TELEVISED confrontations between the presidential candidates in the United States are now well-established, and although they have not had a decisive impact on the outcome of elections, they have played a part in raising the quality of debate. British Prime Ministers have been noticeably reluctant to give a platform to the Leader of the Opposition, but in the coming election Mr Major starts off as the underdog. In an interview with a West of England newspaper he appeared to be amenable to debating on television with Mr Blair, so long as the TV companies come up with acceptable proposals after discussions with all the parties. Notwithstanding the difficulties of reaching agreement, carefully ordered televised debates between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition would be a welcome departure from the practice of recent elections. In the age of the spin doctor and the sound-bite

for TV news bulletins, the election is in danger of being conducted at the level of the lowest common denominator. The electorate knows a great deal about Mr Major's record and his policies. Mr Blair may already have become an even more familiar face, but he plays his cards close to his chest and his policies and plans for Government have not been subjected to enough scrutiny.

Most of the utterings of our political elite are crafted by speech writers, carefully revised and rehearsed, leaked in advance, and then delivered by autocue before invited audiences. Questions from the floor form no part of this routine. It is like playing cricket in the nets. It is far removed from the hustings of earlier eras when political leaders could draw huge audiences and engage in excellent sport with professional hecklers. Mr Major sought to break the mould in the 1992 election with his famous soap box as he travelled the length and breadth of the land. Even Blair sympathisers will admit that their man often comes off worse in his exchanges with the Prime Minister across the floor of the Commons at question time. Televised debates during the election campaign would be a fair test of both men, and give the public a concrete basis for assessing their real strengths and weaknesses.

It goes without saying that pagers should not be allowed.

It may be objected that such confrontations would be too presidential in style, and place an unfair emphasis on debating skills at the expense of policies. There are certainly risks in going down this road in a country where the Prime Minister is not directly elected and derives his power from the House of Commons. The rules of the game would help to counter such dangers. And there are greater risks in not having a proper debate at all. But the big problem is what to do about Paddy Ashdown and - in Scotland - Alex Salmond? A three or four-sided debate would be unduly cumbersome and a nightmare to order. Television has rules of fair play to observe, but in its coverage of news it has been able to focus on the running battle between the Government and Opposition without excluding the other parties from the debate. Politicians do not win many friends by negative campaigning. Dirty tricks departments

have too great an influence, and the real issues are often obscured by trivia. It is too much to hope that the forthcoming proceedings will be dominated by a much richer mix than has been evident in previous encounters, but televised debates would give the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to show if they at least have leadership qualities and constructive policies.