The Footlights’ win at this year’s comedy debate (‘this house believes money is the root of all evil’) is unsurprising. Being on home ground, they were always more likely to have support. What was unexpected, and indeed disappointing, is that the level of support they enjoyed was completely justified.

The key problem for the Oxford Revue was that, seemingly, half their side appeared unsure of what a comedy debate involved. I’ve no doubt that many of their troupe are adept at doing character sketches, funny voices and visual gags, but debating, even when done purely for laughs, is not about that. Those in the chamber, the overfill in the bar and the Kennedy room were expecting punchy, short and engaging speeches vaguely to do with money and evil but primarily as a showcase of what we were told have been the two ‘foremost platforms’ for British comedians and actors over the past century. Instead, we were given long rambles which most people did not appreciate. At one point, the third speaker for the opposition said ‘I need not go on’. I wish he hadn’t, but he did go on, being too boring most of the time to merit car crash embarrassing viewing. The result was that the final proposition speaker, Ahir Shah, faced an unenviable period of time stuck in a coffin.

That said, the Oxford team did have some good lines: ‘money is like a legume’ and, sure to slip into my everyday vocabulary ‘beshitted £10 notes’. Unfortunately, this was all too often buried under a great deal of other, less successful word play. Confectionary puns and Nick Clegg jokes get laughs, yes, but are by no means impressive, or even, in the latter case, topical; a Berlusconi mention would have been far more successful.

The strength of the Cambridge team came in their more uniform performances, whereas Oxford’s side seemed to get progressively less funny. On both sides, however, there was a distinct lack of a female presence, which is confusing as a quick glance at the latest Oxford Revue show suggests that at least one third of them aren’t men. Part of the problem is that it becomes increasingly clear that a Union debate is not the best forum for the two sides to go against each other. A sketch/stand up night at a different venue would play to the strengths of both sides. Overall, it seems a shame that so many obviously funny people could disappoint in comparison to the much punchier emergency debate on a night the Union cleverly decided to launch its new, later bar hours.