The conferences are over – the three main party leaders have spoken. As I write just two party leaders’ speeches are available in text form, Miliband’s and Cameron’s.  Nick Clegg finished speaking an hour ago, but currently his isn’t.

Being something of a cynic, I tend to rank politicians in inverse proportion to their use of the word “fair” or derivatives of it. Everyone wants “fair”, “fair” is the ultimate Utopia, but as we all know, it’s also completely meaningless.  The more a politician relies on it, the less that politician can be relied upon.

I was pleasantly surprised by the infrequent occurrence of the word. Cameron used it just once, Miliband four times.  As to Clegg, I didn’t listen to his speech, I’ve no text to hand, just a few tweets to go by – but any politician whose party website includes the term “fairer society” automatically starts with a bonus count of ten, so according to my interpretation Miliband is more reliable than Clegg but ranks below Cameron.

On one level that result surprises me. To me, the extent to which a politician talking about his plans for the country’s future should be believed depends entirely on how well he’s explained the funding for those plans.  And as Miliband’s delivered speech made no mention whatsoever of the deficit, he demonstrated, perhaps subconsciously, not only that he regards it to be of no importance, but also that his plans cannot be taken seriously.  Because if the existing deficit is of no importance, the implication must be that he’d pursue his agenda until – suddenly, and to his undoubted astonishment – the country was broke.  And then it would be cap in hand to the IMF again.  And his agenda would be blown out the water.

Nick Clegg’s speech appears to have been an exercise in defensiveness. Yes, there’s a tax give-away, but the man and his party have some credibility based on their years in coalition.  It’s undoubtedly arguable the deficit would be significantly lower today had the Tories been in sole charge from 2010, but the LibDems are entitled to some credit for participating in government at a most difficult time economically.

Of course every party has its giveaways. The main one from the Tories, as my colleague has pointed out, is a tax band adjustment by 2020.  My colleague regards this giveaway as a cynical ploy to buy votes today for a tax hand-out five years down the line.  I disagree with my colleague – cynical it would be were it promised to kick in before the deficit were dealt with. It wasn’t.

Labour doesn’t really do tax give-aways, it just finds new ways of spending money. Miliband identified several of those. And he identified a way to fund a part of it, by means of Vince Cable’s “Mansion Tax” that’s no longer supported by Vince’s own party.  Whether or not it’s possible to impose such a tax is open to serious doubt, but were it to be introduced, the concern will be that the threshold will be lowered over time from £2m, to £1.5m, perhaps to £1m.  Appealing, perhaps, to Labour’s core vote in Warrington or Bootle, but a worrying prospect indeed for anyone living in their own home within commuting distance of London.