Televised debates are a relatively new addition to British politics, and with the exception of ‘Cleggmania’ which succeeded the 2010 debate, they have been thoroughly underwhelming affairs. I listened to the Conservative Leadership debate this summer while cooking dinner, and so at least that was not entirely a wasted hour.

Just before this week’s Leaders Debate between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn I finished off painting a wall in the hallway. My night would have been far better spent to watch said paint dry.

There was a modicum of anticipation for this debate, as there was the potential that it could become quite heated, as both leaders are men who have shown themselves to have difficulty hiding their emotion when something rattles them.

There is also the conundrum of why the Prime Minister agreed to the debate in the first place, considering his poor track record. Corbyn’s debating history, by contrast, is much more impressive.

It may seem somewhat paradoxical for a politician whose career was launched by an appearance on Have I Got News For You, but Johnson really is not very good on his feet.

He is competent when required to come up with some sort of vaguely surreal quip on a panel show, or light-entertainment interview such as with Jonathan Ross, but when asked a serious question he sweats and squirms like a scene from The Thick of It.

It was clear that Johnson and Corbyn had each been told by their prep team, “For goodness sake, would you wind your neck in,” as both were on their best behaviours and stuck to their respective scripts. There was no real meat for avid viewers to get stuck into.

Johnson went into the debate with everything to lose, being so far ahead in the polls, and with this low-risk performance he may have managed to keep himself well above water. Considering he commands such a lead over respondents who are asked which Prime Minister they would prefer, it is understandable he will be seen as the ‘winner’ of the debate.

However, according to one post-debate poll by YouGov, opinions on how each leader performed overall were split 51-48 in favour of Johnson. The difference is within the margin of error, an indication that there is still all to play for in this election campaign.

If there was one moment that could cost Johnson in the weeks to come, it was his response to the question about the monarchy – just a few days after Prince Andrew gave a horrendous interview on the subject of accusations that he abused an underage girl, and questions over his relationship with US paedophile Jeffery Epstein.

Corbyn gave a fairly witty response that the monarchy “needs a bit of work,” whereas Johnson said the institution of the monarchy was “beyond reproach.”

It must be said that this is hardly a surprising response from a Tory: that the institution of the monarchy is beyond reproach, but individuals should be held to account. That is an ideologically conservative position. Yet what Johnson meant and what he said are different things, and by missing out that crucial second half on individual accountability, he could be damaged by how he was heard.

It is also worth considering that postal ballots will start to arrive in the aftermath of the debate, and so however viewers felt about the performance each leader could well affect how their ballot is filled out.

As usual after these sort of ‘debates’, which are made up of gimmick questions and soundbite answers, we can reflect on how much better it would be if candidates were held to Irish Times debating rules. Under these rules each speaker makes a seven-minute speech, the first and last of which are protected but during the intervening five minutes points of information may be offered by other candidates or from the floor.

It’s doubtful that most politicians would be able to compete under such terms. Perhaps if such terms were applied we would have a much better class of politician, and a healthier democracy as a result.