Before I look around for other reactions I’ll give my own.

Both Jacinda Ardern and Bill English were feistier and debated a lot more than in the first debate.

English had a significantly stronger performance. He has some weak moments, for example when asked whether politicians lie, and on the Barclay related texts, and on housing, and he was occasionally hesitant. But he frequently stated examples of things he and National have done and are doing to address issues. And he often contested what Ardern said.

English’s best moment was actually when he was questioned by the panel afterwards. Morgan Godfrey thought he was putting on the spot on National’s ‘boot camp’ policy. English responded strongly and with an unusual degree of passion, saying that the military style academy was for the 150 worst of youth offenders, and it was a better option than the alternative for them, prison.

Ardern was a bit better perhaps but she often revealed her and Labour’s shortcomings. She speaks well, and engaged in debate with English, but she relied too much on claiming she had ‘vision’ but backed it up with too little details or substance.

Having a goal of eliminating child poverty and homelessness is a laudable vision, but it hardly sets her apart. It could be shared by just about all MPs and just about every New Zealander. But the reality is that it sounds like waving magic wand sort of stuff. She lacked credible details about how she would achieve it.

And English countered by saying that he and National already had legislation in place that would lift 50,000 kids out of poverty, and he planned to lift 50,000 more in 2-3 years if the economy allowed.

When pushed by Patrick Gower to quantify a target Ardern suggested a goal of a 10% reduction, which was weak in comparison, and was far from eliminating it.

Ardern stuck to her ‘wait for the tax working group’ on CGT and got hammered for that, and it left her vulnerable to ongoing criticism unless she finds a better way of addressing this.

In my view English was easily more impressive, he has risen to the occasion,  and looked a far better prospect for being Prime Minister.

English actually showed more determination and passion than Ardern.

Ardern has obvious potential but may need three years to hone her skills and develop and present some more policy detail.

There are a couple more debates to go, with one in Christchurch on Thursday night. Ardern has surprised many, including myself, by how well she stepped up to the Labour leadership at very short notice, but needs to find another gear if she is going to compete with English.

On other aspects of the debate – Patrick Gower pushed them both with some hard questions but overdid some things, especially pushing his obsession with Peters being significant. The post-debate panel was very disappointing.