Isabel Hardman

Defence Questions this afternoon was, as you might expect, a rather chippy affair. It seemed that whenever Philip Hammond rose to answer a question, he answered it by reminding the Labour MP asking it of their party's decision to oppose the government's motion on Syria. Nowhere was this more the case than in the Defence Secretary's exchange with Jim Murphy, where both men set out some interesting wriggle room in their party positions on a second vote.

After the special relationship was found still breathing this afternoon, is there a chance UK involvement in Syria action might have life in it yet? If Congress does not debate and vote on action until 9 September, there is time for the UN weapons inspectors to report and the UN Security Council to vote. This assumes Congress does approve action (and Obama said he was confident he would get the support, hopefully based on better intelligence than that which led Cameron to be equally confident at the start of this week). But if all of those conditions are met, would the Labour party support action?

David Cameron and Barack Obama spoke this evening about their special relationship. Normally when people start talking a lot about their relationships in public, it's because something is wrong (or they've just started out and like to hold loud and impressive conversations about whether to cook the salmon or the homemade ravioli in front of as many people as possible). So the fact that the importance of the special relationship was not just raised in the call, but included in the Number 10 readout suggests the pair were calling in the marriage counsellors. A No 10 spokesperson said: 'The President stressed his appreciation of his strong friendship with the Prime Minister and of the strength, durability and depth of the special relationship between our two countries.

Conservatives have been returning to their Westminster offices this week to find the wind behind them. Something suddenly seems to be going right: there’s good news on the economy, jobs and immigration and Labour seems to be in gentle meltdown. The idea of an outright majority in a 2015 election suddenly seems a lot more plausible. Which is why ministers and advisers are so dismayed at reports last week that David Cameron was planning for a second coalition after 2015. Just when a Tory election victory seemed possible, the Prime Minister has been mulling over a change in party rules so that MPs could vote on a new coalition agreement.

To be fair to David Cameron, he's not the only leader who's performed a volte-face in the past 24 hours. If you'd listened to Ed Miliband yesterday afternoon, you might have been forgiven for thinking that he was quite likely to support the government's motion on Syria, so long as it was and 'legal' and had specific and limited aims.

David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband this afternoon gave statements on Britain's response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. There were important similarities between the statements which are worth examining. Here is what we learned: 1. The action must be legal. Miliband told the cameras after the meeting that 'when I saw the Prime Minister this afternoon I said to him that we the Labour party would consider supporting international action, but only on the basis that it was legal'. Meanwhile Clegg and Cameron both insisted that the measures being considered were legal. Clegg said: 'Any steps we will take will have to be legal. This Government, this Coalition Government, of course is not going to act outside the remit of international law'. 2. The action must be proportionate.