There was the news that his government was spending £9 million of taxpayers' money on political leaflets to explain his view of the EU, or to put it another way, why he thinks it is important that the UK vote to stay.
He excused this by saying it was the view of the British government and therefore it was right that the government (taxpayer) fund it.
But of course it is not. It is, in fact, the view of some of the British government. It is not, for example, the view of Mr Grayling, or Mr Gove, Ms Patel, etc. Perhaps this other half of the British government should be allowed £9 million to give a contrary explanation?
Then there was the little matter of Mrs Cameron seeming inability to dress herself without the aid of a £53,000 a year assistant, employed by US, you and me, to ensure that she didn't leave the house unsuitably attired of a morning. (It's rather a lot for a lady's maid. Ask the Queen's dressers how they feel about earning £53,000 a year.)
So why?
This government is taking £30 a week from sick people and sending lads suffering from Downs, autism and epilepsy, and who can't read or write, 20-page forms to fill in to prove that they are entitled to some miserly state benefit. Meanwhile Mrs Cameron, who's seemed relatively sentient to me on every occasion that I have seen her, apparently can't go out of the house without someone there to check she's put her vest on the right way round.
And even if she can't manage dressing, what has it got to do with you and me? So Munguin asked himself some questions... then, as is his way, without waiting for my response, answered them.
Is Mrs Cameron an employee of the government?
No.
Does it matter to the country if she wears a brown dress with blue shoes, a pink striped hat and an orange handbag?
No.
What is Mrs Cameron's role in the running of the country?
She has none, beyond being the partner of the prime minister. She is quite at liberty to attend or not attend social functions with him. (Several partners in the past have decided to absent themselves from functions, and to dress themselves, just like you and I and most of the rest of the country seem to be able do.) If Mrs Cameron decides to avail herself of the hospitality of state functions, what she wears to them is sod all to do with us.
So why are we paying someone to put her clothes on for her?
The sick joke of us paying taxes & getting cuts to public services while our tax haven PM uses £53k of our taxes for his wife's stylist.
Perhaps one of the people most entitled to feel aggrieved at this news was Jimmy Carr, who tweeted (never mind the spelling):
I'm going to keep it classy. It would be ‘morally wrong’ and ‘hypocrytical’ to comment on another individual’s tax affairs.
Oh, and wouldn't it be nice if the state broadcaster didn't have to be reminded that this was NEWS!
**********
Now today we learn from the BBC that the PM has published his tax returns in an effort to dispel any notion that there's been something untoward in his tax dealings.
OK, so it turns out it was not his tax returns that he published at all, but a summary thereof. So what the hell use is that?
I mean, seriously, you wouldn't expect him to include any dubious dealings on his tax returns, would you? And the "summary", as opposed to the real thing is even more worthless, because it is dependant on our belief (or not) that his staff are telling the truth.
And so far the truth has been the missing magic ingredient in this whole sorry débacle.
But there's more... The returns also show that Mrs Mary Cameron, his mother, gave David two separate gifts of £100,000, each in 2011. Why? Was he hard up? Could he not afford lunch? Or one of these "proper suits" his mother insists people should wear?
Alternatively, could it have been in an effort to reduce the duties on her death?
Mrs Cameron herself is taking a break from lecturing people about the quality of their suits (Dave could have nearly 100 of them with that £200,000), the straightness of their ties and their lusty renditions of God Save the Queen, to have instead, cross words with the press about how her little David has done nothing wrong and it's all a fuss about nothing.
But in fact, dear lady, it is a fuss about something. No one is seriously suggesting that he or his father have done anything particularly illegal or indeed anything that other very rich people do.
But David Cameron and George Osborne, prime minister and chancellor, are on record as saying that they feel any kind of tax dodging is morally insupportable.
Clearly, but not if you are "one of them".
For all the negatives of the European Union, it has, at least been making efforts to introduce across the market rules about tax avoidance. And guess which country has been blocking these moves? Yes, that's right, the same one which has blocked tariffs on Chinese steel while blaming the EU for the fact that they can't act.
For an ex PR man, Cameron has given an object lesson on how not to handle a crisis.
I was pondering this morning what Cameron would do it this was an embarrassing member of the Cabinet, rather than him, that was in this mess...
...Or what the BBC, which is playing down this massive story, would have had to say had this (laughably) been Mr Corbyn, or Nicola Sturgeon?
***********
 |
| On reflection, she looks like she's wearing the bedroom curtains. |
