Ardern on leadership

Written By: - Date published: 8:09 am, September 26th, 2018 - 102 comments
Categories: jacinda ardern, labour, national, same old national, Simon Bridges, trevor mallard - Tags: ,

It has been an interesting week in Politics.  Jacinda Ardern is overseas and she and Neve are wowing the world’s media.  She is reportedly the first world leader to appear at the United Nations with child in tow.  For an organisation that is future focused this sort of symbolism is important.

She has appeared on US television and gave an exquisite interview.  It contains the perfect summation of her political philosophy.  Here it is:

Host: You have talked about, I think this is interesting, kindness in government.  Usually you do not see those two things together but when I see you talk about your family I sort of get it, but explain that:

Jacinda: I don’t think there is one rule book for leadership.  And I really rebel against the idea that politics has to be a place full of ego and where you are constantly focused on scoring hits against one another.  Yes we need a robust democracy but you can be strong and you can be kind and so we are building what I like to believe is a really compassionate government, one that is focused on lifting the well being of our people but one that is doing well economically too.

And here is the video.

Over at Newshub there is this priceless interview where Paddy Gower describes Jacinda as being a political phenomenon.  From the Newshub website:

Newshub national correspondent Paddy Gower called Ms Ardern a “political phenomenon”.

“We’re just starting to see it on the international stage now,” he says.

“This is a bombastic arrival by a world leader. The Today Show – millions of viewers this morning with a New Zealand flag behind her talking about a positive message and about motherhood and leadership.

“I used to trail around with John Key where he would battle and fight for moments like this. It’s being handed to her on a plate. You can tell she’s enjoying it. You can tell Clarke [Gayford] is enjoying it. And I think it’s great and we’ve got to embrace it.”

Although Mark Richardson was not so happy.

But there was one person who wasn’t enjoying – or embracing – it.

The AM Show host Mark Richardson said that right now Ms Ardern’s “not doing a good job”.

“Excuse me for not getting carried away with that imagery. All I’m seeing right now is inactivity. I’m seeing knee-jerk reactions when they do make activity, and I’m seeing hopeless idealism,” he exclaimed.

“This is not the first time that a female that’s just had a baby’s been able to hold down or try to conduct a very important job.”

Can I suggest you watch the video if only to see the disgust on Mark Richardson’s face.  It made my day he was so annoyed.

And Gower made the point that Ardern is the world leader who is the antithesis of Donald Trump.  She has an important world role to play.

Meanwhile back in New Zealand guess what approach National is taking.  You guessed it, they are trying to score political hits on her.  The most recent attempt was their suggesting that she had misled Parliament.  The claim is laughable.  But National works on the basis that if you raise a smell often enough some of it will hang around.

The suggestion is that Jacinda misled Parliament by not mentioning that she had sent more than one text to Derek Handley.

From Hansard:

Hon Simon Bridges: What did Derek Handley’s text message to her say?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, I would have to go from my recollection. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: But I can off the back—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat. This is a matter of some seriousness. It’s a matter which I’ve had a number of representations on and I’m told that the House takes it seriously. I want to be able to hear the answer.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, I would have to go from my recollection. But my recollection is that he mentioned that the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) role had been mentioned to him. Again, as I said, I did not directly reply to that message, and it was received in April.

Hon Simon Bridges: Did she flat out ignore his text—not even an emoji?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, I did not even send an emoji.

Hon Simon Bridges: Was there more than one text from or to Derek Handley from the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The text that I received, again, as I said, was in April. I did not directly reply to that text message on that day or engage with him on the CTO role. On the CTO role, I did not engage with Mr Handley via text message.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, were there any other texts between the Prime Minister and Derek Handley?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, as I acknowledged the very moment I was asked this question, I have known Mr Handley for a number of years and have had correspondence with him for a number of years.

And the day before she had said this:

Hon Simon Bridges: Has she had any conversations, emails, or texts with Derek Handley since she’s been Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, to answer with some accuracy, I would want to go back. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My best recollection is that I received, some months ago, a text from Mr Handley mentioning the Chief Technology Officer role, which I do not recall directly engaging with, as that would not have been appropriate.

Notice she was working from her memory and mentioned the word “recollection” four times.  She never said she only sent one text.  She was perhaps mistaken when she said she directly replied to Handley’s mention of the CTO role although providing an email address is not directly engaging, rather it is providing a mechanism for information to be sent.  And the context was so she could receive his ideas and thoughts on New Zealand generally, not specifically on the CTO role.

She also admitted that she had been in communication with Handley for a number of years.

Audrey Young thinks that Ardern has a case to answer.  My legal impression, clearly biased, is that she is guilty of no more than using the English language and having far too much read into a short succinct answer.

My advice to Ardern is to just keep on being herself.  This sort of crap will be thrown at her again and again.  I suspect that out in the real world people will be more interested in having somewhere to live, someone to love and something to strive for.  And they are tired of the mud slinging and yearning for future looking positive leadership.  Which is exactly what Ardern provides.

102 comments on “Ardern on leadership”

  1. shadrach 1

    At this stage I’m happy to give the PM the benefit of the doubt, but she only has herself to blame for the perception she’s created.

    She surely knew how damaging the entire Handley affair has been to her government. She could, and should, have simply responded to the questioning with something like “I don’t recall the exact details, but I will prepare an accurate response and get back to you”.

    She also glossed over her relationship with Handley, which was totally unnecessary, and easily refuted.

    It’s the same situation as her comments to ZB about Curran – there is no ‘lie’, but there is the perception of something less than open. Which is why we end up with this “Until now, the fiasco, mainly over an undisclosed meeting, had reflected badly on Curran but the contagion has spread to Ardern and made the Government look amateurish.” (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12131607) when the focus should be on NZ’s PM at the UN.

    • mickysavage 1.1

      She could, and should, have simply responded to the questioning with something like “I don’t recall the exact details, but I will prepare an accurate response and get back to you”.

      She did say she did not recall the exact details. Repeatedly.

      He has put in an OIA for the texts. They were going to be provided in due course.

      She also glossed over her relationship with Handley, which was totally unnecessary, and easily refuted.

      “Mr Speaker, as I acknowledged the very moment I was asked this question, I have known Mr Handley for a number of years and have had correspondence with him for a number of years.”

      It’s the same situation as her comments to ZB about Curran

      She was wanting to allow Curran the dignity of breaking the news. And besides can you tell me when Ardern accepted Curran’s offer of resignation?

      • Enough is Enough 1.1.1

        She is a very good communicator and knows the precise words to use to ensure she can back out of any allegation of misleading parliament.

        The words “recall” and “recollection” are calculated. Those words allow you to essentially mislead the listener without technically being in breach of any rules.

        As Audrey Young has said, a pattern is emerging with our PM which should disappoint anyone who wanted to see a new and fresh way of governing after the slippery Key years.

        • mickysavage 1.1.1.1

          The words “recall” and “recollection” are calculated to show that you are relying on your memory and are not guaranteeing that what you are saying are 100% correct. And in any event they were essentially correct.

          The only pattern emerging is that there is an attempt to build a narrative by the most microscopic analysis of things that she has said to see if there is any wriggle room and an ability to claim that what she said was not 100% accurate.

          • marty mars 1.1.1.1.1

            There is a desperate pattern to find a chink in her armour that’s for sure.

            • chris73 1.1.1.1.1.1

              Its not that hard to find her chink. To me she appears to be a “big picture” type and not so interested in the finer details.

              Which isn’t a bad thing because Sir John was certainly that but he had a details guy like Sir Bill at his back

              The question is can Grant Robertson do a good job (or better) than Sir Bill or even Sir Michael?

          • shadrach 1.1.1.1.2

            “And in any event they were essentially correct.”
            That’s a stretch, mickey.

            Your own post above quotes the PM as saying on 18th September:

            “My best recollection is that I received, some months ago, a text from Mr Handley mentioning the Chief Technology Officer role, which I do not recall directly engaging with, as that would not have been appropriate.”
            That is incorrect. There were 11 texts between the PM and Handley.

            Then, in the same exchange, she went on to say this:

            “As I say, my best recollection is I received a text message that I didn’t directly engage in.” She repeated that the next day in parliament as follows “Again, as I said, I did not directly reply to that message, and it was received in April”, and “Mr Speaker, I did not even send an emoji.” and “On the CTO role, I did not engage with Mr Handley via text message.”
            These statements are incorrect. We now know the PM sent Handley her personal email address for him to communicate with her.

            Also on the 19th, the PM said this:

            “Mr Speaker, as a consequence of the member’s question, I have had my office check. ”
            She then doubles down on her previous statements, and makes no effort to declare the answer she had given the day before about the number of texts she had exchanged with Handley.

            As I have said, I have no reason to think the PM is being wilfully dishonest. However this can’t just be glossed over. The PM has made a big deal of being honest and transparent, and this business makes her look anything but.

            • Robert Guyton 1.1.1.1.2.1

              “As I have said, I have no reason to think the PM is being wilfully dishonest. However this can’t just be glossed over. The PM has made a big deal of being honest and transparent, and this business makes her look anything but.”

              That’s contradictory and makes me feel, shadrach, that your claims are insincere.

              • shadrach

                Then you would be wrong. i’m commenting on the perception, particularly in light of the Audrey Young article, and in the context of multiple comments on this site expressing similar concerns.

              • McFlock

                Raising your perception of a commenter who blames Ardern for misperceptions about her?

                Very Inception-y 🙂

            • mickysavage 1.1.1.1.2.2

              “My best recollection is that I received, some months ago, a text from Mr Handley mentioning the Chief Technology Officer role, which I do not recall directly engaging with, as that would not have been appropriate.”
              That is incorrect. There were 11 texts between the PM and Handley.

              But only one mentioning the CTO role.

              She received a text mentioning the CTO role. What she said was perfectly accurate.

              • shadrach

                “But only one mentioning the CTO role.”

                But that isn’t the question she was responding to. You quoted the question from Bridges above, which was:

                “Has she had any conversations, emails, or texts with Derek Handley since she’s been Prime Minister?”

                That question contains no mention of the CTO role.

          • Enough is Enough 1.1.1.1.3

            Jacinda could have controlled this narrative by giving a much better answer. An answer that did not allow the narrative that you are now offended by.

            “I don’t recall the exact details, but I will prepare an accurate response and get back to you”.

            You infer that the media and National are building an unfair narrative. Get used to it. This is politics.

        • Gabby 1.1.1.2

          It’s sounding as if anything she says that doesn’t accord with your wishes must be a lie nuffy nuffy.

      • shadrach 1.1.2

        “She did say she did not recall the exact details. Repeatedly.”
        And then went on to provide an answer. That was a mistake when she clearly did not ‘recall the exact details’.

        “Mr Speaker, as I acknowledged the very moment I was asked this question, I have known Mr Handley for a number of years and have had correspondence with him for a number of years.”
        “Ardern has also given the impression in Parliament that Handley was a passing acquaintance when in reality she had texted him to say it was great news he was returning to New Zealand (he had decided to do so before applying for the CTO job) and said: “Let’s catch up when you’re back for good perhaps? In the meantime I’ll talk to the team about how we can make use of you and your kind offer [to help and support her in any way possible].”
        And he texted her “how’s mumhood?””
        https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12131607

        “She was wanting to allow Curran the dignity of breaking the news.”
        It’s perception. And again she could have answered the question very differently.

        “And besides can you tell me when Ardern accepted Curran’s offer of resignation?”
        Yes. She accepted the resignation the night it was offered. That is a matter of public record.
        “”Clare Curran contacted me last night to confirm her wish to resign as a Minister and I accepted that resignation,” the Prime Minister said.”
        https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/09/prime-minister-jacinda-ardern-accepts-clare-curran-s-resignation-as-a-minister.html

        • Gabby 1.1.2.1

          She needs to get some hats doesn’t she shaddy.

        • You_Fool 1.1.2.2

          ”Clare Curran contacted me last night to confirm her wish to resign as a Minister and I accepted that resignation,” the Prime Minister said.”

          Nothing in that statement gives an indication of when the PM accepted the resignation, other than it was at some point before she made the statement (and presumably after being contacted by Clare).

          yes it is being political with the truth, but she is a politician, that is what politicians do, even the ones who are being more transparent and open about being a politician…

          • shadrach 1.1.2.2.1

            “Nothing in that statement gives an indication of when the PM accepted the resignation…”
            I wondered how long before someone tried that. The PM has made no statement to suggest there was any communication with Curran the following morning. Curran has not at any time suggested Ardern hesitated in accepting her resignation. Given the creeping incompetence Curran was displaying, and the carnage she was leaving strewn behind her, do you seriously believe that the PM would not have willingly accepted Curran’s resignation, and forthwith?

            “yes it is being political with the truth, but she is a politician, that is what politicians do, even the ones who are being more transparent and open about being a politician…”
            And on that, we most certainly agree. But it is not the promise the PM made to the people of NZ; it is not the very high standard she set for herself. And therein lies the problem.

    • Jimmy 1.2

      I agree with you. She is very precise in her communication and technically does not lie but is economical with the truth and creates a false perception to the public.

      • You_Fool 1.2.1

        That is called being a politician… name me one politician that doesn’t do that and I will name you a politician who isn’t getting elected any time soon

        • chris73 1.2.1.1

          Yes but Jacinda marketed herself as being different, as wanting the most honest and open and transparent government ever and not having to tell lies and wanting everyone to have a unicorn and end child poverty and etc etc (yes its exaggerated)

          She set the standard for herself to be judged by

          • You_Fool 1.2.1.1.1

            And she is the most honest and open and transparent government ever, or at least more so than the last lot (which is what she said she would be) so, I guess she is fine then…

          • AB 1.2.1.1.2

            “marketed herself as being different”
            Did she – or did she just say some things about what she wanted the government she led to be like?
            In any case, I’m totally satisfied that the Coalition government operates from an underlying ideology that is ethically of a higher standard than that of its predecessor. I will judge it by whether its policy delivery also lives up to that standard.
            And I am over 12, so would never expect individual members of that government to never be evasive, make mistakes or sometimes do silly things. As individuals, human beings are all pretty much a disaster zone. What matters are the shared ethical frameworks that drive policy.

          • Macro 1.2.1.1.3

            You need to read Luke 6:42 .
            Here is the NIV version in case you are incapable of looking up such a reference:

            How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

  2. Sanctuary 2

    This “Handley affair” is about as a ridiculous exemplar of a beltway issue as you can possibly find. While the political pundits twist themselves into knots in Byzantine dissections of who said what to who when, and why and where no one actually gives a flying f**k. Curran is gone, the issue is over except for the pointy heads.

    Granted, it is the sort of issue that political journalists love. It requires no actual leg work from them, it is entirely introspective (thus safely sealing them off from any intrusion of beastly reality) and they can spend endless hours asking pointlessly detailed questions in a desperate attempt to achieve a gotcha moment, before declaring it a scandal and interviewing each other about what their complete failure to reveal anything new means.

    But mostly it is just yet another a distraction in an increasingly ugly and open misogynistic ongoing campaign against the idea of a mother being PM being waged by a cabal of bitter middle aged men on our media, who hate having a woman (and mother) who is clearly more successful than them rubbed in their faces everyday. Jacinda cannot, ever, be given a break for fear these angry white men night find themselves culturally marginalised. And these are the same chummy journo mate types who spent nine years making excuses and running interference for John Key.

    Garner, Richardson, Hosking, et al – they make me sick.

    • mickysavage 2.1

      Yep but it is interesting that Gower is such a fan.

      The media seem to be quite divided on Jacinda’s merits which is interesting because ever since Clark it has seemed that they have been dominated by anti Labour leader views.

      • Sanctuary 2.1.1

        My pet theory is it is all about how men handle the onset of middle age in the mid to late 40s.

        Some do it well, but others – especially those who fancy themselves as alpha types – grow increasingly agitated at the thought of the dominant old tusker (i.e. them) being forced out of their central position in the herd by some young thruster and/or – God forbid – a female.

        it colours their world view, and their positions of power mean we all get to see their middle aged crisis get played out.

      • tc 2.1.2

        It’s an intrigue in itself watching the establishment hacks play the DP v2.0 game.

        It’s a popular incumbent PM and a working mother who is not from their ‘team’.

        Some are playing it smart (Paddy) whereas most of them come across as bitter sad older hacks (Soper etc) along with the usual opinionated fairly low brow talking heads like richo ‘s sporty shock jock routine.

        People aren’t as stupid as some of the msm are treating them. IMO a public broadcaster is now or never.

        Even the liberals pulled back across the ditch and removed the ABC CEO they installed 2+ years ago. Election looming over there and trashing the national broadcaster’s electorally toxic so time to look like they care even if they don’t.

        • shadrach 2.1.2.1

          We have a ‘public broadcaster’ now. And why would a ‘public broadcaster’ also not carry voices you don’t agree with? Or are you suggesting a ‘public broadcaster’ would simply toe a party line? Kim Hill certainly doesn’t.

          • Muttonbird 2.1.2.1.1

            It’s been long debunked that TVNZ is public broadcaster in any true sense. True public broadcasting, like public health or public education is not for profit but TVNZ while publicly funded is commercial in that it must provide dividends and compete in a commercial sense. This then forces its content to be of a commercial nature and not ‘public’ in any sense whatsoever.

            I guess we can be thankful that we are not in Australia. Malcolm Turnbull complained about ABC’s coverage and the CEO then fired those critical of him. I’m guessing that’s partly because our TVNZ never criticised the last National government too much. But was John Campbell fired from Mediaworks after a similar request from John Key?

            You be the judge…

            • shadrach 2.1.2.1.1.1

              Public Broadcasting is simply broadcasting whose primary purpose is to provide a public service. That can easily coexist with commercial imperatives, in fact I would argue that the majority of taxpayers who do not partake of public broadcasting should not have to subsidise the ones who do.

              • AB

                The purpose of public broadcasting is to protect democracy by providing an information service that is not corrupted by private money. It cannot possibly coexist with commercial imperatives.

                • shadrach

                  Democracy does not need ‘protecting’ by public broadcasting. Given that State broadcasting has been used in various countries to protect despots and murderers, it is more likely democracy needs protecting ‘from’ public broadcasting.

                  • In Vino

                    Utter garbage, shadrach.
                    Despots do not have Public Broadcasting – they have state-controlled propaganda outlets. Only an open democracy can have a proper Public Broadcasting system with legal protection from undue influence from anyone at all.
                    You appear to want a market-led privatised system. Which rapidly leads to a system where all media are controlled by the share-holding class.
                    That leads to censorship and propaganda just as bad as that of the despots.
                    Get that?

                    • shadrach

                      “Despots do not have Public Broadcasting – they have state-controlled propaganda outlets.”
                      AKA public broadcasting. After all, it is disagreement with current opinion expressed on commercial radio that is driving the call for more public broadcasting. Any voice is good, as long as you agree with it, is that it

                      “You appear to want a market-led privatised system. Which rapidly leads to a system where all media are controlled by the share-holding class.”
                      No, I am quite happy with public broadcasting, but I don’t see why taxpayers have to pay for it when commercial interests will through advertising.

                    • In Vino

                      shadrach – your response is even more garbage. Try to understand what you have read before replying, when you make it clear that you have understood nothing at all.
                      Commercial interests paying through advertising is exactly what destroys the possible quality of good, balanced reporting, because … oh, grow up.

                  • AB

                    The fact that its purpose can be perverted, does not mean that its purpose does not exist. Nor does it mean that such perversion is inevitable.

                    Moreover, democracy always needs protecting from private money – because the goal of democracy is to reduce the power of one individual over another, while the goal of private money is always to increase it.

                    • shadrach

                      “The fact that its purpose can be perverted, does not mean that its purpose does not exist. Nor does it mean that such perversion is inevitable.”

                      I agree. And nor does it mean that it cannot coexist with commercial interests and imperatives. For example, programs paid for by public funds appearing on commercial outlets.

                      “Moreover, democracy always needs protecting from private money – because the goal of democracy is to reduce the power of one individual over another, while the goal of private money is always to increase it.”
                      The goal of democracy is to provide electoral equality, not in any way to “reduce the power of one individual over another” per se.

            • tc 2.1.2.1.1.2

              The main focus of a public broadcaster is preserving a national identity, done via content production across the spectrum.

              TVNZ could be returned to this cultural and industry building role. Producing TV with a NZ voice for NZ has many other benefits, we used to be good at this.

              We’re headed toward saturation of the reality, celebrity, voyeuristic dross unless a stake is placed in the ground soon imo.

      • murray jones 2.1.3

        It’s all a beat up anyway. The Nats set the NZ record for crossing the line so it’s like the pot calling the kettle black.In plain terms Jacinda never promised Handley anything so what’s all the fuss about?

    • Rob 2.2

      Not just white males but a whole lot of beltway types with little news to comment on or investigate
      We had the Guyon and Bryce show this morning, then there is the Audrey spot and the Jane standup on RNZ is always predictable,
      Almost makes Bishop seem like he is as relaxed as the Adams family

  3. Lucy 3

    The Handley affair is a nothing about nothing. In IT it is not unheard of to have a job rescinded – normally you get 4 weeks in lieu of not getting job even after you have signed the contract. His main beef seems to be he was talking to officials and he was used to dealing with “more senior people”. His petulance and complete lack of professionalism once it was clear that he was not getting the job show how unfit he was, as many IT people had been pointing out.

    • JanM 3.1

      “The Handley affair is a nothing about nothing”. I absolutely agree, Lucy – I don’t know why we continue to give it oxygen.
      I don’t think we need to keep responding to the likes of Shadrach who I don’t think are offering a sincere opinion so much as continuing to stir the pot in an attempt to continue to engage the serious dimwits who support this nonsense. I suspect by now we are down to the right wing ninnies who would vote National ‘if it was a dead horse’ (quote from Brian Talboys about a conversation he had as a newbie when feeling nervous)

      • Anne 3.1.1

        It’s all they’ve got to bash her with JanM.

        With Jacinda once again making such a huge impression on the world stage, they are demonstrably shaking with rage and jealousy.

        Hell hath no fury etc. – in reverse.

    • Gabby 3.2

      That’s the impression all right, miffed he couldn’t go to the top dog and sort out the job over avocado and spirulina.

    • Chris T 3.3

      The guy moved his family from NY for the job, only even got an apology 2 days ago and still hasn’t been given a reason.

      He has a right to be annoyed

      And while rescinded may not be unheard of they are hardly a common thing

      • veutoviper 3.3.1

        Handley did NOT move his family from NY for the job.

        Long before he applied for the CTO job in mid 2018, Handley had made it clear that he wanted to return to NZ to live – and planned to do so in 2019 at the latest.

        Here is a link to an indepth interview with Handley which appeared in The Listener in March 2018 –
        https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/profiles/derek-handley-talks-trump-business-and-coming-home/

        There is a lot in there about his intention to come back to NZ. And in the section where he is asked where he lives in the US, his reply included the following:

        “…We moved there from Brooklyn in July. We wanted to spend more time at our house there before moving home to New Zealand next year.”

      • Gabby 3.3.2

        Moved on spec christy? Bit risky.

    • Ngungukai 3.4

      Looks like Jacinda dodged a bullet not taking this clown on the Government Payroll ?

  4. simbit 4

    To coin a phrase, she’s blowing up, bigger than Ben Hur. In years to come, more people will claim to have voted for her in her first election than were actually enrolled. Girl babies will be called ‘Jacinda’ and boy babies ‘Ardern’. Read it here first folks…

    • Anne 4.1

      You remind me of the aftermath of the Muldoon years when the political sleuths of the day could find no-one who ever voted for him.

      • McFlock 4.1.1

        lol and the longer he’s been dead, the more people boldly stood up to him 🙂

        • Anne 4.1.1.1

          Yeah. Nobody liked him. It wasn’t them wot fell for the great superannuation bribe. Y’know, the one wot we’re still paying the price for… 43 years later.

  5. infused 5

    What a shit show.

    The problem is Jacinda speaks this way whenever she seems to be caught out. That is the pattern that is emerging, and why the trust is diminishing.

  6. cleangreen 6

    National + use of ‘undermining NZ’ are a perfect couple.

    Dangerous Political Party National are now.

    National = Showing deperation.

  7. Stuart Munro 7

    It would be interesting if someone were to walk through a comparison between Key’s brain fades and outright lies over the appointment of Ian Fletcher. I suspect some of those trying to sell a false analogy could use the reminder.

    • JanM 7.1

      They wouldn’t give a toss – this isn’t about whether or not the right thing has been done, this is just dirty politics – whatever it takes to come out on top! I am so sick of these ethic-free low-lifes!!!

      • Stuart Munro 7.1.1

        It’s true that the Gnats don’t care – but their media toadies know they shed popularity every time they try to sell a lie like this – they may develop an aversion to being seen to be one-eyed promoters of a failed and dishonest regime.

  8. Observer Tokoroa 8

    .
    Media in Death Roll

    The low IQs that are in fact the ungifted mob that parade their daily shit on NZ Media, have done nothing for the people of New Zealand. Nothing.

    Nothing. Zilch. Unproductive parasites. Nothingness is their pile.

    Their main aim has always been to get a night with Billy English and a Month with Mr Pigtail Key. The Media men as much as the blue girls.

    But Jacinda, has given People actual Warmth. She is providing the people with Housing. Jacinda is setting about making tertiary education affordable. Higher Wages. And much more.

    The People of New Zealand find their Media despicable.
    The Media like the trolls on here, are even lower than National Turds.

    Gower, who has a mind and a brain is the only Media personage who knows the truth about the Ability and Wisdom of our Prime Minister.

    By by Media. Take your rubbish and clean yourselves up – if that is at all possible.
    .

  9. Observer Tokoroa 9

    Hi Mickey Savage

    Was Handley pestering Jacinda to give him a job.

    She kept saying it was not appropriate for her to offer jobs to this one or that.

    That’s what corrupt Nationals do. John Pigtails Key – did that.

  10. Cynical Jester 10

    Wouldn’t it be great if Politicals could simply admit when they messed up rather than going to attack mode? Whether by accident or not I believe she misled parliament here and her response to it was classic john key.

    Remember Key , the guy we attacked for years for misleading parliament and the grief we rightly gave him by giving his mates jobs like GCSB head?

    Ardern has said that this guy was just an aquentince which again rings untrue based off the texts.

    I’m not bashing Ardern bit had Key done the same thing we would be calling for his resignation and considering that, don’t expect national to drop this lime of attack.

    Ardern needs to do better in her awnswers and someone needs to confiscate all phones from the labour caucus.

    I’ll get attacked but the fact we would be frothing at the mouth is this was a tory pm but defend a labour pm makes us look like hypocrites only interested in party politics

    • Observer Tokoroa 10.1

      You missing the man you love Cynical Jester ?

      The guy that ran away from you…

      Pity about the flag – did you cry over that too ? Hope you helped John with his fetishes – even if they involved little girls.

    • greywarshark 10.2

      Yes ‘fess up give a laugh, define it, ‘It wasn’t important” and say that ‘My time is spent on understanding what is the best thing for NZ today and going forward’.
      A nice mixture of honesty and judgment and a reminder of what the job is about.
      That would be better than the assetions of perfect honesty and clinging onto a sharp image. We can do without that after reading about the top banana at A2.
      Save us from super-smart women.

  11. veutoviper 11

    An interesting report from Chris Bramwell RNZ which was mentioned in the Midday News was that Ardern had a quick talk about tariffs with Trump last night at a function Trump and his wife hosted.

    https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/367283/pm-has-brief-talk-on-tariffs-with-trump-at-un

    But I have to admit that I did laugh when the article mentioned the following:

    ” Ms Ardern also said her partner Clarke Gayford knocked over a flag when they met the Mr Trump and his wife Melania at the reception.

    Ms Ardern told reporters that at the reception there was an expectation to have a photograph taken on the way in to the event.

    “So I took that opportunity to have that brief conversation during that moment. Clarke took that opportunity to knock down a flag which was rather unfortunate. I didn’t notice which flag, he’s just got wide elbows I think.”

    It’s understood Melania Trump told Clarke Gayford not to worry about the flag, saying it was okay.”

    The sort of thing we have all been known to do by accident at some point in our lives! LOL.

  12. Ad 12

    We’re a very small country that still craves the reassurance of the global media.

    We are getting that reassurance in such volumes that there is seriously nothing Bridges or anyone else could do about it.

    The question for me remains what of any substance New Zealand’s diplomatic and business communities can make of it to tangibly benefit New Zealand.

    We don’t yet know what to do with her. We need to.

  13. Ad “Do with her” ??? Bit paternalistic don’t you think??

    • Ad 13.1

      No.

      We look through the stardust faster than the rest of the world because it is in our interests to do so.

  14. Brutus Iscariot 14

    I’ve been pretty impressed with her conduct in New York

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12131994

    Would have been easy to jump on the bandwagon and put the boot in, but she remained respectful and diplomatic. This will do New Zealand credit in the long term, regardless of who is in the White House.

  15. Ngungukai 15

    Most NZ’ers do not give a Flying F%&k about Handley and his IT job with the Government this is a MSM beat up by the Natzis and their cronies in MSM. Crosby Textor will have their grubby little fingers in there somewhere ?

    • roy cartland 15.1

      +1

      Gotta say, once again, that these are the most boring political ‘scandals’ ever. Didn’t use the right email? May have sent an emoji?? Had a meeting without putting in your diary???

      Seriously, National’s clutching is really pathetic. The bullying angle might have had some traction; if only their ex-leader wasn’t a pony-tail-pulling sexual harasser and their shadow house-leader hadn’t screamed at a receptionist or their ONLY policy wasn’t to punish homeless people for false meth results.

  16. Observer Tokoroa 16

    Ad – You Corpse

    You seem to have no substance.

    No Grace

    No Solutions

    No Nothing

    Take your negativity to your sad place and die !

  17. Ankerrawshark 17

    Hey obersvor tokoroa…. that’s a little bit strong.

    What did ad say thattriggered this?

  18. Timeforacupoftea 18

    ( You can tell Clarke [Gayford] is enjoying it. And I think it’s great and we’ve got to embrace it.” )

    You can tell the fish mongers boyfriend was out o his depth bringing baby N at the wrong time when the Prime minister was far to busy.
    But then she has to be liberal on him as the salmon only run once a year in NY and he did after all plan this trip to coincide !

  19. Ngungukai 19

    Jacinda knocking it out of the park in New York ?

  20. murray jones 20

    It’s all a beat up anyway. The Nats set the NZ record for crossing the line so it’s like the pot calling the kettle black.In plain terms Jacinda never promised Handley anything so what’s all the fuss about?

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Maintaining momentum for small business innovation
    Small Business Minister Stuart Nash says the report of the Small Business Council will help maintain the momentum for innovation and improvements in the sector. Mr Nash has thanked the members of the Small Business Council (SBC) who this week handed over their report, Empowering small businesses to aspire, succeed ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Seventy-eight new Police constables
    Extra Police officers are being deployed from Northland to Southland with the graduation of a new wing of recruits from the Royal New Zealand Police College. “The graduation of 78 constables today means that 1524 new constables have been deployed since the government took office,” says Police Minister Stuart Nash. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Tax refund season ends near $600 million
    Almost $600 million has been paid into taxpayers’ bank accounts in the past two months, after the first season of automatic tax assessments. Revenue Minister Stuart Nash says the completion of this year’s tax refund season is a significant milestone. “The ability of Inland Revenue to run auto calculations for ...
    3 weeks ago