Stuff reports:

President Trump’s threat to retaliate against France’s “digital services tax” demonstrates the big risk that New Zealand would be taking if it decided to press ahead with a near identical tax on technology multinationals, tax experts are warning. …

Trump responded in a tweet on Saturday that the US government would impose “substantial retaliatory action”, hinting that could include tariffs on French wine.

The New Zealand government has been consulting on imposing a similar 3 per cent tax on the New Zealand revenues of technology giants such as Google, Facebook, Airbnb and Uber.
That tax would be in addition to the taxes that the New Zealand subsidiaries of those technology multinationals already pay on their local profits.

A tax on revenue instead of profits is simply wrong. And as we have seen with France would encourage the US to respond with special tariffs against NZ companies. We would lose massively.

The proposal has hit a wall of opposition from tax experts.
Government officials have previously cautioned the proposed digital services tax could breach international trade rules or tax agreements and invite retaliation, and PWC tax partner Geof Nightingale said Trump’s response showed that risk of retaliation was real.
Trump’s tweet was evidence of the “exact risk” that New Zealand tax practitioners were worried about, he said.

I doubt even this Government is so stupid that it will proceed. Time will tell though.

David Seymour released:

“The End of Life Choice Bill has always been a safe bill as it was designed in line with international Best Practice, contains numerous safeguards and was considered “tightly circumscribed” by the Attorney-General.”
“This SOP has been developed in consultation with Members of Parliament and a range of organisations to allay valid concerns and I am confident that this SOP will receive support from the greatest number of Members of Parliament to ensure a safe and efficient passage of the Bill through Committee of the whole House.”
“I am asking those who support giving compassion and choice to New Zealanders suffering at the end of their life to support these amendments, and New Zealand First’s proposed referendum amendment, while opposing all others. This course of action will ensure a coherent policy outcome and a straightforward Committee of the whole House stage for the bill.

“Some supporters may be disappointed that this SOP will create one of the most conservative assisted dying regimes in the world, but I have listened to concerns from supporters and opponents and have developed them into a high-quality amendment that compliments the Bill as introduced.”
In summary, the major changes are:
• To restrict the Bill only to those with a terminal illness, judged by two doctors independent of each other, to be likely to end the person’s life within six months.
• Explicitly stating, for the avoidance of all doubt, that a person is not eligible for assisted dying by reason only that the person has a disability of any kind, is suffering from any form of mental illness or mental disorder or is of an advanced age.
• To include a more detailed criteria for the assessment of a person’s mental competency.
• Explicitly stating that a health practitioner must not initiate a discussion about assisted dying with any patient or suggest to any patient that the person should exercise the option of assisted dying.
• Explicitly stating for the avoidance of all doubt that no person can choose to have an assisted death through an expression in an advanced directive, will, contract, or other agreement, or through a welfare guardian acting for that person.
• Providing for the eligible person, as long as they retain competency, to be able to change the date and time of the administration of medication for a period of up to six months.
The SOP can be found here.

These amendments do indeed make the proposed regime extremely narrow and conservative.

No one can be found eligible for euthanasia unless two independent doctors both certify the person is likely to die within six months. In fact to qualify the person must meet all the following criteria:

1. Be aged 18 years or older
2. Be a citizen or permanent resident
3. suffer from a terminal illness likely to end their life within six months
4. be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in physical capability
5. experiences unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner that the person considers tolerable
6. is competent to make an informed decision about assisted dying

Now again to qualify you must meet all of the above, not one or some of them. So again this is a very narrow and conservative regime proposed.

I hope David Seymour’s amendments are adopted, so that the bill will get supported at third reading.

Otaki MP Nathan Guy has announced he will retire at the 2020 election. He’s been an MP for 14 years so has had a decent spell, including terms as Minister of Internal Affairs, Immigration and Primary Industries.

Nathan is one of the most likeable MPs around. A great guy with a lovely family. He will be missed.

Otaki is a moderately safe seat, with a 6,156 majority. I imagine there will be some good candidates put their hand up for the nomination.

Ben Thomas writes at Stuff:

The 33 hectares at Ihumātao were confiscated as a result of the New Zealand Wars in the 19th century. In Tauranga, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Taranaki and parts of Hawke’s Bay around 3.4 million acres were taken, 40,000 times as much. …

Ihaumātao is – sadly – unexceptional in this respect.
That is why the return of the land to iwi by the Crown, as some activists are demanding, is not a tenable option for the government.
Historical settlements in Auckland (mostly, but not entirely complete) have been a delicate balancing act between around two dozen iwi with overlapping and sometimes competing interests, requiring compromise from all sides on the crowded isthmus. Te Kawarau a Maki settled its historical claims in 2015.

And the idea of the settlements is the local Iwi gains financial resources so it can then decide how to invest them. They can then buy back land that has particular value to them. Or invest in companies. Or invest in local initiatives to create jobs etc.

If the government was seen to come in and effectively re-open full and final settlements with a multi-million dollar gift of land, the successful historical Treaty settlement process would start to unravel.

Other Iwi would take this as a green light. It would create a huge precedent.

The only way around it I can see is if the Crown buys the land off Fletchers and creates a public park. Damn expensive park that probably no one will ever go to. But that avoids it being seen as a Treaty settlement outside the agreed framework.

Laura Walters at Newsroom reports:

AUT cancelled a Tiananmen Square anniversary event after Chinese Government officials contacted the university to tell them not to go ahead with the commemorations.
The university said the event was cancelled due to a booking issue, not because of China’s request. This is not the first time representatives from the Chinese Government have tried to block a contentious event, and it’s not the first time a New Zealand university has cited booking issues as the reason for cancellation.
Emails released to Newsroom under the Official Information Act show the Chinese Consulate General in Auckland contacted AUT to express their opposition to an event commemorating the 30th anniversary of Tiananmen Square, due to be held on June 3.
Vice Consul General Xiao Yewen met with Vice Chancellor Derek McCormack on May 31.
Following the meeting, AUT notified the staff member who had booked the room that the booking had been cancelled.

This is just outrageous. Another university that just shows lip service to freedom of speech and expression.

Newshub reports:

Jacinda Ardern has personally tried to prevent media from asking about the Ihumātao dispute while on a charm offensive in the Pacific.
Her staff threatened journalists with restricted access to the PM if they did, forcing her Beehive team to intervene from Wellington. 
After crisis calls from the capital, media were allowed a second shot.

Most open and transparent government ever!

It shows the pressure must be immense for her staff to be so stupid as to try and dictate to media that they are forbidden from asking her about the dominant political story in New Zealand.

If only they were more polite such as British Vogue, who never ask pesky questions.

The latest poll is from One News Colmar Brunton. Key details are:

• National 45% (+1%)
• Labour 43% (+1%)
• Greens 6% (nc)
• NZ First 3% (-2%)
• ACT 1% (nc)

This poll was taken the week before National’s annual conference. A remarkably good result for National after 21 months of opposition.

Sure Labour/Greens remain ahead. But people forget election campaigns matter and to date it doesn’t look like the Government will have delivered much to campaign on. All National needs to do is take 2% off Labour or 1% off the Greens and they’re in Government.

For Preferred PM it is:

• Jacinda Ardern 41% (-4%)
• Simon Bridges 6% (+1%)
• Judith Collins 6% (nc)
• Winston Peters 2% (-3%)
• Christopher Luxon 1% (+1%)

Martin van Beynen writes:

Ellis worked as a childcare worker at the Christchurch Civic Creche. In 1991, an allegation by one of his charges eventually escalated into a police investigation in which about 120 children were interviewed by specialist Social Welfare Department interviewers. About 40 children reported some form of abuse, some of it mundane, some of it fantastical and bizarre, featuring infanticide and cannibalism. …

As a youngish court reporter, I saw the videos, listened to the children in court and heard all the evidence. My view was the accounts emerging from the interviews of the children were totally unreliable. It just seemed common sense.
The first problem was the lead-up to the interviews. Some of the parents were networking and had already asked their children leading questions before their specialist interviews. Some children had talked to each other.
The social welfare interviews were professional enough for the time but the children were hardly ever challenged, no matter how fanciful their answers. If the answers were inconsistent or incoherent, then they would be asked again in more elaborate form until an acceptable answer was elicited.
In many interviews it was not so much about believing the children but believing the children only when an implausible answer became more plausible. If they did not disclose or were unclear, they were brought back for more interviews. The children, most between 5 and 8, were recalling events from two or three years earlier. 
Interviewers fed them tidied-up summaries of their most plausible stories and then told them to continue. As the interviews continued, allegations became more bizarre, as though the children believed they had to perform better to satisfy the adults. Some almost begged for the interviews to end.
The quality of evidence rendered the convictions against Peter Ellis not only unsafe but farcical.

Not just unsafe, but farcical. And that is from someone who sat through the evidence.

UN Watch reports:

Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Pakistan were among members of the UN’s 54-nation economic and social council, a principal organ of the world body, who voted to single out and condemn Israel yesterday as the only country in the world that violates women’s rights.
The Jewish state was harshly and repeatedly condemned in a resolution, adopted 40 to 2 with 9 abstentions and 3 absent (see breakdown below), for allegedly being the “major obstacle” for Palestinian women “with regard to their advancement, self-reliance, and integration in the development of their society.”
Out of 20 items on the UN Economic and Social Council’s 2018-2019 agenda, only one — Item No. 16 against Israel — focuses on condemning a specific country. All the other focus areas concern global topics such as disaster relief assistance and the use of science and technology for development.
The resolution completely ignores how Palestinian women’s rights are impacted by their own governing authorities—the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, and Hamas in Gaza—nor does it mention how women are discriminated against within patriarchal Palestinian society.
Moreover, ECOSOC concluded its annual session by ignoring the world’s worst abusers of women’s rights, refusing to pass a single resolution on the situation of women in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, or DR Congo, all of which ranked in the top ten worst countries in last year’s Global Gender Gap Report, produced by the World Economic Forum.

Being condemned by Saudi Arabia for your record on women should be seen as high praise.

Human Progress blogs:

Former Vice President, and Democratic presidential nominee hopeful, Joe Biden, has recently placed the “point of no return” even sooner, in just 12 years’ time. “[H]ow we act or fail to act in the next 12 years will determine the very livability of our planet,” he said earlier this week.
 
Environmental problems are certainly real, but alarmists do a disservice to the cause of tackling those challenges when they use cataclysmic language to describe the near future.
 
As Harvard University’s Steven Pinker noted in his book Enlightenment Now, psychological research has shown that “people are likelier to accept the fact of global warming when they are told that the problem is solvable by innovations in policy and technology than when they are given dire warnings about how awful it will be”.
 
But instead of focusing on solutions, like nuclear power, which does not emit CO2, and other technological breakthroughs that have the potential to reduce carbon emissions, some well-meaning people resort to apocalyptic rhetoric. Humanity has reached the “point of no return” many times already, according to past doomsayers.
 
In 2006, Al Gore warned that unless drastic measures were taken “within the next 10 years,” the world would “reach a point of no return.” That would place “the point of no return” in 2016.
 
Thirty years ago, in 1989, an unidentified senior U.N. environmental official told the Associated Press that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels” if drastic action was not taken by the year 2000. The ocean has not swallowed any nations since his prognostication.
 
In 1982, executive director of the U.N. Environment Program Mostafa Tolba said that lack of action by the year 2000 would bring “an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible, as any nuclear holocaust.” His prediction of an environmental “nuclear holocaust” in just 18 years failed to materialize.
 
Back in 1970, Harvard University biologist George Wald claimed that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” His prediction would place the end of civilization sometime between 1985 and 2000.
 
Also in 1970, North Texas State University philosopher Peter Gunter wrote, “By the year 2000, 30 years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
 
In 1969, Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich said, “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” It is a good thing he did not put down money on that proposition, or he would have had to pay out 31 years later. (In fact, it would have served his bank account well to stay away from wagers entirely).
 
The frequency of hyperbolic, failed predictions of catastrophe would be more amusing if they were not so damaging to the public’s perception of real environmental challenges, including climate change.
 
Fortunately, there are also many environmentalists who hold a less pessimistic and more realistic view. Rockefeller University professor Jesse H. Ausubel, who was integral to setting up the world’s first climate change conference in Geneva in 1979, has shown how technological progress allows nature to rebound. For example, increasing crop yields to produce more food with less land reduces the environmental impact of agriculture. In fact, if farmers worldwide reach the productivity level of the average US farmer, humanity will be able to return a landmass the size of India back to nature.
 
In addition to technological progress, economic development can also help protect the environment. As people rise out of extreme poverty, they often come to care more about environmental stewardship. The incredible decline in Chinese poverty spurred by economic liberalisation, for example, has coincided with better preservation of forests. China had 511,807 more square kilometres of forest in 2015 than it did in 1990. Once a country reaches around $4,500 in GDP per capita, forest area starts to rebound. This is called the “forest transition” or, more broadly, the “environmental Kuznets curve”.
 
Many other such reasons for optimism exist. Yet the new report’s “2050 scenario finds a world in social breakdown and outright chaos,” David Spratt, the research director at the Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration, told Vice.
 
Not to be outdone in pessimism, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has predicted that “the world is going to end in 12 years” without urgent action, rather than in 31 years’ time.
 
In the year 353, a bishop called Hilary of Poitiers also predicted that the world would end in just 12 years, in 365. It is a safe bet that Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez’s forecast ends up as inaccurate as his was.

They don’t understand that hysteria doesn’t convince people.

Stuff reports:

The 47-year-old man appeared in the Hutt Valley District Court on Saturday morning following the midnight melee, in which police responded to what they called reports of a ‘steamroller’ being used to damage vehicles that had congregated at an industrial site. 

Someone online quipped that not all heroes wear capes.

Of course he will face legal sanction for what he did. But I suspect a few of the neighbours may chip in to help pay his costs.

By coincidence the following night the number of boy racers dropped from 90 to around 10.

Stuff reported:

Support Women’s Sport Basin Reserve – the name doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue but that could be the new name for Wellington’s historic cricket ground.
A $100,000 fundraising drive has kicked off to get two years of naming rights for the Basin Reserve.
The move, to rename it Support Women’s Sport Basin Reserve, has the support of Wellington Mayor Justin Lester and councillor Fleur Fitzsimons.

That campaign is so wet, that a family of 10 could drown in it.

I can’t think of anything more likely to piss people off and harm the campaign for women’s sport.

An insightful take at The Standard:

Let’s not bother with the criminal waste of tax on hundreds of working groups, existing to successfully suppressing oppositional opinion through co-option.
Oranga Tamariki has got three investigations underway for removing children, and is being kicked all over the park by the media. Cue another year of paralysis by analysis.
There is no reform of the justice sector.
There’s no substantial reform of social welfare, in particular no raise in base welfare levels, so no improvement in poverty levels this term. That’s another generation of 25% of our children.
Transport remains a fully self-inflicted disaster, with light rail gone from even starting for at least another term, mortality and injury and traffic congestion all soaring, and the only items of note to open this term will be National-inspired motorways in the Waikato.
There are no new partnerships with Labour-led councils such as Christchurch or Auckland, and the ones there are like City Rail Link and Christchurch rebuild were started under National.
Tax policy is a full-throated policy wasteland, with no Capital Gains Tax and no other tax reform either as long as Ardern is PM, so National’s tax settings continuing to oppress most of New Zealand.
Teaching at both secondary and tertiary level is a policy disaster with massive untested reforms to demolish polytechs and removing secondary decile ratings, with little stable to replace them. Great they’re paid better.
Nothing about water charging, and won’t be in this government. Free money to business.
A weak-ass carbon reform, with little attempt to change the carbon pollution of the vehicle fleet or farming industries.
KiwiBuild is largely unrecoverable, although there is indeed sterling work with HNZ building new rentals. Maybe the Urban Development Agency will help, in a few terms.
And now, intervening via television into an iwi-Fletchers housing partnership, over the top of layers of court and local government mandating, the Prime Minister gets in to stop a Mangere housing development. Few other suburbs in Auckland need new housing more, and she stops it.

A pretty good summary.

It’s not ‘transformational’, it’s not the year of delivery. What is this government?
This is the weakest leadership on policy of any government since the last term of Holyoake, 60 years ago. That’s on Ardern.

That may be true. But a case can be made that Holyoake achieved more in his 4th term than Ardern in her first. His Government negotiated continued access to UK markets after they joined the EEC. They also abolished the native school system and raised the general medical subsidy for beneficiaries.

From Simon Bridges’ speech:

The Government claims that their investment in health this year is the biggest ever. Yet we have the biggest DHB deficits on record. There are fewer elective surgeries happening under this Government each and every week. And 38,000 more people aren’t seeing their GP because of the costs.
 
Yet despite claiming to be a caring and compassionate Government, they only put an extra 1 per cent into PHARMAC for life-saving drugs. That doesn’t even cover inflation.
 
 
 
This is a Government that has put 75 times more money into a political slush fund to help NZ First get re-elected than it has into PHARMAC.
 
 
 
It’s those drugs I want to talk about today, and I want to talk very personally.
 
 
 
You may have heard the incredible story of Tracey Elliott. Tracey is well known to some of you here today. Tracey was diagnosed with stage four breast cancer in April 2014. The doctors told her she had 12 days to live. She did everything she could to fight it.
 
 
 
She started on Herceptin, had 60 rounds of chemotherapy and over 20 radiation treatments.
 
 
 
She defied the odds and won. But then it came back. She then went on a drug called Tykerb, which cost her $2300 every month she was on it.
 
 
 
It worked – and the cancer disappeared. But just this year, the tumours came back. This time though it was in her brain and surgery wasn’t an option. Her entire frontal lobe was a tumour.
 
 
 
She was told there was only one drug that would work. It’s called Kadcyla and it costs her and her family $9000 every three weeks. It’s fully funded in the UK and Australia. Over the past five years her treatment has cost her and her husband Troy over $500,000.
 
 
 
They now have to sell their house to be able to keep affording the drugs. That’s a decision New Zealanders shouldn’t have to make.
 
 
 
Tracey’s husband Troy has written to Jacinda Ardern two times about her story. Jacinda Ardern ignored every single letter.
 
 
 
Tracey’s story isn’t unique. All of us have stories of loved ones and friends who have been affected by cancer.
 
We need to do something about that. Over the last couple of hundred years many people have come to New Zealand for better opportunities and lives.
 
 
 
They shouldn’t have to leave again to get access to life-saving drugs. In Government, we were faced with some large challenges like the Global Financial Crisis and the Christchurch Earthquakes.
 
 
 
And we funded Herceptin because it was the right thing to do. But we’re now in a position where we are able to do more. It’s not up to someone else, Jacinda Ardern.
 
 
 
I’m sick of reading in the newspaper that people are going without life-saving drugs when I see this Government wasting billions and billions of dollars on policies that do not work and do not improve the wellbeing of New Zealanders.
 
 
 
It’s not right that the Government can find more than $2 billion for fees-free university but it can’t afford life-saving drugs.
 
 
 
It’s not right that the Government can find $3 billion for the Shane Jones slush fund but it can’t afford life-saving drugs.
 
 
 
And it’s not right that the Government can find more than $300 million for working groups but it can’t afford life-saving cancer drugs for deserving New Zealanders like Tracey.
 
 
 
New Zealanders shouldn’t have to set up Givealittle pages just to stay alive.
 
 
 
As Prime Minister I will not stand by and watch as people die when we have the opportunity to do more.
 
 
 
The next National Government will fund and dedicate an extra $200m for PHARMAC to fund cancer drugs.
 
 
 
We will ensure those drugs go to those who need them. We would expect the drugs PHARMAC buy from this fund to be those that demonstrate high levels of effectiveness internationally.
 
 
 
We don’t want just more drugs – we want drugs that will save and prolong lives.
 
 
 
We also want to put an end to what has become known as the ‘Cancer Postcode Lottery’.
 
 
 
Cancer is New Zealand’s single biggest cause of death. Too often people in regional New Zealand are disadvantaged because they don’t have access to the same services as those in our biggest cities.
 
 
 
It doesn’t just mean they don’t have the same ability to get treatment. It means often their diagnoses are far too late to prevent it becoming terminal.
 
 
 
New Zealand leads the world when it comes to treating kids with cancer. We figured out what works and we did it, and made it as effective as possible. Sadly the system hasn’t figured out how to do it for everyone.
 
 
 
This Government wants more Wellington bureaucrats in the Ministry of Health setting the strategy.
 
 
 
National wants medical experts, clinical professionals and the best in the world leading the charge towards making cancer care in New Zealand first class.
 
 
 
You may have heard of a man called Blair Vining. Blair has stage four terminal bowel cancer. Earlier this year he started a petition that got over 140,000 signatures. Blair’s plea is incredibly important.
 
 
 
He wants to stop people going through what he has gone through. As Blair’s daughter Lily said, it shouldn’t matter where you live in New Zealand or whether you’re rich or poor, anyone with cancer should be able to receive the best possible care.
 
 
 
National will introduce legislation in our first one hundred days to set up a National Cancer Agency to deliver better diagnoses, better access and better treatment for cancer sufferers across New Zealand.

It’s all about priorities. Labour’s priorities are getting NZ First re-elected and having lawyers and accountants have taxpayers pay for almost all their tertiary education.

National is showing what you can achieve with different priorities.

The Herald reports:

A health union boss has unleashed a scathing attack on the Minister of Health, calling his political leadership “fiscally irresponsible” and without vision.
In a speech to the Hospital and Community Dentistry Conference in Napier this morning, Association of Salaried Medical Specialists executive director Ian Powell accused Health Minister Dr David Clark of a “rambling, confused or nonsensical” leadership.

And this comes from a traditionally Labour friendly union!

Ardern got two major pieces of info wrong on the firearms laws (application to non citizens and offences by registered owners) but has also branched out her misinformation to transport.

The Herald reports:

Jacinda Ardern has been accused of showing no sympathy for constituents in the Auckland Central electorate where she was once based as a list MP, and criticised for incorrectly saying it is an issue for the NZ Transport Agency. …

He was gobsmacked to hear the Prime Minister tell Mike Hosking on Newstalk ZB this week the issue of compensation is a matter for the NZ Transport Agency.
“She has no idea what she is talking about,” said Kaushal, who said the project is being jointly funded by the Government and Auckland Council, who have set up a company, City Rail Link Ltd, to build the 3.4km underground rail project between Britomart and Mt Eden.
A spokesman for the NZ Transport Agency confirmed it has nothing to do with the CRL.

So compensation has nothing at all to do with NZTA. It is a political matter for the Government the Auckland Council.

Stuff reports:

Canada’s registry began life with an estimated cost to the public purse of C$2m. Over the years, the price escalated exponentially. …

Given the prominence of the Canadian example, it is worth considering its lessons if only to avoid the myths and pitfalls, chief among which was a price tag that experts like Alberta-based independent firearms expert Dennis Young and put at C$3 billion (NZ$3.4b).

They said it would cost $2 million and it ended up at $3 billion!

I’ve been supportive of the previous tranche of gun law changes but the registry has been tried before in NZ, and also failed.

There is nothing to suggest that the Police have gained the competence to run a secure effective registry.

When the Canadian registry was introduced in the wake of a mass shooting in Montreal, it was not the first legislative crackdown on legal gun ownership but the second.
Gun owners felt unfairly conflated with criminality and they flouted the obligation to register in large numbers. Some actively obstructed the process: one wag registered his soldering gun. There were expensive court battles.
In all its 17 years, the registry never contained more than about 7 million guns, roughly a third of the estimated guns that were otherwise legally owned.
Registering guns – shotguns and small calibre rifles in particular – is not like registering cars and boats. In order for your car to be useful you must take it out into the world and use it on public roads where police can monitor it.

So in Canada only one in three guns got registered.

The Herald reports:

DairyNZ is not the only organisation to question the cost of the Zero Carbon legislation. 
The bill’s regulatory impact statement (RIS) revealed that New Zealand’s economy could miss out on up to $50 billion worth of economic growth because of the Zero Carbon Bill.
The RIS, written by officials at the Ministry for the Environment, reveals that New Zealand’s economy will grow to $522 billion by 2050 if the zero-carbon legislation is not adopted and the status quo is maintained.
However, if the legislation does come into force – as it is expected to later this year – the RIS showed New Zealand’s GDP in 2050 will be between $472 billion and $476 billion.
That is a difference of $45 to $49 billion.

And that is an annual difference, not one off.

I understand it is even worse than that. The modelling is based on the assumption of technological breakthroughs. Without such assumed breakthroughs, the impact on GDP is much higher – more a 30% drop instead of 10%.

We’ll all be hugely poorer while China in two days will produce more emissions that all those saved by NZ.

The four great offices of state in the UK are Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary.

The four new holders of those office are:

• PM; Boris Johnson, great grand father Ali Kemal is Turkish and was a refugee to UK in 1909. Also Johnson was a US dual citizen as born in the US
• Chancellor: Sajid Javid, parents were Muslim immigrants from Pakistan in 1961
• Foreign Secretary: Dominic Raab, father was a Jewish refugee from Czechoslovakia in 1938.
• Home Secretary: Priti Patel, parents are Ugandan Indians who migrated in late 1960s