As the general election campaign grinds on, here are some moments.

First up, The Guardian. In a report from Hull, Daniel Boffey spoke to Labour’s Karl Turner, first voted in as the MP for Hull East in 2010 and now standing for re-election…

“We met a guy who said he was going to vote Labour but wouldn’t now because he had just heard that we were taxing condoms. I said, ‘condoms?’ ‘Yeah,’ he said: ‘I just heard on that [pointing to the TV] that you are taxing condoms, and I’m not having it. You’re not getting my vote’.”

After scratching his head, Turner explained: “We’re taxing non-doms, not condoms.” The voter replied: “Like the prime minister’s wife? Ah,” and called out: “Margaret: they’re taxing non-doms, not condoms.”

For all the squabbling TV debates, all the noisy arguments, all the high-flown this and high-flown that, all the endlessly misleading headlines, people cast their vote for the oddest reasons.

Onto even stranger things, in The Spectator – “The mysterious sex appeal of Nigel Farage” by Ann Widdecombe. In this column, the former Tory MP turned Reform loon examines how Farage has an alure for women.

Sadly, no more would I read such a story than one headlined: “The mysterious sex appeal of Ann Widdecombe” by Nigel Farage.

Let’s leave Farage and Widdecombe to their own devices and desires in a darkened corner of the bar, just beyond the people telling racist jokes. But don’t be beastly to Farage, or Ann might come after you, swinging her tiny intolerant fists.

Many of these stories, these snatches of events, these muttered half-conversations, are to be found on X/Twitter.

Should you possess bottomless stamina, seek out Ricard Tice. He’s the interminably dull former leader of Reform. The man pushed out of the way once Farage spotted an opportunity to insert himself into the headlines again.

One such recent posting by Tice simply said: “Remarkable…” above a graph suggesting that Reform UK have “the highest number of social media page interactions (May 22 to June 17)”.

This isn’t as remarkable as Mr Tice supposes, but does illustrate something that has long worried me. The more you engage with your ‘enemies’ on social media, the stronger they become, thanks to the way algorithms work.

Having “the highest number of social media page interactions” doesn’t mean people are supporting you. But it does mean they are talking about you.

Whether they love what you propose or think you’re merely the latest appalling iteration of British fascism, all comments and engagements notch up a ‘hit’.

After writing too many hostile comments on such unpleasant posts, I have disengaged. Being snide about our unloveliest people gets you nowhere and is bad for your mental calm.

Also bad for the equilibrium is listening to all the stupid things Rishi Sunak has said and done.

A recent posting had the words: “I will never stop fighting for this country” above a picture of a family, including a child, seemingly being lined up before a firing squad, beneath the words: “Don’t surrender your family’s future to Labour”.

Every Tory low in this campaign is followed by another, like a grotesque game of limbo… you think we can’t go that low, just hold my beer (or water, in Sunak’s case).

Thanks at this time are due to to Richard Osman, the TV presenter turned disgustingly successful writer of crime fiction (the sour grapes aisle is down there, just past that tottering stack of his best-sellers).

Many Tories have been banging on about the prospect of a huge majority for Labour, calling it a “super-majority”.

On X/Twitter, Osman sensibly pointed out: “A gentle reminder that the phrase ‘super-majority’ is meaningless in U.K. politics. There is nothing you can do with a 350-seat majority that you can’t do with an 80-seat majority.”

His view is backed up by the Electoral Reform Society, which explains on its website: “The phrase ‘super-majority’ is commonly used in the USA to describe what is technically called a qualified majority. Qualified majority provisions are used to entrench important pieces of legislation by setting a higher bar than a simple majority to pass legislation. Commonly, this level might be 2/3rds…”

In other words, it has nothing to do with having a whopping majority – something Tories seem keen enough on when they have one.

As for those endless TV debates, mostly they are to be avoided by sensible people. I’ve watched excerpts through my fingers. Life is too short. Or too long. Or too full of other possibilities.

From what I have seen, Sunak was tetchy and screamingly untruthful, chuntering “tax, tax and more tax”. While Sir Keir Starmer looked like he’d rather vomit than answer a question.

Now I quite like Starmer, and dearly hope all the projections of Tory doom and destruction come good. But being more inspirational wouldn’t hurt the Labour leader.

Still, at least we’re not in the US, where the first presidential debate resembled a scrap in an old people’s home. Are these two really the only possible candidates in a country of 330 million? A doddering Democrat who looks like he needs to find a comfortable chair. And a marginally less doddery Republican famed for being hugely untrustworthy.

CNN factchecked Trump live on air and nearly every word was a lie.

But in a world where condoms and non-doms can be confused, no one is paying attention.