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?
