The first question is, did it work as a debate? The discussion wasn’t as in-depth as I’d have liked, but it wasn’t as superficial as I feared either. The debate did give the three party leaders the chance to lay out their stall on a fairly wide range of issues, which is helpful. But the level of scrutiny and engagement between them, of critiquing and analysing each other’s positions, was very limited.

One of the key issues in the debate is public spending, and Brown and Cameron spent a lot of time arguing over whether their policies would help the economy, or put it at risk. Brown insisted that maintaining spending, paid for by a hike in National Insurance, is necessary for economic recovery, while Cameron called for waste to be cut, saying that it’s not about throwing more money at issues, and that raising NI would be counterproductive.

But there wasn’t any more explanation of the issues. I’d love to hear a proper, concise explanation from Brown and Cameron how and why they think their policies would have the effect they claim, and why their opponent is mistaken. But all we got was an “Oh yes it would”, “oh no it wouldn’t” restatement of their claims. Each party’s policies were stated, but not truly debated.

Brown came across to me as having the most substance to his arguments, giving more detail in terms of policies, fact and figures. I disagreed with him on several points, but thought he had the most content. He did, however, seem rather desperate to pal up with Nick Clegg, and it was rather funny to see Clegg’s bemused reaction to his insistence that “Nick Clegg agrees with me!”

As Lib Dem leader and least well known of the three, Clegg had the most to gain from the debate, and he certainly gained the most from this. He had the most confidence and engaged most effectively with the audience. He was obviously trying hard to come across as the straight-talking alternative, but to be fair to him, he largely succeeded.

Cameron seemed to me to be a bit on the back foot, with Brown pushing him hard to admit that he would need to make cuts. He seemed to bounce back a bit towards the end, and his closing statement was good. But I don’t think he succeeded in making a strong and convincing case that his plans would be best for the economy.

I’m a floating voter, and the debate hasn’t brought me any closer to making up my mind, yet. I hope to spend some more time over the next couple of weeks digging into the issues in depth, but I’m certain I’ll need to spend my own time analysing the different parties’ policies and candidates’ positions if I want any kind of in-depth understanding of the issues.

Television by its very nature tends to style over substance; the value of these events is not that they themselves are brilliant debates, but they are great talking points for everyone to debate about.