A poll taken before the 2004 American election asked voters which of the Presidential candidates they would rather have a beer with. Ignoring the fact that George W. Bush shouldn't actually have a beer, 57 per cent of undecided voters polled said they would rather have a drink with the teetotal guy than with John Kerry. Apart from what that says about Kerry, the interesting thing about the poll was that people thought the trait in question might be useful in deciding on a president.

Personally, I put amiability during beer-supping some way down the list of what I'm after in a candidate. I can think of some tremendous leaders who would fail to be a riot in the pub. Experience, knowledge, empathy, coping in a crisis - all would beat the bottle issue. But not much further up the list would be the ability to make pretty speeches.

David Cameron now leads the Conservative party because he has the ability to speak without notes. From the first time this memory trick was used, at the 2005 party conference, the party was awed. Myself, I'm not much sold on it. Whenever anyone says how impressed they are by Cameron speaking for 50 minutes without notes, I wonder if they'll have to replace him once they find someone who can speak for 55 minutes. Where's your nirvana on this one? Is a good memory all you're after in a leader?

The current over-emphasis on public-speaking ability is baffling. Soundbites aren't bad, but they're no substitute for sound policies. Besides, if you're assisted by a team of writers, it's not hard to come up with the slick phrases. For instance, the British Government's counter-terrorism strategy, known as "Contest", is, in the Home Office's own words, "based on a policy that can be summed up in four words: Prevent, Pursue, Protect and Prepare". What, one wonders, would the Home Office do if something important in their strategy didn't start with a P? What's the object here - alliteration or policy?