Up early and into the office. Headed to London at about midday, arriving in time to deal with routine matters, enjoy my new office (a tiny bit bigger than my last one!) and then head down to the Chamber to attend an Urgent Question on the catastrophe in Aleppo. My friend and colleague Tobias Ellwood was the Minister responding and he responded well to a battery of questions from both sides of the House on this vexed issue. There is no doubt that what is going on in this war-torn area of Syria is appalling, and volunteers doing their best to help the hundreds of thousands of civilians caught up in this war are being targeted by Russian and Syrian forces, both of which are creating a lot of heat from those watching on who feel helpless. There were calls from all sides of the House for the Government to do something. A minister had mentioned air-drops some time ago as a last resort and of course that has now come back to bite him as calls for such action echoed around the Chamber. However, I must urge caution, as I did when called to ask a question by the Speaker. A unilateral move down this path by the UK would be extremely risky. First, we'd be placing our transport aircraft and crews in harm's way. Second, they'd need air-cover above and helicopters and troops on call in the event a rescue mission has to be mounted if a Hercules is shot down, which is highly likely. And, then, what if one of our fighters is engaged, either from the ground or in the air? Do we retaliate, or do we turn-tail and flee, leaving our transport aircraft at the mercy of ground fire. Dropping aid from the air into a hostile environment is a very hard option and one we'd have to consider very carefully before doing so. Better would be to act multilaterally, and with the permission of both Syria and Russia, if that can be achieved. We must use our heads, not our hearts, if we are to place our armed forces in harm's way. My own view, for what it's worth, is that Russia and Syria are now hellbent on taking Aleppo and they'll do whatever it takes to achieve the aim. There is not much we in the West can do if we are not granted permission to operate there and we must face up to that fact. I am sure every diplomatic sinew is being strained to try and get through to the Russians and Syrians that aid must be got through to the beleaguered city, for humanity's sake. There is no doubt that the Russian bear is testing the West and we must step up to the plate if we are to offer an appropriate deterrent. At the moment far too few of the NATO members meet their commitment to spend at least two per cent of their GDP on defence. President Elect Donald Trump is correct when he says NATO members must spend more on defence. Why should the US shoulder the bulk of this important but onerous responsibility?