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

Well, if the excellent SEN coordinator at my ds's school can be considered any sort of an authority........

Newinformation - it's not just about money, it's about power.

Do you really think David Cameron had the same battle to get a statement or support at school for his son that you have, or that I've had? Any number of practical things are going to be easier to get if you're David Cameron.

Then add in that he could easily afford nannies or nurses.

None of that makes any difference to the emotional impact, the stress, the worry and of course sadly the grief when his son died.

But the practical everyday battles and struggle to get support? That's going to have been very different for him than for most people.

You and a parent on benefits probably have more in common on accessing help than he does for instance, unless you're also a millionaire with political power? In which case I've got a few favours I could do if you've got a spare ten minutes, lol.

So no, the actually being a parent bit isn't any easier, but some of the other stuff will have been.

Favours I could do with ... Or that sounds really odd

That'll serve me right for trying to make a joke on a serious thread.

I think that Cameron refers to his son as a stopping point for discussion rather than a starting point.

Since when did MNHQ start adding their views to threads?! And so what, if we don't agree with your theories and opinions but do stick to the rules, then you might delete a thread? What kind of democracy is this?!

Rowan - why do you think Cameron mentioned his son during this conversation? He was asked about minimum wage for disabled workers not about caring for disabled children. It added nothing to the debate other than conveniently putting an end to it.

I think if you went to Eton and your wife is a multi millionaire most things day to day are easier from the shopping to caring for a disabled child simply because money gives you choices and connections give you power and clout.

Bereavement is a different matter.

Xpost tabulahrasa

I've posted on site stuff, can you guys not come up with something comprehensive?

Too many threads are getting messed about with and in all honesty to reasons do seem to vary from HQer to HQer.

I've been reading a lot of the threads of late, due to some local policy issues so have noticed discrepancy.

I'm not being critical, just hopeful.

Ed Miliband addressed the words spoken by Lord Freud.

David Cameron responded with a suggestion that we should all focus on the economy.

When Ed Miliband reiterated his point because it had not been answered properly, David Cameron proceeded to shut down the line of questioning by saying he didn't need a lecture on how to look after disabled people.

I would agree with your sentiment MNHQ if DC hadn't been so blatant in his refusal to address the issue properly. His son did not need to be brought into it. Ed Miliband was calling up the actions of Lord Freud, he was not accusing Cameron of not looking after his son.

So what other reason did DC have to bring his son into that arguement, if not to manipulate the situation and shut down the line of questioning?

plentyavino: "He was asked about minimum wage for disabled workers not about caring for disabled children. It added nothing to the debate other than conveniently putting an end to it."

Agree completely. His own experience, sad though it was, is completely irrelevant to the question. Miliband didn't for one moment suggest that Cameron was unable to look after a disabled child. He simply questioned Freud's statement that some disabled people could be paid £2 an hour because they were otherwise unemployable. All Cameron had to say was that he disagreed with Freud, nothing more.

^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.^

Rowan Well, you don't let people say gratuitously offensive things, do you? And if a politician declines an invitation because they do not like the tenor of Mumsnet debate then you can say so, or simply state that they were invited and they declined. Any politician refusing to support such important campaigns because they are not happy with what some posters in your forums say, as opposed to what your own editorial content says, really isn't cut out for British politics - a notoriously rough old game.

he couldn't give a flying feck about disabled people.

bedroom tax for disabled, no bloody help AT ALL for anything needed for disabled.

yes ive had another fecking lousy scum day of trying to fight for DC and My disabled rights.

fecking government. hate them. hate them.

(had a mini heart attack a while back because of the fecking stress too)

The way I see it just because the man had a disabled child doesn't mean he's not a prick.

Havent read thread but although the Cameron's faced a tragic situation they did not face not having the money to provide care when your childs disability means you cant work or your work wont pay enough for you to get the specialist care you need for a disabled child, they also have no experience of trying to provide support for a child with a disability that is not life limiting. Im sorry for what they went through but I feel Cameron has no idea of what we face with our daughter which is just different. I am glad we will have her with us for a good long while but how on earth do we support her for all our lives and how do we provide for her when we arent here anymore?

There is plenty of evidence available to show David Cameron loved and cared for Ivan as a father should. Somewhat thinner on the ground is evidence to show that David Cameron the prime minister and the Conservative party give a toss about the disabled population in general.

Very well put BarbarianMum!

I for one am throwing my eggs in with Labour, warts and all. I've recently joined the party and at meetings I'm going to sit there quietly and nervously insist they return to their old leftie ethics "people not profit"

Well I'm proud to be a mumsnetter when I see to many articulate posts on a thread which get exactly to the heart of the matter without being offensive.

there is a very valid argument that the minimum wage prevents certains groups of people (not necessarily disabled) getting work as they are unable to offer enough value per hour.
In some cases this is a temporary thing whilst gaining skils/experience, whilst in others it may be permenant.
Having a job is benefical to an individual and can be very helpful in supporting self-esteem and preventing mental health issues.
Therefore as part of social policy, allowing wages below minimum wage, possibly supported by social payments, would be beneficial for these groups.

what?!?!?!?! bollocks!!

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

^ This.

"...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."

^ and This.

Of course we should all be able to criticise handling of policy regarding disabled people, regardless of whether those creating or handling policy are / have had family members who are disabled.

Although I note it is not officially 'popular' with MNHQ, as my post on a previous thread showed when I said no more than this but it was wiped.

But Yes, as nauticant says, the real horror is Freud's comments being allowed to stand.

How could a disabled person's labour only be worth £2 an hour but an abled bodied persons be worth NMW???

No wonder the Tory party wish to withdraw from the EU court of Human Rights...

Oh do fuck off CarolDecker.

There, I've redressed the balance from this being a very sensible and reasoned discussion into a shouty outside the pub one.

:o

caroldecker Yes wouldn't it be great if their were special workplaces to help people with disabilities experience employment and work in a way and at a pace that suits them. Maybe somewhere like the Remploy factories that the Tories shut down.

As to your suggestions, no. A minimum wage means just that.

He used clumsy language, but Lord Freud makes a very valid point.

Some severely disabled people would love a job as a way of keeping busy, and giving them the same sense of purpose and achievement to be found in our work - but they can't find an employer willing to pay them minimum wage.

It is entirely compassionate for the government to make up the difference in such a situation. In fact, I would go further and ask the government to offer extra financial and administrative support to employers who take on severely disabled staff.

The answer doesn't lie in direct government schemes like the Remploy factories, as worthy as they are - the most efficient way is in helping small and medium sized employers across the country integrate facilities to allow severely disabled people to work there.

Whether David Cameron should talk about Ivan or not is a separate issue. What I find most distasteful is that Miliband brought this up at all. He's shown his truly odious nature by selectively quoting from Freud, whose answer was rooted in compassion, and instead making it seem like cruelty.

Is that you, Lynton.

Worthy as theywere.