David Cameron

Ok, so I've been quietly taking in all the things he's been saying and reported to have done this past week on the radio and on television. I feel I should make a few short comments.

• First, with his frivolous decisions regarding the royal wedding: 

Not wearing tailcoats will not make you any less of a pretentious toff. Your wife probably had reservations because tailcoats do not flatter ANYBODY, save, perhaps, Anton du Beke.

Nobody cares whether you turn up in a stodgy tailcoat (though I'll laugh cause you certainly have a horrendous figure) or a crappy pale lounge coat. You are an Eton bastard through and through and you are always going to be Toff.

By the way, if you're going to be a toff, could you at least get your grammar correct when speaking on national television? It doesn't do to sound less posh than a working class person.

• His stance against A.V. voting 

David, David, David. I know that A.V is a shoddy substitute for truly proportionate voting, but, let us not forget that that is how you, The Right Honourable David Cameron, became party leader of the Tories. Does it not seem to be ungrateful to then declare it a useless mode of democracy?

And to say that Gordon Brown would have been PM again if we'd used A.V. last year is nonsense - I saw the tables explaining the three methods of voting, using the results from last year's election. Had we used A.V, then we would still have had a coalition government, because that is simply how craply the nation were able to decide which naff party to consider as leader. But proportionately, had we used a proportionate voting system, the Lib Dems had a greater number of seats, and perhaps they would have opted for a much better Lib-Lab coalition instead. Can't have that, can we?

• His opinion of benefits 

I am in agreement that where obesity is concerned, I'd rather not be paying my taxes to pay for someone who has absolutely no will power - I know it's effort to do exercise, but it's quiet easy to control how much you eat. Better to not pay him and hope that he starves off some of the weight. Harsh, but true.

But with drug addicts and alcoholics is it ludicrous to say that they need to be taken out of their pits and put to work, when you are withdrawing funding from rehab and self-help clinics, and that places are so hard to come by, it is considered ''lucky'', by one ex-heroin addict, to be given a court order to be on the programme. To suggest that clinics should be funded upon results is insane. Do you think that drug addicts and alcoholics are off their poison within a week, or a month? It can take at least sixth months to become clean and functional enough to have a job, and up to a year before they begin to be weaned off the counselling - possibly even 2 years. How do you expect these clinics to provide the scarce help that they can when you do not plan to help them pay for these treatments?

• His response to Nick Robinson about the slating of Nick Clegg by the No Campaign 

I am sorry, but as PM and close colleague of Nick Clegg, you should not palm off the responsibility of the awful ad hominem (remember what that means, David?) attacks on Clegg onto the Tory and Labour heads of the campaign. You, yourself, are head of that party, and you have the responsibility to make sure it is clean and that it is not funding a shoddy and over personal campaign.

• His appointing 117 peers to the House of Lords in the past 11 months

That is more than any other post-war PM. Hell, that is a lot even for Henry VII - he appointed about 114 in about 7 years, and he was king. What the hell, Cameron? There is hardly any space in the House of Lords should they all wish to attend a sitting, what with the 500+ others already there. And I notice that the majority of those are Tory peers. Could it be that you hope that by appointing a lot more Tories into the Lords, you will be able to get your crazy schemes passed through Parliament more swiftly? Do you not trust that your plans are suitable and clever enough to get through on their own merit?

Seems shifty, to me.

• His ‘uneasy’ness about the Injunction ‘fad’ 

So Cameron is upset that the courts have lately taken to granting celebrities the chance to keep any misdemeanors out of the public eye. Apparently, it is the same as if the Judges were making laws, not Parliament.
Correct me if I am wrong, Cameron, but it was Parliament which added the Human Right’s Act which means that anybody has a right to a private family life - and that that trumps the freedom of press in many cases. And the human right to be left alone, as well as in conjunction to confidentiality laws, applies to the rich and famous as much as the ordinary Joe.

Whilst I do not think it is entirely good that certain bad men are getting protected, if they end up prosecuted, we’ll hear about it. However, in many cases, the press ruins the privacy and compromises patient confidentiality laws for many celebrities.

Case 1 in point: Naomi Campbell had her privacy infringed when she was snapped entering a rehab clinic.
Case 2 in point: Catherine Zeta Jones was seen entering a Mental Health clinic and forced to tell the world she had Bi-Polar, as a form of damage control - her privacy was made public by enforced volunteering of information, rather than the smut that would have been printed, otherwise.

Perhaps we should set the reporters and photographers on Cameron’s household, to dig out anything that he’d rather be kept private, either for the peace of mind of his wife and children rather than have them harassed by reporters, or for the safety of his own home. Cause only then will he be spurred on to make proper laws that will limit what the Judges can and can't do where injunctions are concerned AND protect the deserved privacy of famous individuals who really are being wronged by the press.

• And finally, his advice to the Pakistani rich: 

Do not for one second think that people did not laugh bitterly at your hypocrisy. Yes, Pakistan is corrupt and much of the money of that country is held in a small number of hands, and those hands are not giving much back in the way of taxes, but I seem to recall you were bitterly against raising taxes of those that can certainly afford to be more altruistic. Yes, it's not fair to tax more of their hard earned (sometimes not hard earned) money than those who earn less, but it is simply more humane and makes more sense. The burden has to lie with those that can help - and it is a lot more fair than inheritance tax.

No doubt, I shall be commenting on something else he's said very very soon.
Michael Gove and George Osbourne will probably give me plenty of ammo, too.