The problem is that Ms Harman came off rather badly. And as I mentioned on here previously, when people say, think or do silly things, I tend to highlight the error of their ways. In terms of this campaign, this can be a risky strategy. But I do detest imbecility and in the context of everything else I’ve written recently, I don’t fancy my chances of scuppering the whole thing for the sake of a few potentially inopportune words. Failing that, I’m fleeing the country on Tuesday anyway. So here goes (I'll try to be civil)

The Show
Like San Marino against England, things kicked off extremely well – the first ten minutes were dedicated to talk of voting reform, spearheaded by a chap from the Campaign for an English Parliament.

It was during this introductory salvo that the central theme of the evening was established, as Question Time transformed into the 'Make Harriet Harman Look Foolish Gameshow'. This was won, oddly enough, by Harriet Harman. I guess she did have rather an unfair advantage. So New Labour.

On the topic of voting reform, Ms Harman, presumably under orders from Alastair Campbell, cleverly re-wrote history, putting the 2005 spin on the 1997 manifesto promise, flatly denying that we were promised a referendum on the thing, going instead for 'What we said was that if we were to change the voting system for Westminster, it would be done through a referendum', or word to that effect. This was despite Dimbleby reading out the original promise. Argh.

In defence of the system, she added: "I don’t want to crow, but we did get the most votes". That’s not the point though, is it Harriet? You didn’t have to get the most votes. You could have got the third most votes and still have been returned with a majority.

The question then shifted to talk of boundary changes, a subject Boris was very vocal on, given he had written about it previously. The most interesting point to come out of this was the extent to which mindless anti-Tories can only hear what hey want to hear.

Boris made the point that the Labour constituencies had, on average, thousands fewer voters in them than Conservative constituencies. True. He highlighted this with a rather cheeky comparison between Henley, which has about 70,000 people and the Western Isles (yes, I know it’s changed it’s name, but I simply don’t possess enough phlegm to deal with it now) which has just over 20,000. It should be noted that the next smallest constituency has about 50,000, but the point is still valid.

A staunch anti-Tory in the back row then stood up to tell Boris to "shut up" and that the Tories had benefited from exactly the same bias for 18 years. Not true. Mr Johnson was talking about boundaries, not first-past-the-post. Boris was very liberal on talk of electoral reform; as far as he is concerned for now, he has seen a problem – the boundaries – and wants something done about it.

It would certainly be interesting to see what he’d make of reforming FPTP if he gave it some serious thought. After all, we already know he believes British democracy to be "an inherited conglomerate of traditions, bodged together, spatchcocked, barnacled and bubblegummed by fate and whimsy." (From his novel, it's superb - read it)

For what it's worth, changing the boundaries will reduce the bias, but it won’t eradicate it. I’m told it is worth somewhere between 10 and 20 seats.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. – H.L. Mencken

Obviously concerned that the anti-Tory woman was going to steal her thunder when it came to spouting specious nonsense, Harriet returned to the fore as the debate moved on to Prescott’s anti-teenager laws. John O’Farrell had an hilarious piece in the Guardian about the subject today, and eminent blogger Chicken Yoghurt has penned his perceptiveness on the issue too.

While Lynne Featherstone, Boris, Andrew Rawnsley and Jo-Anne Nadler utilised the capacity their minds have to think for themselves and sensibly conclude that the wearing of hoodies and baseball caps in shopping malls was not a matter for government interference, Ms Harman took a rather different view.

The gist of it was that groups of teenagers are intimidating and should be outlawed, or at least made to wear shirts and ties. Again, sensible comment suggested that people shouldn’t be discriminated against for the way they dress – there are all sorts of religious types who make the debate even more interesting – and something should only be done, therefore, if the individuals in question are being deliberately intimidating.

This wasn’t enough for Harriet, who didn’t see a difference between deliberate and accidental intimidation. People are scared and they shouldn’t be. Quite right, they shouldn’t be: they have no reason to be, bar the climate of fear created by the Daily Mail et al. Stopping teenagers wearing baseball caps isn’t going to make them less scary – it is only going to officially state that our streets aren’t safe, which is hardly the best way to reassure people.

Boris almost had a fit when Harman suggested the government had a role to play in the dress code of shopping malls, and rightly so. The word 'demented' definitely escaped from his lips.

At this stage, Harriet was getting rather het-up and it was very difficult to pin down the gormless, frightened look that engulfed her face.

She was threatened, I believe, by the fact that Boris, Lynne and Andrew had combated her original point with reason and common sense, which had forced her to back-track slightly before just getting confused and angry.

It was a sorry sight, made more distinct by how cool her companions managed to stay throughout. The point which was made abundantly clear was that Ms Harman doesn’t really 'do' free thinking. This might just help us – we now know that we don't have to convince her; we have to convince whoever she subordinates herself too – which will either be Tony or a significant bloc within the Labour Party. Anyway, that’s not really important, although it was rather distressing that the only member of the panel with any real power was the only one without a real brain.

I shouldn’t be too harsh – Ms Harman is a very driven, impassioned woman who probably always handed her homework in on time and never answered back to her teachers. But these are qualities you want in a secretary, not in a state-level minister.

Mercifully, the agitated Ms Harman was well and truly overshadowed by the former Shadow Arts Minister. Boris makes politics engaging in a way that no-one since Churchill has been able to do. I dream of the day when he is at the hub of PMQs.

For all the buffoonery, he is an indescribably intelligent man, largely free of party constraints and has one of the most observable desires to make the country a better place to be found in the whole of Westminster.

A hearty cheer was emitted from the audience when the question of the Tory leadership sidled into proceedings and Boris was asked whether he would be standing.

There was some first-class bumbling, stuttering and a round of goshes that basically translates to 'I’m well aware I wouldn’t stand a chance – too many people see me as no more than a buffoon or a pompous idiot and I’m liable to cause the party harm in the eyes of the populace'. A lachrymose shame if ever there was one.