Latest post on Left Futures

David Cameron is a serial exploiter of his dead son for political purposes

Abuse of a childs memory for political endsIt’s past the time, we think, to move on from attacking well-meaning left-wing Islingtonians. Instead, let’s turn the spotlight on nasty attacks by right -wing political commentators. Step up Richard Littlejohn yesterday in the Daily Mail where he generalises the attack from Emily Thornberry via Jack Monroe (aka A Girl called Jack) to all of us: “The Left hate (sic) everyone not just the white working class“. His barrage against Jack Monroe includes the accusation that she masquerades as an “ordinary person“:

Among her top tips for beating the ‘savage cuts’ was a recipe for making Kale Pesto Pasta for 42p a portion. Kale Pesto Pasta is what the Guardianistas think ‘ordinary people’ should eat.

I’d like to hear evidence that Richard Littlejohn has ever planned, cooked or even eaten a meal that cost 42p a portion. However, Jack Monroe’s real offence was to tweet about David Cameron’s abuse of the memory of his dead son, Ivan, for political purposes:

With no sign of irony, Littlejohn accusation at Monroe is that “she appears to believe it is perfectly permissible to use a dead child to make a political point” in what he describes as “a disgusting reference to Cameron’s son, Ivan, who died after suffering from cerebral palsy and epilepsy, aged six, in 2009.” He goes on to say of the Left in general:

Look at the way the Left reacted with jubilation to the death of Margaret Thatcher. They queued up to dance on her grave and now, thanks to Jack Monroe, they are dancing on the grave of a dead boy, just because he happened to be the son of a Tory Prime Minister.

He even suggests that Monroe should have more consideration for Cameron’s wife, Sam, when the truth is that Jack is absolutely right and it is David Cameron himself who should be castigated for the serial abuse of the memory of his dead son, Ivan, to justify his policies or to deflect political criticism from himself. Here are just a few examples:

  1. As early as September 2005, when launching his campaign for the leadership of the Tory party, he was already saying in a Guardian profile that his experience with Ivan made him “an energetic advocate for disabled children”.
  2. By January 2006, as leader, his personal experience with Ivan was what made him realise “just how important the NHS is to everyone in this country“, he explained in a speech to the Kings Fund.
  3. Even the occasion of the death of Ivan itself in February 2009 was an opportunity for “friends” of Cameron to make the link between Ivan’s illness and treatment and his “passionate commitment to the NHS” (Guardian), that it made him a “passionate supporter of the NHS” (BBC), that “he was able to feel and understand the pain and suffering of ordinary people” and that “when he has talked of his admiration for the NHS it hasn’t been for votes but because he had seen it at its best, through Ivan, and knew what the service meant to the country” (Mail).
  4. He used his son’s memory again in February 2011 to justify “public service reform” (aka cuts and privatisation) in an article in the Telegraph.
  5. He did so in March 2012 at PMQs in answer to Joan Ruddock when he falsely denied the impact of disability benefit cuts on disabled people.
  6. He did so in his speech at the 2012 Conservative Party conference in order to deflect criticism over cuts to disability benefits and support the claim that Conservatives were “compassionate”.
  7. He did so in his speech at this years Conservative Party conference in order to claim the NHS was safe in his hands and that he understood the need for investment in it.
  8. He did so in the House of Commons in October this year over Lord Freud’s claim that disabled people were “not worth the minimum wage“.

Gordon Brown, in contrast, almost never spoke in public about his children, including his deceased daughter Jennifer, and on the very few occasions when he did, he sought to make no political point in so doing.

So, Mr Littlejohn, it appears that, in fact, it is Mr Cameron who “appears to believe it is perfectly permissible to use a dead child to make a political point“.

4 Comments

  1. swatantra says:

    Probably the sickest article to ever come from Jon Lansman. Cameron does not make political capital out of his son Ivan and Jon lansman should apologise. Having achild with that severe a disability and knowing that the child would die soon must be awful for any parent, and will have occupied their thoughts feveruy moment of the day. Its remakable that Cameron ever became PM with that sort of thought ever in his mind.
    There are no excuses for what Littlejohn says… the man is a complete imbecile and should be ignored or prosecuted. So is Jack Monroe.
    And Emily T was absolutely innocent of all the abuse and vile thrown at her from mostly the Labour Leadership.
    Incidently kale was what they fed to cattle but now it seems to be a food for the the poor hit by austerity cuts.

    1. Robert says:

      Bloody rubbish Swat your showing your right wing Tory-ism mate.

      Of course Cameron has used it many times.

      But the fact is labour are now attacking IDS for his run out of his new benefits regime and the laugh is just a few weeks ago labour have stated they back it totally but would do it better.

      Labour wanted to end DLA which Cameron claimed for his son, and the Tories want to have PIP’s.

      Labour Tory Tory labour both are the bloody same

  2. Robert says:

    Sadly of course both Brown and Cameron wanted to spend less of disability with Brown saying that DLA was wasted benefits and should be done away with, and the Tories argued nope but then brought in PIP’s.

    So I’m not to sure which one is worse really the pretend socialist or the Tories who think they are red.

  3. John reid says:

    Giving a speech of what you know about when it comes to personal suffering isnt exploiting it,it’s relying on it,

    Jack Monroe may have cooked a meal for 42p so have many including me, and just because Littlejohn, has a go at Thornberry and Moneor,after all they both gave him the ammunition,and they both played into his view that the snobbery of the left hate the working class, doesn’t mean that David Cameron,is relying on littlejohn to do his work defending himself over his dead son,and the legacy.

© 2021 Left Futures | Powered by WordPress | theme originated from PrimePress by Ravi Varma