Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk

Back to thread
Original poster

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]

14 replies

nippiesweetie · 15/10/2014 13:44

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

Go to post
MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 15/10/2014 14:47

@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.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 15/10/2014 14:59

@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.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 15/10/2014 15:17

@Hakluyt

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

Politicians mention their kids all the time - don't most parents?

But when a politician who's lost a child talks about their grief, and how their child's death has affected them, we think it should be taken at face value. We understand that not all of you do, but it's the line we've chosen to draw on MN.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 15/10/2014 15:21

@tabulahrasa

But he does use his personal circumstances in a manipulative way to shore up votes...all politicians do when they're mentioning their experiences and using them in a political speech.

That doesn't make those experiences any less life affecting - but it's not a casual conversation that's been overheard, it's a political arena and if they're brought up it is to use them in making a specific point.

This is a fair point and yes, all politicians use personal circumstances in the hope that it will humanise them with the electorate or strike a chord or whatever.

But the particular circumstances here - that a child actually died - mean that we think it becomes a different sort of issue.

As we said below, we don't have a problem with posts that analyse possible connections between Ivan Cameron's death and his father's policies.

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.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 15/10/2014 15:29

@nauticant

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?

It may not be what all the posters concerned intended to imply, but yes - we do think that's the takeaway message - either that or that he is prepared to use the fact of his own son's death in a callous and manipulative way.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 15/10/2014 15:31

@NotTheKitchenAgainPlease

^^ Yes who said that? There's a difference between saying that DC is cynically using the death of a child to shore up votes, and POs making the point that the PM's personal tragedy should not used as evidence that his governments policies towards disabled people are anything other than vile.

We think it's fine to say 'I don't accept his argument that the fact of his son's death means he cannot be guilty of making policy that has a terrible impact on disabled people'.

We don't think it's fine to say 'he is using his son's death'.

It may be a fine distinction but we think it's a really important one.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 15/10/2014 16:03

@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.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 15/10/2014 16:12

@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.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 15/10/2014 16:16

@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?
Grin

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

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 15/10/2014 16:34

@KneeQuestion

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.

At the risk of being massively over-specific, saying that he uses 'his experience of being the parent of a child with disabilities' is one thing - saying that he uses his son's death to do xyz is something else.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 15/10/2014 16:35

@tabulahrasa

I don't think it is rude to say, well with all due respect to your experiences and the grief of losing a child - I don't think that means you will automatically have better policies than another political party or that your ministers can say what they like on certain matters without facing the same criticism as any other PM or party leader does.

This isn't something we'd delete, though (so we agree it's not rude)

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 15/10/2014 16:48

@SurelyCurly

yes, i agree, he is being manipulative. He has experienced how dreadful it is to be the parent of a disabled child and to lose that child as a rich man but it would have been a hundred times harder every inch of the way as a poorer person with no influence over the nhs. i bet they all bent over backwards for him.

Tbh (if we're getting into the business of parsing posts) this is a bit closer to the line. The practical experiences may be (almost certainly are) easier if you're wealthy, but it's not really on to imply that someone's distress at their child's illness or grief over their death is made '100 times easier' by money, is it? And we realise that that may not have been your intended implication but it is one possible reading. Tbh is would be really helpful, among other things, if people could read back over what they intend to post and check that they're being really clear about what they intend to say.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 15/10/2014 16:57

@tabulahrasa

So is it a language thing then...if we write using an experience instead of drawing from an experience there's the chance someone will infer that it's in a lying calculating way rather than just meaning that he mentioned it as being relevant?

Language is important but it's also about the specific charge of using/manipulating his child's death - which your post didn't make.

As ever on MN if we think something is carefully thought out and is making an important and well-reasoned point we'll try really hard not to delete. (Sometimes we do have to anyway though.)

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 15/10/2014 17:05

@nippiesweetie

Rowan I think that you will find that politicians need Mumsnet, or at least want its platform, more than Mumsnet need politicians.

Out of interest why do you always delete threads rather than simply freezing them with comments disabled? People who were interested could read them, you don't have to monitor them and they will fall down the pages very quickly.

Our position is really that threads are either up and available for posting on, or down and not available at all. Otherwise it seems like an invitation for people to start a new one to discuss the thing they're not allowed to discuss on the frozen thread. We do suspend threads sometimes but usually only because a mighty bunfight is occurring and we need to stop people telling each other to fuck off while we work out what's going on.

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates

End of posts

There are no more MNHQ posts on this thread

Back to thread