Fake anger is cheap in politics: every week at prime minister's question time sees one or other (sometimes all) of bluster, indignation, thwarted ego and petty harrumphing on display. Real anger is rare: but we saw it today, and something shifted in the firmament as a result.
I don't think I've ever seen David Cameron display in public the kind of controlled fury he showed today when Gordon Brown suggested he was playing politics over the appalling death of poor tortured Baby P. But I do think it was genuine. And whatever the rights and wrongs of the debate about social workers that will doubtless follow, this is the moment that stands out politically.
After weeks when what has counted is hard-headed intellect and sound economics — leaving Brown dominant week after week and Cameron floundering — suddenly we are back to what the Tory leader is good at: emotional intelligence.
The government showed a sure grasp of how this case would impact on public emotions when it ordered a prompt inquiry into child protection services immediately. But Brown lacked an understanding of how it would affect his fellow MPs, let alone those watching question time at home, when the Tories raised it in the Commons.
Cameron ended up articulating the hopeless, choked anger of many parents who will have found the details of Baby P's suffering almost unbearable to hear and cannot accept that nobody is to blame. Brown did not.
Yes, handling the recession right is still the biggest current task in politics, but this exchange shows why it would be extremely unwise to count Cameron out when other issues start to be heard again.
It also raises the uncomfortable question Labour MPs are quietly pondering: given that Brown hasn't essentially changed as a politician, merely seen the times around him change to something he is well-positioned for, will he revert to being unpopular when it's over? Could he win the recession just in time to lose the recovery?
