She’s unable to bring it about

She’s unable to bring it about.”That’s an interesting little rant,” she said, “but not related to the facts.” Oh, really? In what way? She offered a private briefing to tell about the difficulties involved.What? Not there and then? No, that’s not what the Commons is for.The European Commission issued a report demonstrating how grossly the Government mismanaged the foot-and-mouth epidemic and how massively they falsified figures to conceal it Mrs Beckett said the EC had made a “sensible report”. But then it had been spoiled by Conservative and Green members who changed it into a “rant against the Government” Another rant. Criticism is a) disloyal, and b) ranting.Tony Blair was voted Parliamentarian of the Year by The Spectator. An unusual error by the editor, Boris Johnson MP (how would he know? He’s never in the chamber). No, Tony Blair’s skills are pretty push-button, too.His answers to any questions begin: “That is precisely why” and go on to recite the latest initiative. Or: “I agree this is a cause for concern, there have been improvements but there is much to do (followed by “that is precisely why”.) Or: “Public servants are doing a really fantastic job and it’s not right they should be pilloried by Tories who doubled crime.”No, for Parliamentarian of the Year I propose Speaker Martin, and will elaborate the case for him on Monday. Hats off!simoncarr75 hotmail
More from Simon Carr.

There is a simple rule in politics. The more politicians talk of an institution as being “relevant” and “reborn”, the more you know it’s on its last legs. Yesterday the air in Prague was positively tropical with the hot breath of 40 world leaders attending a summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation all saying how important this venerable alliance was. What they actually meant when you listened carefully was that they all had their individual reasons for finding the organisation useful at this particular moment

There is a simple rule in politics. The Europeans, having bravely talked of being a countervailing force to US “unilateralism”, are now becoming distinctly nervous that America might go its own way and they want Nato to keep the great power locked in. The new entrants look upon Nato as a means of consolidating their freedom from Soviet power.All these are valid short-term uses What they do not add up to is a long-term purpose. And that, as any student of military history knows, is the only thing that can keep an alliance alive.

Nato’s great strength has always been that it has had a common enemy and an effective system of military command Now it has neither The enemy has disappeared. Most of the equipment in heavy tanks, ground forces and attack aircraft are redundant. And the command structure, as so painfully shown in Kosovo, has been undermined by differing interests in more localised situations.That doesn’t matter, argues George Robertson, the Secretary General of the organisation, because Nato now has a political purpose in reshaping the post-Cold War map of Europe to include the former Soviet republics. But if you want a political alliance, why not make a new one, or develop it around the existing institutions of the European Union? All you do by politicising the organisation is to confuse and undermine the tight central command system that has given it its success so far.President Bush – to the deep relief of Nato staff – has instead come up this week with a new “military” purpose for the alliance, or at any rate a new enemy. That enemy is “global terrorists who hate freedom, and together we can work to defeat that enemy in the name of freedom”.It is balderdash, of course. Anyone who seriously believes that the United States is pursuing a crusade for freedom and democracy need only look to the support it has given to Uzbekistan and Pakistan since 11 September, never mind its longer-standing alliances with Saudi Arabia, China and Kuwait.