When British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond told us we were "family" this week, on his whistle-stop tour to encourage the New Zealand government to join a military coalition in the fight against Isis, I think I know what he meant.
He meant we're the bogan cousins everyone's loathe to invite to weddings and birthdays. We're the ones who will spill beer on the carpet, belch during speeches and horribly upset the great aunts by playing pocket billiards while talking to them.
On the plus side, if you wanted someone to find you a cut-price wide-screen television, well, we're the lads for you. And we're bloody good in a fight.
But family as in sitting at the top table? Family as in being all for one and one for all? There's no way the Brits consider us that sort of family.
Because while Hammond was telling us the British had got used to having New Zealanders alongside them in wars and that we have to confront the threat of Isis together, he was also telling our government there was nothing he could do to get visa restrictions loosened for New Zealand citizens, allowing a new generation of Kiwis to enjoy the OE that was a thoroughly educational part of their grandparents' lives.
Much as he'd like Kiwi professionals working and living in the UK, he couldn't see it happening for at least a decade.
But in the meantime, if we could see our way clear to delivering 100 Kiwi "military trainers", he'd be most grateful.
As it stands, those who the "family" was fighting against - Germans, Austrians, Italians - have more rights than Commonwealth citizens when it comes to living and working in Britain.
And anyone who has stood in the kilometres-long queues at Heathrow for others and aliens will no doubt have experienced the same resentment I did as I watched citizens of the European nations waltz through Customs as members of the European Union.
If Hammond wants to enlist members of the family to fight against Isis, surely his new family is the EU? We're the family Britain left behind when it went off in the 70s to forge an exciting life with its seductive and exotic European mistress.
There is no doubt that Isis is an appalling entity. When even the leaders of al-Qaeda think it goes too far, you know you're dealing with evil. The latest atrocity, the burning alive of Jordanian pilot Muath al-Kaseasbeh in a metal cage, is almost pornographic in its sadism. A bit like the Jesuits during the Inquisition who invented ever more revolting torture machines that appeared to have nothing to do with saving souls. It was more about truly sick individuals getting their rocks off while people suffered agonies.
So I have no problem in supporting action against Isis.
The issue is what form that action takes. Don't think the war is going to be won on the ground. Maybe, just maybe, the military coalition of 20-odd countries who have been asked to train the Iraqi forces so they can rout Isis will do such a brilliant job that it will be expunged from the planet and consigned to the history books. But I doubt it.
There needs to be a multi-pronged attack. Cutting off the funding for the terrorist group should be the priority.
Wealthy individuals in Qatar and Saudi Arabia are funnelling huge amounts of money into Isis and they need to be stopped. Sanctions need to be imposed on countries that are tacit supporters of Isis or that have powerful individuals within their borders who are helping fund the terror campaign.
Support and aid must be given to countries coping with the millions of refugees homeless from the fighting. And yes, I suppose the Iraqi military must be "trained".
But we can make our own decision about what help we ought to give in the fight against Isis. We don't need insincere brothers-in-arms bollocks from a hit-and-run British politician.
We can stand on our own two feet. We learned to do that after Britain cut us off.
• Kerre McIvor is on Newstalk ZB, Monday-Thursday, 8pm-midnight.