I think it can be said without fear of contradiction that I am a forthright critic of Conservative Leader, David Cameron. However I feel that I must come to his defence following the sickening attack on him by NuLabour harpy Patricia Hewitt in the Independent on Sunday.
"Hewitt has delivered a stinging rebuke to David Cameron for using his disabled son to make political capital out of the NHS. The Secretary of State for Health warned the new Tory leader he had entered "dangerous territory" with his references to his three-year-old son Ivan, who has cerebral palsy. Mr Cameron claimed he "spent more time in NHS hospitals than any politician" apart from those who are doctors as he stressed his personal commitment to the health service."
Now then, I'm sure that all that Cameron was doing was speaking from his personal experiences of being in and out of NHS hospitals with his son. What is wrong with that? Why does Hewitt feel that Conservatives cannot speak of the NHS as they find it? Is it only Labour politicians that can "feel the pain" of the NHS? And THEN, just when you think Hewitt has scraped the ABSOLUTE bottom of the political barrel, she sinks some more...get this!
The minister was talking at the start of a month that will see the unveiling of the latest health "reforms" in a White Paper. Ms Hewitt is to present an outline of the plans to the Cabinet on Thursday. She hinted at a huge expansion of counsellors and therapists who will take the place of Prozac and other anti-depressant medication.
Ah - so more jobs to bloat the State sector further? More people whose employment depends on NuLabour, eh? How we need to have this Government of occupation removed from our backs.
It's not as if her leader didn't mention his children...
Posted by: Madradin Ruad | January 08, 2006 at 01:30 PM
What's this thing they've got against Prozac and anti-depressant medication? I've found that it has helped me to live a normal life more than any touchy-feely councellor or therapist could.
Posted by: gg | January 08, 2006 at 02:47 PM
Sadly Patricia Hewitt is right on this matter. David Cameron has quite shamelessly used his child for political propaganda purposes ever since he first stood for leader. Then his camp's default answer when he was accused of privilege, was to say that he had a disabled son. And he's still doing it...
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 08, 2006 at 02:54 PM
I'm surprised that you've taken this position David. I would've thought you'd see through Cameron's shameless media manipulation involving his son.
He was doing it right back at the beginning of the leadership contest, and any time someone questioned it, he would (hypocritically) retort, "I don't want to use my son as a political football", when that is exactly what he *was* doing.
Posted by: John Hustings | January 08, 2006 at 04:36 PM
Tragically, in search of the elusive "public sector vote", I fear Cameron will support the appointment of more counsellors and therapists.
Did we ever learn whether Leo Blair received the multiple MMR jab or three separate jabs? How about Gordon Brown's child?
Of course, Tony Blair did not make any capital out of his minor heart opeartion as a glowing endorsement of the NHS! An operation now denied to less prestigious patients on the grounds of changing priorities!
Posted by: Snafu | January 08, 2006 at 04:40 PM
Whoops - I'm being challenged by my own. Good. Right then, the position AS i see it is that anyone has the perfect right to comment on the NHS. That includes Cameron. Of course DC did manage to draw the entirely wrong set of conclusions from his experience of it but there you go, he still has a right to say what he did. And I despise Hewitt! Of course it is scary to see how NuCon is mimicking NuLabour.
Either way - I want to see thw NHS abolished - wondee who would find the courage to put THAT in their manifesto then?
Grrrr.....!!!
Posted by: David Vance | January 08, 2006 at 04:56 PM
Oh yes, Cameron is entitled to talk about the NHS, but to to so through the prism of his child is a cynical PR move that borders on the immoral. It's trying to use personal tragedy to advance his (risible) political views.
As for his conclusions, it's obvious that he lacks the courage to say anything that might be remotely controversial, as shown by his shutting the door on NHS reform for ever.
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 08, 2006 at 05:37 PM
It seems that Labour is rattled.
Posted by: Daniel Cowdrill | January 08, 2006 at 06:49 PM
James,
The really sad thing for me is that whereas the Conservatives really could make a difference by demolishing the Stalinist NHS, instead DC will institutionalise all the waste, the gross inefficiency, the lack of responsibility. This will mean many tens of thousands of families will have to put up with a third rate service all because of calculated political machination. It's enough to make you sick - though watch out for the NHS if you do become ill!!!
Posted by: David Vance | January 08, 2006 at 07:10 PM
It's the thing that makes me the most angry: Cameron's apparent abandonment of public service reform leaves us in a situation where we really are a party for the just the rich - they're the only ones can afford to buy their way out of dependence on the public sector.
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 08, 2006 at 07:26 PM