TONY BLAIR doesn’t think much of political debate in Britain. In his speech to the Labour Party conference on Sunday he referred to “the swirl that passes for political debate”. He went on to deliver a speech that, intellectually, was not so much a swirl as a swill. It contained nothing but misrepresentation, sentiment and non sequitur.

During this election campaign we can expect lavish servings of such intellectual junk food; quick and cheap substitutes for proper reasoning. Unlike real junk food, this rhetorical muck comes with no warnings about its worthless contents. Mr Blair is unlikely to declare that the following speech is 30 per cent fallacy, 30 per cent grandiose waffle and 40 per cent irrelevance. Voters must, therefore, rely on their own ability to spot nonsense.

This column aims to help by identifying five fallacies you will encounter over the coming weeks. Blair, Howard, Kennedy and the rest will commit many more, but these will do to put you on guard. For examples, we need look no farther than the Prime Minister’s Sunday speech.

Mr Blair defended the policies behind his notorious six pledges using what I call the “human interest fallacy”. This involves recounting a sentimental story about some needy person or neighbourhood and then leaping to the conclusion that your policies are the answer. An anecdote about a limping woman waiting for a knee operation was presented as sufficient ground for Labour’s health policies. Or, as Mr Blair so elegantly put it: “That is why pledge No 4: your family treated better and faster.”

Such rhetoric is sanctimonious bullying. If you oppose Mr Blair’s policy, then you obviously do not care about that poor woman. Everyone cares: Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem. That isn’t the issue. The question is which policies will most effectively help.

Mr Blair enjoys boasting about Britain’s economic growth, low unemployment and low inflation. “Labour is working,” he claims, “don’t let the Tories wreck it.” This is the foundation of Labour’s election campaign.

The argument involves two fallacies. The standard Latin name of the first fallacy of inferring causation from coincidence is cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this therefore because of this). The fact that the economy has thrived during Labour’s term in office does not show that its policies caused it. To establish causation, some explanation is required. What did Labour do to create our prosperity? But Mr Blair never explains.

Perhaps this is because a proper explanation would reveal that Labour’s main contribution has been not reversing the Conservatives’ free-market reforms. Some credit is due to those who resist squandering their inheritance, but more is due to those who created it. But whoever deserves the credit for Britain’s prosperity, it should be a matter of no concern to voters. No party will now significantly change the monetary and other policies that explain our economic success. When all cars come with power steering, it cannot provide grounds for preferring one car to another. And when all parties will abide by the lessons of our recent economic success, it cannot provide grounds for preferring one party to another. Call this the “undistinguishing characteristic fallacy”.

Our fourth fallacy, one of the Prime Minister’s favourites, is to recommend a policy by listing its benefits alone. The benefits of a policy cannot suffice to recommend it, because it will also have costs. A policy is worthwhile only if its benefits exceed its costs.

Mr Blair never shows that his policies satisfy this condition. He claims success for his education policy because it has delivered thousands of extra teachers. But are these teachers worth the billions they cost in taxation? Mr Blair does not even address the question.

Indeed, he never mentions tax costs. Look in the policy section of the Labour Party’s website; you will find no mention of taxation. School sports and gay marriages warrant discussion but taxation is ignored.

This taxation blindness allowed the Chancellor to claim on Saturday that education and healthcare are free. If you ignore how something is paid for, then I suppose it appears to be free. If Gordon Brown really believes such nonsense why not fund all goods and services through taxation? Then everything would be free. Paradise! When discussing the Conservatives, Mr Blair relies on the fifth, “straw man” fallacy which consists in presenting an absurd caricature of your opponent’s position. He claims that voters face a fundamental choice: “Forward or back?” In their endeavour to take the country backwards, the Conservatives apparently plan to ensure that we cannot afford surgery by giving us vouchers for only half its cost. They will help only the rich to receive a decent education and they intend to “spread disillusion and cynicism” across the land. These Tories are wicked people. Or they would be if they bore any resemblance to Mr Blair’s preposterous misrepresentation.

The Prime Minister claims deep respect for the people of Britain. Then why not show us some respect? To peddle his rhetorical nonsense, he must either think that we are fools or be a fool himself.

Jamie Whyte is a philosopher and author of A Load of Blair, to be published in March

Times Recommends

• It’s the beginning of the affair
• Afghanistan: still a price worth paying
• Heroes of the downtrodden