The mystery of David Cameron’s behaviour

No doubt there are some puzzling things around just now.

One is what’s got into Pink Dave at the moment on this gay “marriage” thing.   In the light of the post on the political elite yesterday, we can’t know exactly whom he is in thrall to, apart from the obvious candidate – the EU.   But as pointed out yesterday, the EU is beholden to the Club of Rome or the participants therein.

Much as I detest Stonewall, I can’t see that they’d have the clout to have him split his party, unless he really wanted to.  Why would he want to?   Is it the Prefect or Bullingdon Bully coming out, wanting to strike down any who’d have the temerity to oppose him or is it more cynical?   Has he been told to do this by the PTB with whom pederasty is a characterizing motif along with militarism, barbarism and sociopathy?

Is it for political reasons?   That is, he might feel that part of the Lib Dems would come over to him if he were to split from the Conservatives and that might move the right of Labour to drift over as well, making some vague centre-left to centre-right party, leaving the socialists languishing on the left and the right languishing on the right?

Perhaps he doesn’t understand that the values of the society have actually firmed up of late and are more aligned with, say, UKIP now than with his version of pink conservatism?   I would say he’d get a rude shock to find the real numbers for and against gay marriage [see yesterday's post here].   I’d say he’d get a rude shock altogether as people of any political hue drummed him out.

And if he knew he couldn’t force it on the CofE, then why bother, if the Church-State standoff remains?   Is there more than one Dave?   Does he have a double and one appears, saying one thing and then the other appears, saying another?

Certainly a mystery.  Is he just breaking down?

3 Responses to “The mystery of David Cameron’s behaviour”

  1. JD December 12, 2012 at 13:06 Permalink

    I would like an Evolutionary Biologist to explain homosexuality.
    It is not necessary for procreation or survival so how could such a thing evolve naturally?

  2. The Underdoug December 12, 2012 at 14:01 Permalink

    To me, it’s obvious: he’s been got at by the real people in power. Of course I can’t prove it: but by their fruits (sic) shall ye know them.

    I have a pet theory (this one’s for life, not just for Christmas) that goes along the lines of: if you have any principles, you will not be let anywhere near power. To whit, I do not believe that a person without spouse and young-ish children (i.e. usable leverage to enforce compliance) can ever take highest office in the UK (or the USA for that matter). I believe Heath was the last of these and the scurrilous rumour mill implies that leverage was being exercised from other quarters. The gender is irrelevant, as is sexual orientation. All that matters is leverage. Remember the razor put so succinctly by Douglas Adams in Hitchhiker: the purpose of high office is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it.

  3. Saltimbamba December 13, 2012 at 21:55 Permalink

    Wot The Underdoug said….

Leave a Reply

Please copy the string Reth1K to the field below: