We'll feature live, interactive commentary on the debate as it happens and give you the chance to join in and post questions for our studio guests before Channel 4 News goes on air at 7pm.

Join us Wednesday from 2.45pm...

Next question is on terror. Gordon doesn't manage to finish it before the speaker has to intervene to quell the jeers.

Brown lays out the standard defence for 42 days - already need 28 days, and the cases will get more complex.

Brown quote Ken Jones, Hugh Orde and Lord Stevens as supporters of his argument.

Brown cites the support of an unlikely source for 42 days - ConservativeHome.com. Cameron says it's 'below the  level of debate'.  Touche! Banging up terrorists is popular, but  we have to do what's right, he says.  

Nick Clegg says that the Lords will block it. If they don't the European court of human rights will. Is Brown playing empty politics with our liberties? Surely not.

The Dispatches show is here, if anyone wants to re-live Brown's year of unglory.

Just in from the Whip's office - the first vote is due at 1800. That's on the government amendment, and unless the rebels win, our fun is over for the day. If they lose, then there's a vote on Andrew Dismore's amendment on removing 42 days from the bill. The rebels need to win this too to carry the day.

Smith boasts that she and home office minister Tony McNulty have been looking over the terror proposals for more than a year. Oh no, she corrects herself quickly after a glance at the front bench, he has been doing this for much longer.

The home sec is charging full on into the red rag of those who say there is no evidence for the 42-day extension.

She has laid out evidence of the increasing scale and complexity of terrorist plots, she tells us, and there's nothing else that could be done but show a case of a terrorist who walked free because of a  too-short detention limit.

He talks of the importance of not giving the terrorists the oxygen of publicity - an old-school Margaret Thatcher catchphrase.

A bit of a spat's breaking out about what the security services said, or didn't say.

GOSSIP: The smart money sees the government winning this one with the support of the Democratic Unionist Party. But apparently the Tories are expecting to lose this too. We've been told that David Cameron is at a private function from 6:30 onwards. That means that if the government loses the first vote, he would miss the second vote, which we're expecting at 6:40.

Clearly the Tories' aren't preparing for victory...

Shameless plug alert:  if anyone's after a quick 42-day detention refresher, our five-minute guide is here.

Keith Vaz, chair of the home affairs select committee, rises from the Labour benches - he has a hard act to follow.

We're back to the question of evidence, schmevidence - still no concrete evidence that a longer detention limit is needed, but  does that mean it can be ruled out in future?

Keith Vaz says that the home affairs select committee did meet the head of M15. He can't discuss in detail what he said, but terrorist threats "are real, and they are growing".

Huhne becoming increasingly passionate. He's making quite a rousing case in defence of the liberal position. But anyone who follows Keith Vaz would probably seem passionate and rousing.

Huhhe draws comparisons with  internment  under  the IRA - something that can be pretty much guaranteed to  rile the  pro-camp.  David Blunkett wrote to The Times yesterday, for examlpe,  arguing  that the degree of risk today is of a much greater magnitude than it was under the IRA.

Dismore's picking over the different possible definitiions of a "grave, exceptional terrorist threat" - that all-important buzzword under which the 42-day powers should only be invoked.

If Dismore ever competes on Radio 4's Just A Minute, I recommend you back him heavily. He's been speaking for what feels like two hours without hesitation, and no-one has managed to interrupt him. He may well have been repeating himself but I have to say I didn't manage to concentrate hard enough to spot it. But he's just uttered the magic word '...finally..."

Calls for a pen-portrait of the Huhne tie are becoming overwhelming. In fact someone has just accused us of 'tantielising' them. So here it is - it's a collection of squares, each  about an inch across, in different shades of blue, all of which somehow clash with each other. It's actually a whole lot worse than it sounds.

He has a purple tie. What more do you need to know?

No, he's off again.

Terrorist dialect Taylor appears to be talking about an almost entirely different bill to the oppostion speakers - those rousing Braveheart-style calls to defend our freedom are gone.

Diane Abbott intervenes again, addressing the harm this bill might do to community relations in her east London constituency. Speaking of East London - where is George Galloway, MP for Bethnal Green and Bow? Come on George! The silence is deafening!

Elfyn Llwyd is attacking the bill in his mellifluous Welsh voice, supported by a purple striped tie which perfectly balances the smart with the zany. The member behind him has his feet up on the bench. A grevious insult in some countries.

"Does this debate seriously go on until eight?" asks Smurflover. In the cut and thrust world of politics, it's hard to be sure , but we're expecting votes around 6pm. We'll be covering the action right up until the lawmaking dust settles  - and into our 7pm show, where the 42-day issue is set for some serious screen time and top-flight guests.

Llwyd sits down, sadly, before getting bogged down in the issue of the bill's compatibility (or lack of it) with human rights. He's replaced by Labour's Gordon Marsden, who sports a vortex-like three-shade tie, shirt and suit combination.

Gordon Marsden delivers a stirring oration oration on the importance reintroducing public floggings, keel hauling and the birch. Only kidding - I was making a cup of tea while he was talking, so I have no idea what he said. But since the front benchers sat down, this debate has been producing rather more heat than light. The little they say that is new is generally just repeating what has been said before.

Ming Campbell is in the House! And we mean that in an elder statesman, restoring some dignity kind of way, not an Ali G in Da House-styleee.

Peter Edwards gets in touch - an ex-police officer, and so a reader    that we suspect may step up to the official ACPO line of support for extended detention. But no: "there is more than sufficient legislation to hold a suspect without further restriction on liberty," he tells us.

Abbott's working herself up into a frenzy over the risks to community cohesion. We shouldn't play with our civil liberties in order to get ahead in opinion polls, she fingerwags at MPs.

"The house looks rather empy can this debate actualy effect the end result? Or is it just going through the motions?" asks Jim. The house is rather thinly attended, it's true. But it's a close vote, so it could go either way.
Will it make any difference? Well, as one of the speakers pointed out earlier, the bill would have to get through the Lords and the European Courts first, and that will be extremely tough. And as most of the speakers have said - the police would have to find a case where 42 days was actually necessary to question a suspect - which they have never found so far. So it is probably fair to say that this debate is more about theatre than principle.

Diane Abbott is not shreiking - she's making a rather good speech  - her passion, and her oratorical skills - is quite a contrast to some of the more lawyerly offerings of other MPs. David Davies calls it one of the best speeches he has ever heard in the house.

The bill tackles the wrong people, according to Abbott:  we are not going to be detaining the Saudi paymasters of terror. Like internment, it will scoop up the disadvantaged flotsam and jetsam - what does  she say to the mothers of her contituents, if they come to her because their son has been locked up for five weeks without charge?

The compensation plan doesn't pass the Davies muster, either. his take on the government's position: we arrest you at    5am, probably at gunpoint, and it's okay now, here's some money?

Martin Salter's accent is oddly similar to the legendary left-wing singer-songwriter Billy Bragg's - which makes it rather odd to hear him talking up a controversial government bill.

David Heath says he was in New York on 9/11 and in Aldgate on 7/7. Widespread and slightly inappropriate laughter. DO NOT TAKE A PLANE WITH THIS MAN!

 Reader Jim: "I think Parliment do have a certain amount of amnesia when it comes to the troubles. I really dont see the difference between the Real / Continuation IRA or Al-Quida, their methods may have be different, but the end result is the same."

The Labour troops are gathering around Jacqui Smith on the frontbench. A few shots of her furiously shuffling through papers - unlike David Daives, who earlier could be spotted discarding pages with a rhetorical flourish as he gave his passionate speech.

25 years ago, Cook tells us, he rejected the use of the term "rrrrright" - much in the way overly-PC councils are accused of banning black bags for semantic reasons, he did not want to be associated with "right wingers" when he was correct.

Quick reader poll update: the Yes vote to raise the detention limit to 42 days hovers stubbornly at just 11 per cent. 89 per cent of you do not support the government's case.

Lock the doors! comes the cry. That means a result is imminent, not that MPs are about to be detained without charge.

If you're a gambling man... the betting on  the Betfair  exchange gives the government's clause a 90 per cent chance of passing.

By my calculations - and it's been a long day - that means that nineteen MPs didn't vote at all. (Excluding Sinn Fein and the speaker).

Labour rebel John Grogan says - it's the worst possible result, shows the strength of feeling against the principle of 42 day detention.

Grogan's predicting a ping pong of the bill between the Commons and the Lords - today's vote will still have to face the Lords test to make it anywhere near the statute book.

Another division returns: 315 vote in favour of setting the limit at 42 days, some of the rebels can no longer be bothered - only 294 vote against.

Finally - MPs vote on a third division (or should we call it League One nowadays?) This is for the whole bill, as amended. Pretty amazing if the government didn't win this one. I think the drama is more or less over now...

And as the vote-charged dust settles, who were the men and women of the chamber? Some eloquent points at the start from a debonair David Davis. An honourable mention for Andrew Dismore's worthy chewing over of the legal implications (who says we just care about ties?). A passionate cut-through the parliamentary posturing to the implications for those who may be wrongly charged from Labour's Diane Abbott. A statesmanlike performance from the Lib Dem's Ming Campbell.  Any we've missed?

Luke asks:

"When it seems so clear to the majority of people that they disagree with extending this controversial measure, that Gordon Brown's popularity means he has to mimic his predecessor in demonstrating forcing through unpopular measures like the fox-hunting bill and the war in Iraq just to secure a place in history by being tough in the Commons."

But do most people oppose extending detention without trial. Sure our poll is pretty one sided. But compare it to the 69 per cent in favour of 42-days in today's Telegraph poll

And we're done...

Thanks for all your contributions. We'll do this again.

Final word goes to Pete Ross, who's delivered on his promise:

"AS I said earlier, the average person has nothing to fear from the supposedly draconian measures! Only those who do wrong or those who associate with them have something to worry about. For once, the government has listened to your average Joe."