        Indeed. I’m not a fan of the move from the Greens (I’m a green voter) in any way or form – it’s actually really annoyed me that they’ve chosen to engage rather than roll with the majority view.

        This red peak silliness has just been lent legitimacy therefor the process itself gains some legitimacy as well. Not impressed.

        • Enough 1.1.5.1
          23 September 2015 at 6:39 pm

          Concur completely. Naive, populist, foolish Green decision.

          • Matthew Whitehead 1.1.5.1.1
            24 September 2015 at 9:21 pm

            The Greens don’t do anything for populist reasons. They’ve supported changing the flag the whole time, even if they correctly conclude that National has made a dog’s breakfast of things so far. The Greens took a practical step to make the referendum a little better. That does nothing to help National, it’s pure point-scoring to claim otherwise, which is not exactly how politics works.

        • D'Esterre 1.1.5.2
          23 September 2015 at 9:07 pm

          “Interesting move by the Greens.”

          Colossally stupid move by the Greens, more like. They should have just stayed out of it, instead of making themselves look like fawning lapdogs. Ergh!

          Ask us first if we want a change of flag. All else flows from that.

          @ Liberal Realist: “This red peak silliness has just been lent legitimacy therefor the process itself gains some legitimacy as well. Not impressed.”

          Exactly: couldn’t agree more.

      • save NZ 1.1.6
        24 September 2015 at 9:30 am

        +100 Chooky – the opposition should get the hell out of there. John Key should wear the 26m fiasco and the Greens and Labour should AVOID rushing in there for the photo OP on the fiasco, it dilutes the message that this is a National fiasco.

        They bailed the Natz out over the Dotcom fiasco by attacking Dotcom instead of (wisely) keeping out of it. The confusion meant that the Nats sailed through again and opposition diluted their own votes.

        The flag is annoying a lot of people – it is a mainstream issue for many – and John Key trying to change our National identity as his vanity project is not going down well.

        Congratulations Labour and Greens (NOT) if you manage to divert this annoyance to yourself or to a confused picture and strip off the gains that are being made in the polls by appearing to be part of the problem.

    • Richard Christie 1.2
      23 September 2015 at 4:29 pm

      + 100%
      but you can no longer expect NZ’s MSM to even approach political neutrality , it’s a wonder that it wasn’t painted as being all Cunliffe’s fault.

    • half crown 1.3
      23 September 2015 at 6:48 pm

      We now have two opportunist bits of shit in parliament Dung, and this new one in Tory drag leading the Greens.

  2. sabine 2
    23 September 2015 at 12:41 pm

    what a farce.

  3. maui 3
    23 September 2015 at 12:57 pm

    I’m not sure if the Greens should be entering this snakepit, there’s an innocent looking but deadly panda-snake in there that takes no prisoners. Labour are already in there, leave it to them.

  4. David Scott 4
    23 September 2015 at 1:00 pm

    You cannot include a corporate logo and Red Flag is used by an American engineering firm. It doesn’t qualify.

    • Chooky 4.2
      23 September 2015 at 1:12 pm

      +100…”an American engineering firm” flag….do we really want this to replace our historical New Zealand flag?….and at a time when TPPA is looming?

      ….are the Greens on something?..or are they just flakey?

    • Dialey 4.3
      23 September 2015 at 2:51 pm

      Even the designer of the engineering firm’s logo has stated that there are enough significant differences in the “First to meet the dawn” flag for it to be a completely different design.
      Besides, do a quick Google search for silver fern logos and see how many companies have a fern, very similar to the ones proposed – there is even a chain of hotels in India that have a silver fern logo – to say nothing of the number of landscape design or supplies companies that have it as well. And if you look really hard at all the fern logos there are on Google there is even a blank (fill in your own company name), fern design that is identical to the Kyle Lockwood’s design.
      So if you are objecting only to the the “Red Peak”, you may want to reconsider the disqualification of the ferns as well.

  5. Adrian 5
    23 September 2015 at 1:03 pm

    “Akshully I’m rilaxed about this ..it’s not a black and white situashon but I know what is, hey quick look over there..PANDAS ! “

  6. cogito 6
    23 September 2015 at 1:19 pm

    I would like to propose a compromise: a Red Panda flag, comprising a hybrid of the red peak flag with the image of a red panda.

    This would keep the 50,000+ on social media happy, as well as hopefully environmentalists (eg Greens) as red pandas are endangered, and even Key, given his fetish for pandas.

    The best part is that there are already red pandas at Wellington Zoo, so no need to waste more taxpayer money on yet another loony project.

    Problem solved.

    • maui 6.1
      23 September 2015 at 1:25 pm

      It’s already been floated, a silver fern flag incorporating the red panda design: http://lostcoastoutpost.com/media/uploads/post/12623/ISIS-website-hack.jpg

    • greywarshark 6.2
      23 September 2015 at 1:37 pm

      Is this one? If so who would want a somnolent black and white one. This one is sooo cute. (Called vicious beast mauls helpless orange gourd.)
      http://i.imgur.com/yUh8kbj.gifv

      • Chooky 6.2.1
        23 September 2015 at 1:58 pm

        @ greywarshark …that is a very cute rolly polly !…maybe he is training to be a rugby player ?

    • Chooky 6.3
      23 September 2015 at 1:51 pm

      dont say “fetish for pandas”….especially after Cameron!…lol

    • McFlock 6.4
      23 September 2015 at 1:51 pm

      Given the arbitrary nature of the two distractions, should the flag be a red fiat panda?

      • cogito 6.4.1
        23 September 2015 at 2:11 pm

        There used to be a 4×4 version of the Fiat Panda which, if memory serves, was actually built by Steyr Puch in Austria, so ideally suited for our half-Austrian PM.

      • Chooky 6.4.2
        23 September 2015 at 9:57 pm

        yes some people are definitely turned on by cars and Fiat Pandas in particular…they should do more pandering to these fetish tastes

    • Chooky 6.5
      23 September 2015 at 1:54 pm

      …actually I think the best one was the EYE on top of Red Peak

      …but will be voting for the existing flag

      • Enough is Enough 6.5.1
        23 September 2015 at 4:39 pm

        Why would you vote for our colonial flag?

        Isn’t it time to give up on Sirs, Dames and the Union Jack. Remnants from a bygone era.

        • Liberal Realist 6.5.1.1
          23 September 2015 at 5:30 pm

          “Why would you vote for our colonial flag?”

          Simple, the whole process is a wasteful, cynical distraction as has been stated many times prior.

          It’s also Key’s vanity project which makes me even more inclined to opposing this charade.

          In my opinion, the right time to have a national conversation about changing the flag is when we finally move to become a republic.

          • weston 6.5.1.1.1
            23 September 2015 at 6:08 pm

            even just being able to take our time to decide wld be nice i mean how cld ten thousand entrants be whittled down to four in a few weeks ??was it something to do with being paid 650 bucks a day ?E verybody should get their say too that means all the schools all the prisons all the mental institutions all the hospitals all the old age homes absolutely everyone Five years wouldnt be too slow inmo.

    • Hami Shearlie 6.6
      23 September 2015 at 6:24 pm

      Maybe the panda on the flag could be sporting a luxuriant ponytail too complete with a hair-tie with a rugby ball decoration – we have to include all of Jonkey’s favourite things!

      • greywarshark 6.6.1
        24 September 2015 at 2:13 pm

        Raindrops on roses, and whiskers on kittens? Dah dah.

        And I like weston’s idea. Let everybody have a go at deciding and voting even if it takes 5 years. We haven’t got anything better and more positive to look forward to. Except the 2017 election – may be
        t h a t .. w i l l.. g e t.. u s.. m o o o v i n g.

  7. greywarshark 7
    23 September 2015 at 2:10 pm

    I agree about Greens staying out of it. Keep to your green knitting mates, Why not go for a knitted flag. Make a joke about the joke it is. Don’t start putting effort into Bills going forward. Who are you trying to suck up to? The children of the chattering classes?

  8. swordfish 8
    23 September 2015 at 2:14 pm

    Morgan “When the flag change campaign was first announced the number were 88% against the change. As the public discussion and debate progressed over subsequent months….that resistance fell dramatically and just prior to the announcement of the final four, to down as low as just above 50%….But the failure of the Flag Consideration Panel to present any real choice to the public coupled with the intensified campaign by the prime minister to push the silver fern down the throats of the public, has resulted in public kickback….In short, a whole new group of voters have now decided they would rather not change….”

    Not sure Morgan’s simple story of opposition falling dramatically is entirely accurate.

    First of all, I’ve got no idea where his “88% against change” figure comes from.

    Key floats the idea of a new flag in January 2014
    At that point, the latest previous poll on the issue was the 3 News Poll (July 2013) which found 61% in favour of change and just 39% against.
    So, this isn’t a story of huge opposition followed by a dramatic surge in support for change. Public opinion on the issue has been a little more complex than that.

    Key then announces the flag referenda in March 2015
    By that stage, 5 more polls had been carried out (in the wake of Key’s January speculation). None of them suggest 88% opposition.
    As you can see, things were a little less clear cut than that….

    Fairfax Media-Ipsos
    (February 2014)
    Yes, Change 42%
    No, Not Change 39%
    Not bothered 19%

    One News Colmar Brunton
    (February 2014)
    Design a New Flag 28%
    Keep the Current One 72%

    Research New Zealand
    (February 2014)
    Yes, New Flag 22%
    No, Keep Present one 37%
    Neutral 39%

    Research New Zealand
    (March 2014)
    Yes, New Flag 18%
    No, Keep Present one 37%
    Neutral 43%

    Herald DigiPoll
    (March 2014)
    Support New Flag 41%
    Keep Current Flag 53%

    Between the March 2014 Polls and the announcement of the Final 4 designs on September 1 2015, there appear to have been 4 polls on the issue:

    One News Colmar Brunton
    (September 2014)
    For New Flag 35%
    Against New Flag 65%

    Research New Zealand
    (October 2014)
    Yes, New Flag 19%
    No, Keep Present one 43%
    Neutral 37%

    Herald DigiPoll
    (April 2015)
    Yes 25%
    No 70%
    Unsure 5%

    Herald DigiPoll
    (August 2015)
    Yes 23%
    No 53%
    Unsure 24%

    Doesn’t look like a dramatic increase in support for change over that March 2014-August 2015 period to me. Nor is there really a substantial decline in opposition, apart from the final 2 Herald Polls, where the swing is to the unsure category.

    I guess, you could choose to ignore the Neutrals in the Research New Zealand Poll and focus on the 65, 70, 53% opposition, but that still negates the idea of a steady decline. It suggests instead a slight increase in opposition between September and April.

    September 1 2015
    Final 4 Designs announced

    3 News Reid Research
    (September 2015)
    Yes 25%
    No 69%
    Unsure 6%

    • swordfish 8.1
      23 September 2015 at 2:44 pm

      Or to put it all another way

      Opposition to Flag Change
      From Key’s March 2014 Announcement
      To Panel announcing Final 4 Designs September 2015
      March 2014 ………… 37%
      March 2014 ………… 53%
      September 2014 …. 65%
      October 2014 ………. 43%
      April 2015 ……………. 70%
      August 2015 ………… 53%

      Just doesn’t look like a steady or dramatic decline

  9. Smilin 9
    23 September 2015 at 2:23 pm

    Change the govt and its PM since he acts like a president not the flag and make the National party refund the 26 million when we vote for the existing flag so that fascism stays dead forever
    Govt is not about personalities who are as self centered as this bunch its about what its doin for the country that is important
    Democracy is a collective responsibility not a vehicle for personal aspirations of those elected to serve the majority
    The only railroad gettin traction in NZ is the way National does what it does “Railroadin the voters”

  10. Smilin 10
    23 September 2015 at 2:23 pm

    Change the govt and its PM since he acts like a president not the flag and make the National party refund the 26 million when we vote for the existing flag so that fascism stays dead forever
    Govt is not about personalities who are as self centered as this bunch its about what its doin for the country that is important
    Democracy is a collective responsibility not a vehicle for personal aspirations of those elected to serve the majority
    The only railroad gettin traction in NZ is the way National does what it does “Railroadin the voters”

  11. Smilin 11
    23 September 2015 at 2:23 pm

    Change the govt and its PM since he acts like a president not the flag and make the National party refund the 26 million when we vote for the existing flag so that fascism stays dead forever
    Govt is not about personalities who are as self centered as this bunch its about what its doin for the country that is important
    Democracy is a collective responsibility not a vehicle for personal aspirations of those elected to serve the majority
    The only railroad gettin traction in NZ is the way National does what it does “Railroadin the voters”

  12. Brutus Iscariot 12
    23 September 2015 at 2:35 pm

    NZF has officially jumped the shark. Apparently Red Peak is now a Nazi symbol and disrespectful to our veterans.

    • cogito 12.1
      23 September 2015 at 2:51 pm

      So the same/similar design has been used by the Nazis, as well as being in current use by a US engineering firm and a UK security firm (+/- any others elsewhere), and this would be better for NZ than our current flag whose main fault is being confused with the Australian one?!

      Crazy.

    • Phil 12.2
      23 September 2015 at 3:57 pm

      It seems NZF has failed at design as well as military history.

      Nazi =/= Wermacht.

      Guardhouses were manned by low-rank personnel in the army, not Nazi party officials.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 12.2.1
        23 September 2015 at 4:07 pm

        Ah, the finer nuances of fascism. Happy days.

        • Phil 12.2.1.1
          23 September 2015 at 5:07 pm

          Have you ever seen a hardware company with a hammer on their logo and immediately thought “this company must be run by soviet communists”?

          No. Because that would be a stupid and illogical conclusion, predicated on an absurdly narrow choice of pattern recognition.

          Same principle applies to NZF.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 12.2.1.1.1
            23 September 2015 at 6:14 pm

            Yes, and they’ve still got you defending the difference between the Wehrmacht and the Gestapo.

            Imagine if the “debate” hadn’t been pushed by a pony-tail pulling divisive clown. Ah well, that’s politics for you eh.

      • Bastables 12.2.2
        24 September 2015 at 8:59 am

        Errr no Phil. The Wehrmacht was signed into being by Hitler replacing the Reichswehr. The soldiers/NCO/officers had a NAZI eagle and swastika over their breasts/temples while their oath of service was rewritten by officers to swear loyalty not to the German state/people/constitution but to Hitler himself.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranks_and_insignia_of_the_Heer_(1935–1945)#/media/File:Wehrmachtsadler34.jpg

        The Wehrmacht Oath of Loyalty to Adolf Hitler, 2 August 1934

        “I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath.”

        Loyalty oath of the SS, 9 November 1935

        “What is your oath ?” – “I vow to you, Adolf Hitler, as Führer and chancellor of the German Reich loyalty and bravery. I vow to you and to the leaders that you set for me, absolute allegiance until death. So help me God !”

        “So you believe in a God ?” – “Yes, I believe in a Lord God.”

        “What do you think about a man who does not believe in a God ?” – “I think he is arrogant, megalomaniacal and stupid; he is not eligible for us.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_oath

        The Wehrmacht was literally a NAZI creation and gilded as such.

        Note that the new arm the Panzer corp had divisional symbols based NAZI runes.

  13. Ovid 13
    23 September 2015 at 2:50 pm

    Red Peak has been my first choice since the long list was released. I’m glad I can now vote for it. But I don’t anticipate the NZ flag will change after the second referendum, no matter which design is selected.

  14. ianmac 14
    23 September 2015 at 3:21 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/72334191/flag-debate-red-peak-to-be-included-on-ballot
    2 minute clip: Watch Key’s demeanor when questioned about his favourite. It is my guess that Key is feeling the heat and he hates to lose.

  15. One Anonymous Bloke 15
    23 September 2015 at 3:31 pm

    I hope this opens the way for other designers who submitted flags to get a court injunction against the whole shonkey jack-up.

  16. Ad 16
    23 September 2015 at 3:52 pm

    PM has folded, Red Peak to be included.

    Good politics.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 16.1
      23 September 2015 at 3:57 pm

      Good political exploitation of a vain clusterfuck. FIFY

    • JanM 16.2
      23 September 2015 at 4:03 pm

      Hee hee – folded my foot. I knew this would happen. He wants change and he doesn’t care all that much to what. If he’d played a straight game we would have all gone yea/na and nothing would have happened. This whole thing has been extremely cunning – he’s played us all, even the liberals, like a violin. Now he’s got everybody all excited because they think they’ve won a victory with the red peak, so it’s quite likely they’ll fall straight into his heffalump trap and vote for it – JD.
      Fooled again!

      • One Anonymous Bloke 16.2.1
        23 September 2015 at 4:14 pm

        If this is a virtuoso performance it’s a great impersonation of a focus-group driven vanity project, led by a selfie-grubbing shill.

        Key can’t akshully remember which flag he wants anyway. It was a long time ago.

      • Liberal Realist 16.2.2
        23 September 2015 at 5:43 pm

        +100 you nailed it!

  17. Chooky 17
    23 September 2015 at 4:01 pm

    When jonkey says this about the Greens …you know there is something shonkey going on …..

    “The Greens have showed some leadership…we’ve been waiting for Labour. They will continue to want to play games…the Greens are really trying to say to Labour ‘stop being pathetic’.”

    ( are the Greens a coalition partner for Labour ?….or coalition partner for Nactional?…. the NZF option for coalition partner must be looking increasingly attractive to Labour)

    • Puckish Rogue 17.1
      23 September 2015 at 4:18 pm

      If the Greens said they might be able to join in a coilition with National if some concessions were made then Labour would have to stop taking the Greens for granted

      You’d also have the added advantage of making the next election even more interesting

      At the moment its all about where Winstons going but if the Greens were to join in as well then Winstons position would weaken and the Greens would strengthen

      I don’t see it happening myself but i’d love to be proven wrong this 🙂

  18. Anne 18
    23 September 2015 at 4:10 pm

    “The Greens have showed some leadership…we’ve been waiting for Labour. They will continue to want to play games…the Greens are really trying to say to Labour ‘stop being pathetic’.”

    What a lying bastard!!! KIt was Labour who tried to find a way through the middle to get the red peak flag included.

  19. Anne 19
    23 September 2015 at 4:10 pm

    “The Greens have showed some leadership…we’ve been waiting for Labour. They will continue to want to play games…the Greens are really trying to say to Labour ‘stop being pathetic’.”

    What a lying bastard!!! It was Labour who tried to find a way through the middle to get the red peak flag included. It was Key who played games. But I suppose tfh will believe it. 😉

  20. Anne 20
    23 September 2015 at 4:14 pm

    Ignore 18. Don’t know what went wrong there.

    Not knocking the Greens of course. Key is trying to play one off against the other, but yesterday’s Q+A showed they are working closely together so he ain’t going to have any luck.

    • JanM 20.1
      23 September 2015 at 4:22 pm

      He’s already been lucky – he’s made the Greens look ok, but that doesn’t matter because they’re a minority, and shafted Labour with the Greens (unwitting, no doubt) help.
      In fact as he’s sown the seeds of suspicion that the Greens are working with the Nats he’s got 2 for the price of 1 🙁

      • Anne 20.1.1
        23 September 2015 at 4:31 pm

        Not sure he’s got the same pulling power any more JanM. Just about everyone I know can see through him. Good grief, it was only last week Labour offered the sacrificial olive branch by dropping the YES/NO vote to be included in the first ballot. Are people so stupid and amnesiac to still believe him?

        Btw, I like the red peak flag but I’m intending to invalidate my vote as a protest against the shitty way it has been managed.

      • Chooky 20.1.2
        23 September 2015 at 4:34 pm

        @JanM…”he’s made the Greens look ok”…really?!..

    • Chooky 20.2
      23 September 2015 at 4:25 pm

      @ Anne …does thf = tinfoilhat ?

      yes we all know what jonkey is…but really the Greens are a disappointment…and actually so is Labour if they wanted to get the Red Peak through…better to let jonkey sink instead of trying to help him out

      ….this Red Peak flag ,of very little merit, has had a huge PR campaign….enough to make one suspicious…..and is very close to overseas corporate American and British industrial logos…absolutely nothing to do with New Zealand!( even less than the fern!)

      ….and when the TPPA is coming …one wonders whether jonkey has had it in his back pocket all along….what a great joke

      • Anne 20.2.1
        23 September 2015 at 4:40 pm

        Yes to top line. 😉

        Key sulked when R.P. reared its head and he was adamant it was NOT going to be included. He’s been forced to back down since and concede defeat. That’s why he’s desperately trying to pin the blame on to Labour. Annette King called out in the House today “YOU ARE PATHETIC JOHN”. Very true.

      • Gabby 20.2.2
        23 September 2015 at 5:29 pm

        Oh, I think it serves a purpose in splitting the vote, so reducing the competition for lockjaws 1&2.

  21. One Anonymous Bloke 21
    23 September 2015 at 4:21 pm

    Prime Minister John Key today denied putting his share portfolio into a dead horse’s mouth.

    “My portfolio is far too precious.”

    A spokesman for the Prime Minister’s office denied the rumour saying “where did you hear that?” Mr. Key was on hand to clear up the confusion, saying “Akshully I was speaking as Lord Ashton’s toilet paper”.

  22. sabine 22
    23 September 2015 at 4:30 pm

    yei, so the country gets to vote for three white feathers, one hypnoflag and three peaks us american engineering maybe nazi teatowl flag.

    Don’t ya all just feel grand.
    And too boot, the two largest opposition parties helped the ruling party to make the whole plate of shit palatable to the concerned masses
    .

    Yei, NZ, go NZ…the future is bright and rosy n shit.

  23. Chooky 23
    23 September 2015 at 4:48 pm

    RED PEAK…jonkey’s REAL choice ( ha ha fooled the Greens and Labour …but not NZF)

    RED PEAK the logo for Active Security Group

    http://www.activesecuritygroup.co.uk/

    “PROVIDING HOME, RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC SECURITY SYSTEMS SINCE 1998”

    ( aint that clever?)

    • Enough is Enough 23.1
      23 September 2015 at 4:51 pm

      Yeah – lets keep the Australian look alike flag, with the British union jack in the corner.

      Very Kiwi

      Awesome

      • Gabby 23.1.1
        23 September 2015 at 5:20 pm

        Yes, let’s.
        We probably derive more benefit from any association with Australia than from being obscure.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 23.1.2
        23 September 2015 at 5:57 pm

        In fact, we have had our flag longer than the ‘Strine have had theirs.

        Please go away and find a reality to base your argument in.

        • Enough is Enough 23.1.2.1
          24 September 2015 at 9:17 am

          Reality

          It has a union Jack

          it looks like the Australian flag

          What is not real about that?

          • One Anonymous Bloke 23.1.2.1.1
            24 September 2015 at 9:25 am

            Their copy-cat flag is a reason for them to get a new one.

            • Enough is Enough 23.1.2.1.1.1
              24 September 2015 at 9:41 am

              Okaaay – I don’t think anyone is copying anyone. It just so happens they look alike and we have the opportunity to now be unique.

              What about that union Jack you appear to be so fond of?

              Why do you want to be associated with the UK?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                24 September 2015 at 4:23 pm

                I don’t. All I’m saying is that far from the Australian look alike flag, the ‘Strine copied ours, and I prefer my political allies to employ reality-based arguments because credibility.

                • Enough is Enough …
                  24 September 2015 at 4:26 pm

                  They both look like each other.

                  What is unreal about that statement?

                  It is more the union jack in the corner that I would like to see removed though.

              • Puddleglum …
                24 September 2015 at 4:53 pm

                “Why do you want to be associated with the UK?”

                How does what’s on a national flag have anything at all to do with what someone associates themselves with? I certainly hope my commitments are entirely independent of what happens to be on a flag.

                Presumably you mean ‘why should the nation of New Zealand be associated with the UK through formal symbolism on a flag?’

                One reason must be the historical connection. History – especially linked to the re-creation of a country as a modern nation state – isn’t necessarily out of bounds for flag design. I’m sure other flags (beyond those of the old British Empire) reference a nation’s history.

                In fact, this site gives a really interesting run down of how the ‘Union Jack’ (the non-naval version is the Union Flag) was itself influenced by earlier empires and flag designs.

                It points out that the flags of Scandinavian countries are all variations on the same theme (they are very similar – oddly they don’t see a need to ‘rebrand’ themselves however) – a theme that originated in the Kingdom of Denmark (with its cross).

                Under the influence of this Danish and other cross-based designs, the Union Flag of the UK became a combination of three crosses – St Andrews, St Patrick’s and St George’s (Irish nationalists have traditionally rejected the St Patrick’s cross as representative of Ireland believing it to be a British imposition but there’s apparently some evidence that a similar saltire was used to represent Ireland prior to its formalisation by George III).

                The article goes on to discuss how this historical derivation of flag design is wide-ranging and part and parcel of many countries’ flags. It’s really interesting.

                It is only, perhaps, in our neoliberal times that people want to promote a historically disconnected (to other times, people and places) and disembedded ‘expression’ of nationality that distinguishes the national ‘self’ as a pure, similarly disconnected, unique ‘singularity’.

                It’s a sign of the times.

                Better, I think, would be a historically embedded expression of New Zealand that links us to our past (all of it, not just the colonial past) and to other countries and regions with whom we have connection.

                All of which is why I shudder at this random ‘New Zealand’s Got Talent’ approach to the design of a new flag.

      • cogito 23.1.3
        23 September 2015 at 11:34 pm

        Better than licking Key’s backside.

  24. Clemgeopin 24
    23 September 2015 at 4:53 pm

    I heard on Radio Pacific that the Greens have given an undertaking to National (or National have extracted a promise from the Greens) that they (the Greens) will not support the Labour’s proposed amendment to include the Yes/No question in the 1st referendum. Is that true? Can anyone from the Greens in the know confirm or delay that?

  25. weka 25
    23 September 2015 at 5:04 pm

    Disappointing to see the GP brokering a deal to include Red Peak. I like the RP design, and I like the surge of public enthusiasm for it and rejection of the Key flags, but this is still not how we should be choosing whether to change the national flag and what to replace it with. The whole thing is fucked. I’ll be voting no change in the second referendum and probably spoil the paper in the first.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 25.1
      23 September 2015 at 5:26 pm

      Can you at least rejoice in the stain on the corrupt Key brand?

      • weka 25.1.1
        23 September 2015 at 7:06 pm

        Yep, and we had that before this action by the GP.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 25.1.1.1
          23 September 2015 at 7:12 pm

          He’s supping with the devil-beast, singing their praises. With any luck he’ll dupe some Tory trash into voting for them “to keep Labour out” 😈

  26. Phil 26
    23 September 2015 at 5:12 pm

    this is still not how we should be choosing whether to change the national flag and what to replace it with.

    So, we should choose whether or not to change the flag, by something OTHER THAN a referendum?

    Good luck with that.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 26.1
      23 September 2015 at 5:33 pm

      So long as it’s anything other than a National Party initiative it’s good with me: I just can’t see any point in NZ having its own version of the Confederate flag.

      Who wants to be associated with pigfuckers?

      • Phil 26.1.1
        23 September 2015 at 5:44 pm

        None of your post makes sense.

        Maybe you should have a strong coffee and try again?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 26.1.1.1
          23 September 2015 at 5:50 pm

          It doesn’t make sense to you?

          Please give generously to the cognitively challenged at your local Cabinet Club.

          • Phil 26.1.1.1.1
            23 September 2015 at 6:12 pm

            I’ve got $5 in my pocket; I can give you that directly. It’ll be more effective way for me to support the needy.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 26.1.1.1.1.1
              23 September 2015 at 6:29 pm

              Rather than exchange smart repostes I’ll expand on my comment.

              Dirty Politics – and especially the official reaction to it – showed us (again) that far from being benign blunderers, the National Party is a criminal enterprise.

              Blabbermouth Lusk provides evidence of their perfidy, the Law Society describes their assaults on the rule of law. The Lancet documents the infant mortality. I’m sure that if they practice necrophilic bestiality it’s the least of it.

              What’s your excuse for going along with them?

      • Alpha Z 26.1.2
        23 September 2015 at 5:44 pm

        (~’Who wants to be associated with pigfuckers?~)

        or a pony tail puller…

      • McFlock 26.1.3
        23 September 2015 at 5:53 pm

        The chief pigfucker is still our head of state.

        Useful reminder that we need to change the system.

    • Clemgeopin 26.2
      23 September 2015 at 5:37 pm

      First of all, this whole flag change issue should not have been made at all UNLESS there was a strong ((about 60% plus) support for it as indicated by a series of public media polls. That did not happen. Going ahead with it at GREAT expense was completely wrong, irresponsible and incompetent.

      A change of a nation’s flag is a serious issue which affects everyone. It is NOT a single party issue or a single person’s pet project. There should have been extensive consultation and discussions with the people and other main political parties for a broader support for a change before deciding on the referendums.

      Besides that, the whole process was done in a dodgy manner and badly manipulated by Key. Those are the facts.

      Also, I think that now that the people already KNOW the five choices, it is more sensible to also include the YES/NO question in the first referendum. If the NO choice gets the most votes, flag the second referendum and save some money, effort, resources and time. If the NO question does not get the majority, then go ahead with the second referendum.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 26.2.1
        23 September 2015 at 5:46 pm

        “A serious issue”.

        Only insofar as it presents the opportunity to mock patriotic and/or right wing drivel.

      • Phil 26.2.2
        23 September 2015 at 6:08 pm

        is whole flag change issue should not have been made at all UNLESS there was a strong ((about 60% plus) support for it as indicated by a series of public media polls.

        But I thought the consensus of the left was that polls were all lies? How would they help? 😛

        A change of a nation’s flag is a serious issue which affects everyone. It is NOT a single party issue or a single person’s pet project. There should have been extensive consultation and discussions with the people and other main political parties for a broader support for a change before deciding on the referendums.

        i agree with you that there isn’t the groundswell of support that Key expected and we can debate all day whether or not this is a waste of money. However, if the option of changing flag is on the table, as it is now, then it absolutely MUST be decided by referendum. Weka’s post implied that there should be some other, better, way we choose which flag to have; I vehemently disagree that there is a better way than a referendum.

        Also, I think that now that the people already KNOW the five choices, it is more sensible to also include the YES/NO question in the first referendum. If the NO choice gets the most votes, flag the second referendum and save some money, effort, resources and time. If the NO question does not get the majority, then go ahead with the second referendum.

        Your method is more convoluted and less democratic.
        As it stands, the two referendum are basically the flag-equivalent of a US presidential Primary.
        Step one: from a group of potential candidates, pick your preference
        Step two: the preferred candidate runs-off against the incumbent.

        Here’s a hypothetical for you: Of the original four alternative flags, I prefer 2 to the the current flag, but think the other 2 are worse than the current flag. There is no way for me to to answer the second part of your proposed single-referendum that satisfactorily expresses those preferences. Your proposal is undemocratic.

        • cogito 26.2.2.1
          23 September 2015 at 6:25 pm

          ” I prefer 2 to the the current flag, but think the other 2 are worse than the current flag.”

          I prefer NONE to the current flag. What do I do? Deface the ballot? Not vote?

          The process is not democratic – it is bent.

          • Gabby 26.2.2.1.1
            23 September 2015 at 6:54 pm

            I prefer the current flag. I intend to vote for hypnoflag rather than waste my vote utterly. The chevron flag is clearly a business logo. Lockjaw has had his money’s worth of publicity. The b&w fern is a nullity.

        • red-blooded 26.2.2.2
          23 September 2015 at 6:47 pm

          No, it’s not. Think about the process that was used when the electoral system was changed; one referendum to ask if we wanted to consider change, a serious investigation of options followed by a second referendum which gave a choice of possible systems, including what was the then current system (thus allowing people who didn’t want to change the chance to express that with full info about the other options). I seem to recall that people were asked to vote preferentially in the second referendum. Both referenda were linked to actual elections (cutting down costs and increasing levels of voting).

          Why was this better? If there had been no groundswell for change, then we wouldn’t have wasted further resources. People didn’t feel manipulated into a process we didn’t want; we were making a genuine choice and once we were committed to at least investigating change, people took the process seriously and were very engaged in trying to weight up the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed options.

          As it happens, I think our current flag is pretty awful. I’m keen to cut all ties with the monarchy and don’t want an ongoing emblem of our colonial past to represent us. I do quite like the red peak design. (The others are dreadful.) I now have a bit of a conundrum. I don’t think we should be criticising the Greens on this, though; they have helped to improve a process that was being foisted on us anyway.

          • dukeofurl 26.2.2.2.1
            24 September 2015 at 8:49 am

            You have a faulty memory

            The first referendum was asking two questions,
            1) should we change ?(85% support) and
            2)second question was chose one election system from 4 alternatives.
            ( no ranking was involved but MMP had 70%)

            The second referendum had only two choices :
            FPP or MMP ( which was chosen as best from options above) with ONE TICK CHOICE!

            Your view doesnt match the detail
            “second referendum which gave a choice of possible systems, including what was the then current system (thus allowing people who didn’t want to change the chance to express that with full info about the other options).”

  27. In Vino 27
    23 September 2015 at 5:26 pm

    Ahh, but look! The All Blacks have now adopted the triangle formation for doing their Haka! This obviously deeply embeds the triangle into true red-blooded Kiwi Kulcher, and explains the carefully-coordinated late inclusion of Red Pique by our admirable Proime Minister! Isn’t it totally amazing?

    • cogito 27.1
      23 September 2015 at 6:09 pm

      Absolutely. And then they would be practising try-angles, and a fair few of them would no doubt be juggling love triangles.

      Definitely the way forward until it all goes pear shaped.

      Allons enfants de la patrie….

  28. Ch-ch Chiquita 28
    23 September 2015 at 6:05 pm

    I honestly don’t get it. Why helping him out of the hole he is digging for himself? Let the thing fail. Let him waste $26m on it and then use it come election time to show him for what he is. Labour could say something like ‘yes, it is one of our policies but being responsible managers of the economy we know that it is not a priority in difficult time’ and the Greens could calculate how many solar panels could have been subsidized with that money.

    • cogito 28.1
      23 September 2015 at 6:18 pm

      Yes, and they could have pointed to the totally manipulated and flawed process.

      Bailing out Key, when all he does is lie, abuse process and hurl insults – as in yesterday’s parliamentary Question Time – is shooting yourself in the foot. Anyone who helps Key should be considered a fifth columnist.

      • Chooky 28.1.1
        23 September 2015 at 7:02 pm

        +100…yup…Greens are NOT looking too good..but then again they did shaft Rudd and the Labour Party in Australia….

        lets face it any Party is corruptible…and this means that all the other Left Parties ,especially the Labour Party and NZF, must pour resources and research and strategies into Climate Change and environmental issues

        ….and make Climate Change high profile ….with gifted spokespeople eg David Cunliffe

        Climate Change is too important an issue to be left to just one Party …and imo it can NOT be left solely to the Greens…green environmental issues belong to all parties

      • Clemgeopin 28.1.2
        23 September 2015 at 7:05 pm

        +1

  29. Neil 29
    23 September 2015 at 6:16 pm

    Regardless of the outcome of the referendum, Key being the dictator he is will do as he pleases.

  30. GregJ 30
    23 September 2015 at 6:24 pm

    If this is actually accurate then this is a very poor and naive decision by the Greens. Key & National have made the flag change process entirely about politics and it has been political from the start when they passed the original bill 63-56. The have rightly been taking a hammering over the process and the Green Bill now gives them a political out.

    National could have included Red Peak anytime they wanted by changing the legislation with their own government majority. This will not be seen or portrayed in the media as the Greens being reasonable or principled but as a win for National & Key. We (the Greens) should have shown solidarity with the other opposition parties – we’ve now shafted potential coalition partners and given NZ First even more ammo to distrust a Lab-Green coalition.

    Since I first got to vote for the Green’s I have never been as disappointed in a Green Party decision as I am in this.

    Badly done Greens, badly done. 😡

    • Enough 30.1
      23 September 2015 at 6:48 pm

      Agreed. What possessed them?

    • Clemgeopin 30.2
      23 September 2015 at 7:13 pm

      “We (the Greens) should have shown solidarity with the other opposition parties – we’ve now shafted potential coalition partners and given NZ First even more ammo to distrust a Lab-Green coalition.’

      Well said.

    • gobsmacked 30.3
      23 September 2015 at 7:23 pm

      “This will not be seen or portrayed in the media as the Greens being reasonable or principled but as a win for National & Key.”

      Early media portrayal says the opposite: TV3 and TV1 both highlight Key’s U-turn and praise the Greens.

      I don’t think how it looks on telly is the first concern, but if that’s the measure … Key lost, the Greens won.

      • GregJ 30.3.1
        23 September 2015 at 8:08 pm

        Early media portrayal says the opposite: TV3 and TV1 both highlight Key’s U-turn and praise the Greens.

        I’ll have to take your word on that – I can’t make myself watch Broadcast Television news from either channel.

        Certainly Stuff and the Herald are painting this as fairly neutral for the Government, and highlighting the Greens accusing Labour of playing politics. That ultimately plays to National’s advantage. I expect the commentariat to develop that theme over the next few days.

        • gobsmacked 30.3.1.1
          23 September 2015 at 9:33 pm

          I don’t blame you for not wanting to watch TV news, but then you can’t really say how it’s being reported if you decide not to see how it’s being reported.

          No need to take my word for it, the evidence is there. Here’s tonight’s report from TV3: it’s pretty damning (and from a channel that usually cheerleads for Key) …

          http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/john-keys-u-turn-on-red-peak-2015092318#axzz3mYIoUPKs

          • GregJ 30.3.1.1.1
            24 September 2015 at 1:32 am

            It’s a prediction – time will tell whether I’m wrong or right.

            My point still stands that it was a bad decision by the Greens – it let National off politically – and then to make a pretty needless attack on Labour (& NZ First) compounds the error looking to the future and coalition building.

  31. BM 31
    23 September 2015 at 6:37 pm

    Good on the greens, obviously extending a olive branch to National and demonstrating they’re not just Labours flooz, to be roughly shagged whenever Labour feels the need.

    Andrew Little and Labour, [deleted. You can do better than this BM – MS], you seriously pathetic individuals.

    • Chooky 31.1
      23 September 2015 at 6:52 pm

      …is this what the Greens are saying?…surely not…and I thought you were a rightie BM

      I have to say the right wing are crowing though

      • Anne 31.1.1
        23 September 2015 at 7:33 pm

        Why are they crowing? A week or so ago they were all decrying Red Peak as a Labour Party plot to take us all back to communism – or some such thing. Including from memory the sicko above who calls himself BM.

        Actually that comment @31 is very sick. Worthy of a ban?

        • greywarshark 31.1.1.1
          23 September 2015 at 8:47 pm

          I agree. There are a range of RW who should have no more than daily tenancy. They are lucky to have a bed for the night. TS shouldn’t put up with such stuff.

    • Muttonbird 31.2
      23 September 2015 at 7:41 pm

      Oh, please.

      This is, short of cancelling the whole show, as frank an admission of failure by Key as you could ever get.

      Typically, and laughably, it’s everyones’ fault but his own.

      • Anne 31.2.1
        23 September 2015 at 8:13 pm

        This is …. as frank an admission of failure by Key as you could ever get.

        Yep. I said at 20.2.1: He’s been forced to back down and concede defeat. That’s why he’s desperately trying to pin the blame on to Labour.

        When it comes online watch Bill English tonight. Disgraceful attacks against both Labour and the Greens. He was slurring some of his words so presume he was under the influence…

        Here we go;
        http://www.inthehouse.co.nz/video/39831

  32. RedBaronCV 32
    23 September 2015 at 7:37 pm

    I too think the greens should have stayed out of the flag debate – it’s speading taint on anyone who goes near it and unfortunately Key has seized the opportunity to praise the greens and drive wedges between opposition parties – even if the framing doesn’t reflect what the greens actually did, the mess is sticking

  33. upnorth 33
    23 September 2015 at 7:49 pm

    I am really looking forward to choosing. I am looking for new flag represents us

  34. b waghorn 34
    23 September 2015 at 7:50 pm

    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11517757
    From what Shaw says in this I take it to mean they have not shafted labour

    • Puddleglum 34.1
      23 September 2015 at 8:45 pm

      Hi b waghorn,

      From your link:

      “To enhance the chances of National picking up the bill, the Green Party undertook not to support any amendments Labour might put up to change the first referendum question.

      …

      “The point here is that the Greens are trying to say to Labour – stop being pathetic, stop playing games, people want choices.”

      However, Green Party co-leader James Shaw said the process set by the Government had been deeply flawed from the start.

      It was “absurd” that his MP Gareth Hughes had to put forward a solution today.

      “The Prime Minister always has the option, it is kind of ridiculous that it has got to this point. He could have, with the flick of his pen, have included Red Peak as one of the options if he wanted to.

      “The fact that Labour have had a go, we have had a go, to get it through the process is kind of absurd, because he always had that option.””

      A couple of points.

      First, it seems the Green Party did agree not to support any Labour amendments to the legislation.

      Second, Shaw seems confused over the ‘problem’ and ‘solution’.

      He says the process was deeply flawed from the start. That means that the ‘problem’ preceded the exclusion of Red Peak (and why would the ‘problem’ ever have been the exclusion of that particular option anyway?? That’s not a ‘problem’ just a disagreement over which options should have been chosen.).

      Yet, supposedly, the ‘solution’ is to include Red Peak. The ‘problem’ of a deeply flawed process is now ‘solved’?

      What makes him think that? There will still be four options on the ballot that were the culmination of a flawed process – and one on the ballot as a result of a social media campaign and party political game playing (is that somehow not a flawed process?).

      Very fuzzy thinking by Shaw if that has been correctly reported.

      • Clemgeopin 34.1.1
        23 September 2015 at 8:53 pm

        +1

        You analyse issues so well, Puddleglum.

      • b waghorn 34.1.2
        23 September 2015 at 8:55 pm

        “The point here is that the Greens are trying to say to Labour – stop being pathetic, stop playing games, people want choices”
        Those are keys words .
        Labour and the greens need to see this for what it is and that is key up to his usual shitty behavior.
        Little should come out tomorrow and congratulate the greens on forcing key into flip flopiing.

        • Puddleglum 34.1.2.1
          23 September 2015 at 9:09 pm

          Yes, those definitely were Key’s words. I tried to abbreviate a large chunk I’d copied from the link – I was definitely not trying to imply that they were Shaw’s words (they’d be odd words for Shaw to use anyway).

          Sorry about causing confusion.

          Key is definitely using very childish arguments here and a show of solidarity in response – as per your suggestion – is always to be recommended.

          But I’m a bit worried that the ‘problem’ is now getting redefined as something to do with excluding Red Peak.

          Red Peak’s popularity or right to be amongst the options is of no relevance to the actual problem with this whole idea and process. It’s been managed as mindless spectacle with a very unclear underpinning rationale – not to be like the Australian flag?? Refreshing a ‘brand’ so that there’s an economic boost (akin to holding an international sporting event)?? Something about Key not liking the Union Jack despite Key being a royalist and it being on the Hawaiian state flag!).

          The only justification for even having a national flag is that it is meant to be a meaningful (and, hence, serious) symbol of a nation (not that I’m into that kind of symbolism). And yet the process has been conducted as some kind of pub game.

          • Draco T Bastard 34.1.2.1.1
            23 September 2015 at 10:16 pm

            +1

          • b waghorn 34.1.2.1.2
            24 September 2015 at 2:05 pm

            I knew they where keys words I was just making it clear for any readers who hadn’t gone to the link.
            I don’t like the process it should of been done at an election but its happening and I for one have always wanted the union jack gone.
            I think what has caused it to be so messy is the way social media is changeling the way politics functions.

        • Gabby 34.1.2.2
          24 September 2015 at 9:23 am

          No, Little only needs to say, well ok but it’s a shame we’re not voting yes/no first, bit of a mess really, and look a bit sad.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 34.1.3
        23 September 2015 at 9:14 pm

        He says the process was deeply flawed from the start. That means that the ‘problem’ preceded the exclusion of Red Peak (and why would the ‘problem’ ever have been the exclusion of that particular option anyway?? That’s not a ‘problem’ just a disagreement over which options should have been chosen.).

        Yet, supposedly, the ‘solution’ is to include Red Peak. The ‘problem’ of a deeply flawed process is now ‘solved’?

        These criticisms apply equally well to Labour.

        Don’t forget why this was political from the start: it’s tainted by the National Party.

        • Puddleglum 34.1.3.1
          23 September 2015 at 9:19 pm

          Agree with both points.

          On the first, though, Labour did try to ‘bargain’ with Key over a process issue (the ‘yes/no’ option) which at least went some way to addressing the ‘flawed process’. But you’re right that it helped continue to shift the discussion to something about Red Peak not being on the ballot.

          And I certainly haven’t forgotten why this whole party political shamozzle (Sp?) began.

      • Karen 34.1.4
        24 September 2015 at 9:39 am

        +1
        My already substantial doubts about James Shaw being a good co-leader for the Greens have just increased ten-fold.

        • Clemgeopin 34.1.4.1
          24 September 2015 at 10:39 am

          I think Shaw’s and Gareth Hugues’ major achievement will be driving more votes towards Winston/New Zealand first.

        • Chooky 34.1.4.2
          24 September 2015 at 12:02 pm

          unfortunately you were correct Karen…and I did support Shaw…but luckily I didnt have a vote because I am not a member of the Greens…I certainly won’t be joining now!…nor will I be giving them any other support

  35. Clemgeopin 35
    23 September 2015 at 8:48 pm

    Will this kind of double crossing of Labour indulged in by the Greens by promising National to vote down the Labour’s Yes/No referendum amendment question (as reported by Radio live) increase or decrease Greens poll ratings in the next poll?

    Personally I suspect that the Green vote may actually go down from the latest TV1-Colmar Brunton poll of 15% to 10% or less because of this. I feel that many progressives will view this action by the Greens in a negative way. NZF and Labour may actually get a boost here.

    • Chooky 35.1
      23 September 2015 at 9:49 pm

      NZF has been straight and unequivocal from the start …they oppose flag change and they are not playing games with jonkey nactional…I suspect they will gain votes from this

  36. iron sky 36
    23 September 2015 at 10:05 pm

    If we are going to “corporate logo” the fffing face off the flag for increased brand representation to make more marketing dollar, why the hell stop there, rename the year!

    In the 1996 novel, Infinite Jest, by David Foster Wallace which takes place in a North American dystopia, corporations can subsidize time, by buying the naming rights for the year. Here are a few ideas from his book:

    “CHRONOLOGY OF ORGANIZATION OF NORTH AMERICAN NATIONS’ REVENUE ENHANCING SUBSIDIZED TIME™, BY YEAR

    Year of the Whopper
    Year of the Tucks Medicated Pad
    Year of the Trial-Size Dove Bar
    Year of the Perdue Wonderchicken
    Year of the Whisper-Quiet Maytag Dishmaster
    Year of the Yushityu 2007 Mimetic-Resolution-Cartridge-View-Motherboard-Easy-To-Install-Upgrade For Infernatron/InterLace TP Systems For Home, Office Or Mobile (sic)
    Year of Dairy Products from the American Heartland
    Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment
    Year of Glad”
    http://www.wallacewiki.com/david-foster-wallace/index.php?title=Subsidized_Time

    Here is my pick for 2015 for New Zealand (that is if we are still called that)

    2015: Year of New Zealand over bloated grass feed methane emitting shit storms called cows that seem to have more land and rights than people, dairy products TM, Copyright

    2016: Year of John Key and team all blacks…. Jesus and your 12 disciples, Mother Teresa…. move the Fxxxx over.

    Any other suggestions from your marketing marvels out there…

  37. iron sky 37
    23 September 2015 at 10:12 pm

    Accccchewallieeeeee 2015 should be called

    Year of the Key Depend Adult Undergarment

    Why?

    Because he is so full of ssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiii………..t

  38. Chooky 38
    23 September 2015 at 10:24 pm

    @ iron sky ….re suggestions for the Year of John Key

    New Zealand’s new National Anthem:

    ‘How Bizarre’

    New Zealand’s new flag … a banana

    https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=banana+images&espv=2&biw=1041&bih=807&site=webhp&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0CBoQsARqFQoTCNai0dz3jMgCFaUapgodVAgJqg

  39. infused 39
    23 September 2015 at 11:32 pm

    Green Party… hook, line, sinker.

    And you lot are cheering it. How dumb are you? Quite it seems.

    Shaw is inept.

    • newsense 39.1
      23 September 2015 at 11:59 pm

      shades of Key on the ‘anti-smacking’ bill?
      If Shaw is smart he’ll want to get on the podium or equivalent with Key, the way Key did with Clark. The ‘looney left’ is the crutch in the PM’s pet project.

    • tinfoilhat 39.2
      24 September 2015 at 11:29 am

      And you are a fool.

  40. newsense 40
    23 September 2015 at 11:57 pm

    Good news that this flag thingy and Paid Parental leave have been achieved thanks to the electability of Josie Pagani and Stuart Nash!

  41. Ad 41
    24 September 2015 at 5:26 am

    At the only moment Key was weak across the entire public, it was the Greens that stood by him.

    Sure, not great activist politics. But the Greens’ message to Labour is unmistakable: fuck us over like last time, and we will simply cut Labour out, deal on the cross-benches with National, and consign an alternative government to history for a record fourth term.

    The Greens’ coalition price just went up.

    • leftie 41.1
      24 September 2015 at 6:28 am

      Ad wake up, you’re dreaming !!!!

    • Chooky 41.2
      24 September 2015 at 8:57 am

      Labour will just cut a deal with Winston/ NZF…it worked very well under Helen Clark

      …and imo Winston should be given PM helmship for at least six months …if this is what it takes for Labour and the left to get in and defeat jonkey nact

      (Note: Winston has often been to the left of the Labour Party)

      ….Labour should also put David Cunliffe in the very important job of spokesperson for Climate Change and environment…and make this one of its most high profile portfolios

      the Greens can do what the Greens do best..be a loyal support party …but even this is doubtful at the moment

      James Shaw … jonkey’s new Green Party pet panda…playing a cunning move to upstage and undermine Labour ….and playing the ball for jonkey’s vanity project side to change the NZ flag !

      http://i.imgur.com/yUh8kbj.gifv

      (James Shaw wants Red Peak against the majority of New Zealanders wishes to retain the existing flag…well done James !…you really are a player)

      • tinfoilhat 41.2.1
        24 September 2015 at 11:27 am

        “the Greens can do what the Greens do best..be a loyal support party …but even this is doubtful at the moment”

        As usual Chooky you write a complete load of old rubbish. The Green party has been the most effective and often only part of the opposition during the last 3 term of National. In the meantime Labour have gone through three different leaders and NZ first has achieved a win in northland but little if anything else.

      • Enough is Enough 41.2.2
        24 September 2015 at 11:36 am

        It worked well under Clark?

        Are you kidding me?

        The reason Labour lost in 2008 was the stench of Winston and wen Glenn tarnished the whole government.

        • Chooky 41.2.2.1
          24 September 2015 at 11:58 am

          are YOU kidding?!….or just right wing rewriting history as usual?… Winston was an excellent MInister of Foreign Affairs and worked very well with Clark

          who shafted Winston and destroyed the Labour Government’s NZF coalition partner?

          …the Nacts spent a whole year hounding, attacking and vilifying Winston Peters …this is what they do best …like a pack of dogs they did not let up

          …and Russel Norman after chairing a committee on the whole Glenn affair shat on Winston from a great height… just three days before the Election!

          …Winston / NZF was out of government by a very small margin ( not great strategy… as political scientists remarked, it probably lost Labour that Election and won it for the jonkey Nacts)

          turns out Winston was correct ….and Owen Glenn has since been discredited

          • Enough is Enough 41.2.2.1.1
            24 September 2015 at 12:18 pm

            Of course the Nat party would try bring them down. That is their job. As an opposition your objective is to remove the government.

            Who cares what Winston is or isn’t. Every government he goes into turns to shit.

            If we want a long term Labour led government we need it to be with a true Left Wing party.

            • sabine 41.2.2.1.1.1
              24 September 2015 at 5:08 pm

              then we must exclude the current lot that is the Green Party.

              simple as that.

              it seems that they will go with the highest bidder, hungry children and the environement be dammned so as long as they get a cycle way and a say in a highly flawed and corrupt Flag change shenanigans.

              So frankly, let them sit at 10% for ever, they are not worth more.

              Fuck sake, i would NZF (a first) before I would vote for the current lot that is the green Party. Pretty faces, nice suits and nothing else.

  42. KPC 42
    24 September 2015 at 8:45 am

    http://www.wakeupkiwi.com/feature-articles.shtml#corporatenzgovt – Interesting link – who does NZ really belong too

  43. ScottGN 43
    24 September 2015 at 9:08 am

    I see Audrey’s finally popped up on nzherald with all her spin lines sorted.

  44. Chris 44
    24 September 2015 at 3:04 pm

    “After blocking, stalling, and trying to blame Labour, Key will very likely throw himself at the life-raft of this breaking development”

    I do blame Labour. Their pathetic wimperings about the process were drowned out by its glee and enthusiasm about red bloody peak. Labour bought into Key’s game and now we’ll pay the price. “Yay for red peak!!! We’ve won!!!” Complete idiots. This proves that the current Labour party have not got one one strategic bone among them. Complete fucking idiots.

    • half crown 44.1
      24 September 2015 at 6:39 pm

      “I do blame Labour. Their pathetic wimperings about the process were drowned out by its glee and enthusiasm about red bloody peak. Labour bought into Key’s game and now we’ll pay the price. “Yay for red peak!!! We’ve won!!!” Complete idiots. This proves that the current Labour party have not got one one strategic bone among them. Complete fucking idiots.”

      You are wrong there mate, Don’t start blaming labour who had a very valid question ie include, ” Do you want to change the flag” A yes or no on this would have saved millions by not not having to have a second referendum. Blame this latest farce on that bit of opportunist shit in Neo Drag who is now the co leader of the Greens, He is another Rimmer an opportunist turd like that other opportunist turd called DUNG. I hope the Greens suffer BIG time over this and they disappear into the sunset at the next election like that other Utopian load of crap called Social Credit.

      • Chooky 44.1.1
        24 September 2015 at 9:59 pm

        +100..there are a number of people thinking this way out in the real world…I met several today on my travels and they brought the subject up, not me

        ….also interesting how many NZ flags random people are flying these days over their fences and up their poles and behind their shop counters

        …i was never a flag flyer but I wish I could buy one myself …any ideas where to buy them?

      • Chris 44.1.2
        24 September 2015 at 11:25 pm

        Yes, the Greens got sucked in too, but that was expected. They love anything that has even the slightest tinge of republicanism. Look at the role they played in axing the Privy Council. Now we’re the butt of constant jokes internationally about our ridiculously low budget judicial system headed by our hapless Supreme Court.

        But we shouldn’t have to put up with such political incompetence from our main opposition party. I know what Labour said about the process and what it recommended, and good on them, but its mixed messages had the same effect as openly supporting the process. Little made his point – fair enough – but this was followed by Labour MPs smiling for the camera in front of images of the bloody red peak. What do you think this said to people? Fucking brainless strategy, that’s what it said to me. Like many, many things, on this flag question, Labour parked itself firmly on Planet Key. It seems to me that’s where Labour feels most at home. Fuckwits. And that’s why I hate Labour.

      • D'Esterre 44.1.3
        24 September 2015 at 11:25 pm

        @ half crown: ” Don’t start blaming labour who had a very valid question ie include, ” Do you want to change the flag” A yes or no on this would have saved millions by not not having to have a second referendum.”

        Dead right. As well, it would be the democratic thing to do. As it’s currently conceived, the referendum isn’t democratic, because we aren’t first asked if we want a change.

        • Chris 44.1.3.1
          24 September 2015 at 11:49 pm

          And at the same time Labour MPs go “yay the red peak” and “add red peak to the final choice”. FFS!!!

  45. Krzystof 45
    25 September 2015 at 12:16 am

    The Red Peak design is interesting not just for the hysterical illuminati-conspiracy-swastika references, but moreso because it is so popular yet so childishly simplistic. Geometrically banal, to appease P.C.Muslims, it closely resembles the Adobe corporate logo(TM) and represents very little about the complex nature of New Zealanders. While many major nations have similarly simple flags, those hearken back to times in history when flag-making was a huge technological challenge and anything not made of simple shapes was near-impossible.
    The polar opposite would be something like the Mexican flag which is absurdly complex and too detailed to be fully appreciated, or reproduced by hand – the middle-ground is where the best design will be found.
    Colours should also be an important consideration – just using red/white/blue is far too colonialist — the flag should include black for the Māori and perhaps green for the unique and rich unspoilt landscape of Aotearoa.
    A distinctive emblem like the fern/koru/kiwi make a lot of sense. They may be well-used icons by businesses and sports teams already, but they are recognizably NZ!

Links to post