Conservative shadow defence secretary Bernard Jenkin and former Labour minister Glenda Jackson were interviewed by BBC News 24 about what they made of both events.

Glenda Jackson

I did take part in the vote but it's an empty symbol really. It carries no particular weight.

I have indicated that I'm one of 64 people who aren't satisfied with the seeming willingness to go ahead without proper legitimacy being endorsed on any military action, if military action there has to be, by the United Nations.

No one argues that Saddam Hussein has to be confronted. I think the area of argument is just how real and immediate the threat is now, as to the position in 1998.

I haven't read every single word of the dossier because it was handed to us rather late in the day.

There does not seem to me to be within there, as someone put it in the debate, a smoking gun which makes us absolutely clear that not only has he made these weapons, he's capable of delivering them and he has earmarked targets.

US attitudes

As I said during my contribution to the debate, I thought the words America and Americans were used somewhat loosely.

I don't believe that America and Americans necessarily feel that (they want a war and are looking for an excuse).

I think there is an argument that the American administration certainly would because we have had four separate reasons as to why there should be military action against Saddam Hussein at this time.

Bernard Jenkin

The vote is a safety valve. We are disappointed that the prime minister did not table what we call a substantive motion for discussion.

It would have strengthened the stand of Britain and the resolve of Britain if the House of Commons had voted clearly to give the prime minister the mandate that he hopes to get from the United Nations.

And I think it would have polarised the argument but it would have clarified the debate.

It has been a rather curious debate - everyone talking about the bit of the argument they want to talk about and not necessarily the main issue.

Strategy catch-up

The government, perhaps rightly, argues, well, there isn't a main issue yet.

It is quite obvious the Americans are making preparations for military action, the British are not at this stage, we're told.

I just wonder whether we would be in a stronger position if we had voted.

The debate is a start. Our understanding of the strategic situation on this side of the Atlantic is quite far behind the Americans'.

There's been a lot of talk about, well, we do not understand what the Americans are doing, we are very suspicious about what the Americans are doing.

Actually the Americans are being clear and very explicit about the need to look at the world in a different way because of what happened on September 11 and we must make sure it doesn't happen again.

We had a lot of this before Afghanistan as well - people saying the Americans are going to go over the top and be gung-ho.

Americans tend to talk big but actually look at the way George Bush and his administration have actually acted.

They have always acted in concert with the international community, they have always acted consensually.

In the end I wonder whether we would be confronting the issues unless the Americans were actually pushing the issues out to start with.