Thursday, 2 October 2014

Samantha Cameron Moved to Tears

At the current Conservative Party conference, British Prime Minister David Cameron, referred to the fact that his deceased son (2009) was treated by the National Health Service (NHS) as proof that the NHS is close to his heart and was therefore safe in the hands of the Tories. (Which I doubt.)

Cameron’s use of his own son’s death for political purposes is tasteless but not surprising. I remember how in 1990, the British Secretary of State for Agriculture, John Gummer, tried to allay public fears about the safety of British beef by… publicly feeding his 4 year-old daughter with a hamburger. (Was that actually a form of child abuse?)

This week’s British press was full of headlines such as “Samantha Cameron Moved to Tears”. I am interested to know whether Mrs. Cameron “was moved to tears”, because

1.     She was reminded of her dead son?
2.     She was disgusted by her husband’s cheap ploy?
3.     Her tears were part of the Cameron orchestration, which will give her a few more years in Downing Street?
4.     She is always moved to tears when her husband is on stage?


  1. I like your Blog very much. The Samantha comment is witty, sharp, but also clear, and the reader gets an idea of how your thoughts shaped their way.

  2. Cameron ploy:

    According to the papers David Cameron said:
    "I am someone ... who knows what it's like to go to hospital night after night with a child in your arms"

    Be reasonable:

    No matter what his motivation was to say this in a speech (nothing untoward, I gather), is it not easy to see why the mother of that child might feel moved by the memory thus evoked?

    Is it really uncalled for if a politician gives personal experiences as the reason for his political convictions?