to think that the sad facts of Ivan Cameron's life and death do not exempt Cameron from criticism for his government's policies. [Titled edited by MNHQ to correct spelling of Ivan Cameron's name]

[nippiesweetie]

Again, today during Question Time he uses his son's disability and untimely death to close down discussion on a matter of disability.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/15/welfare-reform-minister-disabled-not-worth-minimum-wage

His name was Ivan. Irrelevant, I know, but it's more respectful to get it right.

It's irrational, but the fact that he has lost a child is the only thing that makes me not 100% loathe Cameron. It definitely makes him more human to me - I can't find it in me to hate anyone who has endured such terrible grief.

I agree with you. But could you ask MNHQ to correct his name in your thread title?

his name was Ivan. And it's not government policy. There's certainly a debate to be had but getting basic facts right would be a start!

I thought the same thing.

He said something like "Don't tell me about caring for a disabled child, I know exactly what it's like." Which is fine. But he didn't make the original comment which sparked the debate. One of his other ministers did.

So David Cameron understanding life with disability just isn't relevant. What is relevant is the Welfare Minister seems to have suggested that people with disabilities don't need /deserve the minimum wage.

Cameron's personal circumstances don't change the fact that someone with power apparently believes disabled people are worth less than other people. Which needs to be discussed and not sidelined by Cameron's tactic.

YANBU.

So if he doesn't need "lectures about looking after disabled people", it certainly sounds like he could do with one on why the concept of "looking after" is patronising to citizens with equal rights.

I can understand it's a sensitive point for him, but surely he can see that his experiences as a parent of a young child don't necessarily equip him for knowing everything about every disabled person ever?

As my DMIL says, her experiences as a parent to her disabled DD, equip her to know a bit about being parent to her DD. It doesn't mean she could make up national policy with no need for comment from anybody else.

I don't think Cameron does fully understand the full reality of what life is like with a disabled child, simply because his experience of the NHS will inevitably be different from that of most parents in that position.

I find it outrageous that he uses this to come up with that sort of false anger he produces whenever he is accused of taking away services from other disabled children. If he really thinks every disabled child gets the same service that his son did, he should just have a look at the current waiting lists for things like children's mental health services.

I've reported and asked for the name to be changed- hope you don't mind, op.

What really enrages me is very rich people claiming that they have shared experience with not rich people. Yes he had all the emotion and hideousness of the situation. But he doesn't know what it's like to not be able to afford to put the heating on, or a car that works, or care for his other children, or special transport for holidays or round the clock help or a housekeeper or a cleaner or state of the art equipment............

woowooowl Yes, you are quite right. Wish I could edit my post.

I agree with Icimoi. His would never have had to argue with health care professionals about getting a diagnosis, or argue with Housing association about adaptions and unsuitable homes.

Yes its painful and a memory he would most likely try to avoid at all costs, however he doesn't have that luxury and shouldn't use it to close down a debate.

Thank-you Hakluyt.

RiverTam and my body copy refers to 'a matter of disability'. However, he has in the past used this tactic to avoid discussion of policy and express indignation that he should be criticised on the matter.

This is the second time in the past month or so and it didn't go down too well the first time.

I've often wondered if Ivan's death contributed subconsciously to his bitterness and hatred towards people with disabilities. It's as though he thinks anyone who isn't so disabled/ill that they die must therefore be putting it on or summat.

And, as another point, I suspect that he's harder on people who deal with disability (personally or family) BECAUSE of Ivan - because he doesn't want to be accused of being in sympathy with them because of Ivan, iyswim.

A bit like Thatcher wasn't at all generous to other women because she was a woman - and if she had been, it would have been said that she was only generous to women because she was one.

I've often thought that he probably had to endure a lot of unpleasant jibes about his father's disability. Children and teenagers can be brutal about such things. It might well be prejudice on my part, but I don't see public school boys in general as compassionate types.

Rich people often think poor people are only poor because they don't try hard enough not to be poor...............

I have reported this thread in the hope that MNHQ will change the name.

If you are going to use the death of a child to make a point don't make it worse by not caring enough to spell his name correctly.

RIP Ivan .

Read the thread, itsfab.

SaucyJack!

Yes, CAMHs would be a good place to start. Provision for mental health care for children and young people is shameful.

I have now, Hakluyt. Shoot me for reporting and posting without reading every last post .

Well, I would have thought reading the thread before making an offensive post like - "If you are going to use the death of a child to make a point don't make it worse by not caring enough to spell his name correctly."- would have been quite a good idea, yes?

Last time we discussed this we got told off for it because apparently, even though DC refers to Ivan in his speeches, we are not allowed to mention it because it's not 'nice' & it's a parenting website to support parents?!