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

nauticant Wed 15-Oct-14 15:24:32
But we just think that bald statements that a father is lying about the extent of his own grief (which is basically the charge) is a step too far.

That's quite a leap. Are you sure this is what all the deleted posts were saying?

that is what people will now think, I was accused of calling him a c* last time, I didn't. MN HQ need to stop censoring post about the prime mininster

I think that anyone who thinks that David Cameron didn't love and care and grieve deeply for his son is inhumane (and just plain wrong), but I don't think anyone is saying that here. I didn't see PMQs, but I was concerned by the extract from his speech at the Conservative Party conference, which is reproduced above (and which I nick and post below):

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?"

I think it is wrong to shut down criticism of your party's policies relating to the NHS by effectively saying "because my son died and was cared for by the NHS you cannot possibly suggest that my policies will have a negative impact on that service." That doesn't follow, and is a way of stifling legitimate debate, whether it is intended as such or not. I suspect that David Cameron genuinely does not think he is dismantling "the NHS" but his idea of what that entails and mine are very different - and people are entitled to express their own views, regardless of his personal history.

i don't minimize his feelings not one bit i do think he has used it to shut down debate that might be because he finds it painful to discuss who knows! i just find it a bit odd that someone with a disabled child did not go all out on policies to make other disabled children's lives easier i think if i ever became prime minister my main policies would be about children and lower income families because that is where i come from perhaps im talking crap who knows (mutters off)

I don't think it does stifle or exempt him from criticism anyway. He can talk about his personal experience, and people can accept that or not - usually not - but why shouldn't he mention it?

If it were a debate on racism, a black mp might say, 'well, I've experienced this and this...' It's then up to the listener to respond with, yeah, well, your experience was not the majority one, or yeah, well that's not relevant here, or whatever they want to.

But JohnFarleysRuskin it's one thing to say "I've experienced this" and quite another to say "because I've had this experience you cannot dare suggest that I would ever put X at risk".

I always preferred Gordon Brown's decision not to cite his children in political comments to the approach taken by Tony Blair and David Cameron. However, when Cameron spoke of Ivan in interviews it was clear that he loved and cared for his son. He and his wife did have to make numerous overnight visits to A&E with Ivan and his loss was devastating

I do also see that a decision to talk about Ivan and his place in their lives was and is perfectly valid choice. However, their experiences are not the only experiences, many parents struggle with the care of a severely disabled child and this government's policies have in many cases made their lives harder. I think it would be better if he did not mention Ivan in a political context. My opinion and anyone is free to disagree.

It's one thing to say "I've experienced this" and quite another to say "because I've had this experience you cannot dare suggest that I would ever put X at risk".

^This is what the problem is.

Well said Welsh.

I'm absolutely sure that Ivan's death must have had a devastating and tragic impact on the Cameron family, all of them.

But I agree that the quote mentioned in posts above shows that he is suggesting that he wouldn't risk the services of which he and his son availed themselves for other parents in similar circumstances - and that is blatantly untrue, sadly. And he is therefore attempting to shut down debate on his policies regarding the health and welfare services and their negative impact on people dealing with disabilities by saying that he wouldn't do that because of his own experiences with his son. And yet - the services available for people dealing with disability are disappearing. So he's either utterly blinkered or lying.

He said today he didn't need lecturing about looking after disabled people. That is such a lie. His policies and Government have caused nothing but harm to disabled people.

I would love for him to come to my house for a week, just to experience DS2's life as a young carer and doing his A levels. To experience DH's role as a member of the Armed Forces and trying to care for me and to realise that their are many, many people like me who get no care package or help with anything from their Local Authority so just have to get by.

He would soon see that, actually, he does need lecturing about looking after disabled people. His experience was so far removed from nigh on ever other family in the same situation that he really doesn't have a fecking clue.

Sorry, not his policies, his party's policies.

Xpost with Fairy - my correction for my own post, not yours :)

What an unpleasant thread.

@OnlyLovers

Rowan, again, I do not read in any of the posts here that people think Cameron's 'own child's death means [so] little to him'.

Neither can I see in any of them evidence that he is 'lying about the extent of his own grief'. In fact I'd call that a wild and possibly willful misreading.

I think Kitchen nails it with the statement 'the PM's personal tragedy should not be used as evidence that his governments policies towards disabled people are anything other than vile.'

That is really all that most people on here are trying to say. I get that MN have drawn a line, or come up with a policy, or whatever, on this subject, and I'm fully prepared for you to reiterate it on this thread; but I want to say, for the record, that IMO you are misreading and misunderstanding people's posts.

OK, noted and we're sorry as ever if people disagree with our line.

We know people may not intend to imply dishonesty, but the many accusations of 'manipulation' or 'using' his child's death do read like this to us. It's also massively discourteous and rude - imagine how any of us would feel, as parents, if we had lost a child and were accused of deploying our child's death to manipulative effect? Surely it's not an accusation any of us would be prepared to put up with?

Just a word about the wider context and our thinking on this as well.

We try as an organisation to campaign on serious issues like miscarriage, SN and sexual violence. In order to be in any way effective on things like that, we need to engage with politicians, great and small. That's just not going to happen if MN is perceived as a place where posters can make enormously insulting statements about named public figures at will.

We also regularly get major politicians on for webchats - another thing that could just stop happening if we don't draw some lines about what we think isn't OK.

We realise some of you would rather be able to say whatever you like about Cameron/Miliband/Clegg/whoever, and just ditch the campaigns (and the webchats) - but that's not our position and not, we think, the position of MNers as a whole, given the enormous number of requests we get from users for both things.

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.

nippiesweetie "It might well be prejudice on my part, but I don't see public school boys in general as compassionate types."

Substitute the word public here for state. Is that ok?

Anyway, love the idea that you think the boys from the local comp would be falling over themselves to offer kindness and support. Ha, ha!

1. Cameron's experience not being the same does not make it any less valid. Those of us dealing with people with disabilities, day in, day out spend our lives saying different means different, not better, not worse, just diffferent.
2. I think it's time to close this thread. If Freud's comments are to be discussed, great, but they are not being discussed here. 3)I hate Cameron and his government.

ahh thanks get it now. why not just delete the thread then? that way campaigns will be safe

I'm absolutely sure that Ivan's death must have had a devastating and tragic impact on the Cameron family, all of them.

But I agree that the quote mentioned in posts above shows that he is suggesting that he wouldn't risk the services of which he and his son availed themselves for other parents in similar circumstances - and that is blatantly untrue, sadly. And he is therefore attempting to shut down debate on his policies regarding the health and welfare services and their negative impact on people dealing with disabilities by saying that he wouldn't do that because of his own experiences with his son. And yet - the services available for people dealing with disability are disappearing. So he's either utterly blinkered or lying.

This X1000! Although to be fair the Government have to cut services to save money, all these child-friendly wars are very expensive!!! (sarcasm)

If that's the line, Rowan, then you should delete the whole thread.

@Thumbwitch

If that's the line, Rowan, then you should delete the whole thread.

Tbh the wording in the OP does strictly break our ruling on this one but it seems best to thrash this issue out as it's obviously one that could occur over and over.

Rowan LOTS of politicians and celebrities use their personal tragedies for 'manipulative effect' as you put it, have you never watched any talent shows?

@Ir1na

Rowan LOTS of politicians and celebrities use their personal tragedies for 'manipulative effect' as you put it, have you never watched any talent shows?

You may well be right - but it's still an extremely grave and insulting accusation.

'imagine how any of us would feel, as parents, if we had lost a child and were accused of deploying our child's death to manipulative effect? Surely it's not an accusation any of us would be prepared to put up with?'

Cameron made a decision to talk about his child's death, in the terms he did, IN PUBLIC in his role as PM. Frankly, given that, he should be prepared to put up with criticism.

As for 'the wider context', I think 'politicians, great and small' should welcome free and open debate and be able to respond robustly.

He did attempt to shut down Miliband's argument. That's clear.
'I don't want to hear any more about that.'

Although it definitely wasn't Cameron's intent, it is interesting to see on here that, purely accidentally and coincidentally, all the discussion has been drawn away from Freud's comments and will burn itself out in "I'm not really sure what I'm allowed to say" dead end.

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

But he is using mention of his experience of being the parent of a child with disabilites, to shut down debate on his governments policies that affect people with disabilities and their families.

That is manipulative.

Of course he was/is affected by his experience, but the policies of his government that are making disabled people suffer, are an indication of how very out of touch he is with the experience of the average person.