Ian O'Doherty: What a pair of boobies!
The British election race had been something of a damp squib before the first televised debate, but at least it's beginning to get a bit spicier as we enter the final stretch.
And, as usual, Cyclops McBroon has slipped on a banana skin when he was recorded calling a life-long Labour supporter a 'bigot' simply because she had the temerity to ask him if it was time to examine the country's insane asylum and immigration policy.
It's a policy so insane, indeed, that the last surviving hostage taker involved in the Iranian Embassy siege in 1980, Fowzi Badavi Nejad, was not immediately deported back to Iran in case his human rights were infringed, so he gets to stay and live in Britain at the taxpayers' expense.
In fact, Labour has poisoned the immigration debate to such an extent that even asking a reasonable question merely results in you being shouted down by the cranks and open-borders lunatics who quickly accuse anyone and everyone of being racist as soon as they step away from the orthodox views.
But it would appear that not all politicians are obsessed with immigration. Or an economy so parlous that it could become the next Greece. Or, indeed, any of the other burning issues of the day.
In fact, some politicians have far more pressing issues to concern themselves with rather then trifling matters such as the country's imminent financial implosion -- they're more concerned with banning Page 3.
This column's old mate, Harriet Harman, and Liberal Democrat Lynne Featherstone have tabled a cross-party motion stating that if there is a hung parliament and Labour and the Lib Dems go into coalition together -- a truly terrifying thought for anyone who is uncomfortable with Nanny State-ism and psychotic levels of social engineering -- they will ban The Sun's legendary and consistently controversial daily picture of a topless girl.
Speaking to a women's rights organisation on Wednesday, the pair received a rousing ovation from the assembled sisterhood when Featherstone said this would be one of her priorities and she expounded on how much "I would love to ban Page 3".
Nowadays, if anything, Page 3 looks like a rather quaint throwback to a more innocent time, when the sight of a lady in her smalls baring her boobs could give Mary Whitehouse an attack of the vapours and cause Furious From Tunbridge Wells to have a conniption.
After all, when look at the shelf above The Sun in your local newsagents and leer at the likes of Nuts and Zoo, that's where you'll find some of the worst elements of the male psyche and attitude towards women.
Betraying the joyous, iconoclastic, anti-PC celebration of maleness that was early Loaded and FHM, these days they are nothing more than semi-literate masturbation mags that make anyone over the age of 12 embarrassed to be a bloke.
But there is a sense of innocence about Page 3 and, crucially, a sense of a fun, rather than just the mechanical, joyless gurning of the grotesquely surgically enhanced Big Brother alumni who tend to appear in the magazines.
When the notoriously feisty Wade first took over, women's groups and politicians immediately assumed her first editorial decision would be to throw Page 3 overboard.
The reality? The first model featured under Wade's regime was mischievously monikered 'Rebekah, from Wapping'.
This provoked howls of furious outrage from the sisterhood, who felt and still feel that just because you share the same chromosomes you should all have the same views and beliefs.
It's a typical example of the herd mindset of the Liberal Left -- they're far more guilty of stereotyping and generalising than those of a more common sense approach and it was interesting to see that when questioned on the topic, Tory front- bencher Theresa May dismissed the proposed ban as nonsense.
Let's put it this way, when you have science graduate and topless model Claire Tully writing on Page 3 about the vagaries of swine flu, you have to see this as something with its tongue permanently in its cheek. But Harridan has never been renowned for her sense of humour; rather she is little more than a dour technocrat who manages to mix an awful lot of arrogance with an awful lot of victimhood.
And that's always a dangerous combination, particularly in a politician who wields as much legislative clout as she does.
The irony, of course, in her constant bleating about the exploitation of women is that she merely sounds like she is reading a news broadcast for the hard of thinking.
Her recent demand, for instance, that each political party contain a woman as either leader or deputy leader was spectacularly badly thought out.
After all, what if the two most capable people in the party were women, would she still support the parachuting of a less capable man into such a senior role just to promote her insane gender equality agenda?
And it also assumes that the women who appear in the paper are simply brainless Bambies being exploited by an evil, patriarchal media, rather than women who have made a career choice and gone after it.
But in the world of militant feminism, the woman's freedom to choose her career only extends as far as the careers that people like Harman find politically acceptable; anything outside that which is approved by the collective is, therefore, thought-crime and must be crushed, if only for the sake of the rest of us Proles, who don't have the same intellectual and mental capacity as our elders and betters.
So, enjoy Page 3 and the likes of Tully and the delectable Keeley Hazell at your leisure.
Or, on the other hand, don't.
You see, we still have that most precious of gifts -- freedom of choice. Well, for the moment we do, anyway.