I'M not naturally a violent person, but there is something about David Cameron that makes my blood boil.

The hair doesn't help. Public school chaps always have demented "dos". They either go for the Boris Johnson, too busy being brainy to brush look, or they opt for the rigid, side-parting divided with a ruler look favoured by the likes of Portillo and Cameron.

There's the face as well of course. Cameron's perpetual "Jesus-wants-me-for-a-sunbeam" expression makes my entire body clench, most notably my fists.

He tries so hard to look open and friendly, like one of us, but it just doesn't feel right.

His attempts at down-to-earth chumminess ultimately result in feet-shuffling, throat-clearing awkwardness, like when a member of the royal family tries to dance.

Cameron is like the kid at school who's desperate to be cool and popular, but can't resist correcting a fellow pupil's grammar.

He'll come barrelling into the classroom wearing a leather biker jacket, but underneath, his shirt will be buttoned to the chin and his tie will have been ironed to a pristine point.

And no matter how many times he claims that revision is for wimps, you just know he has a colour-coded timetable on his bedroom wall and a regimental row of freshly sharpened pencils on his desk.

But even I have to admit that my innate dislike of Cameron's hair, face and uncomfortable manner is not in itself a valid reason for wanting to give him a good dig in the ribs. No, he provides that when he opens his mouth.

His pronouncements about "the family" are driving me to self-destruction. My teeth are being worn down by constant grinding and gnashing, my blood pressure is reaching dangerously high levels and my palms are covered in half moon-shaped scars from where my nails have pierced the skin mid-clench.

Of course families are vital, but Cameron's idea of "the family" and mine are very different.

For him, a family is only credible and of value if the parents are married. So much so that he wants to give this particular type of family an extra £20 a week.

That's all well and good - I'm all for anyone getting extra money out of the Government - but what is this cash actually for?

Is it supposed to act as an incentive for unmarried couples to do "the decent thing"?

If so, I'd be very nervous of giving money to the sort of people who choose not to get married for love, religion or their kids, but for twenty quid.

Maybe I'm missing the point altogether, and this is simply a prize for married couples.

But if that is the case, where will it end? An extra fiver for going to church on a Sunday? A tenner for every young Conservative you breed?

The point that Cameron and his ilk seem to be artfully missing is that "the family" is not about the parents, it is about the kids.

They have no say in whether their mum and dad choose to get married, so why should they be rewarded or punished depending on that choice.

If Cameron really cares so deeply about "the family", why not give every child £20 a week in the same way that the Government now gives all newborns £250.

Their parents - married or otherwise - wouldn't be able to get their hands on it, it would be wisely invested and it would ensure that every child had the financial means to go to university or have a deposit for a house or start their own business when they turned 18.

Then when they came to have their own children, they would have a secure base on which to build, passing their good fortune on to the next generation and the next.

Isn't that what "the family" should be about?