The British Prime Minister Tony Blair is facing a major backbench rebellion over his hardline stance on Iraq as former Labour Cabinet Ministers joined 115 rebel MPs - including around 80 Labour backbenchers - who have put their names to an anti-war amendment.
The cross-party amendment argues that "the case for military action against Iraq (is) as yet unproven." That level of opposition is likely to translate into one of the biggest rebellions Mr Blair has suffered since he came to power in May 1997.
The British government has imposed a three-line whip for a Commons debate on its policy towards Iraq, insisting that Labour MPs back its motion calling on Saddam Hussein to recognise that he has a "final opportunity" to comply with his disarmament obligations.
About 50 Liberal Democrats have signed an alternative amendment which argues that diplomatic channels have not been exhausted yet, and that any military action must be sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council and by the House of Commons.
The cross-party amendment was tabled by former Culture Secretary Chris Smith, and signed by former Foreign Office ministers Doug Henderson and Tony Lloyd, former defence minister Peter Kilfoyle and former sports minister Tony Banks. Ahead of the debate, Mr Smith argued that the UN weapons inspectors should be given more scope to try to establish the truth about Saddam Hussein's weaponsprogrammes.
Prominent Tories who are backing the motion include former agricultureminister Douglas Hogg and Edward Leigh, chairman of the influential Commonspublic accounts committee.
Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy, interviewed on BBC Radio 4's PMprogramme last night, was asked whether he would publicly support the war ifBritish servicemen did end up fighting in Iraq.
Mr Kennedy said: "It will depend quite straightforwardly on what thecircumstances are. We do not know yet where the weapons inspectorate will reach,we do not know what decision the Security Council will arrive at on the back ofthat evidence, we do not know what the circumstances will be."
Pressed on whether it was possible that British forces could be involved infighting and the Liberal Democrats' position might be that they did not supportthat war, Mr Kennedy said: "It is possible, it is possible."
He added: "I think it is an extremely unfortunate position where if Britishtroops are committed to a theatre of military activity, that the House ofCommons cannot speak with an essentially united voice."
Yesterday Mr Blair sought to rally Parliamentary support for his stance onIraq, telling MPs in a statement that it would be "folly and weakness" not todeal with Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
France, Russia and Germany have already circulated a memorandum in theSecurity Council calling for a series of enhanced inspections running to the endof July if necessary.
Diplomats believe that it could still form the basis of a rival securitycouncil resolution to the one tabled on Monday night by Britain, America andSpain saying Saddam had failed to grasp his "final opportunity" to disarmpeacefully.
London and Washington want to bring their resolution to a vote by March 14 atthe latest, with military action to follow almost immediately. However they knowthey may face an uphill struggle to get the nine votes they need on the15-member security council.