Has John Key bungled the flag debate? Has he delivered a mixed message on this issue?

There was some analysis in the NBR at the weekend – written by Chris Keall – and he says if the country doesn't adopt the new flag then John Key will only have himself to blame.

He's undermined his own argument by bringing back the honours system, and by being non-committal when it comes to the issue of whether New Zealand should be a republic.

Some of you will say -- because you've told me before -- that it's wrong to group the debate about our flag, the honours system and our statehood in the same argument. Some will argue the flag is an entirely separate issue. And this, I think, is part of the problem.

We're all voting for different reasons. Some want to get rid of the Union Jack. Others say we're too similar to Australia. Some feel a deep connection to the silver fern and that's why they'll vote. And so it goes on.

But what is it we're actually voting for here -- and why?

NBR polled on this issue – some 750 people – and the findings were interesting. If you're a National voter, then you're more likely to vote for change. Some 45% said they would. But just 19% of Labour voters said they would vote for the new flag. I thought it would be the other way around.

So given the flag is John Key’s project, has this become a vote for or against the flag, or is it actually a vote for or against John Key?

It feels as if it's becoming the latter and that's unfortunate. For me this issue is far bigger than that. Prime Ministers will come and go – but flags don't.

So is your vote based purely on the flag -- or, if you're honest -- are your politics influencing your decision too?