Paul Henry’s two interviewing styles
Check out Breakfast’s Paul Henry displaying two different interviewing styles this morning - first John Key, then Russel Norman. I guess you could at least say he has a range of journalistic skills.
Sadly TVNZ’s internet footage has cut short the clip of Russel’s interview, omitting the bit where Henry’s colleague Pippa Wetzell hints that Henry, the former National Party candidate, may have let his political views show through in Russel’s interview.
Incidentally, The Standard was similarly frustrated with Henry yesterday morning.
Bookmark to:
May 7th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Oh dear
How dare TVNZ hire Journos who don’t hold rabid left wing green views
perhaps you Greenies should go back to listening to Radio liberal (National Radio) or reading the listener (oops cant do that anymore either)
May 7th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Russels interview with larry Williams on ZB was not much better. Russel needs to work on his presentation skills. Sadly lacking in the interview I heard. Saying over and over again “but it is only 5c per litre” is not good presentation skills.
Maybe Russel can start by issuing a press release and conducting media interviews on how a billion dollars per annum going to Russia will help the New Zealand economy and put more money into Joe Bloggs pocket.
Some figures would help.
So far the Greens have been way short of marketing expertise to “sell” the emission trading scheme.
With votes getting stung in the pocket all around, the Greens saying we are going to tax you even more is not a vote catcher.
Even if it is “only 5c per litre on petrol”.
Some training by Brian Edwards?
May 7th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Come on now Frog, as pointed out by Panda (one of the largest carbon emitters in NZ by the way) what is wrong with a jounro who holds right wing views?
At the very worst he is simply balancing up the rabid views of the rest who are left wing apologists and nothing more than Clark’s mouthpiece.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:36 am
To quote from my comment in the “Peak oil rescues the Prime Minister” posting:
Well, Henry laid into Norman this morning and boy, was it was a joy to watch. Norman came across as an utter chump, not because he is, but ‘cos he’s defending the indefensible.
More here.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Oh no!
The sleepy, government funded, complicit left-wing media finally, after all these years, asks the left some hard questions, and they start crying like babies.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:46 am
I think it is fine for journalists to hold political views and to write or present advocacy style journalism. But major mainstream media have a responsibility to be balanced. That definitely doesn’t mean always taking the middle ground but it does mean treating politicians equally fairly. I don’t think that happened this morning.
I’d happily agree that there are left wing journalists who also fail this test. (Trotter springs to mind - although he is normally more of a commenter than a serious journalist.) If the alternative is that each party gets their own pet journo (I’m looking forward to the Greens receiving theirs) the end result will just be people listening to their own views being reflected back at them in an echo chamber, a la Fox News.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Paul Henry was aggressive but thats part of the game isn’t it ? Russell Norman lacks gravitas & pugnacity, he needs to take some lessons from Winston & Clark.
They both made some good points. Why should the SUV driver subsidise public transport via fuel tax ? Equally (ignoring the stupidity of NZ’ers paying for a problem that it only contributes 0.1% to) why should taxpayers subsidise trucking companies ?
We are already suffering under a massive tax burden that is way ahead of Australia, we don’t need anymore.http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2008/01/06/chart -tax-burden/
May 7th, 2008 at 10:58 am
thanks Big Bro,I do my best to do my bit to get it a bit warmer down here south
Frog do you mean to tell me CNN isn’t an left wing echo chamber for the dems?
May 7th, 2008 at 11:32 am
i am puzzled at your cries of ‘unfair’..frog..
i watched that encounter..and thought russel did fine..
henry tried the usual red herrings..(benificiary-bashing…
but russel answered that well..and it gave him the platform to defend the greens stance/the environment..
(i gave him 8/10..
buckley is just ‘trolling’..
and panda..i guess compared to your diet of fox..i guess they could appear that way..
but..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
May 7th, 2008 at 11:35 am
and why should the rest subsidise the farmers..?
clark tried to present that exemption as a promise she couldn’t go back on..(!)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
May 7th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I have just watched Russ interviewed by Paul Henry this morning, Russ sure put an end to any uncertainly over where he stands when it comes to beneficiaries.
His little speech about benefits and working for families only confirms what many think of the man, he is a socialist/communist first and a Green by convenience.
Henry was attacked by those of the left yesterday because he dared question a member of the Labour party but when Russ openly makes a statement that is false there is not much else Henry could be expected to do.
I said it earlier this week and I will say it again, do NOT let Russ anywhere near the TV if you want to make he 5% threshold, he comes across as arrogant and frankly he comes across as a communist and a liar.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:48 am
“Why should the SUV driver subsidise public transport via fuel tax ?”
“why should taxpayers subsidise trucking companies ?
The strategic goal is to reduce emmissions and our dependency on fossil fuels. Subsidies for public transport help achieve this and subsidies for SUVs hurt. We need these incentives because the market has a short term focus and will only respond appropriately when we have a crisis. Government’s role should be to look further ahead than the the market can to ensure the inevitable transition from fossil fuels is a softer landing for our economy rather than a crash landing.
This change will happen. The main thing we can influence is how well we deal with it. We take positive steps now, or we dump an even bigger problem on our children.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Valis
“The strategic goal is to reduce emissions”
That might be YOUR goal and the goal of the Greens but you have failed to convince the vast majority of the people in NZ, the “strategic goal” of most right now is finding enough money to pay the mortgage and feed the family.
There is no talk of tax cuts, no talk of assistance only the usual promise of the hard left that the Greens will give more of my money to benefit bludgers.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:54 am
can you post my comment please
May 7th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Phil
when the rest of the world includes Agriculture in any Carbon Trading scheme I will be happy to pay my bit ( if if I do think it is all a crock of methane)
May 7th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
>>The strategic goal is to reduce emmissions and our dependency on fossil fuels.
The goal is irrelevant to this country. We do not make a difference, so it is not a goal that is sensible for us to target. Drop the goal and focus on something more productive.
Namely, our dependency on fossil fuels. Do not insist on blocking effective energy generation, as we’ll need a lot more power to *replace* existing modes. People will not switch out of cars. They’ll switch the power plant. Make it possible. Sending money to Russia and/or over taxing our economy into oblivion gets us no closer to this goal….
Unless the hidden goal is excessive state control…..
The way they’re talkin’, I remain unconvinced the leopards have changed their spots….
May 7th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
mawgxxxxiv Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 10:58 am
> They both made some good points. Why should the SUV driver subsidise public transport via fuel tax ?
Because public transport reduces congestion, and the SUV driver benefits from that as much as anyone else does.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
can we cut with the myth that helen clark is leftwing BB - maybe once.
I met with Phil Goff and he was all about the money, not the issues. they are neo liberal and rather similar to national.
if you have issues with labour’s social engineering, liberalism and ivory tower approach or anything else, say it. but dont insult the left by saying labour (especially helen clark) is part of it.
Paul Henry is such an ill informed wanker.
all he wants is for the rich to get richers, and he supports ppl that drive gas guzzlers, by implying that ppl that use PUBLIC transport are poor and on the dole.
paul henry should join up with benson pope, taito field, peter brown and don brash - a pile of political failures.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
“buckley is just ‘trolling’.”
Yeah, thanks Phil, thats my Tui moment for the day.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Trees
Fair point, Clark has always been more about furthering the cause of radical feminism, she just happens to be a Labour party MP as a matter of convenience, in some ways she shares that with Russel Norman who is only a Green MP by convenience to further the cause of the HARD left.
Interesting that you should mention Goff, Labour will soon be looking for a new leader, they could do a lot worse than Goff or Andrew Little.
My hatred for Clark (and it is hatred) is not because of her social policies it is because of her utter contempt for the laws of the land and her utter contempt for the will of the people, she is prepared to destroy a generation or two of young kiwi’s to push some silly 1960/1970’s feminist ideology, her attack on the middle classes has nothing to do with easing the pain of the poor it is more about smashing the family unit,
Those from the real hard left are beneath contempt
May 7th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Gees Frog…why do all my posts go to moderation?
Can you please post my latest masterpiece
May 7th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Humans are causing global warming and public does not reduce congestion. When are environmentalists going to accept the scientific evidence for both of these statements? Or is denialism too easy?
May 7th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
“Because public transport reduces congestion, and the SUV driver benefits from that as much as anyone else does.” I wonder if it does reduce congestion?
I have just caught the Link bus back from Parnell to Ponsonby and it had an average of 3-4 passengers at any particular time, when it left Three Lamps it was empty. Living & working in Ponsonby I use the Link several times a week at different times of the day. Even at rush hour I have never had to stand for want of a seat. At other times the bus has no more than half a dozen passengers. I caught it at around 7PM last night and did the complete circuit out of curiosity and it no point did it have more than 4-8 passengers.
Totally anecdotal I know but the Link is operating in the most densely populated part of Auckland with a large number of tourists backpackers etc. Having used the service at all times from 6am to 11PM my observation is that it is only fully utilized for two short peaks. As it is scheduled to run every 10 minutes for most of that time the running costs are fairly constant but the revenue is patchy as are the number of cars taken off the road.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
BB, lol - convince the selectors of the benefits of not playing James Marshall at no.3, then it will be masterpiece.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
BB, you say “not because of her social policies” and then go on to list a whole lot of social issues! Not a masterpiece.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Stephen
Yep….my mistake, her social engineering policies is what I should have said.
Nothing wrong with James at 3 Stephen, I have a lot of time for the Marshall boys.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Kevyn
“Humans are causing global warming and public does not reduce congestion. When are environmentalists going to accept the scientific evidence for both of these statements? Or is denialism too easy”
When the evidence is there to support it I guess, as of now there is no proof and no conclusive evidence.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
is it a ‘time of the month’ thing with you bb..?
that sends you into overdrive..?
you seem particularly frothy today..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
May 7th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Thats a rather sexist thing to say Phil
May 7th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
BB,
What will convince you to put the welfare of future generations before your wallet?
Thats the question. I think you’d have been among those who would still believed in a flat Earth and a geocentric universe before the Space Age.
Although I’m not convinced of the effciacy of the solutions proposed by the Green Party either. So we have that in common.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
I would compare Henry’s interviewing of Russel Norman with John Cambell’s interviewing of the deputy leader of NZ first re his comments on Chinese immigration.
Second point I have so far shied away from actually studying the emmisions trading scheme expecting it to fall over before I had to.
I suspect dbuckley is right as you have to look at the overall motivational system (or some things aren’t practical) and (if so) RN would have had difficulty as he doesn’t seem to go for the rhetorical flourish as some other pollies do.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
PS Henry seems to confuse his role as entertainer (he thinks) and serious interviewer, he should get a job as Crunchy the clown and work at childrens party’s.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Sleepy
“What will convince you to put the welfare of future generations before your wallet? ”
Simple…proof, unbiased, indisputable proof.
It would also help if the rest of the world did something about it, given that we emit 0.02% of the worlds total emissions there is NOTHING that we can do what will make a difference.
When you look at it that way you automatically have to assume that the hard left have a hidden agenda for wanting us to commit economic suicide.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Grrrr…..please post my comment Frog
May 7th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
jh - that seems a bit unfair to the children!
May 7th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
And how would one decide if someone was unbiased? Peer reviewed science is a commie plot? The NZIER report said we’d only be as rich in 2025 as we would have been in 2024 if we hadn’t had an ETS, not exactly devastation.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Afternoon with Jim Moira’s panel was a real shocker… A poncey voiced “John Bishop” informed us that speed restrictions were different in the 1970’s then people knew it was a short term thing like a temporary power crisis but now is different and the meaning I took was not Peal Oil… [judge for your self]
Later in what is on his mind he has a go at the Green movement for causing hunger around the world due to their biofuels policy [it’s savage]. He appears to be selectively knowledgeable and out to get a message across. Jim Moira doesn’t appear to raise an eyebrow. Jim Moira talks about Gennis Duttons sght presenting “both sides of the argument” and how nature is going to compensate for the effect of greenhouse gases over the next decade.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
The major supporters of bio-fuels are the USA (transferring from food production) Brazil and Indonesia (cutting down forests to grow bio-fuels).
The Greens oppose the cutting down of the forests and are not known for having influence over US policy - government or business.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Yeah but some ponce is going on about it here :
http://www.radionz.co.nz/__data/assets/audio_item/0011/1493984/aft-200 80507-1635-The_Panel_part2-wmbr.asx
May 7th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
As to policy - why not dispersing revenue from a tax on gas guzzling vehicle purchases to the regions (rather than a regional petrol tax)?
As for emissions Greens should focus on carbon charging - and using the revenue for a compensating reduction in power costs (energy efficiency loans and or tax write-offs for GST paid on power). So that its not extra tax but a transfer of tax to specific forms of energy - it is where we can intervene in the market.
It is only by efficiency in use of energy that we can both grow the economy and reduce demand for energy (reduce carbon use by operating within renewable energy supply levels). This use of the budget surplus to realise this is the only way to a sustainable economy. Thus existing programmes to assist landlords and home owners to install heat pumps need to be expanded and made more attractive.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Moira:
What’s on your mind: John Bishop.
Bishop: I had a train of thought which was touched off by a BBC report a couple of couple of months ago. I want to to make a plug, a bit of a sympathetic plug for the plight of the Greens .. because I think it is one of the great ironies that a group like the Greens are who are pretty much caring and sharing about the planet should now be held responsible (and correctly held responsible) for the increased poverty food prices, riots and making more people go hungry throughout the world. I think it is a sad tragic result of a biofuel policy they propmote to dissplace oil and we’ve changed the production mix and that’s changed our ability to produce crops. The BBC report looked at a field of corn and and said this field of corn will make enough ethonal to fill the tank of a family car once. The same field of corn will produce enough corn to feed a family of four from the third world for one year. Now I gotta say, I wonder where the priorities are we save the planet if we follow the green prescription but somehow “vote Green and more people will starve” doesn’t seem a very good political slogan.
Moira: Where did you here that Fox News?
Bishop: No that was the BBC……. I dispare for the credibilite of the Greens because as far as caring for people are concerned that credibility has just shrunk to zero.
Moira: So what do you think the future of bio fuels are then?
Bishop: We’ll I think to be fair to the Greens if governments would stop subsidising biofuels*.
[ this staement contradicts “should now be held responsible (and correctly held responsible) for the increased poverty food prices, riots and making more people go hungry throughout the world. ]
so I guess we can say blah blah blah and keep watching telly and see what you find out.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
# Redbaiter (2652) Add karma Subtract karma +4 Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Make sure the word gets out. All these price increases, all of these fees and regulations that end up hitting the man in the street in the pocket are coming about because of GREEN LEFT politics. The Greens and Labour.
Of course if the Nats had ever had the balls, they’d now be in a position to capitalize big time, but I guess all they can really do now is watch and weep, and reminisce about lost opportunities.
Nats aside folks, make sure the message gets out. Greens and Leftists. Thats why you’re paying. They will be obliterated at the ballot box.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:17 am
If we all listened to Redbaiter, our ears would start bleeding.
PaulL said:
May 8th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Equivalent to ‘free trade’ zones, but with emissions reductions being the equivalent of a free trade agreement too?
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/05/bye_bye_to_carbon_neutrality.html
May 8th, 2008 at 8:44 am
As for tariffs/duties, it’s not only the Europeans talking about it
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=405615
May 8th, 2008 at 9:30 am
shame about that butter tho’..eh..?
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/you-know-that-butter-you-smear-on-toast-is-a-p oisoneh/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
May 8th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
fwog, bro, you took a pounding, and many posts above explain this to you:
Henry questioned Key on the value of emisions tax, but you got x caught in public transport subsidy.
Overwhelmingly you have to not think about public transport, the figures are so enormous that every car driver pays your subsidised traveller about $1000 per year.
we don’t tolerate this fwog.
Put you feets up.
Give up.
We got you covered.
Go back to think tank,
talk to
NZ NAT GOVT 2008 and get real.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Paul Henry has always been incredibly partisan towards National’s politics. I do agree with him that there’s some cross-subsidising going on, but he doesn’t seem to get the fact that putting direct penalties on people who are polluting is the best way to reduce our pollution.
His arguement that polluters will go elsewhere is partially true- in the short term we would lose out. However, if we do become a world leader in implementing green measures, it saves us retooling costs later and gives New Zealanders valuable opportunities cleaning up the rest of the world- but Russel didn’t have a chance to say that because Henry would cut him off.
Hard questions are fine, and I’m glad he asked them. But he should stop cutting off his interviewers- that’s only fair when they’re not explaining themselves properly. His interview style for key was great- no interruptions, questions about what his intentions were and where labour’s policy was right in Key’s view, and yet all of his challenges were friendly, like intellectuals discussing pros and cons. If he could be professional with people he disagreed with, that’d be great. Some of us do take more than one point of view seriously.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
paul henry is a redneck.
national is lame, it will not last long. how many non old white men are in the national party?
katherine rich did the right thing and jumped ship.
national is a fossil, whats why gerry brownlee loves fossil fuels - they are releated to him.
SUVs will end up rusting, as it will get to expensive to make use of them. we wont follow america and make biofuel out of corn for them.
paul henry is at times funny, but essentially a biggot who doesnt know much about climate or environmental issues, and is partisan is his support for the ultra rich.
the greens wont fit confortably with national (and increasingly less so with labour).
shows that national and labout are both pretty lame and out of touch with nz, helen clark is stiff like iron, john key is buying holiday homes in hawaii and going on about how he knows about poverty and is ‘down with the brown’.
lets see how their PR scripts go this year.
in the mean time the motorways will continue to clog and the power might cut out, how about propert transport and investment in new renewable energy…..
May 8th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
peterquixote Says:
Put you feets up.
Give up.
We got you covered.
Go back to think tank,
talk to
NZ NAT GOVT 2008 and get real.
………………………
Get more people involved in the think tank, (not just party members) do it on line setting out for and against etc (we have the technology).
Cover every aspect.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Jim Moira read out Jeanette Fitsimonds letter. He said he thought John Bishop was talking generally about greens (world wide) not the Green Party but that is utter cr*p……. when you read the transcript.
Is John Bishop Redbaiter?
May 9th, 2008 at 12:17 am
National has a lot of influence with centrist voters in New Zealand right now, trees of tommorow. It would take some really good effort on the part of Labour/Maori/Greens, or a sudden resurgence of NZF/UF to put a serious dent in them at the moment. Paul Henry isn’t totally overt with his bias and just looks like a bit of a market expert to centrists who aren’t watching carefully.
Honestly, I don’t think we’ll (the Greens, that is) make progress this election by antagonising the centre voting block by attacking media figures and politicians, no matter how wrong their views and the conduct they use to express them seem to us. Progress will be achieved by convincing disenchanted Labour supporters and more progressive centrists that the Greens are concerned with the root causes of expensive petrol and food, and with parents, society, and freedom. Sadly National spin has been getting a lot of air on those issues which means, as always, we’ll have to work hard to achieve anything. But that’s never been an obstacle before.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:06 am
“Progress will be achieved by convincing disenchanted Labour supporters and more progressive centrists that the Greens are concerned with the root causes of expensive petrol and food, and with parents, society, and freedom.”
Would you give some more details on the last three. Please.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Lots of Green policies are aimed at the future of our kids (ie. managing peak oil and climate change now) and improving information available on products and services, Jh. The Greens are also the only party acting to preserve the cleanliness of our waterways, and opposing development on land that has recreational use. I’d say that’s being concerned with parents.
Concern with society? Let’s see, there was S59 to make all cases of child abuse clearly illegal, Keith Locke threw in a Republican member’s bill, Nandor’s Waste Minimisation Bill is doing really well and looking to get broad political support. The Greens are also interested in more progressive taxation, which increases the circulation of the New Zealand dollar and makes sure that the wealthy give back to our public services. That’s not even mentioning policies that haven’t been prioirities in recent elections like a universal basic income. Oh, and the Greens also make a point of trying to conserve endangered and/or unique New Zealand species to protect our ecosystem and our children’s heritage.
As for freedom- the Greens advocate an independent New Zealand that isn’t tied to our allies’ policies when we disagree with them, it opposes war and violence unless it’s really necessary, it opposes frivolous invasion of privacy through spying, and overreaching laws under the guise of national security. The Greens have supported free speech, not paid speech, being the focus of the next election by pushing through the EFA despite its flaws. Then there’s drug decriminalisation, prostitution law reform, support for social freedoms like civil unions, and so on.
Obviously, some of those will be highly contentious- but then again, so are other party’s policies, too.
May 9th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Sounds O.K when you sat it fast.
May 10th, 2008 at 11:48 am
I think the thing that I failed to challenge properly with Henry was the cross subsidisation stuff. As things stand I am subsidising him driving his gas guzzler through my taxes, because I am paying for the Kyoto credits to cover his greenhouse emissions. And he is subsidising me, as a bus user, through fuel tax to subsidise buses to reduce road congestion.
He is being paid from the public purse to produce greenhouse emissions and I am being partially paid from the public purse to reduce congestion.
So yes it is cross subsidisation, but I would argue that paying someone to pollute is a bad subsidy, while paying someone to reduce congestion is a good subsidy. And I failed to get that point across. But you can’t get every point across and i managed to communicate some of the arguments. I actually enjoy a good argument!
May 11th, 2008 at 9:34 am
No you don’t
May 12th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Hard to get justify cross subsidising a bus that is barely a quarter full though…But generally a good point. I enjoy good arguments too, but I was under the impression that was meant to be an interview where we could ‘learn’ stuff, not for anyone to ‘win’. bah!
May 12th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Trees
Are you suggesting that those of us who have “white” heritage should feel guilty?
How does that work for those with Maori/European blood, should they only feel half as guilty as the full blooded “white” man?
May 12th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
At least Mora did ask Bishop “Where did you hear that Fox News?”, although I suspect the point would have been missed by most listeners.
But, speaking of Fox News, that’s exactly what the Paul Henry interviews with John Key and Russel Norman came across like.
Henry asked Key patsy questions, while he immediately tried to divert Norman off his main point, which was the subsiding of transport emissions by the taxpayer, and onto the more general topic of the complexities and merits of cross-subsidisation - i.e. he tried to prevent Norman from getting his main point across, while he did everything possible to assist Key getting his main point across.
Now, Paul Henry is a former (failed) National Party candidate from a few elections ago, and often talks about how much he loves his gas guzzling cars (owns several of them), so I guess we should expect his interviewing to be “fair and balanced” (as in Fox News)!
May 12th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Come on now Toad, I never hear you moaning about the soft interviewing style that most kiwi journo’s give politicians from the left.
Henry reacted to an outrageous (and incorrect) comment made by Russ, perhaps Russ might think a bit more before answering questions next time, either way you cannot blame Henry for the fact that Russ had a bad day.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Come to think of it Toad, what did you think of the complete and utter “patsy” interview between King and Espiner last Sunday?
If you want an example of soft questions then you only need look at the tape of that interview.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
BB, I don’t like patsy questions being asked in political interviews, whoever is doung the interviewing and whoever is being interviewed.
My criticism was more that Paul Henry gave John Key such an easy ride, rather than that he was tough on Russel Norman. A good interviewer would have been tough on both.
Russel has admitted above that he could have done better and should not have allowed himself to be dragged off-topic onto the cross-subsidisation debate.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:22 am
Russell,
Are you really “subsidising him driving his gas guzzler through my taxes, because I am paying for the Kyoto credits to cover his greenhouse emissions.” Surely the Kyoto credits can be purchased with the windfall GST on petrol and diesel thus avoiding placing any burden on taxes paid by people who don’t use these fossil fuels.
How are you “being partially paid from the public purse to reduce congestion.”? Do you mean because you live in subsidised accomodation within walking distance of Parliament? Hopefully you are not suggesting that public transport reduces congestion. That approach is doomed to failure for the same reasons that building more road capacity is doomed to fail, albeit both can briefly reduce peak congestion before triple convergence kicks in. If you bring together enough people with enough money and/or time to travel you will always get congestion - on footpaths, on trains, on roads. When the time cost of congestion gets too great people and businesses will move somewhere where they can save on time costs without incurring other costs, such as being too far away from a decent latte or a must be seen at nightspot.
There is a thoroughly researched spatial relationship between road capacity building and residential and commercial building developments. The activity generated by the latter consumes the benefits of the former, generally in less than a decade. I have not seen any surveys of property developers to see if they would have built these developments somewhere else with less congestion if the road capacity increase had not happened. But the anecdotal evidence suggests they would have, sometimes on greenfield sites instead of brownfield and sometimes vice versa. Curiously this encouragement of development/redevelopment is one of the alleged benefits of building light rail. The evidence from BART is that rail doesn’t disrupt established communities enough that they are prepared to accept further loss of character in the form of intensive TOD developments. Without TODs around the stations rail simply can’t provide a fast enough aggregate travel time for enough people to make the investment work. By contrast freeways disrupt existing communities sufficiently to encourage redevlopment as low-rise commercial centres with convienient transport access. Both are the result of a commitment to transport planning without a commitment to land use planning. While there are many environmental advantages to be gained from light rail/land use or bus priority/land use schemes no one should ever claim that these schemes will relieve congestion, the best they can hope to do is allow further urban growth with less congestion growth.
Ultimately the solution to congestion in Auckland and Wellington is to do nothing. Let businesses migrate to one of the other regional centres. They’re unlikely to move to other countries because Sydney, Tokyo, Singapore and Mumbai are all more congested than Auckland can ever hope to be. An honest appraisal of the Auckland and Wellington economies reveals congestion as the flipside of agglomeration. Encouraging businesses and government to decentralise their management and administrative functions will have a nuetral impact on the national economy. Less agglomeration efficiency balanced by more transportation efficiency. The only losers will be the current residents of Auckland and Wellington who will lose their excuse to suck at the national tit and will have to pay if they want new infrastructure aimed at enticing even more businesses to centralise their operations in those regions.
The 1976 Auckalnd Transport Review provides some very useful travel survey comparisons between 1963 and 1973. There is some astonishing information on the changing reasons for travel and it’s impact on traffic growth for both private and public transport and especially what it reveals about the dramatic fall in public transport’s share of travel in Auckland.
http://www.petroltax.org.nz/PDF/AucklandTransportReview1976.PDF
The travel survey appendix starts on page 18 of the pdf.
Alternatively access the same pdf from this page which is in chronological order:
http://www.petroltax.org.nz/documents.html
Regards Kevyn