He said "it means putting the people in control".
We would like to compare and contrast this with two pieces of local news, one old and one new.
The old news is that the Conservative group on Horsham district council changed leaders after the last district-wide elections, giving the council a new leader without 'the people' having any say whatsoever.
We are not suggesting that there should have been elections, and mention it only to highlight the absurdity of this new policy which totally ignores the basis of the current electoral system whereby voters only elect a local MP and not a Prime Minister.
Apart from anything, this suggestion is totally at odds with attempts to improve our electoral system by introducing fixed-term parliaments: you cannot have fixed terms and forced early elections.
The more recent news is that a Lib Dem councillor in East Grinstead, Heidi Brunston, has defected to the Tories. There is no suggestion that she will stand down and try to get re-elected as a Tory, but instead she is being welcomed with open arms by Francis Maude.
A few years ago a Tory councillor in Crawley defected the other way to the Liberal Democrats, changing the balance of the council and the local Tory party were insisting that she should immediately stand down because the people who elected her voted for a Tory and not a Liberal Democrat. This matter of principle is not being raised by them now that they are the beneficiaries.
No doubt some people voted for Mrs. Brunston personally, but most will have voted for her because she was not a Tory. But now she is. So much for "putting the people in control".
All we are saying is that if you want to have a principle of 'putting the people in control' then you must stick to it, not just when it suits you. What Cameron really means is 'putting the Tories back in control' and may even be more self-serving than that - is he really anticipating moves by the Tory party to replace him if he gets them elected?