Mitt Romney emerged the clear winner in last Wednesday’s first US presidential debate, which focused mainly on the economy, but also on healthcare and the role of the government.

President Barack Obama performed reasonably well but sometimes looked under pressure and on the defensive. Romney, on the other hand, was in clear command, presented his arguments well and seemed to be enjoying himself.

I watched the entire debate and believe Romney scored more points on the economy – which is basically what this election is about – while Obama defended his healthcare reform well. On the question on the role of government, I think both candidates did a reasonable job.

The debate certainly did not lack substance, many complex issues were discussed (perhaps too many for the average American voter) and the overall tone was very civil.

Neither candidate committed any gaffes, nor were there any memorable debate quotes such as Ronald Reagan’s famous “There you go again” line when he debated President Jimmy Carter in the 1980 presidential election.

Obama has been leading in the national opinion polls and in the majority of swing states which will ultimately determine the outcome of this election.

The latest poll of polls (the average of all the main national polls), published a couple of days before the debate, shows the President leading his Republican opponent by 49 per cent to 46 per cent, but with a five per cent undecided bloc, which could swing either way. I have not seen any new national polls since the debate, but if Romney is to have a serious chance of winning this election, he will have to see a surge in the opinion polls. Otherwise this election is over for him.

However, two polls conducted by Rasmussen Reports after the debate in the crucial swing states of Ohio and Virginia are very encouraging for Romney.

In Ohio, Romney has managed to narrow the gap with the President (Obama 50 per cent, Romney 49 per cent), while in Virginia, Romney is actually now leading by 49 per cent to 48 per cent.

Naturally, one will have to see whether Romney can take advantage of this momentum and whether he will perform equally well in the two other presidential debates on October 16 and 22.

Does winning such debates automatically mean victory at the polls? Not necessarily. Walter Mondale beat Ronald Reagan in the first debate of the 1984 presidential election, yet Reagan was re-elected President by a landslide. And in 2004 John Kerry easily beat President George Bush in the first debate of that year’s election, yet Bush won re-election.

In those elections voters simply felt more at ease with both Reagan and Bush, and on an individual basis, preferred them to their opponents. The same can be said about Obama today.

Although debates rarely have a major impact on US presidential races (unless a major gaffe is committed such as when President Gerald Ford claimed there was no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe in a 1976 debate with Jimmy Carter), a small shift could be decisive in a contest as close as this one, especially when five per cent of the electorate is undecided.

So we will have to wait and see for the latest set of polls to see the impact of last week’s debate.

Romney entered the debate with the image of a rich ‘wooden’ person detached from the everyday needs and concerns of ordinary voters.

He did a good job in the debate of changing this image, especially with his constant reference to the need for job creation and the difficulties faced by Americans today.

“Under the President’s policies, middle-income Americans have been buried. They’re just being crushed. Middle-income Americans have seen their income come down by $4,300. This is a tax in and of itself. I’ll call it the economy tax. It’s been crushing,” he said during the debate.

Obama, on the other hand, could have done a better job at defending his economic record, and told voters: “The question here tonight is not where we’ve been but where we’re going.”

Strangely enough, Obama made no reference in the debate to Romney’s infamous ‘47 per cent’ comment about that part of the electorate who pay no taxes and are ‘government-dependent victims’.

The Obama campaign probably had its reasons for not referring to this Romney remark, but such a strategy looked like a missed opportunity, as the day after the debate the Republican candidate apologised for the statement, saying it was completely wrong.

Economic policy and tax cuts dominated the debate with Obama describing his rival’s approach as “top-down economics” and a retreat to Bush-era policies. Romney, on the other hand, denied Obama’s claim that he would reduce taxes for very wealthy Americans. Shortly after the debate Obama told his supporters at a rally: “The real Mitt Romney has been running around the country for the last year promising $5 trillion in tax cuts that favour the wealthy. The fellow on stage last night said he didn’t know anything about that.”

A day after the debate, there was some good news for Obama. The US unemployment rate in September fell to its lowest rate since January 2009, to 7.8 per cent, down from 8.1 per cent in August. The latest data also showed that the US economy added a further 114,000 jobs last month, slightly more than was expected. This was the best news that the President could have hoped for, considering that last week’s debate has now given a new lease of life to the Romney campaign.

• The recent attack by Syrian forces on a Turkish frontier town is a very dangerous escalation of the Syrian conflict. Five Turkish civilians were killed and Turkey, a Nato member, has responded robustly (and understandably) with air strikes and artillery fire. The UN Security Council has condemned the Syrian mortar attack and said it underscored the grave impact the Syrian crisis was having on “regional peace and stability”. An earlier Security Council draft referring to “international peace and security” was blocked by Russia.

It is good that yesterday’s 5+5 summit in Malta called for a political transition in Syria. However, it is about time action is taken. Russia cannot be allowed to continue paralysing the situation and sooner or later measures will have to be taken outside the framework of the Security Council. To begin with, Nato and the Arab League should at least enforce no-fly zones in Syria to protect Syrian civilians.