Since 2010, David Cameron has shrugged off accusations that he is disconnected from the reality of everyday life and the impact his cuts agenda has had on the quality and shape of the UK’s public services. He has done this so well in part because of the ham-fisted efforts of his political opponents in Parliament, but also because of his smooth media performances, his ability to pitch and ideologically motivated public service reform as an inevitable and essential part of creating a successful modern state, and because of his general Teflon-like ability to ensure mud doesn’t stick. But this week’s leaked exchange of letters between him and the leader of Oxfordshire County Council (which covers the constituency he represents) shows an unusual political mis-step from the PM and gives us a rare insight into his thinking.

In the letter, he expresses his disappointment in the Council’s decision to cut frontline services – from museums, to elderly care and libraries – and asks why it can’t find back-office efficiencies and/or raise funds through the sell-off of Council owned assets. Citing certain figures, he argues that there’s only been a slight fall in Government grants in cash terms and asks why the county can’t generate savings more creatively. In response, the Council leader politely and firmly notes that the County has in fact culled 40% of its more senior staff, slashed its back-office functions and sold all the property it can legally sell. The leader also exposes numerous figures in the PM’s letter as being wildly wrong – noting for example that a figure cited by the PM as the cumulative total of funding cuts facing the county is in fact its annual cut- and challenges Cameron’s premise that a drop in overall funding of 37% is but a “slight fall”.

Being kind to the PM, this could be seen as simply a rubbish attempt to lobby your Council leader not to implement cuts that you know they have to make. Many other MPs are doing the same all around the country – futile though it may be. The inaccuracies are down to simple human error, and the head of some constituency staffer in Witney is no doubt on the block as a result. Or, there’s a harsher conclusion to be drawn. Does the PM genuinely not understand the savings local authorities have to make? (This is exactly what the NAO concluded about the Government last year when it reported on the policy.) Worse still, could it be that the PM is simply alarmingly detached from the consequences of his own actions? That question will be one for future historians to chew over…