to think the Camerons are hypocrites?

[Pixel]

I've always had the utmost sympathy for them and what they went through in losing their eldest son, but Sam has made me very cross today. She's going on about how difficult it is caring for a disabled child and saying 'it pushes you to the limits of what you can cope with', yet the other day I saw this article. It says that the BBC has seen leaked documents showing that the Conservatives are planning to cut carer's allowance and disability benefits should they get re-elected.

God, seriously? How did you come to the conclusion that everyone studies the manifesto in detail before putting their cross in the box?

I'm bemused by what point it is you're trying to prove, shakes. Great that you and your friends are all so politically engaged - but are you honestly saying that you've never heard or read anyone say they're considering voting for, say, Farage, on the basis that he's 'a down to earth bloke who speaks sense and likes a pint like a normal person'?

Why do you think politicians out all that effort into their persona and how they present themselves? Don't you think that if everyone voted purely on policies they would go to all that effort?

Like it or not a lists of policies don't win elections.

Do you remember when Brown took over from Blair? How many people did you hear grumbling about that and uttering 'I didn't vote for him, I voted for Blair to be prime minister'? Completely missing the point and not understanding the system. People like people. People vote for people they like.

Honestly Electra, I haven't heard that.

The thing that is bemusing to me Electra, is that if you go over to the current 'are you voting SNP' thread, is that lot of posters mention that would or wouldn't vote for SNP based on policies. Yet on this thread, it seems a complete contrast of people saying its personalities.

I didn't say that people study manifestos in detail but people (in my RL) do generally have affiliations to a few of a party's main policies.

I agree op. She shouldn't use their child to try and win favour with parents for the party if the party plan on then making those very parents who aren't millionaires suffer much more. It's sickening to use your child to win votes. She shouldn't even be doing interviews. I hate this bringing the family into politics. It's what the U.S. do and we shouldn't follow their lead.

It's not a contrast at all. It's a wide range of ways that people engage in politics. You'll also hear people talking about how much they like Nicola, hate Alex etc.

Those people who are more into their politics and who know their and have spent time looking into it are more likely to be vocal on a topic about all those things.

No, people are saying that personalities play a part. For some people they will play a very small part, and for some a much larger part.

For example - I agree with a large number of the Green Party's policies. I have been on all those websites, my partner is a member of the Green party, etc etc. I know what their policies are. But actually, rightly or wrongly, I'm not crazy about either my local Green candidate (whom I have never actually met) or, in fact, their leader Natalie Bennett. I would much rather have Caroline Lucas as leader, because she seems to me to be much more dynamic, assured and - I will admit - charismatic.

So, whilst I would like to think that I'm not influenced by personality, the truth is that I have thoughts about how much I 'like' a candidate, based purely on what I've seen and read of them in the media. Not enough to actually change the way I'll vote, but it has been part of my overall consideration.

It would be naive and disingenuous to suggest otherwise, imo.

Just in case you really are that naive spend some time reading about propaganda and the cult of personality.

Just because you don't want to admit it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

beyondrepair someone I know received support from Sarah Brown when their child was seriously ill, while she was at no. 10. Not publicised or for political gain.

I cannot stand GB as a politician but I think as human beings the Browns are very decent people.

Poor, poor Ivan .

The difference is David Cameron used his son to say to carers and people with disabilities, "You'll be safe with us." He brought up his own experiences over and over to say that he'd been there, so he'd do their best to support and protect us. And some people believed that, or at least at the very best hoped he wouldn't target disabled people.

But the opposite happened. Disabled people are have been the most hit group by cuts. Very specifically targeted, and there is so much more to come.

Those of us that rely on care, rely on wheelchair adapted car to be able to leave the house to go to hospital and doctors appointments, and rely on ESA as the only income we will ever likely to have - we live in fear.

I will never be able to work again, no matter how hard I try to help myself, how hard I pull my bootstraps up, my achievement is often making it to the sofa. And sometimes that doesn't happen. Particularly if my care gets cut any further, then I'll never make it to the sofa.

Until you've lived with this fear, when you have a panic attack when a brown envelope drops through your door thinking this might be the next reassessment or cut, you can't truly understand.

And then you turn on the TV and David Cameron is once again saying he understands, but oh by the way 20% more cuts in welfare for those of working age will be coming, and it will likely be further cuts to disability benefits, and further social services cuts. That's after all the cuts that have already happened!

The Camerons only care about one disabled child and that was their own. They wouldn't give a monkeys if the rest of them starved in the streets. I'll save my sympathy for people who deserve it.

Actually I can really understand the idea that Cameron has become desensitised to the plight of the ordinary disabled person since both his father and son were disabled. It's the whole "I'm alright Jack" attitude that the Tories are so famous for

It's always brought up to them though- what are they supposed to say!

It wasn't brought up in the leadership debate, or the parliament discussion on the NHS. Do you think he had it on a card and practiced it with his advisors beforehand? Stomach churningly cynical.

I am sorry for the Cameron family. I am sorry for the Brown family. I am more sorry for other families with sick or disabled dc, as they had Fuck all opportunity to change things like Mr Cameron and Mr Brown did.

As has been said the only disabled child the Camerons care about is their own.

I can't believe the naive and/or disingenuous posts on this thread in which posters are implying that things like a politician talking about a dead son won't influence voters. They may not in Mumsnet world but 'ordinary' folk - such as my very decent but politically ignorant in-laws - are very much influenced by this sort of crap. They like their politicians to me 'human' and will vote accordingly.

A huge part of Labour being in the political wilderness for the best part of two decades was because of the systematic character assassination of Neil Kinnock by the right wing tabloids - and Michael Foot before him. If someone can be made unelectable in this way then someone else can be made electable in a similar way. Many people are swayed by the cult of personality, you only have to look at the popularity of programmes based around the personalities of the people in it such as Big Brother, TOWIE etc to see that. A lot of Labour's later success was based on around Tony Blair's image & personality - until he fell out of favour and became an electoral liability that is.

That should read 'be human' not 'me human' & 'personalities of the people in them' not 'in it'. It's late and I'm tire.

Argghhhh 'tired' not 'tire'. I'm off to bed!

I posted on one of the previous threads about David Cameron mentioning Ivan at PMQs in a way that could only have shut down debate. I thought that was wrong but I think this is more complicated. I feel a bit sorry for Sam Cam.

Political spouses are apparently expected to provide a happy families picture of their partner these days. In particular the wives seem to be expected to paint an adoring picture of their husbands (I like Sarah Brown but remember her "my hero" speech at conference). So it would have been perceived as odd if Sam Cam hadn't done a fawning interview like this. Once she'd agreed to the interview it was inevitable that she would be asked about Ivan and so she has to answer the question. What should really have happened is that the interviewer should have used that as an opportunity to ask her how she felt about the cuts to the welfare budget meaning that people would be still less able to get the kind of care she and her husband were able to access for Ivan. I think that would have been a perfectly legitimate question because she herself spends much of the interview going on about how great her husband has been as PM - and of course the sole reason for giving the interview is to help him get elected. But of course no such question was asked because the interview was with the Mail's You magazine. And of course she wasn't going to do a "puff piece" with a paper that disagreed with her husband's policies - what would have been the electoral advantage in that?

This interview is just the product of the ridiculous place we've got ourselves into regarding the role of political spouses. I see the comments saying we're going back to the 1950s but actually things were better then! Violet Attlee was famously a lifelong Tory voter. I hate this culture whereby the wife has to be an appendage of her husband. No one cared what Denis Thatcher thought about stuff or expected h to do puff pieces about his wife and it should be the same for Sam Cam and Justine Thornton.

Welsh re your last paragraph i think todays celebrity culture has contributed to this as well.....a culture that didnt exist in the 1950s or if it did certainly not to this extent.

What infuriates me about those moaning about how the welfare budget needs to be cut seem to overlook their own immortality. We are all just a heart attack, car crash or stroke away from needing help. Company sick pay doesn't last that long, an insurance payout won't necessarily cover the mortgage for the period you're off sick and are moved on to SSP.

Say you're the SAHP and are incapacitated for months. Is your OH's employer going to mind them dropping their hours for months? How will you pay for the childcare you need that you used to provide just so they can go to work?

Say you both work and one of you is taken seriously ill. How will you pay the bills when your company sick pay runs out?

And if your beautiful new baby is born with serious disabilities and you have to go back to work to pay the mortgage?

We're all just a heartbeat away from becoming dependent on disability benefits. I'm just baffled that most people seem not to realise it.

using their dead son as wank fodder for neo nazi ideology? Eva Braun????? Wtf is wrong with some of you people?
Urgh. Disgusting thread.

YANBU. Dave also gave an interview yesterday where he talked about being at breaking point when caring for Ivan. Together with Sam's interview and the release of photos showing him cuddling a lamb it's all part of a strategy to make us think he's like us. He's not. They have vast inherited wealth. He could pay for respite, nannies etc. Yet his government have made life harder for people. This is what I can't understand, how he could know how hard life can be and then consciously make it harder. In my mind, that makes him a nasty person. There's an interesting piece in the Mail this morning by Dominc Lawson who is critical of them using their children whilst ne et having done anything to help other parents in their situation. I wonder if the interview has backfired if even the Mail are including a critical piece.

Uptown, you're spot on re the influence of the media.

Miliband seems to be suffering the same treatment, from the petty bacon sandwich crap (because a) who really looks good eating? and b) how rude is it to mock someone probably choking down something to eat because they have to be somewhere or do something soon and haven't got time to eat delicately and savour every morsel) to the more serious (Tory criticisms of a possible Labour/SNP coalition when the Tories didn't actually win the last election or Osborne's use of the word "unholy" to describe any potential alliance).

Then there's the constant message that the current lot have done a good job to contrast with the alleged "chaos" of Labour. Well, with the 80% debt, the soaring deficit, the lower incomes, the ideological cuts that have had no positive economic effect (not that that would justify them anyway), the rising inequality and the need for food banks (in the 6th richest country in the world ), the actual facts don't really back the Tories' allegations.

Not that the truth really matters ...