So, that was it. The debate was a novelty, but once the sheen had worn off a little, it was a slightly dull affair. The debate’s being analysed to death, with Nick Clegg grabbing the plaudits in what you would have thought was an Obama-esque display of oratory, judging by the media reaction.

Clegg’s a decent guy, and a decent speaker. (I had the opportunity to meet him when he was an MEP, and I was working for another MEP on the same parliamentary committee – and it was clear that he was a rising star.) Like a new kid at school, he’s going to get a lot of attention. It’s looking like his performances, and the additional exposure, will get his party more votes – perhaps enough to swing a few constituencies from each of the main parties. However, he’s not going to be PM. And expectations will rise for him in the next two debates – it will be interesting if, in two weeks’ time, he has maintained his distinctiveness and freshness.

As I’d predicted, it wasn’t a game-changer, but we did learn some interesting things:

David Cameron can appear very uneasy: I thought Cameron was out-of-sorts. Clegg ‘out-charisma-ed’ him, and he didn’t seem to have much purpose either, instead focusing on stories about where he’d been and who he’d met. He made some gaffes (about meeting a 40 year-old black man who had been in the navy for 30 years, and more seriously, listing China (along with Iran) as a threat to the UK and a reason for maintaining a nuclear deterrent). True, Cameron had it all to lose, and therefore had reason to be nervous; but he spoke in generalities, and was not very concrete. Perhaps he pitched it well – as a political junkie, I look for these things whereas an ‘ordinary’ person might look for the vision and the soundbites – but to me, he was a little vacuous.

Gordon Brown exceeded floor-level expectations: the prime minister did fairly well – he was humorous at times, brought detail to the debate and had the stature of a statesman (something the other two distinctly lacked). However, his tendency to talk in lists, to reel off figures, is not engaging. People remember stories, not statistics (although Cameron went too far in the other direction). Brown and Labour have some convincing arguments – but Brown needs to work these into one-line pay-offs to close his arguments – before he loses his audience in a trough of stats.

At times it was less ‘The First Election Debate’ and more ‘Blind Date’: both Cameron and Brown (especially the latter) were falling over themselves to agree with Clegg – embarrassingly so at times. Arguments are being rehearsed for a post-hung parliament scenario.

ITV is rusty on current affairs: ITV don’t do politics – and it showed. The opening of the programme, and the set, was more ‘early 1990s quiz show’ than serious debate. Alistair Stewart did well to keep to the rules, and was slightly frightening when barking out the leaders’ names, but lacked the gravitas of a Dimbleby, Paxman, Edwards or Boulton. The format did not help either; everything was a little stilted.

It’s still all to play for: this debate won’t move the needle too much – but as we move closer to polling day, the debates may get more interesting, and have higher stakes. Labour has done well to get the economic debate as the last debate – it’s the issue on which Brown and Labour have the strongest arguments and the most experience. However, I can’t see it having a dramatic impact.

In the end, the debate began as novel and exciting – but slowly became a bit dull and pedestrian. No surprise: Britain is catching up with a 20th-century mass media format used for decades in the United States and the Europe, and one which parties and politicians can generally manage into neutrality.

For all the bluster, it’s going to be what happens between the debates, on the streets, that really counts.