³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

It was not a head-to-head debate. But it was a back-to-back job interview and a good one at that.

It gave voters the chance to see the two men who could be our prime minister tested, above all, by Jeremy Paxman's robust questioning. (Full disclosure: I once spent a summer doing some paid research work for Jeremy when I was a student).

And both men were revealed to be vulnerable over their records in office and their promises for the future.

David Cameron was forced to admit to his missed targets on immigration and the deficit. He was unable say how he would meet his targets to cut welfare.

Ed Miliband was forced into the defensive over Labour's past record on the economy and immigration. And he was unable to spell out his own plans to cut spending.

The Paxman interrogations were more focused and telling than the rather haphazard questioning from the public.

Others will judge who won and lost. The polls said Mr Cameron edged it.

The watching political classes thought Mr Miliband put in a good performance, one that exceeded expectations.

An excessive amount of time and effort will now be wasted overanalysing the detail.

There were no major gaffes, nothing to change the momentum of the campaign or end the deadlock in the polls.

A few votes, perhaps, may change as a result of the exchanges.

But most important of all, those who watched will make a better informed judgement on May 7.

And that cannot be but a good thing.