Perhaps because it is not a part of the taxonomy used for that report? Perhaps you would like to take up with their editor?

freitasm:

 

Perhaps because it is not a part of the taxonomy used for that report? Perhaps you would like to take up with their editor?

 

I would have thought strategies to alleviate congestion in our biggest city were economically, or even environmentally relevant, given Auckland has declared a climate emergency.

I understand you folks would like to have that in the report card. I did not write the report card. Complain to The Guardian editor. 

Handle9:

 

My point is that if you want a credible report card like this it should have a balance of views, not two left wing activists ranking the economy, among other things.

 

Is this implying that people with left wing views cannot discuss or understand the economy? The economy and the left wing are not mutually exclusive, and right wingers do not have a monopoly on being able to discuss the economy.

Handle9:

 

If you want to see lunatic statements take a look at Morgan Godfrey on social media running around calling people comrade and telling Nicola Willis that she should be locked up.

 

In fairness, most of Godfrey's social media is obviously a joke and not serious commentary or a "lunatic statement".

antonknee:

 

Handle9:

 

My point is that if you want a credible report card like this it should have a balance of views, not two left wing activists ranking the economy, among other things.

 

 

Is this implying that people with left wing views cannot discuss or understand the economy? The economy and the left wing are not mutually exclusive, and right wingers do not have a monopoly on being able to discuss the economy.

 

Of course people with left wing views can discuss/undertstand the economy. I'm sure they have a very good understanding. I think the point being made was the report might have been more balanced with one of each of a left wing and right wing author. The report would have been just as unbalanced with two right wing authors.

It's hard to get a proper perspective when you approach a subject from just one point of view.

Technofreak:

 

Of course people with left wing views can discuss/undertstand the economy. I'm sure they have a very good understanding. I think the point being made was the report might have been more balanced with one of each of a left wing and right wing author. The report would have been just as unbalanced with two right wing authors.

 

It's hard to get a proper perspective when you approach a subject from just one point of view.

 

Yes I'm sure balance is the point - but my question is why did Handle9 specifically single out left-wing commenters talking about the economy? It's a very tired and inaccurate trope that the right wing are the party of economics and business, and lefties don't understand money, among other things.

Edit: this is no different to lefties who claim the right wing have no compassion/empathy/kindness - tired and inaccurate.

I apologise if I'm jumped to conclusions and that's not what was meant, it just seemed odd to specifically call out the economy rather than making a broader point about balance.

antonknee:

 

I apologise if I'm jumped to conclusions and that's not what was meant, it just seemed odd to specifically call out the economy rather than making a broader point about balance.

 

He made a comment which very clearly discussed general balance earlier in the interchange.

antonknee:

Technofreak:

Of course people with left wing views can discuss/undertstand the economy. I'm sure they have a very good understanding. I think the point being made was the report might have been more balanced with one of each of a left wing and right wing author. The report would have been just as unbalanced with two right wing authors.

It's hard to get a proper perspective when you approach a subject from just one point of view.

Yes I'm sure balance is the point - but my question is why did Handle9 specifically single out left-wing commenters talking about the economy? It's a very tired and inaccurate trope that the right wing are the party of economics and business, and lefties don't understand money, among other things.

Edit: this is no different to lefties who claim the right wing have no compassion/empathy/kindness - tired and inaccurate.

I apologise if I'm jumped to conclusions and that's not what was meant, it just seemed odd to specifically call out the economy rather than making a broader point about balance.

Handle9:

Your understanding is incorrect. You need to do some more reading.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/election-2020-labour-cannot-govern-alone-greens-co-leader-marama-davidson/RA2QPUD4QGAMICWIKM2DAFQJOU/

Looks fairly similar to what I wrote. 

Ardern has backed herself into a corner she can no longer back out of, so I guess the Greens will not be getting the Wealth Tax.

Earlier articles had the Greens being much more emphatic that they wouldn't form a coalition without it. 

So 19 of the 20 DHB's are in the red despite endless carping all 9 years of opposition and housing prices are at record prices despite saying they would fix it. Whilst there is not a 3-year magic fix, they are going backwards. Reasonably, you could expect *some* meaningful progress. 

Handle9: It's quite different to what you said . You said it was a bottom line for the greens, which it isn't.

That was said once by Genter in a live debate and very quickly walked back. They have consistently said they would push for it but it's not a bottom line.

So they *did* say it was a bottom line, and then walked it back. I didn't see they had walked it back, but they have kept talking about it as if it's a possibility when Arden has said it's not. She has staked her position on it, and I don't see it changing,

So they may as well drop the entire thing, as it's meaningless. 

networkn:

 

Handle9: It's quite different to what you said . You said it was a bottom line for the greens, which it isn't.

That was said once by Genter in a live debate and very quickly walked back. They have consistently said they would push for it but it's not a bottom line.

 

So they *did* say it was a bottom line, and then walked it back. I didn't see they had walked it back, but they have kept talking about it as if it's a possibility when Arden has said it's not. She has staked her position on it, and I don't see it changing,

 

So they may as well drop the entire thing, as it's meaningless. 

 

Talking about it's very useful for the Greens as well as National. It's an issue that promotes strong feelings and gets people to turn out to vote. National have given up on swing voters and are totally focused on getting their hard core to vote, as are the Greens. National are trying to save as many seats as possible and the Greens are trying to stay in Parliament.

It's also the first phase of coalition negotiations for the Greens. Pushing hard on this means Labour has to give them something else they want in negotiations. It's a fairly decent strategy.

The bottom line stuff was done and dusted weeks ago

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/426788/wealth-tax-not-a-bottom-line-for-green-party-but-they-will-push-for-it-shaw

James Shaw has a cunning plan....

https://twitter.com/jamespeshaw/status/1316164529068285952?s=20

networkn:

 

So 19 of the 20 DHB's are in the red despite endless carping all 9 years of opposition and housing prices are at record prices despite saying they would fix it. Whilst there is not a 3-year magic fix, they are going backwards. Reasonably, you could expect *some* meaningful progress. 

 

An RBNZ spokesperson gave an interview that openly stated they were pursuing house price inflation as a strategy to boost spending in the last week. Not sure what either party can do if the RBNZ is in money printer go brrrr mode. But it would have been nice to see it discussed at some point.