five broad categories: Stability Healthcare Culture and environment Education Infrastructure How good scores in these factors would not enhance the liveability of a city, even for the less well off, eludes me. The article certainly makes no cogent case that they do not. I live in Melbourne, and I have travelled overseas extensively. My own experience is that I would far rather live in Melbourne than most other places I have experienced (though there are many fine places in the world). Whilst we can all attest to the fact that there are social problems that need to be addressed I believe most experience and indeed the EIU ranking shows that the less well off in our Melbourne society are far better off here than in many other parts of the world. The article concludes with " We need to demand that our leaders move beyond rankings and actually consult us on what we think liveability means. That's what should be driving planning and policy, not a listing aimed at the world's HR managers." This reads like a typical arts based piece of waffle that eschews measurable outcomes as a valid means of measuring progress. If the authors wish to argue the EIU is flawed as a measure then they have failed to make their case. If they wish to argue for something better the vague handwaving they have indulged in serves no-one G'day Mark -- as you will recognize, for some, stats and figures are the only forms of proof