Leaders" debates are good for democracy David Cameron campaigned vigorously for televised leaders" debates in the 2010 general election campaign and declared them a great success. After the first debate he professed himself "vindicated" and said that voters would have been asking: "Why on earth did we not have these things before?" He added: "I think we will have them in every election in the future and I think that is a really good thing for our democracy." The Prime Minister was singing a rather different tune when he addressed a parliamentary press gallery lunch yesterday. While he insisted he was still in favour of TV debates in principle, he has clearly developed serious reservations over the past two-and-a-half years: "My reflection on last time was that they did take all the life out of the campaign. Mr Cameron's new-found coolness about the 2010 format - three 90-minute leaders" debates on consecutive weeks during the campaign - should come as no surprise. A couple of weeks ago, the Conservative Party chairman, Grant Shapps, raised doubts as to whether any debates would take place at all: "I don't know if it will happen. There will be a discussion. It is evident that the ground is being prepared for the Prime Minister to try to extricate himself from the 2010 format. It is easy to see why. Incumbents have always resisted the idea of televised debates in this country on the grounds that they can only benefit opposition politicians. They only took place at all in 2010 because the then prime minister, Gordon Brown, was in such a weak position that he was able to take on the mantle of the insurgent. But Mr Cameron is making a serious mistake if he thinks that the genie can be put back in the bottle. The three TV debates galvanised the 2010 campaign, giving voters for the first time the chance to see party leaders subjected to protracted and detailed scrutiny. Mr Cameron was right in his initial assessment - they are good for democracy. One idea being canvassed, apparently, is to hold the debates before the campaign begins, which would be possible because, for the first time, we have a fixed-term parliament. Such a move would render the encounters quite meaningless. If they are removed from the cut-and-thrust of the campaign, they lose their purpose. In 2010, Nick Clegg's strong showing in the first debate helped transform the mood; so did Mitt Romney's impressive performance in the first head-to-head of the US presidential election. Mr Cameron performed a service to democracy by pressing successfully for the leaders" debates. He cannot wriggle out of them now.