Sketch: Who votes for another Syria vote? Essentially it's like this. Last Thursday, the Government was desperate to win the vote on Syria, and Labour was desperate to defeat it. The Government lost. That, it seemed, was that. But now, half a week later, Labour keeps asking if there'll be another vote, and the Government keeps saying no. "This is a democracy and Parliament has spoken," harrumphed Mr Hammond, in the manner of a parent telling a small child that if it wanted to go to the lavatory it should have said so when he'd asked it the first time. "The circumstances would have to change very significantly," he continued, "before Parliament would want to look again at this issue." Quite a crafty reply, simultaneously telling Ms Stuart to get lost while leaving open the possibility of holding another vote at some point should the Government fancy its chances. That wasn't enough for Jim Murphy, the bony-faced Shadow Defence Secretary. (Not that his face is bonier than Mr Hammond's. Theirs, in fact, are perhaps the two boniest faces in Parliament. You could use their cheekbones to grate carrots.) Mr Murphy asked Mr Hammond to specify in what circumstances the Government would hold another vote. Tories groaned and grumbled. Mr Hammond snapped that the question was "a bit rich," then repeated his "circumstances change very significantly" get-out clause. Cue more groaning and grumbling, generally unintelligible, but probably along the lines of, "Give us a vote on a thing we already voted against so we can vote against it again!" and "No! We're not holding votes on things unless we're sure we'll win! Tom Watson, Labour's former campaign man, asked whether Mr Hammond agreed that the Syrian conflict wasn't "goodies versus baddies" but "baddies versus baddies." "Sounds like the Labour party," snorted the Lib Dems" Sir Bob Russell. "The honourable gentleman has a point," said Mr Hammond. I think he was referring to Mr Watson rather than to Sir Bob, but I wouldn't like to swear to it.