Feminist double standards

by Cameron Slater on November 24, 2017 at 9:30am

No one does sanctimony, hypocrisy and double standards like a feminist. Add in the fact that she is a journalist and you really start to wonder about the motivations.

Ms Cuming is clearly out to ‘get’ Mr Bunting and claim a scalp in the name of 4th wave feminism.

This story is yet another example of ‘do as I say, and not as I do’.

It appears that Ms Cuming is guilty of some shocking double standards.

Only earlier this month, she was guilty of stalking a man in local park, taking photos of him and then broadcasting them to the world on Twitter (on 4th Nov) for the purpose of sexual objectification.

She’s been widely called out on social media for her apparent double standards, but she is strangely silent on the issue.

Note that one of the commenters on her Twitter account is Mary Ann Gill, an elected Waikato DHB member. You can bet your bottom dollar that if this had been a male councillor (or any male for that matter) taking photos of women in parks for a similar purpose, all hell would break loose, the police would be called, they’d be sacked etc etc.

Why does Ms Cuming, who is also in the public eye and in a position of influence and responsibility, manage to get away with this?

Why the double standards, complaining about a lewd joke but at the same time objectifying a bloke exercising at a playground?

Will anyone in the media, or indeed TVNZ follow up Ms Cuming for her double standards?

That’s it, let them all out, no word in Maori for “guilty”

by Cameron Slater on November 22, 2017 at 1:30pm

Apparently all Maori in prison should be let out and proclaimed innocent, because…get this…there is no word in Maori for guilty.

A Māori lawyer and social justice advocate says it’s time to abolish New Zealand prisons and take lessons from how law and order was historically approached by Māori.

Does he mean hacking off their heads, tattooing them and selling them to Poms? That sort of justice?

Moana Jackson will give an address tonight in Wellington explaining why Māori and other indigenous peoples didn’t have prisons prior to colonisation.

Mr Jackson said the United Nations and other international human rights bodies have found the operation of prisons in this country to be in breach of human rights.

“The bias and prejudiced way in which various parts of the criminal justice system operates ensures there is a disproportionate number of Māori men and Māori women in prison.

“I think part of that discussion is to look at indigenous nations around the world because there is no indigenous nation in New Zealand, or Australia or Canada or the United States or South America – that have a history of prisons, yet they all have a history of humans causing harm.”

Mr Jackson said Māori traditionally dealt with crime differently, with an emphasis on restoring the relationship between the person who caused harm and the person whom harm was inflicted upon.

I call bullshit on that. He makes out Maori were all sweetness and light and sat around and had a nice meeting to determine that someone was wronged and what the solution was. Those taiaha, mere and other weapons were just decorative weren’t they?

He said Māori sought to impose sanctions for the wrong and in the long-term, rebuild the relationship that was damaged.

“In the Pākehā system if someone is charged with something the question they’re asked in court is do you plead guilty or not guilty?

“There’s no word for ‘guilty’ in the Māori language and so the question asked instead was, ‘do you know who you have harmed’? In other words, do you know what the relationship or the potential relationship is that has been damaged?”

Using his logic, there was no word for dole, or welfare, or benefit, or smokes, or Lotto, or beer, or gambling either…but Maori seem to availed themselves of those quite a fair bit.

I am however perplexed why anyone bothers listening to Moana Jackson. A quick check of the Maori dictionary suggest he is correct…sort of. The is no word for guilty in Maori…there are actually lots of them.

harakore

1.(stative) be innocent, blameless, faultless, guiltless, honest, not guilty, sinless.

E hara ana, e harakore ana rānei, te herehere? (MM.TKM 29/2/1856:13). / Do you find the prisoner guilty or not guilty?

and;

mau tangetange

1.(noun) found guilty.

He mau tangetange te whakataunga a te kōti ki runga i a Hīroki, kātahi ka whakahaua kia patua mate rawa (TTR 1994:28). / The decision of the court was that Hiroki was guilty and he was sentenced to death.

and;

ngākaukino

3.(noun) bad heart, bias against, ill-treatment, guilty intent, prejudice, intolerance, bigotry, malevolence.

He kupu ēnei nā Pāpaka mō te ngākaukino o āna mātua ki a ia (NIT 1995:291). / These were words by Pāpaka referring to his uncles’ ill-treatment of himself.

Why don’t reporters check these claims that these so-called advocates make?

Explaining is losing, luv…Coalition’s billion tree promise looks rather hollow now

by Cameron Slater on November 23, 2017 at 8:30am

The Coalition promised to plant an extra billion trees over ten years, or 100 million trees every year for ten years.

It turns out that they are now claiming half of those will be planted by the private sector…not the government at all.

NBR reports:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern rejects criticism that the government splitting the load of planting its goal of one billion trees a year with the private sector is a backdown.

Forestry Minister Shane Jones says the goal of planting 100 million trees a year for 10 years will be shared between the private sector and the government, with both planting 50 million trees each a year.

Mr Jones and the Coalition government have been slammed by National economic and regional development spokesman Simon Bridges, who says the government is backpedalling.

“[Mr Jones’] problem is that the target is recorded unambiguously in both the Labour-New Zealand First coalition agreement and the Speech from the Throne on the new government’s programme.”

That speech said: “This government is committed to a new planting programme, planting 100 million trees a year to reach a billion more trees in ten years.”

The prime minister denies Mr Jones’ comments represented a backtrack.

“We have always been really clear we see a role for the forestry service to work alongside those in the private sector to ensure we’re supporting the planting of those trees.”

She says the goal of planting one billion trees – which she admits is ambitious – was always meant to be a collaborative effort between the government and the private sector.

She says it would be “splitting hairs” to try to decipher what the mix of private and public sector planting would be.

 

Sorry luv, you can’t claim private sector plantings as your own. It is isn’t splitting hairs. It is calling bullshit on your claims.

Shane Jones’ antics in the house over this now make a mockery of the promises.

I’ve never seen a givernment go backwards so fast nor make so many utter stupid mistakes like this one.

I said this three years was going to be fun and so far it is at least a laugh a day.

I think we are going to see a lot of Jacinda’s angry, scowly face in coming months.

The Muppet Show continues, Chippie flip flops after his boss says otherwise

by Cameron Slater on November 23, 2017 at 9:00am

Credit: Luke

The Muppet Show that is our government continued yesterday.

NewtalkZB reports:

Labour has released costing estimates for its boost to student loans and allowances – just hours after Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern defended not doing so.

Education Minister Chris Hipkins announced yesterday the pledge to boost student allowances and student loan living costs by $50 a week was now in place.

However, his release didn’t include cost estimates, and National’s finance spokesman Steven Joyce later challenged Labour to front on its numbers.

Hipkins said the costings would be released in the coming weeks when detail on another policy – fees-free tertiary education – was made public, given that change would affect overall student numbers.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern spent much of her stand-up with media today defending the lack of costing information, saying delaying the release would mean “the most robust numbers possible”.

However, later in the afternoon Hipkins’ office released preliminary costings that were taken to Cabinet, estimating the total cost of the two increases at $200m in 2018/19, rising to $210m by 2021/22.

That is lower than the estimate of $270m a year, given during the election campaign.

Labour has not released estimates of up-take for the extra loan and allowance money.

Is there anyone who believes Labour’s numbers?

This government, the Labour members especially are making screw up after screw up. They have been in government 27 days and so far it has been disaster after disaster, flip flop after flip flop.

Chris Hipkins must be right up there for the first minister to get a kick in the balls from Heather Simpson. He is showing he is but a child at this politics thing. He seriously needs to be sent to the naughty step.

He’s made him PM look like a right chump. He won’t be getting the concern face, he will be getting the scowly face about now.

Helen Clark would never have tolerated this level of incompetence.

Controversial Fairfax Media cartoons ‘insulting’, judge says

Last updated 11:55, November 22 2017

Labour MP Louisa Wall says the cartoons were insulting.

James Ireland

Labour MP Louisa Wall says the cartoons were insulting.

Controversial cartoons featuring negative stereotypes of Māori and Pasifika were “insulting,” a High Court judge has said.

But whether they incited “public hostility” against these ethnic groups and breached the Human Rights Act was the point up for debate at Auckland’s High Court on Wednesday.

Labour MP Louisa Wall is appealing a decision by the Human Rights Review Tribunal, which rejected Wall’s complaint that the cartoons were ”insulting and ignorant put-downs of Māori and Pacific people”.

One of the Al Nisbet cartoons.

Al Nisbet

One of the Al Nisbet cartoons.

In the High Court in Auckland, Justice Matthew Muir said the aim of the hearing was to “look afresh” at whether there was a breach of the Human Rights Act. “No-one is contending that the cartoons were not insulting, we certainly all regard them as insulting.”

READ MORE
Labour MP Louisa Wall takes Fairfax to court
Tribunal finds ‘provocative’ cartoons did not breach Human Rights Act
Cartoons: negative, insulting

“It is a grossly inappropriate generalisation of Māori parents. What is insulting about the cartoon is to suggest that this is the exclusive preserve of Māori and Pasifika parents.

The Marlborough Express Al Nisbet cartoon

Al Nisbet

The Marlborough Express Al Nisbet cartoon

“This is about how we apply the balance of the test of Section 61.”

Section 61 of the Human Rights Act states the cartoons must be ”threatening, abusive, or insulting” and ”likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons” in New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins.

In her opening remarks for Wall, human rights lawyer Prue Kapua said the cartoons did bring Māori and Pasifika into contempt. “It is colouring the view of general people who are looking at those cartoons.”

“How does this not bring Māori and Pasifika into contempt, if they are defined as welfare bludgers and negligent parents and consumed with smoking, drinking and alcohol?”

Justice Muir said he agreed, but he was not convinced most people would take the cartoons at face value.

“The tribunal took the view that in the context of a ‘free market of ideas’ in an essentially socially liberal country, the reasonable person would concede that, albeit incredibly tasteless, the cartoons were not likely to incite hostility or bring people into contempt.”

Most people would say the cartoons were simply cartoonist Al Nisbet’s ”warped view of the world,” he said.

During the first hearing, on November 1, Justice Muir expressed discomfort with hearing the case alone.

He acknowledged Wall’s work in sponsoring marriage equality legislation in parliament that granted same-sex couples the right to get married, and said it was public knowledge he lived with a male partner.

While the lawyers present did not object to Justice Muir’s jurisdiction, he went on to appoint Dr Huhana Hickey and former National MP Brian Neeson as lay members on the panel to hear the case alongside him.

Wall and South Auckland youth group Warriors of Change took Fairfax Media and The Press and Marlborough Express newspapers to the tribunal over two drawings by cartoonist Al Nisbet about the Government’s breakfast in schools programme in 2013.

Fairfax Media, which publishes the two newspapers, also owns Stuff.

One of the cartoons depicted a group of adults, dressed as children, eating breakfast at school and saying “Psst . . . If we can get away with this, the more cash left for booze, smokes and pokies”.

The other showed a family sitting around a table littered with Lotto tickets, alcohol and cigarettes and saying “Free school food is great! Eases our poverty and puts something in you kids’ bellies”.

The tribunal ruled in May while the cartoons may have “offended, insulted or even angered”, they were “not likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons in New Zealand on the ground of their colour, race, or ethnic or national origins”.

It said for that reason their publication was not unlawful.

Wall said at the time she was disappointed with the tribunal’s decision, and appealed it to the High Court.

 - Stuff

Note: Cartoons are very close to the truth

The Aussies are fuming, not that Jacinda cares

by Cameron Slater on November 22, 2017 at 8:00am

Jacinda Ardern has caused great offence in her short time as PM.

Even the Media party are having conniptions. In Australia the offence has cut deep:

This season of joy is anything but for Malcolm Turnbull. Australians are fed up with a constitutional shemozzle which has seen numbers of MPs and senators forced from office for the crime of being dual citizens.  Abbott and his conservative cronies have never accepted Turnbull’s legitimacy and keep up a running commentary on his failings in the media.

The Australian Labor Party consistently leads opinion polls and the leader, Bill Shorten, is clawing his way to more respectable poll numbers.

Into this toxic political mix comes a novice New Zealand prime minister with sharp criticisms of Australia’s hardline but bi-partisan immigration policy and the tragedy unfolding on Manus Island.

Canberra is underwhelmed by the timing and tone of the Kiwi commentary. There are dark mutterings of Ardern’s naivety and self-serving “dog whistling” – sending a coded political message to the New Zealand electorate that Kiwis occupy higher moral ground than do those coarse Aussies.

Clearly, this plays well in the New Zealand media still offering a warm honeymoon to the new Labour Government.  Aussie bashing appears to be a regular theme in print and especially in broadcast commentary. But bombast makes a poor substitute for old-fashioned reporting of the facts.  

I think the Media party have taken that on board.

Take the widespread view that New Zealanders have a more humane and decent record in dealing with refugees.

Last year, New Zealand raised its refugee intake from about 750 a year to about a thousand.  It was the first time in 30 years that the refugee intake had been increased.

By comparison, last year Australia’s intake was more than 20,000 and this figure will rise by about a thousand in each of the next two years.

Then there is the view, often retailed in New Zealand, that Australia operates a brutal maritime blockade to stop desperate people from landing on its shores.

Between 2008 and 2013, more than 50,000 people travelled to Australia on more than 800 unauthorised boat trips. More than 1200 died at sea trying to make the journey.

New Zealand has yet to have a single unauthorised boat land on our shores.

Salient and inconvenient facts for Ardern and her apologists.

This has not gone unnoticed in Canberra. Last week the Australian Immigration Minister, Peter Dutton, took a thinly veiled swipe at New Zealand by saying that New Zealand benefits from Australia’s tough border protection policies without paying for them.

“We have stopped vessels on their way across the Torres Strait planning to track down the east coast of Australia to New Zealand. We have put hundreds of millions of dollars into a defence effort to stop those vessels.

“We do that, frankly, without any financial assistance from New Zealand,” Dutton said.

The other senior Australian minister with a close interest in the regional implications of Canberra’s border protection policies is the Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop.

Bishop is a toughie who has never publicly backed away from her statement that she would find it “very difficult to build trust” with a New Zealand Labour Government.

None of this is to suggest that New Zealand’s political leaders should not have concerns about the effects of Australia’s hardline policies or should moderate their criticism. But the view in Canberra is that the new Labour Government in Wellington should be doing more than offering armchair criticism. 

Jacinda has only ever done hot air and slogans.

Prime Minister Turnbull is remarkably well briefed on New Zealand’s view. His new chief of Staff, Peter Woolcott, was until recently Australia’s high commissioner in Wellington. A former high commissioner to Wellington heads Australia’s Defence Department.

That a new Australian high commissioner has not been appointed to Wellington for several months may reflect a certain grumpiness in official circles in Canberra.

Some pundits in Australia are suggesting that history may be about to repeat itself and Malcolm Turnbull could become the latest victim of Canberra’s Killing Season.

If their grim predictions are accurate and Turnbull is dumped as leader of the Liberals, the Canberra cognoscenti speculate than two ministers lead the pack to replace him.

The most likely replacement is the deputy leader, Julie Bishop. After her comes the Immigration Minister, Peter Dutton.

Something for Ardern to think about. Very carefully.

I’m not sure thinking was ever on her CV. She’s put herself and us in the firing line of some rather grumpy Aussie politicians. Those same politicians would think nothing of rescinding visa free travel rights for Kiwis.

 

-Fairfax

Labour Lies. The Finance Minister Lies. That’s going to help with confidence in this government

by Cameron Slater on November 22, 2017 at 9:00am

Finance Minister Grant Robertson needs to front up on the costings for his Government’s expensive policy pledges, National Party Finance Spokesperson Steven Joyce says.

“Yesterday we learnt that Mr Robertson did have coalition costings prepared by the Treasury before the coalition was announced on 19 October,” Mr Joyce says.

“This is despite him refusing to release the costings on 28 October on TV3’s The Nation because he hadn’t had the opportunity to ‘work with the public service’.

“It is clear now that excuse was a blatant fabrication.

A bald-faced lie.

“Then today we have the very unusual situation where the policy on lifting student loans and allowances by $50 a week is announced by Minister Hipkins, with no substantive costings whatsoever.

“All the public has to go on are the suggested costings from the infamous BERL pre-election fiscal plan that Mr Robertson refuses to stand by.

“Where is the information on the cost of student allowances? Where is the expected extra write-off on student loans caused by this change?

“We know that Treasury and the Ministry of Education would have provided costings for this policy for it to go through Cabinet. Mr Robertson needs to release those figures.

“This is serious stuff. The Reserve Bank’s Monetary Policy Statement released less than two weeks ago had multitude caveats in it about domestic policy uncertainty because they have no idea what the new government is planning.

“This isn’t Labour’s money, it’s the public’s money. And the public is entitled to know what the new Government is spending in its name.

“Mr Robertson needs to step up and release his coalition costings, and also insist Ministers release policy costings when new policies are announced. Or are they just afraid to spoil their ‘good news’ stories with some fiscal reality.”

Essentially, Labour is winging it.  On the one hand, we have people rushing around in the media handing out money like it is a lolly scramble.   On the other, Labour hasn’t even told Treasury what the Coalition government has agreed to spend money on.

I’d laugh if it wasn’t so serious.

The real reason why Labour is so reticent to come forward with the numbers is probably that it will prove Steve Joyce right after all:  a huge budget hole well in excess of ten billion dollars.

 

Jacinda needs to grow the eff up

by Cameron Slater on November 20, 2017 at 12:30pm

The left-wing used to throw their toys about John Key when he was offshore. They said he was embarrassing, that he couldn’t pronounce things properly and he was a poor representative.

Now we have Jacinda Ardern, and her petulance and churlishness is even more embarrassing.

The NZ Herald reports:

Sainsbury, who is well known for his impersonation of National MPs on Snapchat, made the claim on Radio Live this afternoon.

He said he was chatting with Ardern while they were backstage at the Vodafone NZ Music Awards on Thursday night.

 

“I don’t know if I should be saying this, but she said that Donald Trump was confused for a good amount of time thinking that she was Justin Trudeau’s wife.”

Sainsbury said Trump eventually realised who Ardern was, and that Ardern had also said that Trump was “not as orange in real life”.

In a statement, Ardern said: “Someone thought the President had confused us, but in all of the conversations we had it was clear to me he hadn’t, and recalled the conversation we had late last month.”

Seriously?

But then she added this nonsense:

She said that Trump had “patted the person next to him on the shoulder, pointed at me and said, ‘This lady caused a lot of upset in her country’, talking about the election”.

“I said, ‘Well, you know, only maybe 40 per cent’, then he said it again.

“I said, ‘You know’, laughing, ‘no-one marched when I was elected’. It was only afterwards that I reflect that it could have been taken in a very particular way – he did not seem offended.”

Ardern took part in a women’s rights march in Auckland that coincided with the millions-strong march across the US and around the world the day after Trump’s inauguration in January.

Yeah, Jacinda, no one marched because the right-wing aren’t petulant violent assholes who can’t accept democracy.

After insulting Australia and Malcom Turnbull, Julie Bishop and now Donald Trump, someone might like to take the child PM aside and teach her a thing or two about decorum.

So  much for “relentless positividdy”

 

-NZ Herald

“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”

by SB on November 21, 2017 at 9:00am

GREYMOUTH, NEW ZEALAND – NOVEMBER 30: Flames burn out of control from a ventilation shaft at the Pike River Mine on November 30, 2010 in Greymouth, New Zealand. Rescue teams have been working around the clock to recover the bodies of the 29 New Zealand mine crew that lost their lives following two blasts at the Pike River Mine 50 kilometres north of Greymouth on New Zealand’s west coast. (Photo by Iain McGregor-Pool/Getty Images)

It’s still thought to be one of the most dangerous workplaces in New Zealand, and the Government has just set a date to re-enter the Pike River mine.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has announced the formation of a new government department called Pike River Recovery Agency, Te Kahui Whakamana Rua Tekau ma Iwa.

It’s intended to fulfil an election promise Labour made to the families of the Pike River men, that if in Government it would re-enter the mine to try and recover their bodies.

So that is a definite YES then. They will re-enter the mine and attempt to recover the remains.

 

[…] The new agency has some specific objectives and they begin with gathering more evidence to figure out what the actual cause of the explosion at Pike River mine was.

What has that got to do with re-entering the mine and recovering the bodies? What is the point of gathering evidence when a deal was made previously to drop charges against those responsible for the mine’s operations in exchange for reparation payments to the families?

[…] Ardern says the Government will work from the basis that it will re-enter the mine, unless there is sufficient evidence to prove it really shouldn’t.

So her stance is either:

A) That the National Party lied about the advice and evidence they received which led to them deciding that it was unsafe to enter the mine

B) She made the promise knowing that it would be easy to find evidence that it was unsafe to enter the mine because she knew that the previous government decision was an honest one was based on facts.

She said it was a contrast to the previous Government’s stance that the mine was not safe enough to send any one else down there […]

No, it is not a contrast. A contrast would be stating that the mine is safe to enter and that they definitely will be entering it.

Adams said the Government had “wound back its promises significantly, from both prior to the election and in recent weeks”.

“The Government is now recognising that it cannot waive health and safety laws, rush or force a re-entry.” National supported re-entry if it could be achieved safely.

So, in other words, the new boss is just like the old boss. Labour has said they will re-enter the mine if it can be achieved safely. It can’t be achieved safely so after wasting some more money on a brand new agency they will come to the exact same conclusion that the National government did.

[…] When Labour was still in Opposition, it floated it could change the workplace safety laws to allow re-entry. In Government it’s position on that appears to have changed, with Ardern and the responsible minister Andrew Little both saying they don’t believe that necessary.[…]

Of course not. They don’t actually want to make it possible to enter the mine. It is too darn dangerous and they know it.

-Politically Correct

Silly Cindy bit on her arse gossiping about Trump

by Cameron Slater on November 21, 2017 at 8:30am

Jacinda Ardern has started to walk back the insults to Donald Trump made in front of her big mouthed luvvie mates.

Jack Tame impressed me yesterday morning with his questioning, and it has now made international media about her stupid ill-considered comments.

The New Zealand prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, has expressed regret over gossiping about a meeting with Donald Trump after it was reported the US president may have mistaken her for Justin Trudeau’s wife.

Ardern was visibly uncomfortable when asked about reports that she had revealed details of the encounter at the East Asia summit in Vietnam last week to a friend who later went public.

The friend – comedian Tom Sainsbury – revealed in a radio interview that Ardern had told her Trump was “not as orange in real life” and that he had been confused about her identity.

Sainsbury said: “[Ardern] said that Donald Trump was confused for a good amount of time in thinking that she was Justin Trudeau’s wife.”

Ardern, when questioned about this, said she did not want to turn the issue into a “diplomatic incident”, or discuss everything that occurred behind the scenes.

 

Yeah, then why did you?

Thought it was all shits and giggles with your lefty mates? What were you on? Coke?

Jeebus girl, you’re the Prime Minister.

But the prime minister, whose appearance at the high-profile summit was her first major international test since being elected, stressed that when she was formally introduced to Trump he seemed to know who she was.

“Second-hand someone observed that they thought that it happened, but in all my interaction, certainly President Trump didn’t seem to have confused me when I interacted with him. But someone else observed this,” Ardern said, explaining the incident.

Ardern would not reveal who the person was who observed the alleged case of mistaken identity, but said it was not someone in her team, nor was it a New Zealander.

Ardern said she had told the “full story” of the incident to two people in New Zealand, but would not budge when asked to share the full story with TVNZ host Jack Tame, who questioned her for six minutes on the topic.

Why not? Surely it is public interest? She attended the event as Prime Minsiter…she must answer OIA requests, surely? If Labour thought it was ok to ask if John Key texted me then surely we have a right to know who she has been gossiping to?

Ardern then said she would not make the same mistake of sharing a backstage “yarn” again – as Chinese whispers had brought the story to the attention of the media, which was not her intention.

Oh, so it was a mistake…how about calling up Trump and apologising?

“I’m in a circle, I am with someone else, I did not hear the full conversation, they observed what they believe to be mistaken identity, I didn’t pick that up. I then had an interaction that suggested he [Donald Trump] knew who I was, that was at the point where I was properly introduced which probably cleared it up.” Ardern said.

Tame continued pressing Ardern on whether she had told the full truth regarding the incident, or whether she had misled New Zealanders. Ardern responded: “Jack, at this point I don’t want to give away every single element of conversation I have with another world leader, because I accept that things happen behind the scenes, that I’m not always going to give the full details around.

“Tom’s a mate of mine. I shared a story with him, he shared it with someone else, I can see how that then spirals … it is a trifling matter.

“It was a bit of a funny yarn, something that I don’t want to cause a diplomatic incident over.

“I think I should never have recounted the story.” Ardern said.

You think? Stupid silly little socialist fool.

Insulting world leaders isn’t ever a trifling matter. If Donald Trump didn’t know who you were before he does now and he won’t be happy.

MFat must be beside themselves having to hose down the child PM’s stupid utterances all the time.

Want to know how bad it is? Try this on for size.

Does the Prime Minister stand by all her statements? She will have to answer yes, but will probably say, within the context they were made.

Then; Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement that “Donald Trump isn’t as orange in real life”?

Then; What context was the Prime Minister making that statement in when she insulted Donald Trump?

Yeah, Question time should be good, if the National party has the stones.

 

-The Guardian