Returning from a couple of days abroad, I found a message pointing out that the relevant PMQ clip was available on YouTube.

It is well worth watching. For me, the passion of Ming's rejoinder to Blair's answer lifts it well above the ordinary. Great stuff

The press operation really seemed to work this time.

Successively we were covered for Ming's letter to Blair, asking him to take part in the Iraq debate, for the breakfast presentation of a withdrawal timetable, for PMQs, and for the Iraq debate. And Ming deserves a lot of the credit. On the Today programme he was precise. Had he waffled, the show might have come to grief, but he presented crisply the steps that needed to be taken - where and when.

At PMQs his comeback to Blair was picked up for the news bulletins. The Times puts it like this

Ming kept on punching. Why wasn’t Mr Blair attending the Iraq debate after PMQs? “What can possibly be more important?” cried Ming...“Isn’t that the kind of leadership we are entitled to?” There was something quite mad about Ming lecturing the Prime Minister about leadership but, still, it stung. “I AM actually debating the issue with him NOW,” snapped the PM. But, not, of course, for longer than the 30 seconds it took to answer. As PMQs ended, Tony Blair slipped out of the Chamber, as silently as a shadow. The Tories made exaggerated clapping motions.

Finally, in the Iraq debate, Ming was forceful, taking on Labour and the Tories.

Elsewhere, Nick Clegg has been prominent in the press on the prisons story, making it one of lib dems' best days for coverage for a very long time. It is just a pity that we can't get similar coverage on other stories - so far, at least.

Tony Blair posted today in the Guardian's Comment is Free blog, examining the Conservative Conference:

The reason that they are making a virtue of having no policies is that they are still caught between the two wings of their party. The Tories want to postpone a decision on direction, but if we have confidence both in our achievements and future programme, they will be forced to decide. That will be their real test of leadership. There is no evidence from this week that they can pass it.

Blair may be wrong on many things, but on this he is right. Many warm and fluffy words may have been spoken, but nothing of any real solidity or substance emerged from Brighton this week. The reason for this is what has been characterised as the Cameron Conundrum: the centre of British politics may be liberal, but the Conservative Party and its core support isn't. Its irrelevant whether Cameron believes his platitudes or not; he can't please his core support and the people he wishes to convert at the same time. One might even imagine Mr Blair at question time, positing the following*:

“Why won’t they tell us? The Tories have got something to hide, but what? Is it that they are no longer the Conservative Party at all, and if so shouldn’t they be honest with their members? Or that Mr. Balloon does not believe a single word of his liberal rhetoric? There is a difference between not committing to tax cuts and not committing to a tax policy. Someone has something to fear from Cameron’s Conservative Party, but is it the right or is it the rest of us? You sweet talk the ladies with your commitment talk, but you make none at all. So tell us Mr Cameron who you really love or are you too weak to upset someone?”

[Update - I see Oliver Letwin is described on Question Time as Conservative Head of Policy. No wonder he has the time to be "something in the City"; he can't be over-worked!]

* - hat tip to Paul Lloyd for this "quote"

With the Labour party conference over and the Tory conference about to begin, the most striking fact about both is the lack of real distinction between the two parties on grounds of policy. Despite all of the ructions of the last year, Labour's conference theme was 'unity' around an essentially Blairite consensus, with no serious contenders for the leadership calling for any change of direction. The Tory conference is likely to be similar, with calls for the Conservative party to unite around a similar centrist message. Both parties talk up their 'toughness' in pursuit of terrorists, and their compassion in the cause of ending poverty in Africa. Both make a nodding observance to the growing reality of climate change. But both say little more than 'just trust us to do a good job' on the major issues of health, education and taxation.

Recently, internet PR guru Tim Ireland produced an internet movie clip for the Lib Dems, entitled New Tory Labour. It's an amusing clip which features a Frankensteinian amalgamation of Blair, Cameron and Brown talking about climate change. Of course, he isn't the only person to note the ever-increasing similarity in presentation and policy; the BBC Two show Time Trumpet noted the same thing.

But, joking aside, what does this mean for the Lib Dems? Conventional wisdom says that the next election is likely to be the most closely-fought since 1992. Conventional wisdom also says that, in such tight elections, the third party gets squeezed; people who might vote Lib Dem will vote for either Labour or Conservative in order to keep their least-favoured option out. But is this conventional wisdom correct?

In my opinion, probably not. As Labour and Conservative converge, the 'keep the bastards out' vote diminishes. Far from being scared back into the Labour fold by the prospect of a Tory government, some voters may feel that, since there is little to choose between Labour and Conservative, they will simply ignore those parties and vote for the party offering a positive agenda. And as Labour and the Tories chase 'floating voters' of the narrow middle ground, they leave vast swathes of the country cold. For the Liberal Democrats, the Labour/Tory convergence may represent not a threat, but an opportunity.