Posts by Lewis Holden
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
"getting a particular initiative on the vote that would get your supporters out to vote"
That explains why California has one of the highest rates of voter turn-outs at state-level elections.
I fail to see how this is a bad thing. If it encourages an otherwise apathetic voting public to become politically engaged, that has to be a good thing. So what if it's used for partisan advantage - surely if the centre-left thought about it they'd do the same - how about getting the Unions to put forward a petition the Employment Relations Act?
-
Israel's parliament, which is largely based on Westminster traditions, elects the Israeli president by a 2/3rds majority, as does Turkey and Iraq. Italy requires a 2/3rds majority for the first round, but a simple majority can be accepted for the last.
I'm not so sure direct election erodes parliamentary traditions so greatly that it would require "wider ranging reform". Iceland, Ireland and Austria both have strong parliamentary traditions, but directly elect their Presidents. In all three cases the states used to be monarchies.
-
It's true a republican head of state could be appointed, but they will more than likely be elected either by Parliament or directly (these are the two models proposed by Keith Locke's Bill). That automatically implies more independence from the Prime Minister than is the case under the status quo; which means the examples Graeme gives vis the G-G using there powers are more likely to come to fruition with an elected President than an appointed GG.
-
...what about Super Tino Rangatiratanga Man aka Robbie Burns? How cool is that shit?
I'm sure Burns himself would've loved it, being the mad St-Andrews waving Scottish republican he was (cf Scots Wha Hae, the Scottish National Party's official anthem. heh)
-
Dammit, outed as an agent for the British East India Company again. Bring back the Raj! Paint Google Maps pink!
Now now, I didn't accuse you of that. My point is that a flag is meant to represent a nation; our current flag does not do that.
-
And Lewis... of course if you remove something you, well, remove it. It goes away. The things attached to the object removed also disappear - some instantly, others fade slowly away. That's why the act of removal should be a conscious decision where the consequences are understood.
Well yes, but it's a truism to say if you remove something it's removed. I simply disagree that a consequence of change will be a loss of "history". I mean really, the 'things attached to the object' (the Union Flag) have already faded with time. Unless of course you consider New Zealand to still be a part of the British Empire...
-
Well, logically speaking, removing a historical emblem lessens its significance.
No it doesn't. We removed the Lion and Unicorn from our coat of arms, but their historical significance hasn't been lessoned. Sure most NZers mightn't know the difference, but then that's an education issue. I mean really, are we going to blot out the Union Flag from paintings of the signing of the Treaty? Of course not. Neither would there be any reason to take down the Union Flag over Waitangi.
What's the problem by the way with keeping the Union Flag but adding for instance the United Tribes one on the other side?
Because you'd cover up the top star of the southern cross, which is actually a south pacific symbol.
The clincher would be if the Union as we know it breaks up. Given the current rumblings by Scottish nationalists (and the likelyhood that the SNP will win the next Scottish Parliamentary elections), that could just happen - although it's not that likely. And then we really would have a historical appendix on our flag.
-
you'd think changing the flag would add yet another layer to the 1000 years or so of history already laid down here? I just hope Kevin Roberts has nothing to do with it... shudder.
Well I think the final design won't be what Kev wants somehow. You know, public consultation and referendums and that.
But you're right. I always like to point out that the history argument is also a nonsense because of the United Tribes flag. If we were really into honoring out history, we'd adopt the United Tribes flag as our own. I for one wouldn't mind that one bit.
-
I don't like the idea of wiping out what little history there is in NZ.
This assertion annoys me. How does removing the Union Flag from our flag "wipe out" history exactly? Will children be banned from learning Early modern English history? Will Kipling clubs be hounded? Will Scottish Harriers find their tracks strewn with glass? Of course not. Removing the Union Flag from New Zealand's flag isn't about "wiping out" history any more than adopting the Kiwi as a national symbol over the Lion and Unicorn.
Removing the Union Flag won't write it out of our history books.
-
Well, I think _God Save the Queen_ has to be the most appalling anthem ever. We should get rid of it first, not that we ever play it anymore. It's not actually a national anthem either, it's little more than a feudal calling to God to protect the Sovereign, the product of an age when the Divine Right of Kings was unchallenged stupidity.
We should dump it, and really so should Britain. I think _Land of Hope and Glory_ encapsulates more of what Britain's about than GSTQ's pathetic tune, which is truly awful. And also, it's German. But then so are the Saxe-Coburg-Battenburg-Windsors.
As for the MCH - so what? A certain MCH website also states that the "Queen of England" is New Zealand's Head of state, which isn't legally correct. In fact that office hasn't existed since the time of Queen Anne!
The New Zealand flag is a defaced Blue Ensign. If you want to argue history, you can't turn around and make up new interpretations of what the flag means. It's blue because that's the colour the Royal Navy wanted for ships owned by Colonial Governments (cf Colonial Navy Defence Act 1865).