COMMENT

It feels like the aftermath of that leaders' debate went on all day yesterday, didn't it?

These things are often a bit of a let down by the time they roll around because they've been built up for so long the anticipation is often greater than the event itself.

Boy did we debrief it to death - although I note Jacinda Ardern said she's not interested in commentators' opinions, I wonder why?

But what's good is that people are more engaged politically than I thought they might be.

At one point, one million viewers in total tuned into that TV 1 debate. I'm not sure how long they stayed watching for, but 1.1 million people giving it a crack is not bad at all. It's a drop from last time round when 1.3 million tuned in in 2017 but it's still a decent amount of eyeballs.

And there's more to come of course, another couple of debates over the next couple of weeks.

But what's interesting is how the leaders themselves perceive these things.

From our point of view, as viewers, we get to see how prepped and polished they are, we get to see the cogs whirring as the leaders try to answer questions, while keeping in mind all the instructions from their respective media trainers.

Ardern's instruction was clearly to keep calm and carry on. Judith Collins may have had the same instruction but appeared to ditch that halfway through as she sprang to life, clearly deciding to just be herself.

• Heather du Plessis-Allan: Crusher Collins returned and gave National voters hope
• 'Poor wee thing': Collins needles Ardern after TV leaders debate

But Ardern said that she believes debates are not bloodsports. Which got me thinking. Aren't they?

I mean, I know we're not literally seeing blood, but surely a debate is a robust exchange of ideas tossed back and forward in a bid to get your argument to the front. That's why debates have winners and losers.

Although I note Labour's leader doesn't think of them that way either. No winners or losers in their world, just a discussion around ideas. Well that's a speech not a debate.

Mini monologues are not debates. A debate is an argument. Collins appeared to get that as she came out of it not only agreeing there's a winner and a loser but declaring that she was in fact the winner.

And isn't that why we tune in? For the argy bargy?

Isn't that why there's so much hype around it? Isn't that why people are paid to analyse the bejeesus out of it the next day?

Isn't that why advertisers sign up to be part of it? Why leaders spend hours and hours and days prepping for it?

It certainly needs to be more than just a wafflefest.

Collins says she'll be bringing her sass to the next one.

That could be a liability if she goes crazy on the sass, she may be accused of being too aggressive.

But it certainly gives voters and viewers an incentive to tune into the next one.