The post criticizes a foreign trade agreement between Labour and National that allegedly directs $33 billion overseas, calling it risky and contrary to national economic and sovereignty interests.
Stacked weekly counts; colour by lean. “n/a” covers government and iwi-Māori sources where lean isn't applicable.
How this topic has been named, week by week. A new alias winning out is usually a framing shift.
Verbatim segments from politicians speaking on podcasts and radio shows about this topic. Sourced via the voice-reference library — each speaker has been confirmed manually from their voice clip. Click play to stream the original audio from the publisher, pre-seeked to the moment the quote starts.
So what is your read on it? Is this because Labour genuinely has concerns that, for example, the significant billions that we would be required to invest in India is actually a hard and fast agreement? Like, are they genuinely worried about that stuff or are they just trying to get their heads around this so that when they get attacked by New Zealand first on this, trying to steal their votes, they've got an answer ready to go and they understand it? Is it politics or is it reality?
Up to 12 framings spread across orientations. Each framing is a short phrase the topic extractor generated to characterise the piece's stance — not a quote from the source. Click through to read the original.
political uncertainty over signing commitments
Jenee Tibshraeny: NZ Herald Wellington business editor on Labour mulling over the India trade agreementSocial-media signal on the same topic, drawn from the social lens. Engagement is likes + 2×shares + 3×replies, the same weighting used across the digest cards. View on /social →
Spotted something wrong on this page? Report a correction.
