The cabinet remains united behind Tony Blair's stance on Iraq despite the biggest rebellion of his premiership, Number 10 has said.

Speaking after senior ministers held a post-mortem on Wednesday's vote, the prime minister's spokesman said there was "absolutely rock solid" support for the government position.

He said Blair was "under no illusion" about the strength of feeling and accepted that the vote reflected the anxiety felt in the country.

But Downing Street warned critics that the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction "can't be wished away".

"In the end you have to take decisions and you have to do what you believe is right if you are in a position of leadership," said the spokesman.

"In the end government is about making decisions."

Cabinet members debated Iraq for around 40 minutes, but there was no discussion on the consequences of launching military action without a second United Nations resolution, said the official spokesman.

There had been praise for foreign secretary Jack Straw's speech to the Commons at the beginning of the Iraq debate, the spokesman added.

And defence secretary Geoff Hoon, who has just returned from a trip to the Middle East, told the cabinet that troop deployments in the region were "going well".

The government's determination to stick to its hardline stance on Iraq came after 122 Labour MPs defied the government on a three-line whip after Wednesday's debate.

The rebel amendment was supported by a total of 199 MPs - with Labour backbenchers joining forces with Lib Dems and the nationalists to deliver a stark warning to the government.

Responding to the revolt, ministers indicated the government would stand firm in its insistence that Saddam should cooperate fully with the weapons inspectors or face being disarmed by force.

Environment secretary Margaret Beckett said the government took the vote "very seriously"

"My anxiety about it is that the only person who is reading this wrong is Saddam Hussein," she told the BBC.

"The worst thing that can happen is that because people are exercising their right of conscience in a free society, legitimatelyand properly and sensibly, that he takes the message that it is going to be OK and that he doesn't need to get rid of weapons of mass destruction."

Labour chairman, John Reid, sought to highlight the fact that the government's policy had eventually been backed by a substantial majority.

"There was a pretty large majority in parliament and in the Labour Party, as there is in the country, for the strategy the government is following," he said.

Splits among Labour MPs mirror opinion in the country, Reid added, with a minority opposed to any war and a majority favouring action through the UN route.

"Obviously we listen to the minority, but we also pay attention to what the majority want. And I think on this one the Labour Party is roughly representative of the country," he said.

During the six-hour debate Labour MPs repeatedly warned ministers that they had not been persuaded of the need for conflict.

Former culture secretary Chris Smith said that UN inspectors needed more time to prove their effectiveness.

He warned that war would lead to "very substantial havoc and destruction" in Iraq.

"Strength does not lie simply in military might, strength lies in having an unanswerable case. It lies in making the right moral choices, it lies in maintaining the pressure, and it lies in securing the fullest possible international agreement," said the MP for Islington South and Finsbury.

"That is where our efforts should now be being directed and I fear that we may be cutting short those efforts by the timetable that is now upon us."

Smith's call for a delay was backed by former Conservative chancellor Kenneth Clarke.

He warned that a war could lead to more support for terrorist groups and undermine the stability of countries such as Saudi Arabia.

"The next time a large bomb goes off in a Western city, how far did this policy contribute to it? The next time some Arab or Muslim state is toppled and replaced by extremists, how far did this policy contribute to it? That is why this House should pause," he said.

Former health secretary Frank Dobson said he did not doubt "the sincerity and the morality" of the prime minister.

But he added: "I am simply not convinced that all out military action in Iraq can be justified at this time and on the scale envisaged."

Former minister Peter Kilfoyle said the government had continued to "move the goalposts" and demanded a full Commons vote before any military action begins.

Fellow Labour MP Roger Godsiff said he could not support his government in backing a war which would result in Saddam becoming "a martyr of the Muslim world".

Mohammed Sarwar, one of the few Muslim MPs in the House of Commons, questioned George W Bush's motives.

"Saddam Hussein is a monster today as he was 20 years ago. The only difference is that he was our monster then," said Sarwar.