Steve Richards: What have these showdowns taught us?

There are big lessons to learn about the impact of the leaders' debates

What are we going to do for the rest of the election campaign? What are they going to do, the leaders, the strategists and the entourages? There are no more televised debates. The election campaign is more or less over.

The actual debates were much better than I feared. I have always believed voters would respond positively to politics in the raw without much mediation. The drama and importance of politics do not require a comedian or a self-centred interviewer to make it interesting, as some programme editors arrogantly assume. "I know how to get viewers interested – we will get Jordan to interview the leaders" is the sort of clichéd exclamation that does the rounds these days. Jordan did not get a look-in during three peak-time debates. That is progress.

Several years ago I got a call from Channel 4 asking if I would be interested in presenting a series on politics, interviewing voters around the country. The follow-up question was: "Can you ride a horse?" For some reason the idea was to "liven up" politics by doing it all on horseback. Politics is lively enough already without horses, Jordan, or a stand-up comedian giving the "outsider's take". Voters are gripped by the personal dramas, the eternal contest of unpredictable outcome and even by some of the issues.

But I was worried that the debates would be stifled by rules and defensive caution. They have not been as exciting as the reporting suggests, but they were meaty, substantial events that conveyed something about the three individuals and what they represent. All of them came over fairly well, avoiding sugary banalities and addressing issues as openly as they can in a campaign. As a pro-politics columnist I am delighted I was wrong about the debates themselves.

Even so, there are big lessons to learn about their impact, which was by no means wholly positive. In advance the parties decided the debates would dominate the campaign. Their predictions became self-fulfilling. There was little attempt to convey messages to a national audience in between. I can understand why. When there is a chance of reaching an audience of millions, what is the point of press conferences laid on for stroppy journalists or a rally in which a single clip will be played on the news? As one strategist observed to me yesterday, the debates have "drained the life" out of the rest of the campaign. But that is partly because the parties chose to be lifeless. This was a mistake on their part, at least in the case of Labour and the Conservatives, the two with most to lose.

There was space for messages beyond the debates. Of course the media's capacity for self-absorption is not to be underestimated and televised events were an irresistible preoccupation, but I detected an appetite for more orthodox campaigning that was not met. As a result, the messages from the parties have been less clear than in any recent election. Perhaps they had no clear message to deliver, but part of the explanation was their obsession with the debates.

What followed the debates was weird. I had underestimated the degree to which the post-debate choreography would help the perceived winner. Shortly before the debate ends, newspapers declare their winner and there are opinion polls. In truth the instant verdicts of columnists should be taken with a pinch of salt, as distinct, of course, from our more considered judgements which should be viewed with appropriate deference and unqualified respect. They are written as the debate is still taking place, which means the exchanges are only half watched and the conclusions are reached prematurely. By the time of the second debate the bias of certain newspapers also came into play. The Tory-supporting ones ached to call it for Cameron before he uttered a word. They duly did so. Meanwhile, the post-debate polls are the least scientific in an otherwise sophisticated industry. Yet the hasty or biased media verdicts and the rushed polling determine the mood of the campaign for days.

So intoxicating is the mood that those who did not watch the debates are as confident as those who did in declaring who won. Some of us who watched wondered whether we were witnessing the same debate as others. In terms of performance I placed Brown third in the first two debates and first on Thursday, more authoritative and in command. The polls suggest he came third and that Cameron strolled to a prime ministerial victory. The immediate reaction will feed on itself for days even if it is not based on very much. The winner takes all, distorting the entire campaign.

I pointed out last Saturday that a Conservative government with an overall majority remained a strong possibility. After Cameron's "victory" on Thursday night it is a stronger one now. A senior advertising executive was so intrigued by the reaction to the first debate that he watched it again in the cold light of day. His considered judgement is that the exchanges were a low score draw. All of them were pretty good: not spectacular and not bad. Yet within minutes Clegg was declared the soaring winner.

While the debates focused on policy, the build-up and post-mortems were entirely about who had won and what the consequences would be. I doubt if many voters know what Cameron means by a big society. When Cleggmania erupted I suspect the excitement was not based on the Liberal Democrat's manifesto. I would be surprised if much is known about what Labour would do if it clung on to power. But virtually everyone will have clocked Clegg was a winner and Cameron was supposedly the comeback kid.

The debates brought real unmediated politics to viewers and yet led to the strangest, most surreal campaign in modern times.