David Cameron’s Getting More Sex Than You

David Cameron’s had sex. Yup, I know, it’s not the sort of thing you want to read about, but then neither did I and I’ve been forced to endure it all week. No not the sex, the story about how Samantha Cameron’s knocked up. Normally this wouldn’t be the business of peasants like us, but seeing as how it’s being used as a blatant piece of electioneering, I’m compelled to comment.

So yes, David Cameron has had sex. And not long ago in a bygone era, we’re talking within living memory, just a few months ago. It’s true, one day you saw him giving a speech, the next you heard him babbling inanely on the radio, and in the meantime he was getting his end away, while you, what were you doing? Eating toast and watching Come Dine With Me?

And now he’s going to get a bump in the polls (“aha”, they must cackle, “a bump for a bump!”), and its well worth the price of a bit of torn vagina nine months down the line. That very pitch is probably going on in all corners of the political spectrum, as eager politicians try to play catch up. Gordon Brown’s probably getting it on in the kitchen as we speak, It doesn’t bear thinking about. Actually, yes, go on, imagine it! Are your eyes and ears leaking blood? Good.

Probably the only one who isn’t doing the dirty right now is Nick Clegg, who no doubt propositioned his partner, only for her to turn around and ask him to remind her who he was.

Not that this is anything unusual, it has happened before, and Cameron’s not going to repeat the mistakes of the past. In 2005 Charles Kennedy’s child was born in the run-up to the election to disastrous results as he appeared zombie-like in a press conference, drooling with a soiled nappy stuck to his head. No, Cameron’s child will be born in September, not so late that he can’t announce the pregnancy now, but not so early that it actually interferes with the campaign. Brilliant!

So thanks to his well-timed fornication I’ve got to read about it. I can only assume it managed to happen because way back in Dec/Jan he was much further ahead in the polls. “Oh your personal-approval rating is sooo huuuuge” she must have cooed as his head became engorged. And I do mean his actual head, which is apt to swell whenever he is angry, excited or defensive, similar to a toad trying to scare off a rival. You can see it every week on prime ministers questions. Priceless.

Finally, something that’s baffling me is all this “Sam Cam” stuff. Is that short-hand for “Samantha Cameron” or is it some tawdry online peep show where we can watch the conception for a small donation to the Tory party? Horrible. What sort of creep thinks of stuff like this?

It Just Got Interesting

The average voter doesn’t care about polls. Nor should they, polls are ever changing and one even a week before an election can be entirely different from the actual result. No, any sane person would ignore this gibberish and get on with their lives. Unless of course they are a political junkie, in which case these figures are poured over as a gambling addict would study reports of football injuries before a big match.

Previously, your libertarian commentator here has been in he bunker, quaking in fear. This is because anything but a Tory victory in May seemed unlikely. Truth be told, the reality of Prime Minister Cameron was proving too much for my fragile mind and I was forced to retreat beneath the duvet with a bottle of whiskey.

That was until today, because today things just got interesting. The Times have published poll data indicating that the Tory lead has fallen so much that if the election was held today Brown would remain as prime minister. Holy Moley! The Tory lead is down to 2 points, which is remarkable considering they once enjoyed a massive 26 point lead.

While choosing between Brown and Cameron is like choosing from a menu consisting of just puke and shit, the fact that the election is no longer certain makes this the most exciting election the UK has seen since 97.

The repercussions of this drop in the public’s esteem will have dire consequences for the Conservative party. Unless they move quickly to quell dissent, the traditional Tory grass-roots will become disillusioned with Cameron’s “modernising” and demand policies to appeal to the core vote, such as tough immigration and hanging dope peddlers.

So why have the public gone cold on Cameron? The biggest problem, I think, is that for all his talk of change he has yet to tell us of something that would change society. Six promises are being made by the Tories in the Brighton conference this weekend: cutting the national debt (not much of a change, everyone can see that needs to be done), boosting enterprise (because Labour hate business, clearly!), making Britain more family friendly (quite how this is a change, we do not know), backing the National Health Service (ahh yes, that ignored public service that has been starved of finance under Brown), raising school standards (Labour hate schools too), and changing the apparatus of politics (yet they oppose reforming our broken electoral system… hmmm).

Even if the Tories kept to their promises, our society wouldn’t be changed much. At best it would be run slightly better, and even then that will be open to interpretation.

This equalising of the two parties odds makes interesting news for the Lib Dems. With Labour and the Conservatives’ fates in the balance, the Liberals can choose the winning party by targeting the voters of the opposite side. If they target Tory votes, Labour gets in. If they go for Labour supporters, the conservatives get in. Ironically the Lib Dems are destined to make a winning party out of whichever they disagree with most, though that winning party will still need the Liberals to prop up their vote if they want any sort of parliamentary clout. It’s clear that the Liberal Democrats could very well be holding all the cards, but how they play them is certainly uncertain.

With over two months to go and three live debates, the whole game is still to play for. But at least now the game should be interesting.

They’re Coming For You Barbara…

We’re rather spoilt for political stories at the moment. Last week there was yet another failed coup against Gordon Brown, the NI first minister is fighting for his political life after a series of scandals, and David Cameron has discovered photoshop and is busy trying to improve his face for the campaign pictures.

But I would like to draw your attention to a little story in the Evening Standard – “Jobless could lose benefits if they refuse drugs test”.

It seems a pilot scheme is being launched in which suspected drug users will be forced into a drug “assessment” if they wish to claim their benefits. I suspect this will garner a large amount of support from the tabloids, but this policy presents a grave breach of a persons right to privacy.

Without due cause, a person should be free from suspicion, and if a person is suspected of a crime then it is up to the justice system to determine their guilt. The benefit system should not be used to blackmail people into proving their innocence to a body who are not a part of the justice system.

Unemployment benefit is a system that we all pay into with the assurance that the state will support us if we fall on hard times and cannot support ourselves. Under this new proposal a person who, having previously paid taxes whilst in employment, is now refused financial aid because they do not consent to taking a drug test.

For those of us who will always refuse a test of this kind on principal, perhaps we could be exempt from tax as the benefit system no longer applies to us?