Saturday, September 5, 2015

THE FLAG DEBATE CONTINUES

Back in NZL and clearly the flag debate is hotting up with the release of the four options.   Of the four the one depicted resonates most with me incorporating the red, white and blue together with the silver fern and the southern cross.    Why will I be voting for a change?    Simple, I want a flag that is distinctively New Zealand.   Not something that can be confused with the Australian one.

The debate should have transcended party politics but clearly that is not to be.    There will be members of all parties in favor of change just as there will be others opposed.     Andrew Little's 'Johnny Come Lately' opposition to the democratic process after ditching his parties previously stated support for change is evidence, pure and simple, of his Key disarrangement syndrome in full flight. If Labour were running with it OK but John Key .... never.

The stance taken by RNZRSA concerns me.   It is definitely within their remit to oppose changing the flag to be voted on at the second referendum.    But it seems to me that they are pushing the envelope in appearing to associate themselves with Peter's call to cast invalid votes at the first referendum.

I suspect there are many in the RSA cohort who will vote no and that's fine with me.   But there is a danger that, in overstepping the mark, the RSA may create a perception of 'grumpy old men living in the past'.    This they can ill afford to do.   RSAs are closing (Rotorua the latest).   Many are facing financial difficulties.    If they are to survive they need to reach out to the under 40 cohort and the reality is that, unlike the over 65 cohort, young NZ is less resistant to change.    Just look at the faces of those arguing the pros and cons on TV.   The pro change are generally young.   The anti change are old.

Having said all that the over 65 cohort is more likely to vote (although perhaps the fact it is a postal vote might offset that) and I still think that those in favor of change have a big mountain to climb.

16 comments:

Paulus said...

Was it not the Union Labour Party's manifesto that they would look at changing the flag if elected.
This stance was supported by the Green Taliban also.
So Key agreed that it would be put to the country.
Now he has done so - the soothsayers are now bitching.
The media would scream even louder that Key broke his promise if he took the view that it was not going to succeed.

Noel said...

I don't believe it's only "grumpy old men" that are against the change.
None of the 4 options appeal. Would have preferred a simple Yes/No in the first referendum and if that had opted for change then plenty of time tweaking designs for the "that's it" approval by the majority.

My money remains on a resounding NO in March, "grumpy old men" included.

Yah going to retain your RSA membership? Good way to protest.

Redbaiter said...

How unsurprising to find the Veteran backstabbing the RSA.

Should be in the Labour Party with the rest of the commies.

Along with John Key and his like band of lickspittle Nat Party subversives.

Anonymous said...

I still think that those in favor of change have a big mountain to climb.

If Labour spent $26 million on this and produced no result, what would you be saying?

Actually.........I think I know the answer.

Noel said...

Geez is this information factual?

The one you favour is claimed to be copyrighted by the designer.

I thought it was for "our" flag.

Anonymous said...

8,000 designs and all they could come up with is three palm fronds and a corkscrew. Where are the high standards the the committee were supposed to be working to? Try putting the B+W palm frond on a sheet of white paper or a black jersey. Not a lot of thought went into that one but it does narrow the choice down to two identical flags, the PM's favourites and the ones you have been waving for weeks.

Either the panel are colour blind or they have been nobbled. Wot, no union jacks or Kiwis, I am surprised. But on the plus side I'm sure Judith will be appreciative of your efforts.

gravedodger said...

For my twopennyworth I consider each of the four chosen from the thousands are attractive as a Brand mark for a product with unpredictable market place life expectancy.
The Logo for the '74' Commonwealth games was another, with the NZs in red white and blue also.
For me it is not the time, that will be when the Nation ditches the economy rate HOS utilising the enormously talented beyond corruption and manipulation House of Windsor.

So I will keep my money in the bank until the second referendum when my no change vote will be recorded.

The sad fact is this whole process is to be tainted if not totally screwed by the no votes from the "I hate everything John Key does" lobby which may well deny the true majority from reaching a sensible outcome. I take no solace or satisfaction from the total hypocrisy from the socialists but then who is surprised by that.

Anonymous said...

If a new flag is chosen (eventually) I cannot see that the current flag will just disappear - in fact I would expect it would be displayed in tandem at most events where flags are currently flown. This would especially be the case at ANZAC ceremonies, and at all RSA clubs and events. I would think it will be 2 generations at least before the sight of our current flag becomes rare - and, to emphasise, only IF THE referendum votes for change will this even be a possibility. Remember the last time you saw the old Canadian flag? ... no?

One small question, will the NZ official Coat of Arms be included in the change to a new flag if it is accepted?

MarcW

Anonymous said...

"The pro change are generally young. The anti change are old."
Bloody hell, I've heard some generalisations before but that takes the biscuit. When I was young I thought the Beatles were the greatest thing since sliced bread and should have been elevated to sainthood. Then I grew up.

Lord Egbut Nobacon

The Veteran said...

Noel ... of course I'm going to retain my RSA membership. Silly question ... membership does not imply I have to agree with everything they say. The right to differ is front and foremost of a democratic society. Tell me, if someone offered to paint your house but wouldn' tell you what colour they were going to use would you say 'yes please' ... think on it. Most of us would say show us the colour and then I will decide.

Memsahib and I had dinner tonight with an RSA President (veteran) and his lady. They are of the under 65 cohort. He was for change, she was against. It is wrong to think that RNZRSA speaks with a united voice on this important matter.

Redbaiter ... your comments are both puerile and nonsensical. Condemned out of your own mouth. Labour supports retention ... they are all communists ... but hold on, the RNZRSA supports retention ... are they communists too? I am reminded of the political truism every time you spruk forth (or in your case fifth). The extreme and right and extreme left of the political divide are joined at the hip ... both are equally intolerant of anyone opposing their twisted view of life. That's where you sit with me. Redbaiter/Communist ... I can't tell the diff.

Anonymous said...

If it's that important why was it done in such a convoluted and expensive manner. No thinking sane person can come to any other conclusion than that the public have been shortchanged and had some awful designs foisted on them and have not been given a proper choice. In fact out of the four there is no choice and that's not a personal opinion that's sums up the overall opinion of the country. The panel must have been aware that anything with a Kiwi on it would have taken top prize, so no Kiwi 'cos it's not on the agenda.

It's a major cock up..

Lord Egbut Nobacon

Nookin said...

Ome strong words here. It seems that the present flag stands for some rather dubious values, the most prominent of which is that those with strong views are fully entitled to deride, personally, people who happen to disagree with them and that they are entitled to fuck up the process to get their own way.

Lord Egbut, i am a thinking person and no-one has yet suggested that I am in need of a padded cell and yet I have never liked the NZ flag (for a variety of reasons that I do not intend going through here) and I am rather partial to one of the options availble. I actually don't recall you asking for my opinion when you adavance what you refer to as the overall opinion of the country. Does that mean that unless I blurt my opnnions on social media or engage in some arrogant grand-standing denigration of the current flag, my view does not count and I do not get the chance to vote? Am I to be consigned to the stereotyped pool of insane, unthinking unwashed whose view is so out of keeping with your own that I should not have a say?

I am of an age that means this is my one chance to vote on the flag. It is my one chance to see if, in fact, NZers really want a change or not. And what do I get? I get twats saying that I am unthinking and insane.
I get the RSA, the one organisation I I thought would respect my right to express my views in a democratic vote, actively seeking to sabotage the process. I get the likes of Mallard who has yet to condemn the Labour Party policy of changing the flag, advocating the manipulation of the bote because he is piqued that Key has initiated the process.
Worse, there is Redbaiter. His comments disclose that in his NZ, there is no room for dissent and if you disagree with him then you are a backstabber and commy. If the flag stands for values such as those espoused by Baiter then it needs to be sanitised very, very quickly.
I dont know if this is an ego trip for the PM as argued by those who do not like the process. Logic suggests otherwise. I do know that a whole lot of people are now talking about it and who appreciate the opportunity of having a say.
To Those with loud voices, entrenched opinions, a penchant for personal attacks on anyone who dares to disagree with their precious views and the vindicative and malicious arrogance that, to them, entitles them to sabotage the process, fuck you very much. I am going to vote. I welcome the chance and I will accept the result without gloating or rancour whichever way it goes. There will be some, many in fact, who will be irate and throw their toys from the cot if they do not get their own way. Somehow, i feel that the values that I look for in a flag have passed those people by.
Scuse the language mine hosts.

Anonymous said...

nookin,

You miss the point entirely. What I said was that you do not have a valid choice as the system was corrupted, Do you really think that out of 8,000 designs these are the best?

Lord Egbut Nobacon

Nookin said...

Define "best" without being subjective and without reducing the debate to one's ability/inclination to think and one's state of mental health?

Noel said...

Accept your comment on resigning.
Was once a member of a Veterans organisation until the President trivialised the Long Report on PTSD suggesting it was a "short timers" disorder. I did phone him and try to explain that in my view the results were sufficient for lobbying for better support from the precursor to VANZ but he was not persuaded.

Later after I left he claimed "we weren't National Servicemen" again trivialising studies and showing no understanding of how epidemiology worked.

I accept I didn't achieve much by leaving but it sure as hell gave me a lot of satisfaction .

The Veteran said...

Noel 10.57 ... understand your point. Some of our erstwhile colleagues have much to answer for.

Nookin 7.08 ... thank you.