So, common sense has prevailed - for the time being at any rate. David Cameron lost the vote for action in Syria by 13 votes, with many of his own side voting against him. I was struck by the fact that when he was making his speech there was not a single spare seat in the house; when the cameras returned later on there was only a scattering of folk there. Where had they all gone? Did they come back for the vote? How do these things work - can someone explain it to me in words of no more than two syllables?
I did say to my son once that I was always less than impressed by how few M P's there were in the House when the cameras were there, apart from at Prime Minister's Question Time. He lectured me on how MP's had far more important constituency work to do and that that is why they were often not in the House of Commons. I need convincing.
As for the Syria point of view - Tom Stephenson put it very well on his blog yesterday and is well worth a read. All I want to say really is that how can more killing justify the killing in the first place - and if we are so keen to help in Syria, why did we 'allow' so many Kurds to be chemical-weapon-attacked in the Middle East in the not too distant past? And - correct me if I am wrong - I thought that many of the weapons being used by the Assad regime had been bought from the West.
What a troubled, crazy world we live in. We cannot possibly understand the Middle East question. The man who spoke the most sense in yesterday's debate was the past Ambassador to Syria - very impressive and reasonable I thought.
Sometimes I just want to curl up in an armchair, switch off the News and put my head under the blanket.