It may have been the first prime minister's questions of the new parliamentary session but MP John Baron wasted no time in posing a really difficult philosophical question.
In relation to religious hatred legislation Baron asked the prime minister to "define religion".
It was one that would have tested the Archbishop of Canterbury, so Blair did what he always does in these circumstances - he answered a question that hadn't been asked.
Labour backbencher Kelvin Hopkins then raised Balfour Beatty's fine over the Hatfield train crash and asked why the prime minister is still insistent on bringing the private sector into the NHS as well as the rail system.
It was an indication of the internal opposition ministers face in their bid to push through the sweeping public service reforms Blair hopes to see in his final term.
Michael Howard, who should have been on a hiding to nothing as outgoing leader, picked up on the dissent and exploited it in one of his better performances.
By saying he agreed with extending the use of the private sector in the public services the Conservative leader deliberately reinforced the sense among left-wing Labour MPs that the reforms are a Tory agenda.
Exploiting another division, Howard quoted Blair's comments that he "always wished he had gone further" with his reforms. Howard asked who had stopped him from doing so.
Gordon Brown's broad smile proved that he knew the answer even if Blair wasn't going to blurt it out at the despatch box.
"I'll give you a clue," Howard persisted, "Two words, three syllables."
And for a moment we thought we were watching a daytime TV quiz along with the nation's students.
The prime minister kept up his form and shouted about Labour's achievements and failed to answer the question - but you can't blame him for that one.
"Two questions asked, none answered," Howard observed.
The Tory leader's attack wasn't just a good joke. It also followed David Cameron's tactic of characterising Gordon Brown as the "block" to the reforms the public services need.
A further indication of who Howard wants to succeed him?
If the Tory chief pulled out a decent performance from an unpromising situation, the Liberal Democrat leader did precisely the opposite.
Charles Kennedy knows that this is not the best forum for his talents and that opposing backbenchers will use any slip to jeer him and put him further off his stride, so why did he give them just such an opportunity in his opening line?
Kennedy said he wished to associate himself with the condolences expressed by the PM and the "current" leader of the opposition over the south Asian earthquake.
Apart from it being inappropriate to make a weak joke at Michael Howard's expense whilst talking about a tragedy that has killed thousands, he also invited jeering about his own leadership security.
It was a shame because he went on to make a good point about the government's plans to detain terror suspects for up to 90 days without charge, something the government's own top lawyer has problems with.
And not just Lord Goldsmith but the self-same Labour backbenchers Howard had sought to galvanise against public service reform.
They may the ones that will provide the most effective opposition to Blair's plans in the coming months.
The Verdict
Michael Howard - 8/10: He may be on the way out but he showed his successor, whoever that may be, where he thinks the government is vulnerable with this performance.
Tony Blair - 6/10: There's only so many points you can get when you avoid answering the questions.
Charles Kennedy - 5/10: A good point all too typically marred by an ill judged introduction.
