Let me start by putting in a word for Nicola Sturgeon. Were she to concede to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom she would probably make a better hand at the job than the other candidates on offer. Once the nation had got over the obvious dissonance of the UK being led by a Scottish Nationalist, her political skill set could be set to work on uniting the nation. She is not just a good performer in debate: she relates well to the general public when she encounters them, knows when to strike a serious tone and yet doesn’t take herself too seriously, as is shown by her participation in the Scottish Leaders interview with Chief Commissioner Cameron Mickelson. True, she was done over by Andrew Neil, but that is a badge of honour which she can share with Corbyn and Swinson, who got a similar doing, unlike Johnson, who, as is now clear to everyone, ran away.

There are of course a number of obstacles to Nicola Sturgeon taking the top job, not the least of which is that, despite her high profile in the campaign, she is not actually standing for election.

I think we can all agree that Jo Swinson’s early tactical errors have all but sunk her campaign and though she struggles gamely on, her support is ebbing away. Doubtless the Lib Dems are continuing to challenge in some areas, but this will be despite rather than because of Jo Swinson’s contribution.

The final leadership debate between Johnson and Corbyn, [BBC, 6Dec19] was widely reported as a no score draw, but I think this fails to represent some important differences in the quality of the performers. If I may develop my football metaphor; Corbyn was weak in both defence and attack but played a solid game in mid-field. Johnson on the other hand was just hopeless, hanging round the opposition penalty area, but showing no creativity, charging about without style or substance, desperate to put the ball in the net, but shooting wildly. This was a man not just in the wrong position, but actually in the wrong game. He should stick to comic journalism for the comfortably off, speeches to the Tory faithful, or scrabble – a game for which I am led to believe, he has a prodigious talent.

To be more exact, what he offered us was tired slogans, a very poor attempt at humour in response to the question about a suitable fate for dishonest politicians, and a lame attempt to ridicule Corbyn’s position of neutrality on Brexit. This was a point at which Corbyn’s defence let him down. It is perfectly reasonable to say that, faced with two options, one can see merit in both and can therefor work with either outcome. Boris wishes to obscure the simplicity of this rational and reasonable position, and to some extent, he succeeded.

Boris was also keen to rubbish the Labour plan to negotiate a “credible” new deal given that – according to Boris – the Labour negotiating team will be openly remain supporters. Reality check! Labour will negotiate a Norway style deal, frequently referenced in the 2016 referendum and providing an exit from the march towards a federal Europe. Plenty of leavers will be happy with this, though not all. Some erstwhile remainers might even find it appealing, or see it is an acceptable concession which should be made to honour the 2016 vote. Plainly this is a soft Brexit and will therefore be easy to negotiate and to implement should it win out over remain in a second referendum.

Corbyn failed to distinguish between borrowing for investment in infrastructure, which generates a national asset – and increased spending on running costs, which must be paid for by higher taxation. This is an important distinction and helps to make sense of how Labour’s ambitious plans can work. Corbyn fluffed the opportunity, which can only be a frustration to his watching lieutenants McDonnell and Long Bailey, who have both been more effective in explaining the credibility of Labour’s project.

Similarly Corbyn failed to neutralise Boris when he returned to that well worn smear, “the mess that Labour left us in”. I have heard Rebecca Long Bailey strike this down on a couple of occasions recently, reminding people that the financial crisis was international and whatever blame may attach to Labour for its failure to regulate the banking sector, the Conservative Party were in fact one of the opponents of any such regulation.

If the print media are to be believed, it is Boris who has triumphed at every stage of the election process. Broadcast media on the other hand have been more inclined to call it a draw with neither Corbyn nor Johnson being able to get the upper hand in debate.

This panel of one however, takes a different view. Corbyn, demonised and derided by the media and all of his political opponents, though far from stellar, has delivered a credible performance. Johnson, of whom much was expected, has gone off like a banger in a box of fireworks. Neither politician deserves an award, but Corbyn is the clear winner. Whether this reality will have any effect on how the nation votes on Thursday is another matter.