AS THE programme started, guests in the hospitality suite at Birmingham's National Exhibition Centre arena gathered in front of the TV set. Within a couple of minutes there was nervous laughter. Soon there was a collective shaking of heads. What had we let ourselves in for?

This was not mature debate. In the words of the Daily Maids waspishly articulate Ann Leslie, it was nothing more than "a cockfight".

By the end of an over heated, over hyped, underwhelming show, the celebrity panelists had come up with a variety of damning descriptions: "A bear pit", "a Roman circus" and "a pantomime without the laughs".

Lady Thatcher's former press spokesman, Sir Bernard Ingham, called it "a Donald Duck debate - bone quack and you're off".

Not one of us, monarchist or republican, had a good word to say of the experience. It was unstructured, poorly directed and hopelessly chaired by Roger Cook.

No argument from either side was properly challenged. Any rash attempt at seriousness was ignored or mercilessly shouted down.

No wonder Steven Norris MP suddenly rose from his seat and left. Others were keen to follow him.

Doubtless Carlton TV set it up to be this kind of event with an audience prompted to bellow, heckle, boo and berate. When I started to speak the only sentence I would be allowed to utter, a woman rose from her seat to shout abuse at Claire Rayner.

Instead of quelling this intolerant interruption, the director immediately sent a cameraman and sound man rushing towards her. Good TV, you see. Great entertainment. Shame about the level of the debate.

Carlton may also gloat at receiving 2.5 million phone calls. They should know, however, that up in the hospitality suite people were making call after call on mobile phones in order to expose the hypocrisy of the whole exercise. One monarchist made 15 in succession. Her republican pal managed a dozen in reply.

In the hall, intelligence was frowned on. From the moment Professor Stephen Haseler, chair of the republican side, began the debate the crowd began to bay.

The most articulate monarchist, Frederick Forsyth, quickly realised how to deal with it. In spite of what he later called "an offensive Glaswegian claque", he indulged in a combination of populist rhetoric and personal insult.

It set the tone. Robbed of the chance to make substantive statements, the panelists grew increasingly bad tempered with each other and were reduced to petty point scoring.

Ingham was rude to the former Sunday Times editor, Andrew Neil, and got a stinging reply. Dr David Starkey made a sarcastic attack on Paul Flynn MP. Forsyth told me he was so angry about "the treacherous Allan Starkie" sitting on his left he wanted to hit him.

Lots of heat. No light. What joy for Carlton.

John Pilger, who hoped to elevate the discussion above the personalities of the royal family by dealing with the undemocratic exercise of the crown prerogative, was not called to speak in spite of sitting on the panel.

Phillip Hall, perhaps Britain's leading authority on the finances of monarchy, was not able to crush myths about the queen being rich in her own right. Terry Waite, who sat next to me on the panel, was appalled at the spectacle.

We could hear the audience shouting, but not well enough to know what they were saying. In spite of fundamental disagreements over the topic itself, as we said our farewells at the end there was unanimity: it had been a futile venture.

It had trivialised the argument. No one had been able to change anyone's mind.

On the long journey home, though, I wondered if it had been entirely worthless after all.

Forget the vote in that phoney voodoo poll or the mindless showing of cards by the audience. It was proof that republicanism is on the public agenda for the first time in a century.

While republicans such as I can take heart from that, we should not overlook the fact that the reason the monarchy is under pressure has little to do with those of us who hold principled, democratic, egalitarian or meritocratic ideals. It has to do, as almost all the audience and some of the panel constantly reminded us, with the supposed personality defects of certain members of the royal family.

That is not the basis for overturning a millennium of monarchic privilege, and that's why the programme was a chance missed.

Carlton allowed, perhaps encouraged, anarchy to reign. That does a disservice to all of us, royalists and roundheads, who believe our future lies in rational argument.