Leaders debate

From what I saw.

The worm seemed to like Jim Anderton and Peter Dunne out two leaders who got to the debate by going through the courts. Generally the worm thought Helen Clarke was OK and it was interested in strangling Tariana Turia. The worm thought Winston Peters was ok but not great and national was also pretty average and the same for the Greens.

I Thought Jim Anderton Came across quite well, Peter Dunne didn’t really say anything worthwhile but at least he did not annoy me. I thought Helen Clarke was a bit boring although I expect that from a major party and Tariana Turia was weak and unconvincing having said that she had a tough task since her Party is never going to be a mainstream one. I thought Winston Peters was too aggressive and I was almost embarrassed to hear him talk an outstandingly bad debate for him from my point of view but having said that he is appealing to a certain sector of the voting public here and he may well win it. Finally I thought Janette Fitzsimons was very weak and boring.

As they wrapped up I noted that many parties particularly the greens seemed to say "we needed to vote green to support labour" or equivalent thereof. On the whole this is nonsense if you want to support labour vote labour if you want to support national vote national. Special cases might make exceptions to this rule (for example a national voter might vote for hide in Epsom) but anyway a party should have a better argument for voting for them than just tactical voting. Frankly it is sad when a party feels that is their best selling point.