The session was dominated by Iraq as Tony Blair faced a range of questions ahead of a key vote on possible war against Saddam Hussein.

"It certainly would be an unreasonable veto if Iraq is in material breach and we don't pass a resolution" - Tony Blair sends a message to doubters on the UN Security Council.

Mr Blair caused laughter when asked if he could name another centre-left government in Europe which supported his stance on Iraq.

"Yes, the Polish government," he said - and promptly sat down.

To those outside the Commons wondering whether the UK will soon go to war, the baying of some MPs against Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy as he repeated his doubts over action, would have looked juvenile at the very least.

Tory chairman Theresa May, resplendent in red leather jacket, wore a face like thunder as she sat next to party leader Iain Duncan Smith on the front bench.

Her position has been questioned in the papers - with reports that the Tory leader has lost faith in her - and perhaps that was playing on her mind.

MPs asked questions about possible war on Iraq, lack of facilities for British troops in the Gulf, the Middle East peace process, drug addiction and rehabilitation, consideration of the reclassification of cannabis, the prime minister's opinion of President George Bush fixed penalty notices, pupils being turned down by universities, British nationals detained in Guantanamo Bay and the NHS.

Labour MP Graham Allen pressed the prime minister on possible action in Iraq.

He asked: "Can you tell the House and the nation, what, if any, is the legal or statutory authority you have to commit British troops to war?"

He is one of the many voices on the Labour benches whose concern over the prime minister's policy will have sounded alarm bells in Downing Street.

From a Downing Street perspective, the men of the match were those Tories who lined up to support Tony Blair's position.

For those with doubts about action in Iraq, it was - yet again - Charles Kennedy.

It wasn't clear whether Iain Duncan Smith really wanted to know, or was just out to increase the size of the Labour revolt over Tony Blair's plans to do away with Saddam Hussein.

But he asked the question on all the rebels' lips - will Tony Blair go to war without a second UN resolution? And, once again, the prime minister shifted.

He refused to repeat his previous pledge that he would do so only in the narrow circumstances of an "unreasonable veto" used by a UN state.

Instead he appeared to agree that any attempt to block a second resolution would be unreasonable.

It probably came as no surprise to those sitting behind him, but it certainly did nothing to help the prime minister with his looming rebellion.

If that was IDS's aim, it may have been cynical, bearing in mind his support for war, but it certainly worked.

Self-assured

It was also noted that, once again, the prime minister spent much of his time arguing with MPs sitting behind him and agreeing with those on the opposition benches.

Still, as he said himself, at least the Polish government agrees with him.

Meanwhile, for a man supposed to be facing imminent execution, the Tory leader looked pretty self-assured.

His party chairman, Theresa May, on the other hand, looked decidedly gloomy.

I trust she hasn't been taking all the about plans to sack her too seriously.