The plausible song and dance man strikes again

By James Valentine

You have to hand it to David Cameron – he has a way of talking utter nonsense and sounding plausible with it. An example from his press conference today is his little homily about paying off the national debt earlier, “starting in 2010”, because otherwise it will become more expensive, like “delaying paying off your credit card”.

Complete rubbish, of course, as he well knows – national finances aren’t the same as personal finances at all. If we cut back on public spending too soon then there’s a risk of turning a harsh but relatively short-lived recession into a ten year ordeal, like the US in the 1930s.

Now that unemployment is beginning to drop – and social security payments will go down and tax receipts will rise – it’s important that this virtuous circle continues and, with a growing economy, measures can then be taken to bring the public finances back into shape.

There were more vacuous statements from Cameron about “recognising marriage in the tax system” even though he can’t give the faintest idea how he would do this, or when it would happen. And he continues to exploit the appalling Doncaster case to imply that it’s somehow Labour’s fault – even though in response to a journalist’s question he had to admit that, under a Conservative government, similar things could happen.

By contrast, Gordon Brown’s press conference about the economy was sober, realistic and well-argued. And yet, considering that we’re finally starting to turn the corner, he didn’t sound very cheerful about it. A couple of “stylistic” points I noticed: Cameron referred to various colleagues, whereas Brown only once referred to “the Chancellor”, almost as an afterthought. It sounds better if you refer to colleagues and give them credit. And although Brown came up with a good quote from Ken Clarke about public spending which completely contradicts George Osborne, it came over too much as a debating point, as if he was answering PMQs.

Two press conferences, two styles: a clueless but relaxed song-and-dance man versus a well-informed but rather guarded intellectual. Unfortunately, the song-and-dance men often win in politics. A lesson for team Brown, I guess, for when the real election gets going.