Sure, you love them equally

But please tell me how bad Vana was in week 1 and week 2 (basically getting a "Joseph" in the final boardroom of week 2)

And Monkey, the Gary PM win was not that great either. He got a very negative edit and was lucky that the other team was a mess (there is a reason that four out of the final five were on his team).

I do...
I think it's just I find it unfair that Charleine excelled in the first three or four weeks and then flew under the radar, whilst Vana was pretty much the opposite, yet people seem to have forgotten how much of a contender Charleine was after the first few weeks and how poor Vana was.
I do like them equally, I just feel compelled to support Charleine based on the unfair hate she's getting imo

Yes, his win as PM got a negative edit on the main show. And then on "The Final Five" he got bigged up like he was the greatest PM of all time for the exact same task, with no criticism whatsoever. I thought it was an object lesson how they can portray the exact same set of events in two entirely different lights with very little effort.

Had it been the old format, Richard and Vana would have made then final with Richard probably winning in all honesty.

I also think Selina wouldn't have made it anywhere near as far, nor would Scott.

Brett, David, Jenny and Ruth would all have probably lasted a bit longer than they did.

I think Richard would have won as he performed so well, and showed his talent as a marketer.

Nowadays, performance doesn't count as much, and the process is quite separate from the final five onwards.

We won't know, because their cvs weren't scrutinised. That guy a few years ago Alex? Would never have won. Sugar obviously saw his buisiness plan beforehand

Vana will need to go to Dragons Den