The Sketch: If this appalling beard is the answer, I'd hate to clap eyes on the problem

God, it's good to be back. That can't be right. The place is getting a grip on me already. It's impossible to tell the truth. Let's start with something factual and incontrovertible.

If John Spellar's beard is doing a good job, whatever he's concealing must be absolutely terrifying. The horrible, hairy thing is a crime against democracy. How's it been allowed? They must have undertaken a multimodal study to authorise it. They must have weighed up the balance of need in his facial regions. They must have consulted and sought consensus and empowered and included and developed a 10-year integrated shaving plan to institute the recommendations, but the mess represents an appalling indictment of the planning process. Labour's Stephen Hepburn stood and spoke for England when he cried: "Let's get all this multi-modal rubbish and throw it in the bin!" He was referring only by implication to the minister.

John Wilkinson made a good point in his queer, Puritanical way. He pointed out that congestion charging would cost London £200m and raise only £130m; this led the minister, Alistair Darling, into a smirking critique of Ken Livingstone's difficulties. It was all entirely up to the Mayor, he told the House, and he broadly agreed with the Tories but it was nothing to do with him.

Labour's Kate Hoey rose magnificently to the occasion. The minister couldn't wash his hands of this, she said indignantly; he couldn't let London teachers and nurses be charged an extra £1,000 a year in traffic charges under the dictatorship of Transport for London (Tory cheers).

Mr Darling again made some disconnecting gestures and blamed the unpopular policy on the Mayor. Then Gwyneth Dunwoody, the vast, creaking creature that has chaired the Transport Committee since 1756 asked: "Did the minister support the concept of congestion-charging as laid out in the Government's Bill?" Mr Darling was suddenly face to face with Grendel's dam. He did the only sensible thing, which was to run like hell. "Let me be very clear," he began. Of course he couldn't be any such thing, with Grendel's dam feasting on his liver. There are those who disapprove of Mrs Dunwoody. We must watch carefully to see how they propose to unseat her from her influential committee.

Tony Blair came in to make a statement on the Bali bombing. He cleverly stitched in al-Qa'ida with a subliminal mention in his first remarks. "We are providing assistance, as we did after 11 September," he said.

You may wonder whether a nightclub in Bali is a natural al-Qa'ida target, but you needn't wonder whether the atrocity will be used as an argument to invade Iraq. "... We do know there are groups of extremists active in the region, some of which have strong links to al-Qa'ida." Bali bomb = Blow up Baghdad. It all makes sense when you know how it works.

Mr Blair said that before 11 September, the group, Jamaah Islamiyah, was linked to al-Qa'ida and was a real and present threat. First you've heard?

You may also wonder why a "real and present threat" hadn't been proscribed under the Terrorism Act. Under some (really pretty good) questioning from Iain Thing, the PM revealed they didn't have any evidence to do so. Whenever you find yourself within an ace of believing Tony Blair, do three things. Stop. Listen. Look. Then get cross.

simoncarr75@hotmail.com