Variance

20 April 2010

I am clearly unable to watch politics objectively. This is the only explanation for why my assessment of the “leaders’ debates” recently are at such variance with the wider public.

I’m not arguing with Nick Clegg, who does indeed have an affable and easy manner that makes him come across as a real human being. I’m not suggesting that Gordon is so much better than people think he is (though he is better). What I really don’t understand at all is that at the end of the debate two polls showed that David Cameron had won.

Does not compute.

All he did was stare at the camera with his strange, “tiny face painted on an inflated condom” look and sound either nauseatingly arrogant or even more nauseatingly supplicant. He wants your vote so badly he’d suck your gerbil’s dick for it.

He looked neither Prime Ministerial or down to earth. He hovered somewhere in between, neither here nor there, and every time he uttered his mantra of change he just looked silly, since Clegg next to him was offering a far more engaging offer of the same thing. Mr Cameron believes deeply that competition sharpens people up. We’ll soon see if that’s true.

Here’s a fascinating fact for those that care: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/04/cameron-likeability-tory. Cameron thinks he’s likeable. It’s possible that people just haven’t been paying attention. Perhaps his faux anger about everything works well in the house, perhaps it makes people think he’s won a point in the debate, but it seems they don’t actually like him for it.
Of course, they don’t need to. Likeability has to be the second stupidest reason to vote for someone. The most stupid, of course, being to vote for someone because they mutter “jobs tax” over and over again.