Thank you for posting the Hansard quote, edam. I was only aware of the headlines on what Freud (I think) said as have been busy. I think clearly the point in the extract quoted, that Miliband is making, is that a member of the government should not be making comments like that, far less be in charge of policies which affect members of the public he does not value.
Cameron makes clear that these are not the views of the government, wholly side-stepping the question, because Freud, as I understand it, the welfare reform minister, IS part of the government, by then referring to his experience of caring for disabled people. Nobody is lecturing him on that, somebody is asking a very valid question as to whether a member of his government should be making such comments, and remain in post. That question is not answered.
That much is clear. If I believe this is a calculated action, rather than a genuine conflation of his experience of caring, in privileged circumstances, with the experiences of many disabled people, who are having benefits cut and face apparently the threat of having their labour devalued, is that okay because I state that it is my opinion.
FWIW, it is further my opinion that a question about the value of disabled people's labour IS a question about the economy and not about caring for the disabled who, for whatever reason, are unable to work. In other words, his experience is not relevant. I have actually quite severely disabled colleagues who contribute greatly to the intellectual life and culture of my workplace. In my opinion, Mr Cameron and his welfare minister are showing that they have a very narrow view of disability and of the ways in which a diverse workforce can be a more creative one.
I haven't read the deleted posts or indeed the thread, but surely, if an argument is about political debate rather than name-calling, then it should stand. IMO calling someone either an arse or an evil cunt is name-calling, it is not conducive to debate. In other words, if someone said a public figure was just a , that is clearly deletable. If someone refers in quite concrete terms to efforts to close down political debate amongst elected representatives of the people, then if we live in a democracy, that should be open to discussion.
The confounding factor is the inference to DCs son, and the experience of loss. The question is why people know quite so much about what is a very private matter, and why it came into the discussion about what the welfare minister said at all. In the nicest possible way, the loss of a child has no bearing on the value of disabled people in the labour market or to society more generally. If DC cannot see that, then one might seriously question his position.