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

People are criticising Cam because his government is cruel to people with disabilities. His policies are appalling e.g. disability benefits/bedroom tax/cuts in social care. He's the PM, it is right and proper to hold him to account.

Especially when he puts a guy in charge of welfare reform who says he's going to look into changing the law so employers can discriminate against disabled people, paying them £2 an hour.

Yesterday he used his son in a pathetic attempt to avoid taking any responsibility for Freud's prejudiced and discriminatory attack on disabled people. And he has left him in charge of welfare reform. Disgusting.

I am and at MNHQ comments.
Whilst I agree that the death of a child should never be used as a way to out down someone or accuse them of something they've have or haven't done, I would like to remember MN that DC is a public figure.
Unfortunately (and DC knew that when he starred as a politician) it means that his private life will be under scrutiny. Itv round be if he was having an affair. It is now about his son.
It is worth remembering though that he is the one who mentions his son. He does so in public and in his cabinet meetings. If he thinks that no comment should be made about his son in relation to his policies, then I would gently suggest he starts by not mentioning him in relation to his policies either whether it's to the public, the MPs or his cabinet members!

As to the fact it might mean that MN doesn't get the support they want for other projects, I hope that MN has realized that this us just a bluing tactic and a way to keep 'undesirable' comments at bay. Especially when you see how the same politicians are running to MN to be able to get lire bots towards the elections . They are in effect telling you they you are good enough to help propagate ideas and please could you support us but god forbid MN was also a vessel for ideas that are criticising their policies.

lady but can't you see that's the whole point if these comments? That people will think you can not ent because he had such a hard time?
Yes he had. But it doesn't mean that you can't criticise hhis policies because if that.
And I do not believe that any if these comment, either from him it his minister, weren't thought out in the first place.

This thread has been enlightening. So Mumsnet can police threads in an interventionist way and it can insist on very delicate moral niceties. But only if the figure at the centre of the debate is someone to keep on the right side of. Interesting. I wonder if Mumsnet is aware of quite how clearly that came across.

Incidentally, it is screamingly obvious that Cameron refers to Ivan's life, at least, as a means of shutting down debate about issues he'd rather not talk about.

Oh jeez now read MN's posts on this thread. OK, yesterday at PMQs Cameron was asked about Lord Freud, the minister in charge of welfare reform, saying he was planning to look into changing the law so employers could pay disabled people £2 an hour.

Cameron's response was (precis) 'don't tell me about living with a disabled child'. i.e he avoided answering the question.

His reference to his son has also distracted everyone from talking about the millionaire financier who is minister for welfare reform who wants to pay disabled people £2 an hour.

I think it is unfortunate if MN bans people from talking about Cameron mentioning his son when he's challenged on government attitudes to disability and treatment of disabled people. If Cameron mentions his son when answering a question, that's his choice, and it is entirely legitimate for people to question that tactic.

It doesn't mean Ivan's death was not a tragedy and isn't unimaginably painful.

Right, just looked up BBC reports of PMQs.

Ed Miliband said [Lord Freud's] the comments demonstrated the Conservatives' "worst instincts".

In response, the prime minister said he "did not need lectures from anybody about looking after disabled people" and urged the Labour leader not "to cast aspersions".

Are we allowed to comment on this, or do we have to ignore what the Prime Minister actually said in the House of Commons about his welfare minister planning to change the law so disabled people can be paid £2 an hour?

It would be ridiculous if a public forum barred voters from talking about what the Prime Minister says in parliament, surely. However many campaigns MN wants to run.

I've never lost a child and I can't even imagine how awful and horrendous that must be. As a politician I dislike David Cameron, I don't like the things he says or does, but I feel nothing but sympathy for him and his wife that they lost their son.

If that had been a conversation in private then I wouldn't criticise him in anyway. I doubt the pain of losing a child ever really goes away and I'd be understanding of anyone with those circumstances.

But, when it's in the course of a prime minister doing his job, in public and in a way that stifles discussion about an issue then it's different, it has to be or it could lead to a prime minister being able to do or say whatever he wanted without any criticism or debate...which is not how politics should work in a democracy.

As far as I can see, people are criticising DC as a politician. People are not happy with his politics and, because he brought this into the equation, his use of personal experience to influence his politically-related actions (in this case, to shut down discussion, and deflect criticism of his politics).

How can this not be OK?

It really is interesting to see the degree to which things must be kept anodine on here to stay in with the powerful ones and keep things cosy. What kind of freedom of speech is that?

I suspect Rowan hadn't checked what had actually happened. If she had seen Cameron's words and the context, surely she couldn't have said 'you can't accuse him of using his son...'. Because he did, clearly. In front of the nation.

He answered a question about the minister for welfare reform's plans for disabled workers by claiming no-one could tell him anything about 'looking after' people with disabilities.

From Hansard-
"Edward Miliband: We need to be clear about what the welfare reform Minister said, because it is very serious. He did not just say that disabled people were “not worth” the minimum wage. He went further and said that he was looking at

“whether there is something we can do…if someone wants to work for £2 an hour.”

Surely someone holding those views cannot possibly stay in the right hon. Gentleman’s Government?

The Prime Minister: Those are not the views of the Government. They are not the views of anyone in the Government. The minimum wage is paid to everybody, disabled people included. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Passions are running high but the answer from the Prime Minister must be heard, and I want to hear it.

The Prime Minister: Let me tell you that I do not need lectures from anyone about looking after disabled people, so I do not want to hear any more of that. We pay the minimum wage, we are reforming disability benefits, we want to help disabled people in our country and we want to help more of them into work. Instead of casting aspersions, why does not the right hon. Gentleman get back to talking about the economy?"

DC needs to realise it isn't about rich people like him looking after disabled children. It is about disabled adults being able to look after themselves and being employed fairly. His son is a red herring being used to shut down a valid debate. He's using a tragic personal situation as a kind of emotional top trumps and he seems to be doing it quite often recently.

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.

I would say that fair play, if these types of issues regarding disability are that upsetting to David Cameron that he is unable to deal with them properly, then he should step down. He is expected to do a job as PM, and if he cannot do it properly for personal reasons, then the most logical and ethical choice is for him to resign and allow someone else to take the helm. This is about his job performance as PM, which is sadly lacking in the area of protecting and safeguarding the rights of the disabled.

Wow I don't think I've ever seen a thread with so much comment from MNHQ. Colours firmly nailed to the mast there.
As a disabled person myself and as someone who works with people with profound disabilities I am disgusted by David Cameron's Governments policies towards people with disabilities.
As a parent the thought of losing a child is horrific and for that he has my heartfelt sympathy but by using the fact he had a child with disabilities to effectively shut down any objection to his government policy is both wrong and worrying.
It is also misleading of him to say that he knows about 'all' disability. He knows his own circumstances and I'm sure they were difficult but he does not speak for all disabled people or parents of all disabled children.

well said, secretcervix.

Nothing from Mumsnet since yesterday at about 5pm. Does this mean their policy has changed, or is undergoing a review, or might they suddenly zap the thread because they are sticking to their existing stance?

The balance of opinion of those contributing to the thread is quite clear. And elsewhere in the interwebs...

Don't miss actual Hansard extract at 14.59.

There's a story here...

I reported to my post referring to the BBC news account of Cameron's remarks at PMQs, asking MN whether they were going to change their policy on deleting any comments about him bringing his son up in response to discussion on government policy.

Have you not seen the other thread nippiesweetie?

nauticant I have now, thank you. I have read the thread and posted.

Saving the thread to my computer just in case it suddenly disappears...

Realistically, MN can't be a complete free-for-all when it comes to public figures - for lots of reasons. Not least that basic civility has always been one of our guiding principles.

So why wouldn't MN deal with posts equating Alex Salmond and the Yes Campaign with Adolf Hitler and the Nazis on the Indyref thread a few weeks ago...?

Wow I don't think I've ever seen a thread with so much comment from MNHQ. Colours firmly nailed to the mast there.

I thought exactly the same - quite, quite bizarre in fact.
I did feel the MNHQ comments managed to derail much of the thread and spectacularly missed the point posters were making.

By design, it seems.

I've been thinking the same, sconequeen. There were rarely any 'moderators' on those Indieref threads and the debate was often a tad one-sided too.