I cannot disagree with what Sayeeda has written here - all these things are good. However, I think Tim's argument was about a more strategic and political positioning for where the party is going to be in the future.

Whilst I can see the sense of what Tim is articulating I am afraid that this is all rather too late.

The simple fact is that the message has already got through that nearly everyone thinks this Bill is a disaster - even though its ambitions are sorely needed.

The blame for this shambles goes back to the "pause". Whilst it looked politically expedient to cave in to the Lib Dems demands it was clear that in fact it was likely to lead to the sort of dilution the Bill did not need and give the opponents the confidence that they could go even further with their demands.

I am not sure that withdrawing is going to improve the public perception so may as well just get on with it and hope that so much of what is in the Bill has already happened that in two years the position of the health service would be no worse than were you to stop.

I am not sure Godwin applies here. The law is based on every internet conversation eventually leading to Hitler or the Nazi's. As this conversation started with them it is not a perfect fit.

This is a dangerous and regrettable precedent. I thought we were elected to clean up politics instead of which we are now demeaning it with this cold waresque escalation of which party can outdo the other in their denunciation of bankers. If honours were only given to people at the end of their career as a summation of what they have done then maybe none of this would not have happen ed in the first place. Instead we hand them our to curry favour with the rich and chuck a few lower grader ones to lollipop ladies and sports people top show we get it.

But then for BBC balance there are many occasions when Newsnight only has women on it - usually when Emily Maitlis presents.

Lib Dem vote completely gone South and direct to Labour on first preferences - not helpful.

Disappointing that only half of MPs voted - were they all paired?

How could I forget 'that' man!! LOL

Was never good at maths but if the Parliament is 600 it means we need 301 to form a majority and therefore we would be two short?

There is much that you say that is right. On the one hand we are balancing the problems of decisions not being taken in the past that could have saved lives with the need to ensure we have the right equipment for today's challenges.

What always concerns me about the purchasing off the shelf solution is that I am told that it is not as easy as it sounds. The reality is that every purchaser has a range of design specifications that they want included in the equipment and this adds to delivery times and costs.

If, as you say, the Lynx is not big enough then it is just sad that the apparent inter-service rivalry that also exists has got in the way of making the right decisions. We are led to believe that if the Lynx had been bigger then it would have become an RAF purchase whereas the Army and Navy wanted it for themselves. If this is true it a very distressing situation.