I listened to most of the debate on the terms of reference for Sir John Chilcot's inquiry into the Iraq war yesterday and it was one of those intelligent, passionate, occasions that reminds you, after weeks of expenses and botched coups and personality politics - that parliament does sometimes serve as the cockpit of the nation.
The main news line was a concession that the inquiry will be able to apportion "blame" but the anger of most MPs who spoke was about how meaningless that would be if witnesses did not give evidence under oath. Andrew Mackinlay, very volcanic, was best in explaining why the oath was required.
It's one of these debates that's worth reading in full on Hansard (from column 800). I will again to see what Michael Mates was hinting at about dodgy dossiers and for what Clare Short said about cabinet discussions on the issue. They whet your appetite for what the inquiry will eventually reveal
PMQs was yet again about GB and DC hitting each other over the head with piles of statistics.
The fact that the PM can't bring himself to accept that capital spending will fall from this year to 2012/13 is strange. Can he sustain it for the next 12 months? Even his official spokesman could not use the word "fall" and resorted to hand gestures.
It is, as ever, all about smoke and mirrors and politicians drawing the line where, surprise surprise, it best suits them.
Bear with me as explaining it isn't easy.
The key figures are those from the 08 Budget and the 09 Budget.
The 08 Budget capital spending figures were: 08/09 £33bn; 09/10 £35bn; 10/11 £37bn; 11/12 £38bn and 12/13 £41bn.
So before the recession hit, spending was set to rise gradually up to the Olympics in summer 2012.
The 09 Budget figures were: 08/09 £38bn; 09/10 £44bn; 10/11 £36bn; 11/12 £29bn and 12/13 £26bn.
The PM's argument is that, because of the recession, Labour decided to bring forward some money from the later years to now. Hence, the jump in 09/10 to £44bn.
Last week, GB got himself into some bother as he claimed: "Capital expenditure will grow until the year of the Olympics."
Today, DC said the figures clearly showed that that was nonsense as from this year they fall - £44bn, £36bn, £29bn and £26bn.
Intriguingly, No 10 later spoke about the "profile" of spending ie the span of years.
It was suggested that, despite the frontloading of money to this year, over the relevant four years spending will rise. Will it?
Here's the rub.
If you take - as the PM does - the years from 08/09 to 11/12, then the total spending figure does rise from £143bn in the 08 Budget to £147bn in the 09 one.
If you take - as the Tories do - the years from 09/10 to 12/13, then the spending figure falls from £151bn in the 08 Budget to £135bn in the 09 one.
Conservative HQ says its reasonable to use 09/10 to 12/13 because the Olympics fall in the financial year of 2012/13.
No 10 points out that the games fall only just into the financial year 2012/13 and most spending on them would have occurred before then.
In other words, Labour and Conservative will choose the figures that bolsters their own arguments. 'Twas ever thus.
So the beauty contest for the new Speaker has just begun. Personally, given the candidates, I'm not looking forward to the swimwear section.
There has already been talk of shenanigans with claims that Labour whips have been pressurising backbenchers.
Denied, of course.
There is talk that some Tories, who are heavily against their social liberal colleague John Bercow, are teaming up with Labour MPs to back Margaret Beckett, the ex-Foreign Secretary, as a compromise candidate.
Then there is more talk that having seen off JB, the Tories will renege on the deal to put MB in the Chair and switch their votes en masse to Sir George Young. Could they be so sneaky?
Because it's a secret ballot, no one knows for sure who will do what or what the eventual outcome will be.
As I tap, it seems that JB's star is on the wane and it could be a race between MB and GY.
The problem is that after the hoohaa of the expenses scandal, the public will be looking for a fresh face to shake up the gasworks by the Thames.
Unfortunately, neither MB - an ex-Foreign Secretary and Labour stalwart - nor GY - a bicycling Old Etonian baronet - fit the bill as both come across as Westminster patricians.
Whoever wins, will have their work cut out. Only Ann Widdecombe, who had already pledged to stand down at the next General Election, will have a short time in the Chair.
Of course, if MPs plump for her, it will mean they will have to go through the whole tortuous process again the other side of the election.
If MB does get it, she might be forgiven for uttering the fruity response she gave when she was called back into the Cabinet as Foreign Sec. I'll let readers google what the comment was.
Hats off to Tom Harris, Glasgow MP, for filling in the quiet hours before the Speaker's election begins.
On his blog Harris has produced a redacted version of the ballot paper with every name blocked out except Margaret Beckett's. No Labour whip in operation, states Mr Harris emphatically.
The Ministry of Defence has confirmed plans to cut 125 jobs at the Hebrides missile range in South Uist and to control firing operations remotely from a rival Welsh base at Aberporth.
The loss of 125 jobs, about one in six of the workforce in the Southern Isles, will have a devastating effect on the Western Isles economy. Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the development agency, estimate that the knock-on effect of redundancies will double the number of local jobs losses.
The cuts will be made over a four year period during which QinetiQ, the private contractor running Range Hebrides, plans to move the command and control centre for missile firing to the Aberporth range in west Wales.
The military also plans to withdraw its permanent presence from St Kilda, the world heritage site in the Atlantic, that houses a tracking station for missiles fired from the South Uist coastline. The military have had a presence on South Uist and St Kilda for over 50 years. In addition the West Camp at Balivanich in Benbecula, which houses visiting army deployments, is to be reduced.
The QinetiQ facility at Kyle of Lochalsh, which operates the underwater testing range at North Rona and Raasay, is to lose 20 jobs around 2012 as a result of rationalisation.
Angus MacNeil, the SNP MP for the Western Isles, put an emergency motion to the Commons yesterday, calling for a debate.
He told the chamber: “South Uist and North Uist and Benbecula cannot cope with this level of cuts. In a major city like Glasgow the would be the equivalent of six to seven thousand jobs gone at the stroke of a pen. To an island community it is infinitely worse - it means depopulation or employment opportunities that after eight hours away by ferry.”
He added: “An entire community has shaped itself to fulfil its needs of the range, a service and sacrifice which entailed forgoing many opportunities. The MoD through QinetiQ cannot walk away leaving chaos and a vacuum behind. There is surely a social and economic responsibility here. Over and above the social and economic responsibility the Hebrides range is best for purpose in Britain. There is no equivalent in Europe to Range Hebrides. For the island the range is too important.”
As I left the Commons last night, ruminating on Tom Harris's rather pointed question to the Prime Minister - "So answer me this, Gordon: Why do you think Cameron wants you to remain in post?" - I bumped into one of the Conservative spokesmen.
"He's survived," I said. "Oh yes, I'm happy with that," said the Tory.
I wonder what the blogging buccaneer of Glasgow South would make of that comment? I wonder too if his blog, one of the most candid and entertaining of MPs' online efforts, is what left him in a frame of mind to speak out?
Through his blog Harris is effectively in touch with the electorate two or three times a day, updating them on his thoughts and opinions.
As a result he might have found it more difficult than his peers to maintain a silence on the leadership issue or to make a strangulated show of support during the event and then face his blog followers afterwards.
Is blogging the political antidote against hypocrisy. Tom, discuss?
Politics
