The Sketch: Geoff Hoon becomes the Defensive Secretary

Do you find the Defence Secretary a bit defensive? Too defensive? Is that the best form of attack? Would a more aggressive minister be less inclined to bomb Iraq? Does it matter how defensive his posture is?

Something quite encouraging happened in question time. It was a cheerful, upbeat occasion with very little anger directed at our sometime ally and covert enemy (the French). The questions were also quite interesting. The answers weren't because we knew what they were going to be.

Mr Hoon's contribution can be rendered as: No decisions have been taken. We would prefer to get a second resolution. There will be more discussion before further action.

Malcolm Savidge pointed out the moral justification of our attacking Iraq is that he used chemical weapons (obtained from ourselves). Were our nuclear threats designed "to show our moral or military superiority?" There was no answer to that.

Glenda Jackson came out with a long, curling delivery. The fact Saddam has issued special suits to protect his troops from chemical and biological attack has been taken as proof positive he has such weapons and is determined to use them. Did the fact we have issued the same sort of suit mean we had such weapons and were prepared to use them too? Mr Hoon did eventually assure her such weapons are not part of the British arsenal. What he meant is unclear. The most likely interpretation is that we have chemical and biological weapons and would use them, if pushed.

Tam Dalyell reached into his historical memory to lay out three Battle for Baghdad scenarios: 1) Bomb it into extinction, as we did Dresden. 2) Street fighting through the alleys and sewers with a degree of horror that only those who have seen it before can appreciate. 3) Starve the city into submission.

David Winnick gave his own historical perspective. Every time there'd been a war recently – the Falklands, the Gulf, Kosovo – Tam Dalyell had issued warnings of massive casualties and inevitable failure and every time he had been wrong. Paul Flynn denounced the government dossiers of evidence as "vacuous propaganda". Mr Hoon was hurt his colleague preferred Iraq's word to Alastair Campbell's. It's a pretty close call, reasonable people agree.

Julian Brazier revealed a House of Commons library investigation contradicted a ministerial claim about defence spending; it is, in fact, lower than at any time since the 1930s.

Jonathan Djanogly wondered whether UN inspectors were getting the level of intelligence they needed from our secret services. The implication is Saddam is not co-operating with the inspectors but then neither are we.

And Labour's Neil Gerrard asked the question of the day: What gave Tony Blair the right to describe a veto exercised in the Secuirty Council, in the normal way, as "unreasonable". Mr Blair has said he will not allow the war to be prevented by an "unreasonable veto".

Mr Hoon defended Mr Blair so defensively it wasn't possible, alas, to remember what he said.

simoncarr75@hotmail.com