It is the beginning of this year and you are presented with a questionnaire about the new British government. It suggests that within three months of taking office, the new Deputy Prime Minster will declare the Iraq war "illegal", while the new Prime Minister will not only argue for Turkish entry into the EU, but condemn opponents of this idea as "prejudiced". What is more, he will go to Turkey and flatter his Islamist host by lying about Israel.
So, has the government (a) been created by a surprising electoral landslide for George Galloway's Respect Party? Or maybe (b), it is a coalition of leftist and Islamists?
I've written here before about the strange erosion of differences between the three main parties — the way in which our politics has reached such a level of compliance that anything said by any of the three main parties can as well be said by any of the other two. But who would have thought that you could throw some of the wackier parties into the mix and get the same consensual results? If international affairs are your bag then you might as well have voted for the Ba'ath Party as the Conservatives.
Of all the curiosities of David Cameron, the most striking — even more so than his habit of speaking down to people — is the way in which he speaks with certainty about subjects that are new to him, such as international affairs.
Until recently, Cameron took no special interest in Israeli naval issues or suburban planning disputes in East Jerusalem. But now he knows all about them. As he boasted to the Financial Times recently, he even enjoys ignoring the advice of his own Foreign Office by calling East Jerusalem "occupied". What larks. How brave — and how ignorant. I was in East Jerusalem the other day. It is no more "occupied" than Hackney. Indeed, a good deal less.
You used to hear Conservatives saying that when Cameron got into office we would see that his instincts were right. Yet it is becoming clear that not only are his instincts wrong, the things he believes to be facts are wrong.
In a remarkably short time, he has managed to take on a set of opinions which, when combined with his extraordinarily patronising manner, has an effect that is increasingly startling.
Perhaps it is, dare I say it, the Etonian in him. But he speaks as one who has long surveyed the panoply of views before arriving at his mature and responsible stance. In Ankara, he said he would argue the case for Turkish entry into the EU by personally taking on, among others, those who "wilfully misunderstand Islam" and those he claims view current affairs "through the prism of a clash of civilisations".