TONY Blair was publicly urged by high-profile supporters within his own party - Peter Mandelson and John Burton included - to adopt a more direct approach in his campaigning: ditch the stage-management and the spin; get in amongst real people.

How ironic that, days later, his deputy, John Prescott, finds himself embroiled in a "should he or shouldn't he" controversy after punching a protestor who hit him with an egg from close range.

The answer, of course, is that he shouldn't have and he no doubt wishes he hadn't.

It has to be said, however, that if there had been a poll based on the question "Which member of the Cabinet would be most likely to punch a protestor?" Mr Prescott would almost certainly have topped it.

Mr Prescott was clearly wrong to punch his assailant because two wrongs do not make a right. Retaliation at all levels leads to escalation of the initial violence, and no one should condone that.

That does not mean, however, that there are no mitigating factors in Mr Prescott's favour. Throwing an egg at close range is not a joke. It is a violent act which can hurt and shock.

In the heat of the moment, and not fully understanding what was happening, Mr Prescott reacted by hitting out. Wrong but instinctive and human.

More important than the debate about Mr Prescott's punching ability is the wider question of security during the election campaign because, if politicians are to get closer to the people, they run a greater risk of an attack with far more serious consequences.

There are plenty of idiots out there, and the biggest villain of this particular piece is the idiot who chose not to protest peacefully and intelligently, but to resort to an act of juvenile violence.