David Cameron's conference speech - live stream from 11.15am today

[JaneGMumsnet]

Hello,

David Cameron's conservative party conference speech will be live streamed here at 11.15am today, if you're interested in taking a look:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19890459

MNHQ

perhaps less difficult financially, domestic but your post suggests less difficult in every sense of the world? A pretty shallow view of a carer.

So DC had it easy because he has more money than most?? Inverted snobbery that certainly is.

word not world

Yes, I think life is easier if you have money. I've lived with and without, and I sure know what is easier.

If that's not the case, then what are 'strivers' striving for? Are they just doing it to show off?

Not everyone's goal in life is to make money and be rich.

sunflowersfollowthesun do you not read the threads?
I have posted on this thread and others.
I think scam using his son is vile.
have posted that often

No, and it sure isn't mine either. But to say that there is no additional difficulty involved in being poorer, particularly if you have caring responsibilities which may put you out of work, is nonsense.

And if more money isn't the goal of most Tories I struggle to see what is. Cameron himself has just called them the party of the want-to-be-better-off.

and money does help
he would not have had to worry about the very cuts he is making.
people my disabled dd will be very affected by them.
if we had money like him, or she did,
we would not be so worried

its' simple common sense that money helps in a bad situation. If you are ill, you can afford better care. If your family member is ill or needs 24 hour care, you can afford to pay for that care or if you so choose, to give up work and do it yourself without having to worry about losing your home or cutting down on food.

Simple. I really fail to see how that point can be at all controversial. DC comes from privilege which has insulated him entirely from the difficulties most people in the UK may face, and all the denial in the world will not change that.

Undoubtedly, having money oils the logistics of everyday life, but no amount of money can shield you from the emotional trauma of being disabled, or having disability in your life. Having money may mean that access to the latest equipment or respite care (although we have no idea what care arrangements the Osbourne's may have had for Ivan) is not the problem that it is for many, but that doesn't mitigate the heartbreak of needing said equipment/respite care in the first place.
It is the absolute dismissal of the Cameron's experience of disability that dismays me. As if their experience of it was somehow less because they has money. There appears to be an absolute unwillingness to acknowledge the fact that the Cameron's suffered... because they had money.
How many times have I read (with admiration and respect) of the absolute devotion and commitment of carers posting on these boards. They would do anything for their disabled spouses/children, whatever it takes. So if they had the resources they would presumably use them too? Would it make their pain any less? Their sadness diminished ? their anguish any easier to bear? Of course not.
The Cameron's were born into moneyed families, that is no more their "fault" than it is any child's "fault" which background they are born into. It is a sad (but entirely logical) fact that the ones who take most from the system are the neediest, but the fact that there is any "system" for them to take from in the first place is down to a welfare state that relies on better off people paying in. The wealthy pay most in, but take least out. Yes, they have the most in the first instance, but it is undeniably their money and they contribute buckets of it to the welfare pot. The most needy only take, ergo, it is inevitable that they will feel the cutbacks most.
I have read about many families experiences of disability on these boards, they fill me with humility and admiration, I just don't understand why they are entitled to bear witness to their experiences, but the Cameron's aren't given the same courtesy.

On the point made that It's also worth noting that the top 1% of earners contribute 30% of income tax revenue. Whilst we should be fair, we shouldn't be whacking higher earners anymore in my opinion.

Income tax only represents 27% of government income, I doubt that the contribution of the wealthiest through the other big earners of National Insurance (where you only pay 2% on income over £42K, but 12% on most earnings upto that point), VAT, corporation tax and business rates (which are usually passed onto customers as a cost of the business) and excise duties. But these make up twice as much of government income than income tax.

And until you can quantify how much of the nation's wealth is in the hands of the top 1%, the amount they pay in income tax is irrelevant. If, for example, they had 30% of total wealth, then they should pay at least 30% of the tax take, probably more as they have higher disposable income. I can't find a figure for the UK, but in the US it is estimated that the wealthiest 1% controls 42% of the financial wealth in the country.

And in the UK many of the wealthiest are very adept at tax avoidance, with around 1 in 10 people on £10 million or more a year paying less than the 20% basic rate of tax. If tax evasion and avoidance could be effectively tackled we wouldn't need any of the austerity cuts - they account for tens of billions of lost revenue. But it seems that the government either lacks the wits or the motivation to go after the tax that the super-rich are obliged to pay under the spirit of the law.

So the present system is not fair - the richest, especially the extremely wealthy, don't pay their full whack, so the burden falls on the rest of us through higher taxes and austerity cuts. The current government has hit my middle income family with a pay freeze for 3 years running (OH works in the public sector), a VAT increase, university tuition fees trebled and increased the state pension age by 2 years. Over our lifetime these policies will cost us around £200,000. So when the Prime Minister says his party is not for the better off but for those wanting to be better off, you can understand my cynicism. I have aspirations for my family, his policies have impeded them. Perhaps if we earned enough to benefit from the cut to the top rate of tax I could see what the government was doing for us, but we aren't, so I can only conclude that the extra pain handed out to families like mine is to subsidise tax cuts for the wealthy, whether they actually pay the intended taxes or not.

chipstick I dont profess to know my history on politics but wasnt it labour who got rid of grammar schools?
Katiebeau It was Chapstick.

Er, no, it wasn't.

Look at the facts. How many grammar schools did the Conservative governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major create? Answer: none.

Going further back, how many grammar schools were turned into comprehensives under Edward Heath's government, when a certain Margaret Thatcher was education secretary? Answer: lots.

Indeed, Mrs Thatcher (as she then was) is understood to have signed away more grammar schools between 1970 and 1974 than any other education secretary before or since.

And let's go further back still. Who brought in comprehensive schools in the first place? It is often - but mistakenly - believed that comprehensive schools were introduced by Harold Wilson's Labour government in the mid-1960s.

In fact, the first comprehensive schools were opened during the 1950s and early 1960s, under Conservative governments.

source

I just love the way the Tories like to lay the blame for everything at the feet of the Labour party. Katiebeau it might be worth doing a bit of fact-checking before giving such an emphatic answer...

Despite her own success via grammar school, Thatcher pulled the ladder up after herself it seems...

Great post Rosieres

sunflowersfollowthesun no one (imo) would ever say he hasn't suffered, but having money does help when you have a disabled child.
also, please remember he will have used all the services he is now cutting.
DLA his son quite rightly would have got HR , SS and NHS would have funded most if not all of the care, apart form CTC and carers allowance, he would have and most likely did claim everything, quite rightly imo as it should never be means tested,
yet here he is cutting it for disabled people.
I don't have money, I can't pay for my dd's care. so we will just care for her forever, we have no choice, money buys you choices.

oh and please also note he didn't mention his mum or his other children.
only the 2 disabled family members!!!

I won't minimise any of the emotional heartache that the Cameron family suffered. Not at all.

But I can tell you they didn't almost go out of their minds because they were unable to go out into the world, to work and be themselves rather than being stuck at home as there was no one to undertake their son's care. They didn't face the social isolation and exclusion that parents reliant on benefits as carers face. They could pay for the specialist nannies and nurses to enable them to keep their mental health.

It wasn't a problem for them that the NHS only provided 3 continence products a day, buying extra wasn't an issue of stretching the benefits money to ensure his comfort and dignity.

They never had to wonder about turning off the heating so they could buy food that week. Whether they could actually afford to put the tumble dryer on because it's raining and you've run out of clean clothes/sheets from continual soiling.

If Ivan had needed surgery and the hospital had said there was a 2 year wait then the option to go private would have been there for them - it wasn't when one of mine needed cardiac surgery. We had to wait, scared witless that any delay could be harmful.

If a much needed therapy had been cut again they could have gone private. We just lost that therapy and I'm hoping it won't be to that child's detriment.

I do believe that the Camerons understand the emotional challenges parents of children with disabilities face in living with that disability, but they know nothing of how their financial situation increases stress and increases isolation. How the cuts to vital services increases the strain on carers. How carers are likely to go hungry from the cuts to make sure the person they care for is provided for.

So no, they didn't really know the half of it.

threesocks The Cameron's couldn't choose for Ivan not to be disabled any more than you can, regardless of their financial status.
I don't know the ins and outs of of caring for disabled family members, but I cannot believe that such benefits are cut with malice and glee. It comes back to the sad fact I mentioned in my last post, the neediest take most and contribute least. Who's taking the biggest hit? Low paid, disabled, students, public sector workers? because these are the people taking from the system, so they feel it most.
David Cameron is not king. He cannot autonomously make up policy, nor should he be able to. Eviscerating him personally, maintaining that he is all the more despicable because he has experience of disabilities, is unwarranted and unfair IMO. He leads a democratic party, he cannot pick and choose a preferred group above all the people who all need to take from the pot, and again, nor should he be able to.
So, "clobber the rich" I hear you cry. "Take their money" ?actual real money they've earned or inherited, to refill the empty pot that they take so little (proportionately) out of. Just help yourself to their money, to help people who loath and despise them and can't even bring themselves to acknowledge that without them, they would be in far worse dire straights than they already are. I'm not talking about groveling or thanking ? just acknowledging their massive contribution, both in taxes and wealth creation, investment and providing jobs. Of course there are despicable tax evaders who should be caught and made to cough up, but that shouldn't tar all wealthy people with the same brush any more than feckless, workshy scroungers should tar all others receiving benefits.

We are not wealthy, we face tough choices in these hard times too. I don't agree with some of the decisions that have been made, regardless of my tory inclinations, but I think the constant insistence that the government are making these cuts with malice and spite at heart is very wrong.

Some good posts recently.

We have 3 disabled child: one who ahs yet to get a dx, 2 with autism: no prizes for guessing what ds4's dx is likely to be.

When we first had that, dh was on a good income. It didn;t make an ounce of difference to the sheer heartbreak that the dx's brought, but it meant we could afford petrol to visit Mum for a break, a private assessment when one was needed, decent nursery provision for ds1... stuff that made everything ebarable.

DH was made redundant: he is now self employed (and a student) but on a low income.

Now I don't even have a washing machine. I had to say no to an assessment ds4 needed (we don't claim anything for him as yet) and can go weeks without seeing Mum (only respite). Yes it's harder.

Glitterknickers How is it that you seem perfectly able to comprehend how much "easier" the Cameron's must have found their situation, but they could not possibly understand how tough it is for you?
I'm sure you don't want my sympathy, but you do have my very best wishes.

They may well understand, Sunflower (unlikely though, as they have never experienced deprivation). But they quite clearly don't care.

Peachy, expect a few howls of 'but why should the hardworking taxpayer pay for your washing machine?! A mangle was good enough for my mother in the post war years and she had 2 children a year' blah blah blah. Ad nauseam.

Sunflower's post is quite the strangest most twisted attempt at 'ethical' reasoning I've ever read.

Even my undergrads do better than that. The ones I teach when I'm 'taking from the system' by working in a university which isn't (yet) privatised, although they pay for their teaching now in their massive fees.

Having nannies to care for your disabled child will make it alot easier as will not worrying about money for essential equipment. If he is so understanding why the hell is he penalising families for needing an extra room for a disabled child if their in benefits. Plain and simple he doesn't have a bloody clue.

Well, I'm not an undergraduate domestic, never have been. In fact, I left school at 16, and have been self employed ever since.
So sorry that my thoughts offend you so, but they are my thoughts and I will air them, just as you feel free to air yours.
You are undeniably paid from the pot ? whether you like to see it that way or not. Doesn't mean you don't have a valuable role in our society, but you are paid from the pot.

I bow to your facts Twofingers. How come it's labour who oppose them now? I don't get it. I'm not arguing with your facts but policy today is that labour = no selection or even groupings in schools by ability. Why??

Anyway I still don't think any of the Cameron's money helped ease the pain of losing their son. It offends me that anyone from any political belief would stoop to saying this.