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

Plus having (and sadly losing) a profoundly disabled child is an extremely different thing from being a fairly disabled adult and having to cope with life surrounded by the constraints and limitations the disability imposes.
Or, what I would find terrifying right now: being the parent and advocate of a disabled adult who you knew would outlive you - and needing to ensure somehow that their needs would be financed for the rest of their days.
He uses Ivan's name every time a disability argument comes up, but I think he is actually coming from a position of incredibly limited experience and allowing that experience to blinker his views in the wider picture.

I find this thread pretty distasteful to be honest maybe he just finds it pretty upsetting because his son died but of course because he's rich it would simply have been a minor inconvenience to his family.

It's not govt policy.
A minister made a comment, not in a meeting of parliament but at a fringe meeting of the Tory party conference about finding a way to make it possible for disabled people to work for £2 an hour as they weren't 'worth' the minimum wage.
The man, Lord Freud, is clearly a complete shit so it's not necessarily fair to assume that this is a view held by all of the Tory party or that it would become policy. I would sincerely hope not.

But yes, OP, having had a disabled child does not exempt DC from criticism of his handling of policy relating to disabled people.

I watched a very interesting program about pepople living with disabled children and the hardships they faced from a number of sources it was by that lady who was dianas friend...cant rememever her name.

at the time Gordon brown was in power and Cameron in wings she said it was shamefeul, Pm and deputy PM both had disabled children and neither doing anything to help

"I find this thread pretty distasteful to be honest maybe he just finds it pretty upsetting because his son died but of course because he's rich it would simply have been a minor inconvenience to his family."

Oh, don't be silly. Nobody has said anything like that. He is the Prime Minister. He was talking in Parliament. Nothing is said that is not planned, discussed, scripted......

My post was not offensive and I read the OP as trying to attack David Cameron. If I am wrong with the latter point, I of course apologise, OP.

School run now, so bye.

The fact of his son's death would of course not have been made one whit easier by his personal wealth (and I don't see anyone here suggesting that) but by God his life with a profoundly disabled child was totally transformed by it.

Hard enough to look after your child and worry about their health and future without having to worry about keeping a roof over your head, or food on the table, or the bloody government labelling you as the undeserving poor cause you can't work.

This is what politicians do: they refer to their own personal experience to make political points. I remember Gordon Brown did, and I think Ed has re. refugees.
I can't see anything surprising or off about it.

I think saucyjack is on to something in that post ^

@ChippingInLatteLover

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?!

Nope, that's not what we said. Our point is that we think it's absolutely beyond the pale to accuse Cameron of deliberately deploying the fact of his child's death to manipulate public opinion.

We have no problem whatsoever with people criticising his (or any other politician's) policies as harshly as you like, and we have no problem with people mentioning Ivan and how his life and death may have affected his father's beliefs and actions - so long as it's done in a humane way that allows acknowledgement of how entirely painful and tragic this experience was (and is) for the Camerons.

We think any political criticism can be made effectively without accusing him of using his own child's death for manipulative or dishonest purposes.

We know lots of you disagree with us about this but it's what we think.

So, there we have it. The matter cannot be discussed.

I have also reported the error in Ivan's name. It was a misremembering on my part and in no way intended to be disrespectful.

So he can be as cynical as he likes, and we can't call him on it. Result for the Conservatives.

YANBU OP - I didn't see this occurrence but I was very suspicious of his use of Ivan's disability and death in his Conference speech.

His words were: "I am someone who has relied on the NHS – whose family knows more than most how important it is…who knows what it’s like to go to hospital night after night with a child in your arms…knowing that when you get there, you have people who will care for that child and love that child like their own. How dare they suggest I would ever put that at risk for other people’s children?"

But the thing is, there are plenty of things the Conservatives are doing that raise genuine questions about the future of the NHS in their hands so surely people actually have a responsibility to question what's going on. But by DC's logic here, these people should shut up because he knows best.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Cameron's wealth would have made Ivan's death any easier, for goodness sake. Day to day life would be very different, though.

Neither of my boys are as severely disabled as Ivan was, but yesterday, I was stripping off a very wet muddy boy after he came in through the front door, having followed a life long compulsion to traipse through wet mud, whilst the other boy was in the bathroom, stripping off a dirty nappy and spreading poo everywhere. I'm fortunate enough to be sufficiently solvent that we could afford to write off the 2 week old £40 (supportive, by necessity) trainers, if they don't recover from their soaking as well as everyone's toothbrush - I am fully aware that many parents of children with disabilities are financially very squeezed and would be hit very hard by that. If I had the sort of wealth where I could afford nannies, I would only have had mud to deal with and not poo.

As for Freud, he's a clueless eejit and Cameron should have been mortified that a one of his ministers expressed such views about people with disabilities and MH difficulties.

YANBU!

Rowan, but nearly everyone here HAS said something along the lines of how 'entirely painful and tragic' the Camerons' experience has been.

I am not being truculent here; I genuinely find this thread's sentiments regarding Ivan Cameron and his family almost entirely 'humane'.

@OnlyLovers

Rowan, but nearly everyone here HAS said something along the lines of how 'entirely painful and tragic' the Camerons' experience has been.

I am not being truculent here; I genuinely find this thread's sentiments regarding Ivan Cameron and his family almost entirely 'humane'.

It's really not humane, in our opinion, to imply that his own child's death means so little to him that he would use it in a manipulative way in order to shore up a few votes. It's just about as deeply insulting an accusation as it's possible to come up with, and not one that we're happy to host on the boards.

I think then MNHQ you'll have to pull down the OP too.

Rowan- why do you think he mentions Ivan at all in a political context?

I agree with Rowan. As I said in my first post, though I hate David Cameron for his policies, I can't believe that his grief and love for his son is anything but real.