$905 000 taxpayer dollars can morph current affairs into gladiatorial television entertainment and TV3s new debate show proves that.
Garner is at his best when he is fighting for the underdog, Espiner is at his best when he’s pimping for corporate interests and the debate on taxing fatty and sugary food was the sort of TV that would feature just before Schwarzenegger’s Running Man and just after Bum Fights.
It’s interesting that the live audience turned against the argument to tax Big Sugar yet the wider online margin went towards taxing Big Sugar.
The shouty shouting makes for the passion that TV so often lacks and keeps the pace moving.
It’s a solid debate show that we used to get on University Campuses before Students Associations became the faded dull lifeless grey they are today.
Well worth a monthly viewing.
i reckon espiner had consumed too much of the sponsors’ product..
http://whoar.co.nz/2013/commentwhoar-the-vote-review/
phillip ure..
The shouty shout got annoying when it meant you couldn’t hear what the guests were saying. Just needed to be turned down a notch.
Switched off halfway through. Espiner may love the sound of his own voice but I do not share that passion. What was the point of having panelists if they were shouted down; abused; and treated with contempt?
If I’d have been one of the panellists, I would’ve picked up my papers; collected my satchel; thanked Ms Clark; nodded at Espiner and Garner; and walked out.
Life is too short for crap like that.
Taxing unhealthy food may be tolerable if the price of healthy food is reduced significantly, but with Dunne recently devising absurd taxes to desperately scrape together more revenue, I doubt that would happen.
Wielding the tax stick without offering an incentive to lure people to change their behaviour is an unhealthy diet of all stick and no carrot. Obviously that will be to the detriment of those of modest means. The stick isn’t a nutritious substitute for the carrot.
Taxing unhealthy foods will require a definition of what’s unhealthy or healthy and you can imagine the large sums of money going towards consultants in the process to set a definition. Already this government has outsourced many functions of the public sector to the private sector at great costs and redundancies. Such a complex issue would suit more public funds being funnelled to the private sector for their profit and their appetites are endless.
As John Minto has pointed out in his recent post for TDB, the proportion of incomes for those on low incomes paid on GST is higher than their counterparts. When your income is low every dollar counts. The biased MSM propaganda machine may spin a dubious outlook of progress while ignoring the plight of the poor, but many of us in the real world with an unprejudiced perspective know the situation isn’t jolly-fine-splendid for those struggling in our communities. More income is proportionally extorted from the modest under this government via taxes for minimal or no benefit to them, any necessary security is minimal and receding; job, accommodation, social, etc.
Voluntary opinion polls are not valid statistical evidence. A proper sampling method is required to gain accurate results. Statistically, the results from the audience are more accurate than the voluntary input via the internet and text.
My concern over this show with this issue is Dunne and the Government would constantly refer to it as justification if they’re desperate for more revenue. Their track record of empathy for the disadvantaged is poor.
I find it strange that someone would spend twenty cents on a text message for more tax. Who are these people? I suspect they’re not struggling too hard.
Comments are closed.