It was not an actual lie, but it was nothing like the truth either.
David Cameron is nowhere near as sophisticated. He simply tells you what he thinks you want to hear.
Before the last election, for example, when asked by David Dimbleby on Question Time if he had plans to cut tax-credits, he said, quite clearly and distinctly, that tax credits would not fall. We now know that this wasn’t true.
More recently, in his conference speech, he said that Jeremy Corbyn “thinks the death of Osama bin Laden was a tragedy.”
In fact the “tragedy” that Corbyn was describing was the lack of a trial, not his death.
“This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy,” he said, adding that “the World Trade Centre was a tragedy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy.”
Those were his exact words. How many of you would disagree?
This is the difference between the two men. One of them reflexively evades the truth, the other, just as reflexively, speaks his mind.
Sometimes, indeed, Corbyn is honest in a way that is not necessarily to his benefit.
When asked if he would “push the button” and use Britain’s nuclear deterrent, he said no; a fact that was spun by his enemies into making it appear that he was soft on defence.
But this is insane. No one but a mad person would unleash nuclear weapons in advance of an attack, but using them after, aside from being too late, would also show that they were never a deterrent in the first place.
Maybe the question should be, who would you rather lead our country: a person who stands on his principles and always tells the truth, sometimes even to his own detriment, or someone who will say anything to get himself elected?