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.

Everyone keeps saying this article is going to sway votes, is there anyone here willing to confirm that's what they are going to do?

I think that it is important that MNetters and EVERY woman in the UK makes it clear that we are not pathetic little creatures to be patronised with drivel like this, but intelligent, independent voters who make our own decisions based on the policies, manifesto and history of the different parties - just like politicians expect men to do.

Everyone keeps saying this article is going to sway votes

Well why else would they publish it in the run up to the election?

FWIW, there's no point asking 1 group of Mumsnet posters if anyone has been personally swayed by this article - that's a tiny demographic and MN posters (on the whole, and esp since we're on a thread about the Cameron's being hypocrites) are quite well known for their liberal leaning stance.

shakes, you're being naive. Everything that is said and done by anyone publically connected to the election campaign is done in a bid to win votes. Everything.

Just because you're smart enough not to be swayed by it, doesn't mean no one else is.

Of course her interview is about trying to influence voters. Too much of a coincidence that otherwise she just happens to give a heart rending interview a few weeks before the election when normally she doesn't tend to talk about him.

I don't think anyone will be swayed into voting Tory by reading the article; I think people are more intelligent about politics than that.

Apols for the appalling grammar in last post

It is a small demographic who read the Mail, relatively speaking. Else they are there only for readers comments and not going to be swayed by articles in a Tory paper.

You're right, it doesn't make you a SPAD, Shakes. But it might you look a little like one in my eyes.

And having a long posting history on MN doesn't not make you anything either. I've been on here ages posting about all sorts if things. It doesn't make me one thing or another.

shakes, why do you think SamCam agreed to the article then?

But the article wasn't originally for the Mail was it (or was it)? I thought it was done for You Magazine and has since been republished (inc the Mail but also in more outlets)

Thanks LineRunner, I am not a SPAD even if I look like one to you. I am not sure how you make the connection but I have no control how a reader interprets my posts.

Electra, I think that newspapers report things that are currently topical. That will be the election for the next few weeks. SC is married to the PM so I am not surprised in the slightest that people want to interview her at this time. I would fully expect to see articles about lots of other women married to MPs in the press. I find them fairly interesting.

Has zero impact on my vote though.

I was mistaken - this specific interview was for the Mail On Sunday, but she has been doing other interviews. You can bet your last penny that they aren't just broadcasting this shite to a "small demographic", because it's intention is to sway votes

I think its odd to do the interview but without any personal information on what she is doing to help people in her postion of power

Has zero impact on my vote though.

And? So?

Has zero impact on my vote though.

And?

And I don't think it will for other readers, I think people are more savvy than that. Why would reading somebody's wife make you want to vote for that party.

So?

So I have an opinion that goes against the majority of this thread. Oh well let's disagree this time.

"articles about lots of women married to MPs"

I think the 1950s are calling.

OFGS grow up. I would find articles about husbands or partners of MPs interesting too.

I agree with others, I think you're being quite naive Shakes. They don't publish this stuff at carefully timed intervals of the political timeline for fun.

Well you would, wouldn't you.

Talk to people and come back and start a thread when you've found someone who has changed their vote purely on SamCam's interviews. I will keep an eye out for it.

I think you are really underestimating people. But we are not going to agree on this are we?

I think boudics point about Cameron talking about his son when referring to the NHS but not to services provided by local authorities is very important.
Many of the support services like respite are funded through social services and specialised education is very important-but its okay to cut funding to lacal authorities. He is a hypocrite.

What is a SPAD?

I'd prefer to be naive than have a state of mind where I honestly thought someone was trotting out a dead child for personal ambition purposes, most people are just not that awful. Demonising the other side with ad hominem attacks (see also kitchengate) that cheapens our whole political process. I feel sorry for all political spouses - far too much intrusion these days.