Cameron’s central argument on debt is wrong; Labour needs to find a way to say so

Speechwriting expert Asher Dresner reviews David Cameron’s Tory conference speech yesterday, focusing on his central argument about the debt, and why he is wrong.

Asher Dresner is an independent speechwriter; His MA was in Political Communications, with a dissertation on leaders’ party conference speeches over the last 30 years

The task for David Cameron’s speechwriters yesterday was formidable.

The Conservatives are vulnerable on health (their NHS plan is retoxifying their image); vulnerable on the Big Society (most people don’t understand it, and those who do know it means asking people with ever less money and time to donate more of both); and vulnerable on immigration (even business groups are complaining Theresa May’s immigration cap is making it harder to grow).

And only hours before he was due to speak, the Office for National Statistics confirmed that, unfortunately, the economy is getting weaker. The Conservatives are increasingly vulnerable on the economy too.


His speechwriters’ task was to justify the course the government is on, and leave the party and the country feeling good about it. Their tactic was simple: sell deficit reduction, not the Big Society, as the central idea motivating this government. This tactic had at least one virtue: honesty.

Deficit reduction is the central idea motivating this government. It is the one thing on which the leadership of both parties are united, it is the one thing on which there has been no hint of a u-turn, and it is the one thing which affects governmental priorities across nearly all departments.

The Big Society, by contrast, is an add-on. It was never the central motivating idea, it does not determine government priorities, and people knew it. So the tactic of shifting the emphasis away from the Big Society and towards deficit reduction was at least credible.

To the extent his speech contained a ‘big argument’, it was this: debt reduction is good for individuals, good for households, and good for governments. That relies on a metaphor between government finances and household finances.

That metaphor does some real argumentative work. It tries to persuade you that government and household finances work the same way. It tries to get people to think: yes, these cuts will hurt, but it’s like paying off a debt: short-term pain is necessary for long-term gain. And as long as Mr Cameron keeps people believing the pain will lead to gain, keeps people believing in that metaphor, his position will be safe.

The problem with that argument is that it’s wrong – and if only Labour could find a way to express why, it is an argument which could be a real weakness for Cameron.

It is wrong because there is only one way to reduce the deficit: the economy must grow. If it doesn’t, the government takes less in tax, so can’t afford to reduce that deficit. But history shows that cutting fast and deep – Cameron’s plan – slashes growth, except in exceptionally good global circumstances.

These are exceptionally bad global circumstances.

It is also wrong because we can only grow if people spend. If everyone in the country took Cameron at face value and paid off their debts, spending would drop, and growth would slow.

And it is also wrong because the timetable of cuts puts party before country. Their deficit reduction timetable was not made for the benefit of the economy. It does not, for example, cut less while the economy is weak and more once it is on the path to recovery. It was made for the benefit of the Tory party.

It is as if your credit card company insisted you pay off your credit card debt in five months, because in five months they were having their annual shareholders’ meeting, and if you still owed them then, the management would look bad.

So the central tactic of the speech – trying to associate the government in voters’ minds with deficit reduction in place of the Big Society – was an understandable tactic. But it does not deserve to work. I hope Labour find the right language to take it down, and fast.

See also:

Cameron’s speech churns out the old Tory mythsDaniel Elton, October 5th 2011

Cameron’s Speech: Reaction and ResponseAlex Hern, October 5th 2011

Cameron the global statesman contrasts with Miliband’s wholly domestic speechShamik Das, October 5th 2011

Poll worry for Cameron on eve of conference speechShamik Das, October 5th 2011

Slowly but surely, Ed’s speeches are getting betterAsher Dresner, September 28th 2011

15 Responses to “Cameron’s central argument on debt is wrong; Labour needs to find a way to say so”

  1. soisthesun

    Cameron’s central argument on debt is wrong; Labour needs to find a way to say so: //t.co/EEhJnH4k writes @AsherDresner #CPC11

  2. wendy griffiths

    Cameron’s central argument on debt is wrong; Labour needs to find a way to say so: //t.co/EEhJnH4k writes @AsherDresner #CPC11

  3. Political Planet

    Cameron’s central argument on debt is wrong; Labour needs to find a way to say so: Speechwriting expert Asher Dr… //t.co/Z2KI7Czz

  4. joe soap

    Cameron’s central argument on debt is wrong; Labour needs to find a way to say so: //t.co/EEhJnH4k writes @AsherDresner #CPC11

  5. Forlornehope

    Actually the government only needs growth in nominal GDP to reduce the deficit because of fiscal drag. The combination of inflation and low growth will bring down both the deficit and debt as a percentage of GDP. That’s why they are looking so smug and relaxed.

  6. BigSociety Live

    Cameron's central argument on debt is wrong; Labour needs to find a way to say so – Left Foot Forward //t.co/LS06FAQU #BigSociety

  7. Emma Lees

    Cameron's central argument on debt is wrong; Labour needs to find a way to say so – Left Foot Forward //t.co/LS06FAQU #BigSociety

  8. Alex Braithwaite

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron’s central argument on debt is wrong; Labour needs to find a way to say so //t.co/MfdGfUIC

  9. Master Singer

    I am not an economist, so what I write now may be rubbish – but here goes. If I have £1 then I can either keep it under the bed or engage in a transaction with some other economic agent which involves me ‘spending’ my £1 in return for a ‘good or service’. That transaction is the spending that is called for above. My £1 circulates about and, according to multiplier theory, generates further activity of at least £1. The key question is the nature of the transaction, because some will have a greater multiplier effect than others. If I use my £1 to pay off my credit card debt, does that have a greater or lesser multiplier than buying an ice cream? If greater, then the impact on growth will be greater and vice-versa. Can we claim such action by an individual is wrong? Can we claim that such an action at macro level is wrong?

  10. Anon E Mouse

    Asher Dresner – Anatole Kaletsky said in The Times yesterday that the government was right in it’s approach. The markets have shown that the government was right in it’s approach.

    David Blanchflower said Ed Balls and the BBC economist were wrong in their criticism of the QE on Radio Five Live an hour ago.

    Instead of trying to convince the public that Labour are right on the economy why don’t you finesse an argument that people may actually find palatable such as not increasing the debt to pay off the bills.

    Because that’s what’s happened with the borrowing from this government being higher than Labour’s and the party are completely hopeless in opposition.

    Still with Ed Miliband as leader they will have a lot of time to practice it I suppose…

  11. Dave Citizen

    Asher – I agree that simplistic Tory arguments around debt reduction are wrong but I think your statement that “there is only one way to reduce the deficit: the economy must grow” distracts us from a more important economic concern.

    Our desire to reduce debt payments and boost growth arise from a belief that these two ingredients will be crucial to putting us back on the path to sustained rising prosperity. Unfortunately the world has moved on.

    Most independent research shows that rising prosperity in places like Britain will actually have to come from other areas than simplistic consumer economy growth and balanced finances. Rising prosperity is actually much more likely to result from e.g. radical action to reduce income and property inequalities…..Tax the big owners and rich back into line and hey… we might even pay off the debt for a win win!!

  12. Anon E Mouse

    Dave Citizen – I’m not too sure which decade or even century you think we’re actually living in fella.

    After your previous “Land Grab” idea now you want to tax the rich until “The Pips Squeak”.

    Do you perhaps think you need to move on, put your own house in order and start challenging the Labour Party about it’s own rank hypocrisy with the likes of the Countess Toff Harriet Harman and the leader that is a tax avoiding property owning millionaire who hasn’t worked a days work in his life.

    Why not start there first on your grand plan….

    PS – What independent research btw supports these theories of yours btw?

  13. Dave Citizen

    Anon – to be fair, my Land Grab idea is supposed to integrate seamlessly with operation Pips Squeak.

    The equalitytrust.org.uk is a good place to start for some peer reviewed evidence.

    As for HH – I don’t care what party they’re in: if they have pips then I want to hear em squeak!

  14. London IWW

    #Cameron (#Scum)’s central argument on debt is wrong; #Labour needs to find a way to say so //t.co/Bu23lMe2 | #UKpolitics

  15. Ann Lawson

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron’s central argument on debt is wrong; Labour needs to find a way to say so //t.co/ORE8xghS

Leave a Reply