Bridges on Woodhouse and Collins on Chelsea Manning

Simon Bridges was asked whether he backed Michael Woodhouse saying as Immigration Minister he would not let Chelsea Manning come to New Zealand to speak, and whether he backed Judith Collins promoting what some have claimed is fake news.

Morning report (RNZ):

Suzi Ferguson: On Chelsea Manning, Michael Woodhouse said he would have denied the visa if he was the minister. Do you back his comments that Chelsea Manning shouldn’t have been able to come to New Zealand?

Simon Bridges: He’s got strong views on that and he’s entitled to them. What I would say is pretty simple. Actually I don’t care where you are on the spectrum, whether you’re hard left, hard right, freedom of speech matters and you should be able to do that. Al of that said, I do think there’s an issue of the immigration rules here.

Now if Chelsea Manning is allowed too come to New Zealand on the rules, good for her. She should get out there and say what wants from the rooftop.

If though what the Government has done is bent the rules for her, I would like to understand why that is, I think it’s a slightly different issue to the free speech one, but look, I feel strongly about, um and I’ll stake my claim on.

Suzi Ferguson: What about Judith Colins comments that Chelsea Manning was a traitor whose actions led to people losing their lives or having them put in danger? That’s not actually true, so do you support her using fake news again?

Simon Bridges: Well I haven’t gone through and read Chelsea Manning’s Wikipedia page, I don’t know the ins and outs of everything that she done.

My basic sense of it is though, she was convicted of very serious crimes. Now President Obama commuted those sentences, but serious matters and that’s really my point.

Bridges trying to divert and seeming to avoid answering.

Free speech is incredibly important, but you also have to have rules…

Suzi Ferguson: Do you back her using fake news though, because it’s not the first time in the last few weeks?

Simon Bridges: I would argue it’s not fake news actually if you look at what Chelsea Manning’s history is and what has happened there. Judith Collins is entitled to say what she said.

Suzi Ferguson: Ok, that’s not actually what was every proven in court.

Ferguson moved on to another topic (identifying the leaker of Bridges’ expenses) and Bridges also left it at that and moved on.

That’s some fairly tame questioning and some vague and weak responses from Bridges.

 

 

26 Comments

  1. robertguyton

     /  September 3, 2018

    Bridges’ most besets line to date:
    “I feel strongly about, um ”
    What a wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed…Nat.

    • robertguyton

       /  September 3, 2018

      most bestest

    • Corky

       /  September 3, 2018

      Yeah,but…if he was like Trumpy you still wouldn’t be happy. Bridges made some good points. His problem is his indecision..cowardliness if you must. Instead of just saying Manning is a traitor and this isn’t a freedom of speech matter, he just continued to dribble on.

  2. robertguyton

     /  September 3, 2018

    “I would argue it’s not fake news actually if you look at what Chelsea Manning’s history is and what has happened there.”
    Good grief! Earlier in the interview Bridges said:
    “Well I haven’t gone through and read Chelsea Manning’s Wikipedia page, I don’t know the ins and outs of everything that she done.”
    Breath-takingly incompetent.

    • Gezza

       /  September 3, 2018

      Fucken hopeless. He’s got to go. He might as well not have bothered to be interviewed. They’d have done better talking to Woodhouse or Collins directly. At least they’d have a fecking position on it.

      • Gezza

         /  September 3, 2018

        Look, robert, let’s be frank – this character is going to be bloody useless at kicking Green NZF and Labour arses. Who do you think they’ve got who would be better at it?

        • robertguyton

           /  September 3, 2018

          I reckon they’ll have to bring John back.
          He’s all they’ve got had.
          Perhaps they could offer him a Higher Title; “Sir-Sir John”?

          • Gezza

             /  September 3, 2018

            Well … I dunno, but the Papacy’s obviously out.

            • Gezza

               /  September 3, 2018

              Hang on. I’ll have a look at their list. They might need to find someone who’s achieved nothing at all of any consequence yet & who can get pregnant at the right time just before the election if they want to stay competitive.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 3, 2018

              Another go at shaking hands with Richie (he buggered up the first one)?
              Season ticket to the national pony-tail convention?

            • robertguyton

               /  September 3, 2018

              Yeah, good idea, scan the list…all of them qualify for the first criteria, all of the males for the second right off and Jude’s a gonna there to I’m guessing. Would Bill come back? I’ve read he’s had 6 children already and he’s Catholic.

            • Gezza

               /  September 3, 2018

              Now I think you’re just being ridiculous. Keep it real please. I’m struggling with it.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 3, 2018

              Yeah, sorry Gezza, you’re right. I got a bit soar-y after reading Bridges dishonest froth.
              It’s awkward and difficult. My gut instinct says there’s no one but I feel for the likes of yourself who don’t want to believe it’s all over. Is there some banker somewhere on the periphery of the party willing to be parachuted in, pimped up by the media and who parrots lines with aplomb? It’s an unlikely scenario, true, but stranger things have happened.

            • Gezza

               /  September 3, 2018

              Dunno. I think we of the great unwashed might have done our dash with bankers. And feckin expensive golfers. Gotta be someone who can explode out of nowhere and take the country by storm. Making New Zealand great again, sort of thing.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 3, 2018

              Neve?

            • Gezza

               /  September 3, 2018

              Too inexperienced yet.
              Beauden Barrett maybe.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 3, 2018

              Hmmmm….maybe so.

            • Gezza

               /  September 3, 2018

              Mike Hosking.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 3, 2018

              I thought Simon Bridges was Mike Hosking!
              Dang!

            • Gezza

               /  September 3, 2018

              Nup. I reckon I’ve cracked it for National. Mike could make a fortune on merchandising on the side – he could even get away with wearing I Like Mike buttons & T-shirts himself. Nobody would think that was odd for him.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 3, 2018

              It’s settled then!
              I’m off to bed. Can’t say I’m not a little disappointed.

            • Gezza

               /  September 3, 2018

              Sweet dreams.
              I never sleep. 😳

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  September 3, 2018

      Bridges just makes you cringe, doesn’t he? Why on earth did the caucus elect him? They can’t possibly stick with him until the election. There’s got to be someone with a thought worth articulating instead.

      • Gezza

         /  September 3, 2018

        I know. God they must be slapping their foreheads all the time.

  3. robertguyton

     /  September 3, 2018

    Whaddabout…. a team approach to the Nat leadership!
    A three-way!
    Make the news and a precedent has been set…

  1. Bridges on Woodhouse and Collins on Chelsea Manning — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition