Skipper

Reading about the Royal-Sarkozy television debate on Wednesday, brought home the fact that such confrontations seldom produce emphatic results. Every practising politician knows of the devastating Lloyd Bengston put down of Dan Quayle in the 1988 Vice presidential debates: 'Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy'. It follows that often such contests are stubbornly fought draws with neither side willing to risk straying too far from prepared comfort zone territory. So it was with this debate except that the leader of the socialists surprised her opponent and her audience by directing some rather male aggression at Sarkozy, himself better known for his volatile small man machismo.

Probably the most famous televised political debate was the Kennedy -Nixon affair in 1960(pictured). Here Nixon was believed by car radio listeners to have shaded the contest but the greater number watching the little box saw Kennedy's film star profile, compared it with Nixon's dodgy five o'clock shadow and had no doubt as to who had won. Even allowing for the distortions of image makers, however, I think it would be good for our democracy to introduce televised debates.

Possibly one would have been allowed by Blair in 1997 had he been behind in the polls instead of miles ahead. As it was, he turned down Major's request for such a debate, presumably on the grounds that it would allow too much publicity to an opponent. A head to head confrontation would stimulate interest in a democracy which, at times in this country, can appear moribund. It would also show how Cameron performs under real pressure instead of the formalised rituals of the Commons. As for Gordon, it would give him a chance to unveil his formidable intellect and mastery of policy detail for the electorate to judge if he deserves to be elected prime minister rather than merely inherit the title for his erstwhile neighbour and rival.