Was that money well spent?

[Weedon]

It turns out that Cameron spent £66,000 on preparing himself for the TV debates. See here.

It's probably just me but every time I see him on the telly I see him as a Babybel cheese with the red skin peeled off.

[Russethouse]

 Was it his own money ?

[Rose (& Greyman)]

So that will be the cost of a second half sub appearance by Wayne Rooney

[Catalpa]

For some years it has been standard practice for companies to pay for coaching for staff that are exposed to the media in any form. It's perverse to suggest that such money is ill-spent when the population pay such (and frequently illogical) attention to visual presentation.

Yes, Cameron spent more than the average company does on its staff but on the other hand if British Petroleum's ( [;-)] ) Tony Hayward had been better coached in presenting himself and his views to the American press at least some of the subsequent personal attacks and red herring discussions would have been prevented.

According to the article, Labour spent a similar amount on "presenting" Gordon Brown... so, to go back to the title of this topic, it would appear that the coaching purchased by the Conservative party was, indeed, money well (or at least "better") spent. [:D]

[Mr Coeur de Lion]

Aren't labour going bankrupt due to "presenting" Gordon Brown?

[DerekJ]

I think Weedon was asking whether, after having received the training, Cameron's performance was sufficiently improved to justify the cost???

IMO he still doesn't come across very well. I say this as a Conservative voter. He still reminds me of the many salemen I have worked with. However, compared to the opposition he doesn't seem any worse and, to me, a bit better and compared to his old adversary Brown a million times better.

[Weedon]

As I have (in the main) only ever been self-employed it has hardly ever crossed my mind to what extent large corporations spend on image or presentation. So having read the article, where it said that Clegg had only spent 1/10th of what Cameron forked out, it struck me that maybe he (Cameron) didn't get value for money, seeing as it is generally accepted that Clegg came out of the TV debates rather better than the other two.

Although I did hear from somewhere that it was suggested to Clegg that he should use tinted moisturiser to cover his pasty complexion.

[cooperlola]

However, the naturally talented cost a lot less to "polish" than those who have none.  I used to do PR for a company whose boss came over really badly.  Sad to say, the press and others always want to talk to the top bod and you can't always keep them out of the limelight, thus a bit of training is invaluable and he needed loads!

It would be great if all politicians had good public images and were comfortable speaking in front of cameras/crowds but far better if their political ideas and instincts were the thing by which they were judged.  Sadly this is rarely the case these days. 

[Quillan]

I love watching the Politics Show on BBC2 during the week and enjoy the PM's question's. What comes over to me is that both parties seem to think or hope that we don't think about the four to five trillion pounds the UK owes but more that we think its just the £160 or so billion they keep talking about. What both sides seem to be clueless about is that you don't have to just reduce the annual deficit by 10, 20 or even 30 billion pounds you have to not only reduce it till there is no deficit but also to actually save so we can pay off this huge amount of debt, about £200 billion worth of cuts might make some impact.

Both parties also seem to forget that they don't have any money, the government does not have any at all, they are borrowing at the taxpayers expense. In the meantime they are quite happy knocking up expenses for this, that and the other and have no understanding that it's tax payers money they are spending on themselves. So in answer to the OP no the money was not well spent, in fact they should have spent none whatsoever especially as they keep saying we are all in this together when in reality we are but they are not. In the word's of JF Kennedy "ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country", (politicians) don't take a salary and don't ask for expenses until this mess is sorted out.

[cooperlola]

It was the party which footed the bill as far as I can see from the article.  It's a personal choice as to whether one belongs or donates to a political party, is it not? 

JFK was almost single handed in changing the face of modern politics so that image became everything and the cost of getting elected rocketed thereafter.  Thus I think he's maybe not the best guy to quote in this context!

[Gluestick]

For me, the whole matter is a sad indictment of the state of modern politics.

Politicians have been degenerated to "Celebs": and the media is chock full of what Mrs PM wore yesterday. As was the Mail I happened to glance at reporting the Remembrance Service from the Cenotaph this year. Rather than focus on the purpose it had a half-page spread and picture, detailing what "SamCam" had worn.

Matters not a fig if a man or woman is as visually challenged as Robin Cooke or Golda Meir. Or say Dr. Mo Mowlam. A lady to admire in many ways.

What counts is are they a good leader? A great statesman? (Gender Inclusive JE as in real English not the PC junk!) An excellent developer of policy and strategy?

And, more critical of all, do they actually do what they promise on the stump?

And, perhaps the acid test: is the country which they lead as premier better off after their tenure: or worse off?

All just goes to show how dumb most of the electorate really are....................

[NickP]

"All just goes to show how dumb most of the electorate really are."

So true Gluestick, but unfortunately we are our own worst enemies, we make it worse by encouraging them when we vote for them.

[Alan Zoff]

It always makes me smile when a politician says something like "the people are too clever to fall for that". Given the right presentation and media coverage, "the people" will swallow just about anything.

As the likes of Donald Trump will proudly testify, when dealing with the public, presentation is much more important than substance.

[Gluestick]

Personally, Alan I believe modern politics can easily plagiarise the hallowed words of Lincoln into:

"You can fool most of the people all of the time; all of the people most of the time: and most of the people 99% of the time!"

[Www]

[Alan Zoff]

I worked for a prestigious accountancy firm for a time in the 80s who prided themselves on being first to produce an after-Budget seminar for clients and prospective clients. One year, after a particularly bland statement from the Chancellor, we were struggling to find much to say as we prepared our presentations.

The very dynamic tax partner overseeing the event instructed us to make things up if necessary. He didn't care what we said as long as it got the attention of the attendees. If any of them challenged the comments at the time, we were to improvise a defence and he would pitch in if necessary to help us out. If - as was more likely - any doubts were raised only after the presentation was over, that would provide a chance to begin a dialogue with a prospective new client.

It turned out to be one of the firm's most successful presentations in terms of gaining new business.

[Gluestick]

BS baffles Brains, rule again then Alan.

Very worrying, nevertheless.

[Chancer]

If you were looking for a second hand car at local dealers and had found what appeared to casual inspection 4 pretty much identical examples of the vehicle you wanted, offered at the same price from 4 different private sellers, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Gordon Brown and Tony Hayward, which one would you trust to  buy from and why?

If one of these appeal to you which politician or even celeb if that floats your boat would you buy a second hand car from?

[Patf]

In  reply to the OP, the money for his training didn't do him much good, as he hardly got a majority, even with poor old Gordon's complete lack of charisma. And their management of money [8-)]

I could do better myself (eg their mistake over how many public sector jobs had to be cut!)

Q. - we love to watch the politics show and PM's questions too. I was wondering last week what the french people would make of it - are the National Assembly meetings ever televised?

[NormanH]

Yes on LCP

Here is question time

http://www.lcpan.fr/Questions-au-Gouvernement-08947.html

[Patf]

Thanks Norman [:)]

Just watched the first 10 minutes - they seem  more formal serious and well behaved than the british MPs. Long prepared statements read out, whereas with PM's questions it's much more partisan and adversarial. And lots of leg-pulling and laughing. So it seems up to now anyway.

[Gluestick]

Is this where I complain that a thread about David Cameron has been moved to a French subject?

[Www]

[Weedon]

[quote user="Chancer"]

If you were looking for a second hand car at local dealers and had found what appeared to casual inspection 4 pretty much identical examples of the vehicle you wanted, offered at the same price from 4 different car dealers, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Gordon Brown and Tony Hayward, which one would you trust to  buy from and why?

If one of these appeal to you which politician ore even celeb if that floats your boat would you buy a second hand car from?

[/quote]

Not sure which one I might choose as a second-hand salesman, but if the scenario was the same and they were selling privately I would definitely not buy from Tony Hayward as it would have a lot of salt water corrosion in it. I think I might buy from Cameron as he has the look of a compulsive cleaner about him.

On second thoughts, going back to them being second-hand salesmen. Clegg and Cameron might do a deal on the VAT element of the price, I don't think Brown would, plus he would bore me to death with his sales patter.

[Chancer]

Good point Weedon, I will try to edit it to be a private sale.