I watched those speeches and it was interesting seeing the different reaction to the French representative, who got a round of applause, which is almost unheard of,(and he deserved it too, as much for the eloquence with which he spoke as for the content of what he said) and Powell and Straw whose contributions were met in total silence.

Straw was an embarrassment mind, but then he is. Powell was doing his best, saying things he had to. I got the feeling he was groaning inside.

Mind, when they switched from Powell to Bush making a speech there was an even wider gulf. Powell has some natural authority and dignity. Bush... well as Miss Jean Brodie was prone to say, for those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like. Can anyone imagine having those two men up for interview for a significant job and giving it to Bush? Well, I suppose there might be some jobs.

But what struck me as absurd was the way this was organised - a desperately important report has to be made and responded to. Common sense in this situation would be, you'd have the report, and then you'd adjourn long enough to consider what you'd heard, and read through the transcript, and maybe consult with home office. Only then would you work out exactly what to say, and reconvene to say it.

Doing it this way just turns it into a pantomime. Speeches prepared in advance on behalf of positions agreed in advance. A bit of an insult to us all really.