Yesterday Mike Smithson sparked off a debate on the possibilities and outcomes surrounding a Hung Parliament. The lively discussion in the comments field explored a whole range of possibilities - who would be winners and losers, and the likely effect on the parties of each scenario discussed.

Yet - in one comment Stodge (occasionally of this Parish) noted that almost no-one had looked at what would be best for the country, rather than their narrow political interest.

Whenever the Hung Parliament question is raised, it is framed in terms of "Which way would the Lib Dems jump?" Our MPs always defer along the lines of "It is not right to second guess the outcome of the next election. Until we see the verdict delivered by the British People we wait on their decision." Matthew Parris recently gave equivocal support in the form of suggesting we campaign along the lines of "Vote for us, we'll keep one or the other of the b*ggers honest!"

Elsewhere, blogger Cicero has argued that he sees the future political faultline falling between the liberal and the authoritarian approach to Government. I think this offers us a suggestion as to how to tackle the inevitable question when it arises.

I would hope Sir Ming would pitch his answer something like this:

"I believe in Liberalism as a political creed, and the best approach to take when adressing the challenges facing this country. The liberal approach is the best answer to the problems that beset us.

Many members of the other parties do not believe in a Liberal approach - they are instinctively authoritarian and, to be honest, I feel would be happy in each other's company despite their different party allegiances.

Yet, there are also MPs (and voters) who hold broadly liberal views who, for historical, cultural and pragmatic reasons have chosen to join parties other than the Liberal Democrats.

The verdict of the people for many years now has been that they do not trust one political party to govern outright. It is only our outdated political system that allows one party to gain a majority of seats without a majority of votes. This time, that system has delivered a verdict more in keeping with the electorate's wishes, albeit by accident rather than design.

To move forward, I call on those in all political parties who share broadly liberal views to put aside narrow party differences, and join together to work for the benefit of all the country in enacting a liberal approach to government. We might call this a Venezuelan Coalition, after the colours of that country's flag.

It has worked before in times of national crises. It is my strong belief that the challenges posed to our way of life by the threats of climate change, international terrorism, and the opportunities and stresses of globalisation merit such an approach again, now.

Are we, as politicians, big enough to put party concerns aside for the good of the country? I think, and hope, we are."

In today's Guardian Liam Byrne and Bill Ramell argue that "Blair's exit must not be used to lure Labour from targeting ambitious voters in the super-marginals". What a piece of self-serving, cynical tosh. It is to the credit of the many respondents to this appaling article, which highlights exactly what is so corrupt about our electoral system, that they see right through this hubristic attempt to remain in power at any cost.

And one respondent, mboy, puts it:

Labour had the chance to change an electoral system that isn't used in any other western places except the politically bankrupt USA. They could have done this, and then they wouldn't have had to worry about the Tories outspending them in super-marginals. But yet again - as with so many things - the NuLab apostles decided FPTP was working very well indeed, and nothing needed to change. PR would have consigned the old Tory party to the dustbin of history. Never forget that it was the Labour party that rescued them.

Indeed. The chance to give everyone a say in how we are governed, a chance for a realignment of political parties, and a chance to make every vote count equally - all promised by New Labour in 1997. And never delivered, like so much else Blair offered.

During the last election campaign, Tony Blair warned that "if people end up opting out by drifting off to the Lib Dems then it only takes one in ten of our voters to drift off to the Lib Dems (and) you end up with a Tory government".

This claim was shown to be patent nonsense. But engendering a climate of fear has proved a useful tactic by Labour in the intervening period.

Chairman Blears* has been trying to rally the depleted ranks of the party, according to the BBC, by using the same argument:

"The Tories are making a comeback, the next general election will not be easy.

"A swing against Labour of just 1.3% could see the Tories forming the next government."

Again, this is patent nonsense. A 1.3% swing removes Labour's majority. Is she really trying to say that some sort of ragtag coalition of Tories, Lib Dems, Ulster Unionists (Democratic and Official), SDLP, Sinn Fein, Scottish Nationalists, Plaid Cymru, Save Kidderminster Hospital, and George Galloway (FFS) are going to form a government??? For the Tories actually to win a majority requires a swing of more like 10% - Dave's Blue Labour have not achieved anything like that (and God Forbid that they ever do).

Hazel - let me give you some advice. Rather than trying to scare people into voting for you, try and give them some positive reasons.

* I once voted for this woman. I hang my head in shame, but in mitigation it was in 1997 ...

The big UK political story is the extension of the cash-for-peerages investigation. All the papers are running it - and it is going to run on for a while longer. Brown is not quite in the spotlight, but is out on the public stage. Here is the Guardian covering the Sky News report:

Police have contacted a "substantial" proportion of Tony Blair's past and present cabinet ministers over the loans-for-peerages scandal, it was claimed today.
Sky News reported that every member of the 2005 cabinet except the prime minister had received a letter about the claims.

"Every minister" includes Brwon of course. So his chances of appearing as Mr Clean after Blair has gone are reduced. Michael White breaks the bad news

why might a protracted controversy over details like that - or the Met's failure to make a case that the CPS and the Attorney General can sanction - matter to prime minister Brown? For the same reason that Neil Hamilton and Jonathan Aitken's doomed libel suits against the Guardian mattered in the mid-90s to John Major whose ministers they had been. A background of scandal makes it harder to make a fresh start, even if Brown is free of this particular taint.

Quite who is tainted is an interesting question. The Guardian also quote a Conservative denial:

A Tory spokesman said no shadow ministers had been contacted by police, apart from the party's former leader, Michael Howard.

This is quite a small group of people. Always interesting when denials are so specific...

That pillar of the Lib dem establishment, Rob Fenwick, has been fretting about the destination of Clare Short over at Liberal Democrat Voice.

I noted months ago that Clare was making a point of saying nice things about Ming.

Her objective is to promote electoral reform, balanced parliament, and thus the effective scrutiny of Parliament. This makes her a potential fellow traveller rather than member. In practice it probably leads her to the familiar Guardian position of telling people to vote Labour where this is needed to keep out the Tories, and Lib Dem, PC and SNP anywhere else.

Party members have to support their party everywhere, and work for an overall majority. So I doubt that she would ever be comfortable in Lib Dem colours.

But reading around the papers there are a few straws in the wind.

The Times has a list of her rebellions - and I was surprised to see how often I had agreed with her:

WHAT SHE HAS TOLD THE COUNTRY

In 1995 she suggested that the decriminalisation of cannabis should be discussed, a move that was condemned by other leading Labour Party figures

In July 1997 she refered to the Millennium Dome, then new Labour’s pet project, as “a silly, temporary building”

She attacked government proposals to withhold aid from countries that refuse to take back illegal immigrants as “repugnant” in June 2002

She denounced university top-up fees in November 2002 as “a really bad idea”

She accused France of a conspiracy to keep Africa in poverty while Tony Blair was attempting to gain French approval for an agreement on African development in 2002

In January 2003, she criticised government “control freakery” over target setting

In the build-up to the Iraq war she repeatedly called Tony Blair reckless and threatened to resign from the Cabinet in the event of the Government taking Britain to war with Iraq without a clear mandate from the United Nations. Unlike her Cabinet colleague Robin Cook, she did not immediately resign when British troops were sent to Iraq

She resigned over the Iraq war in May 2003

The Guardian meanwhile fingers the Lib Dems as trggering the move:

It is possible the news leaked after the Liberal Democrats tried to persuade her to follow the leftwing former Labour MP Brian Sedgemore and join them. She said pointedly in her resignation letter that she would remain a social democrat.

Interesting.

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.