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

I am horrified at mumsnet trying to shut down discussion and forbid certain opinions from being expressed.

Believing that Cameron cynically uses the death of his child to shut down discussion on certain topics isn't a very nice opinion to hold, but it's a valid opinion and obviously, lots of people do hold it, and Cameron is a public figure who is very much fair game. The death of his child is not off limits in this case, soecifycally because he chooses to mention it.

Using your own life experience as a get out of jail free card to shut down debate on issues where that experience is not even remotely relevant is not only unseemly, it's also fundamentally dishonest. And it demeans that experience.

However Freud has been forced to apologise (quite humiliatingly) so clearly those apologists for his views upthread are completely at variance with their own party. I wish somebody could force cameron to apologise too. I think that anyone who is clearly trying to shut down debate on an issue of discrimination should be forced to apologise, actually. And I think that an apology is owed to many of the posters in this thread.

My concern is that while Freud has been "forced" to apologise, it's much like the apology you get from an errant 6yo. He is apologising because he is being TOLD to apologise. Not because he is actually sorry. Not because he realises he was wrong. Not because he has had a fundamental shift in thinking. But because he was TOLD to do so. He is no more sorry than the 6yo that got caught being naughty.

Poor moderating by MNHQ on this thread. I hope they discuss it in the office today.

Well, he's not a nice man. The die is cast on that one. As it is for some of the people commenting on this thread. They won't change their minds. But the party has obviously judged that the public mood is such that his views are unacceptable. Since their business is reelection, it doesn't actually matter if some of them agree with him - they've realised that the public mood doesn't. Which is something to be pleased about. Small mercies and all that.

A bigger worry is whether UKIP will go after the anti disability vote (we've seen some disabling rhetoric from them on the past). If they do so, and don't lose votes (which they won't because people vote for them without considering their (lack of) policies) then the bigger parties may reevaluate whether they need to dial up their rhetoric to win the votes back. I genuinely believe that most people of pushed would be reasonably nice and fair, I don't think that most people are 'nasty'. I do however think that most people vote out of self interest on a small range of issues which are unlikely to include disability rights for the majority. And this, as with so much of the current range of political debates, worries me.

Alice

Completely agree. I feel if DC had any idea how best to serve us, the people who have had to live through his self-appointment as PM, he would have sacked Freud.

Lord by name, lording it by nature, it seems.

I havent read the thread since i posted, just spotted the INVALID DOES NOT MEAN INVALID and have a question for those who think the idea to pay less is a sensible one. Does this only apply to those on min/lower wage/ non specialist jobs?

Say a person in a wheelchair is a doctor. Are they 'above' the threshold? Becuase they have an "important" job? Or are you going to pay them less than their peers?

If its not okay for doctors, it is not okay for anyone else.

I am disgusted (yes disgusted!) at the amount of people i have seen (elsewhere) assuming that disabled people will only be working as shelf stackers and factory ops.

Maybe Freud thinks the Peers in the House of Lords who are disabled are just menials. Or perhaps he knows they're also Peers but thinks they should be on a lower daily attendance rate than him.

Beyond. Couldn't agree more. Dh was a philosophy lecturer. Ds is at uni and has been asked to spend next summer assisting on a research paper, he too will be a lecturer at some point, even if he does end up giving some of his lectures on the floor because it's safer for him!
Dd is a wheelchair user, she too will be off to uni, along with her (also disabled) twin.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

THIS is a very good blog on the variety and the achievement of disabled lives. Curated by Tom Shakespeare, who was one of my supervisors at university many long years ago (when he was a Phd student). Although I think it's important to remember that every life has equal intrinsic worth, whatever one's 'achievements'. I think the very worst thing about Freud's comments was his suggestion that some disabled people are 'worth less' than others. Salaried workers get paid what the market or their employers determine they can get away with. In no way is the level of your salary a measure of your intrinsic worth as a human being.

That's really interesting, Rabbit. However, there are many, many ordinary people out there with disabilities. As with the rest of the population, we're not all academics, olympians, film stars. However, disabled people are people, they are not somehow other and the trope of the achiever against all odds can be as damaging as other designations.

Hear Hear Alice

Hear Hear Rabbit

I agree completely that: "the level of your salary is in no way a measure of your intrinsic worth as a human being."

Trouble is, many many many do not.

And Yes, I believe UKIP have disablist views/policies and we are seeing the thin end of the wedge.

I do think the deletion of many reasonable posts by HQ on this and similar threads is surprising too.
DC himself brings up the subject of his child's disability when not relevant to the debate in a 'don't think you need to tell me about disability!' huffy puffy sort of way.

I wouldn't wish the loss of a child on my worst enemy, nor for a child and parent to struggle with disability.
I don't know Cameron, but his pain will be no less for his being rich (although practicalities would be considerably easier).
But his references to his child to close down debate seem disingenuous at best and cynical at worst and have really made me lose any respect for him.

you can't have a minimum wage with exceptions

and

I am dismayed to read RowanMumsnet's comments about not criticising public figures because it may damage future MN campaigns.

That implies that successful campaigns require matey, privileged relationships with those in power, rather than good research, good arguments, public support and the effective use of our democratic process.

I realise that MN is not a democratic organisation. However, curtailing free speech on the basis that it might offend your important political chums seems rather inappropriate.

sum it up for me here.

To be scrupulously fair, in some ways the Camerons had and continue to have it harder than 'ordinary' people with kids with the same or similar conditions. My friends don't have to worry about protection details, security arrangements, being papped, having articles written about them etc. That must have made an intolerable situation even worse (as it must have done for the Browns also).

But still.

The cynic in me wonders if it's the campaigns MNHQ is concerned about (why not campaign about THIS? God knows the issues need high profile well organised campaigning) or the page view stats driven by the cosy MP Q&As. :( There's a point beyond which a cosy relationship is a hindrance and an obstacle to effective valuable campaigning.

Say a person in a wheelchair is a doctor. Are they 'above' the threshold? Becuase they have an "important" job? Or are you going to pay them less than their peers?

If its not okay for doctors, it is not okay for anyone else.

Beyond This is exactly what I was saying earlier. Who gets to decide what people qualify as "worth less than minimum wage" and what level of disability counts for that? Is there going to be ANOTHER level of assessment that the disabled will need to go through and stress over? And how much will THAT cost the government? And what kind of sanctions will the disabled be expected to have levelled at them in this instance?

As if somehow your child being dead is canceled out by having money never heard such awful things

And for anyone to think who HAS never actually had a disabled child that they no better than someone who has or had one is just

I really don't like the conflation of salary with personal worth. Especially since salary isn't even an indicator of professional worth!

thefishewife what are you talking about??

Shoesy not sure.. seems to be ranting... but can't be bothered at this point, as the conversation has moved on to the discussion on minimum wage issues and such....

Talk about thread derailment.

I thought I had missed something

beyond I agree totally with your point regarding people making assumptions about people with disabilities and their capabilities. However, I do think that people on this thread are talking about lower level employment because Freud was referring to people with extreme disabilities and severely impaired cognition, not because they think all disabled people are incapable of mainstream, demanding work or professions.

Again and again it is shown that people with disabilities with stable conditions (and even not so stable conditions) are at least equally as reliable and productive as their able bodied peers.

In general I think we have to remember that Freud's witless musings are not government policy but the blatherings of a swivel eyed ideologue, swiftly and quite panic strickenly, disowned. However, since he was the architect of the bedroom tax and is closely involved in the train wreck that is Universal Credit, it is wise to be vigilant about anything he says.

Also, as the OP, I would like to object strongly to Mumsnet's imputation that my post was anything other than a temperately worded objection to Cameron's tactics at PMQs yesterday.

At some point don't we all have to ask ourselves how we can find it in ourselves to take a pop at someone WHOSE CHILD DIED because they are a politician? Nobody should bury their child. I don't care what the issue is, but it was clearly traumatic for DC and his family and frankly regardless of how many of his government's policies I dislike, I can't bring myself to be negative about his comments or engagement with this particular issue.