Ed Miliband's beleaguered leadership of the Labour Party may not survive much longer but his forthright honesty in facing up to the inevitably gloomy economic backdrop to the 2015 General Election campaign should be of lasting benefit to the Labour Party.

His attempts this morning to breathe fresh life into his leadership have already been roundly mocked and his Radio 4 interview did sound rather desperate as he talked about his "inner belief' and dipped into the banal lexicon of American politics, tossing around phrases such as "Bring it on". If you look beyond that to the substance of what he said you can see the battle lines being drawn up for the next election. I don't think anything he said will unduly worry the Conservatives but the Liberal Democrats could have a real problem on their hands if Labour sticks to the Miliband line under a new leader.

His analysis of the most likely economic scenario as we go into 2015 is in line with most forecasts and his response to it is actually quite astute.

The choice in 2015 will be a grim one, rather as it was in 2010. The hopes of the Coalition Government that by 2015 the worst of the deficit cutting would have been done and that we would be seeing the first signs of the spring of economic recovery have been dashed by the Eurozone crisis. This is a far bigger blow for the Liberal Democrats than the Tories. The Lib Dems pinned their most fervent hopes on being able to detach themselves from the Tories in 2015, enabling them to say that the nasty job of cutting the deficit and setting the country back onto the road to recovery had been done. This would have given them a platform to boast about their part in securing that recovery and to set out a manifesto for the future that would offer the country undiluted Liberal Democracy. That hope has now gone.

The trap waiting for Labour
The next election will be highly polarised with the Tories arguing that the austerity programme needs to continue unabated and that they are the party to deliver it, especially if liberated from the (only mildly) restrictive confines of the Coalition Government. The trap for Labour would be to pretend that it can make all manner of promises about new spending which could not be delivered and which would merely remind the electorate of the economic disaster area that surrounded the previous Labour government. Ed Miliband has started to steer Labour away from that trap. If Labour can develop a coherent set of policies around a "fair austerity" theme then it could have the potential to win over many disillusioned Liberal Democrat voters.

It is hard to see the Liberal Democrats being able to counter the painful squeeze on their vote that an austerity election fought on these lines would exert. There is no obvious locus for them in a debate between Labour and Tory on these lines. To most people they are not a party with a strong, distinctive economic vision and are not going to be able to develop one while they are tied into the Coalition. One of the cleverest things that David Cameron did when forming the government was to give the Lib Dems the Financial Secretary to the Treasury knowing that this post would require a Liberal Democrat minister to take the lead in proposing and defending the deep cuts in public expenditure. The Lib Dems didn't help themselves by appointing David Laws to this post. His enthusiasm for swinging the public expenditure axe made George Osborne look positively restrained. Laws replacement Danny Alexander hasn't done much better as he has failed to develop a distinctive Lib Dem approach to the task, leaving his party with no option but to defend the Tory cuts at the next election.

The Tories also out manoeuvred the Lib Dems on tuition fees where they managed to saddle poor Vince Cable with the job of proposing the massive U-turn in Liberal Democrat policy on tuition fees. There is no escaping from taking responsibility for that despite attempts by some leading Liberal Democrats to argue retrospectively that the higher fees and the new system that supports them is fairer: that isn't what they told people at the last election.

This wouldn't be so bad for them if they were achieving some of their other cherished objectives such as political reform or a closer relationship with the European Union but these have all blown up in their faces.

Nick Clegg's rash charge into a referendum on the Alternative Vote was a disaster as it enabled the electorate to punish him for the betrayal over tuition fees. I don't hold out much hope for genuine reform of the House of Lords being achieved in this Parliament either.

Eurosceptic stance has boosted Cameron
Then there is Europe where Cameron has seized the first real opportunity that came his way to play the Eurosceptic card - and with some significant effect. The right of the Tory party, restless over what they were starting to see as too many concessions to their coalition partners, are now suddenly held in the palm of his hand. The wider electorate has also warmed to his Eurosceptic approach as most people fear being dragged too deep into the Euro crisis while we are still struggling with severe economic problems of our own. It has also given Cameron and Osborne a very convenient fig leaf to use as they will be able to shift some of the blame for the consequences of their draconian economic policies onto Europe while saying they are fighting the UK's corner for all they are worth.

Today might not mark the rival of Ed Miliband's leadership but he has made a good start on positioning Labour well for the next election.       

Change can be painful but is sometimes very necessary. We all know that our political system is broken: electors are disconnected, cynical and untrusting of politicians and the systems and institutions in which they operate. All the parties at the last General Election apparently embraced reform. Now it seems that they are all rapidly finding reasons to run away from those commitments now they have seen the potential consequences. I can think of few things - apart from another major expenses scandal - more likely to turn voters aways from the major parties and from engaging in the political process than a conspiracy of inaction on reform among the political establishment.

A huge amount of broadcast time and newsprint has been expended since the end of last week analysing the election and referendum results and, in particular, what they mean for the Liberal Democrats. Quite alot of it has missed some key points, not least in the almost exclusive focus on the proposed NHS reforms as the issue that the Lib Dems can use to put some distance between them and the Conservatives. I'm not sure it will be that easy for the Lib Dems to claim credit for any changes to NHS policy, partially because Labour is already moving effectively to set the pace and partially because there are many  vocal Tory critics of Andrew Lansley's proposals too. For this reason I can see the breaking up of the major banks emerging as one of the key distinguishing issues between the Coalition partners.

One of the most interesting features of British politics since the General Election has been the almost total lack of coherent opposition to the Coalition government. Of course Labour politicians have shouted at it alot but it has rarely amounted to much more than knee-jerk opposition to everything that it says and does: you get no real sense of any alternative course of action.

This sad state of affairs is largely down to Labour's ludicrously cumbersome and extended leadership election process which has had the effect of paralysing the official opposition for over four months. Fortunately, this finally comes to an end at next week's Labour Party conference, after which we can expect real politics to resume.

This phoney war contributed to the rather empty feeling after Nick Clegg's speech to the Liberal Democrat conference yesterday which predictably lacked policy substance but also lacked any real passion. True, he managed a fair bit of vigour when attacking Labour for the appalling economic (and for liberals, civil liberties) legacy it left but we all know that the main  culprits in that department have all departed the political stage so it felt contrived. He couldn't attack the Conservatives as that would have looked foolish, even if his party tried to hand him some tools for that job earlier in the day by voting against the government's education policies. So without any political enemies in his sights, Clegg had little to offer beyond an extended rallying call to his troops to hold their nerve when the flak really starts flying when the spending review is unveiled.

Now, I know many Liberal Democrats will say this is a typical media misunderstanding of the new politics of co-operation and consensus and that we must learn to expect politicians to spend more time looking for where they agree rather than disagree but it does seem to be a world extraordinarily bereft of passion and belief. Labour's lazy negativity since the election has allowed this thesis of co-operation rather than confrontation to gather credibility and for the assertion that it is what the public wants to go almost unchallenged. I don't think it will hold for long once Labour has a new leader and once the public starts to feel the effects of the accelerated deficit reduction programme.

I think some of the Coalition supporters have mis-read the increasingly indecisive election results (at least in terms of the share of the popular vote) over the last 40 years as an expression of a public desire to see greater co-operation between parties and consensus. It isn't. Most people have voted for parties that offer something they believe in and which represent values that are very distinctive. The consequence of that diverse and divided electorate was finally realised in May when we woke up to a Parliament where none of the parties has a majority. Against a background of economic crisis, a stable government was essential and there was only really one serious option for achieving that, a point that Mr Clegg made well yesterday. The challenge of coalition politics is to forge a workable compromise from different policies and different political beliefs, not to pretend that such differences are not important or even that they no longer exist.

Starting next week, we will see who is right on this. Once Labour has a new leader, the phoney war will be over. It will obviously be a very close contest and whoever wins will have a very tough job rebuilding a party drained by 13 years of increasingly controversial government but they will almost instantly sharpen up Labour's attacks on the Coalition. They will also offer David Cameron a real target to shoot at when he stands up in front of the Conservative conference the following week. I expect by the time Parliament returns later in October it will feel much more like real politics has resumed. 

It was former Prime Minister Harold Wilson who first said that a week was a long time in politics. He was stating the obvious but has there ever been a week in British politics more packed with drama, the unexpected being trumped the next moment by the unimaginable? Not in my lifetime.

The gentle recovery in the Tory vote since David Cameron's relatively poor performance in the first Leaders' Debate two weeks probably gained some important momentum tonight. We could yet see a Conservative government heading for Downing Street this time next week, albeit with a very small majority.

David Cameron made this his most assured contribution of the three debates and the instant polls seem to be confirming this. More assured it may have been, decisive it wasn't. There is still alot to play for over the next week, although I think we can finally start ruling out another term in office for Gordon Brown. He looked and sounded like a man with no future by the end.

In his final speech the Prime Minister did not offer a single positive reason why anyone should vote Labour. Instead, he used it to attack both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats and, by implication, the British public for daring to contemplate change. At least both David Cameron and Nick Clegg tried to offer people some reasons for supporting them, although both their closing speeches were longer on rhetoric than substance.

So, where does this leave us after the three debates? Somewhere very different from where we started, that's where.

Just over two weeks ago this election was a fight between a stuttering Conservative Party with a decent poll lead and a surprisingly resilient Labour Party with the Liberal Democrats out in the third place where they have been for two (if not three) generations. It was, for most people, a two-horse race.
 
It is probably still a two-horse race, just with a dramatic change in the identity of one of the horses. First Nick Clegg came up on the rails, then he held off a challenge from Brown and now he has left him trailing back in the third place Clegg himself occupied just 15 short days ago. It is a fight between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats for the largest share of the popular vote now. Cameron acknowledged that to-night by reserving his most ferocious attacks for Nick Clegg over immigration and the Euro. He knows that it is now the Liberal Democrats who are the main threat and who can prevent a Conservative victory. Gordon Brown seemed stuck in a past era, fighting the battles of yesterday and not adjusting well to the changed reality.

Clegg did well under pressure, getting none of the help he received two weeks ago from Gordon Brown who most definitely wasn't going to agree with Nick over anything. There were times when Clegg looked abit flustered and he occasionally struggled to move the debate on but, equally, Cameron didn't shine consistently through the 90 minutes.

The key question now is: have Labour got a comeback strategy? Is there anything they can do this weekend to rescue their rapidly crumbling campaign. If they haven't then we may see their vote drop to the low 20s which is much more likely to benefit the Liberal Democrats than the Tories.

The Tories will, however, be buoyed up by their leader's performance to-night and do have the advantage of having already built up a little momentum in their favour over the last week. That sort of momentum can be crucial at this stage in an election campaign. It may just be enough.
 

I am going for the instant reaction again, rather than wait until the morning to see which way the wind is blowing. So here goes.

The second leaders' debate was much closer than the first and for that reason I imagine all three parties will be taking some satisfaction from the performance of their leaders. I wouldn't be surprised if the polls end up making it a score draw. If they do, that means that the big loser, once again, is David Cameron. If he and the Conservatives cannot pull away and consistently register on or around 40% they are not going to get the overall majority that has seemed a sure fire certainty for the last three years. I thought Cameron was appealing strongly to the core Tory vote on the big issues that came up like immigration and Europe but doing very little to reach out to the middle ground he needs if he is going to win. I wouldn't have thought that he has to worry about the core vote in this election. Surely, his job is to reach out well beyond that and he showed little sign of doing so in tonight's debate.

He gave one slightly bizarre answer when 84 year old Grace wanted to know what the parties would do for pensioners on the basic pension when he hold her that she would have to wait until 2016 at the earliest for any improvements. He did, however, rattle Gordon Brown on the pensions issue by attacking him for some false claims about Tory policies he alleged were appearing in Labour leaflets.

To Gordon Brown then. He did better than last week and, again, probably exceeded expectations but it was a very uneven performance. There was none of the "I agree with Nick" statements of the previous week, in fact quite the opposite as he kept attacking him for not wanting to replace Trident and for the Liberal Democrats' immigration policies. On both these issues, Brown found himself very close to Cameron although he stopped short of uttering what would have been the fatal words "I agree with David". Brown sounded good on pensions but you have to remember that you are looking at the man who in a decade as Chancellor did untold damage to our pensions system. He was genuinely effective on areas such as gay rights and religious tolerance than could easily have been captured by Clegg if he had slipped up.

For Nick Clegg it was probably job done. He was very unlikely to run away with it as before but he performed very soundly under alot more pressure and scored some good points. He stuck to his guns on the potentially unpopular - for his party - issues of Europe and immigration and came out with the best line of the night when dismissing Brown's demand to deport illegal immigrants: "We are talking about 900,000 people and you don't even know where they live". At that point the audience couldn't help themselves and slipped out of their straightjackets and laughed.

All Clegg had to do this week was hold his own and not wilt under the pressure. Even when Adam Boulton tried to force the Daily Telegraph's smear campaign against him into the debate, Clegg confidently swatted it away. Just by keeping up with the others he has ensured that the election remains firmly a three horse race.

This was potentially the most difficult debate of the three for Clegg because the popular assumptions are that Europe is loathed, immigrants are barely tolerated and people demand strong defence, all issues that the Liberal Democrats differ with popular opinion on. Clegg may not have scored heavily on these issues but neither was he hurt over them.

I thought the most disappointing aspect of the evening was Sky's coverage. They kept an annoying and irrelevant ticker running all the way through, chose poor, ill-focussed questions, allowed Boulton to intervene with a question to just one candidate that hadn't been asked and then came up with an instant poll for the Sun that suggested - surprise, surprise - Cameron had won. I look forward to the professionalism of the BBC next week.

There was a huge amount of speculation in the run-up to this election about the possible influence of social media on the campaign. So far, it has been relatively low key, if not minimal. This morning it has burst to the fore with #nickcleggsfault one of the top trending topics on Twitter globally, not just in the United Kingdom.