The language of "thrift"

I understand the message that Cameron is trying to get over with his "we'll be a Government of thrift" line . It enables him to draw a comparison with the "spendaholic" Labour Party and softens us up for a tightening of the governmental purse strings with the cuts, redundancies and "pre-planned shortfalls" that follow from that.

But the language he's using is quite telling and rather strange. While "spendaholic" is a word that's in quite common usage and easily understood by all, very few people below a certain age will ever have used the word "thrift" in their lives. The sub-text, therefore, is Labour= modern, Conservative = old fashioned.

It has connotations of stuffiness and a peculiar musty smell to it. It's a word your Grandmother would use, not a twenty first century politician with his eye on the main prize whose every action, pronouncement and movement since he became leader has been to emphasise his "modernness". Remember "Hi, I'm Dave"?

But worse yet is "I'd be an austerity Prime Minister". The connotations of that word are so bleak that it's an act of actual folly to use them if you want people to vote for you.

The swing vote that he so badly needs to attract have no conception of "austerity" - they've lived their entire lives in a cocoon of instant gratification, endless credit and cheap consumer products.

Those who were around at the time and students of history will know about the post-war "age of austerity" and the privations, shortages and misery that went with it.

In the years after fighting a just and honourable war people were prepared to make the sacrifices that austerity caused. However, the electoral history of the Prime Ministers of that era should be a stark warning that, even in those allowable circumstances, the public weren't prepared to tolerate endless shortages ad infinitum.

If Cameron is really going to carry the themes of "thrift" and "austerity" onwards he's going to find a lot of voter resistance ahead. It's the language of a different time and invites the question "why would anybody vote for someone who is promising to bring back food shortages and a drab greyness to our lives?"

The earlier catchphrase of "fixing Broken Britain" was much better and the environmental concern (no matter how adopted) resonated considerably more with today's voter.

If this language constitutes his only proposed solution to the economic difficulties he really does need to go away and think it through again.