David Cameron asserts that Jeremy Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser. There is a sense in which he is correct. Corbyn has a long record of support for the suffering people of Palestine. He has shared platforms with people who were, allegedly, members of Hamas and Hizbollah. Both of those organisation have used violence for political ends. Corbyn is not a pacifist.
What impressive dexterity our prime minister is demonstrating. In February 2011, there he was, grandstanding in Tahrir Square, celebrating with Egypt's pro-democracy activists the overthrow of the country's former leader, Hosni Mubarak. And here he is now, less than five years later, warmly welcoming Mubarak's successor, the former field marshal who seized power in a coup that ended Egypt's imperfect experiment with democracy.
If you take a look at the pro-EU StrongerIn website, the first thing you will read is the following message - blurting out of the screen in big, bold, white letters: "Britain is stronger, better off and safer in Europe than we would be out on our own." Let's set this record straight - we love 'Europe'. We just hate the EU!
Bashar al-Assad is responsible for some of the most heinous war crimes of recent times, including the use of chemical weapons, the mass imprisonment and torture of political opponents, and the indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas causing massive casualties. Yet the unpalatable reality must surely be that, despite his grim record, he remains indispensable in the search for an end to the conflict.
The sighs of exasperation at Britain's continuing ambivalence over its EU membership can be heard all the way from Lisbon in the west to Bucharest in the east. It's not as if our EU partners don't have other things to worry about, above all the still unresolved matter of Greece's slow slide towards bankruptcy.
Theresa May and David Cameron say the Queen's Speech will contain proposals to limit the 'harmful activities' of extremists and to promote 'British values' and to stop activities that would undermine democracy. As simplistic political rhetoric it sounds a very obvious and desirable thing to do. Who can argue against that idea? But - it could be damaging to the very thing it is intended to protect.
We've hit the part of the General Election campaign that really starts to get on my nerves. The funny thing is, I genuinely think this vote could be one of the most interesting in the UK's history, given how disillusionment with large swathes of the political spectrum has resulted in no one party looking capable of gaining an overall majority...