It is better to act than to remain passive.Prime Minister’s tone was exactly right: he sounded calm, sombre, resolute, judicious. His fortitude was marred by no hint of either bombast or timidity.

Prime Minister’s tone was exactly right: he sounded calm, sombre, resolute, judicious. His fortitude was marred by no hint of either bombast or timidity.
Mr Cameron recognised that there is a case against what the Government is doing. He implied that he shares the general Tory presumption against infringing another nation’s sovereignty: “Interfering in another country’s affairs should not be undertaken save in quite exceptional circumstances.”
With impeccable lucidity, the Prime Minister proceeded to argue that the circumstances have become quite exceptional: the three tests (demonstrable need, regional support and a clear legal basis) have all been met.
Mr Cameron did not promise things would be easy: “We are embarked on a difficult course.” But he did assure us, in a less self-righteous manner than Tony Blair would have employed, that we are doing “the right thing”.
Ed Miliband, for Labour, was obliged to follow the Prime Minister and say: “It would be quite wrong, given what is happening in Libya, for us to stand by and do nothing.”
But varying degrees of doubt and trepidation were expressed by backbenchers. Few Labour MPs had turned up, which might itself be taken as a sign of disapproval, though we suppose many of them were already on their way to distant northern constituencies when they heard Mr Cameron would be taking the first chance to tell Parliament about the new situation that exists as a result of the United Nations resolution.
Mr Miliband was surrounded by a doughnut of MPs which was meant to obscure the general emptiness of the Labour benches. Many more Tories had turned up, and the Government front bench was so full that Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, had to sit very nearly in the lap of Chris Huhne, the Energy Secretary.
David Nuttall (C, Bury North) warned against getting sucked in to Libya: “Recent history has shown that commencing military action such as this is rather like entering a maze – it is easier to get in than to get out.” Mr Cameron said this was “an extremely good point”, because there is always a case for saying, “Don’t start down this path because it might involve you taking so many difficult steps to achieve it.”
But the Prime Minister contended: “It is better to act than to remain passive.” Perhaps that is the key to Mr Cameron’s character: he cannot bear to do nothing.
David Winnick (Lab, Walsall North) urged the Prime Minister to recognise “that in the country at large there is bound to be great anxiety that we could be dragged, through escalation, into a third war in nine years”.
Once again, Mr Cameron engaged with the opposing argument, rather than just brushing it aside. He found things he and Mr Winnick could agree on: “The point the honourable gentleman makes about no ground troops and no occupying force is vital. That is in the UN Security Council resolution…I think people will be reassured by it.”
Bill Cash (C, Stone) had already subjected the UN resolution to the detailed textual analysis he brings to European Union affairs, and had discovered a phrase which said “notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970”.
Mr Cameron began his reply: “I always worry when my honourable friend mentions the word ‘notwithstanding’.” This produced friendly laughter, after which the Prime Minister answered Mr Cash’s point.