Won't watch/cant' watch Paddy Gower, so I rely on commentators/people I have come to trust to "report", and by the time I read 3 or 4 different "takes" ...??? Generally find political "debates" a rubbish way to decide who to vote for, compared to the longer Q & A's parties do when announcing policy or responding to events outside of politics/elections.
And the ultimate test - don't watch what they SAY, watch what they DO, and if they haven't been in power recently, then what they did THEN that aligns with what they say they will go back to i.e. did it work before or no? In general, if things are unproven I go with heart/good intentions rather than policies that are negative/punitive, so things are becoming clearer!
Yes Chris Hopkins was more engaged but he was also rude in terms of his continuing banter while some of us wanted to hear what Chris Luxon had to say! Maybe tempering his comments to enable both debaters to have their say would provide more meaningful dialogue
Won't watch/cant' watch Paddy Gower, so I rely on commentators/people I have come to trust to "report", and by the time I read 3 or 4 different "takes" ...??? Generally find political "debates" a rubbish way to decide who to vote for, compared to the longer Q & A's parties do when announcing policy or responding to events outside of politics/elections.
And the ultimate test - don't watch what they SAY, watch what they DO, and if they haven't been in power recently, then what they did THEN that aligns with what they say they will go back to i.e. did it work before or no? In general, if things are unproven I go with heart/good intentions rather than policies that are negative/punitive, so things are becoming clearer!
Yes Chris Hopkins was more engaged but he was also rude in terms of his continuing banter while some of us wanted to hear what Chris Luxon had to say! Maybe tempering his comments to enable both debaters to have their say would provide more meaningful dialogue