The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

At Large

(Page 3 of 3)

Why could Cameron not have said something like: "I don't believe Lord Mancroft's experience was typical and does not accord with my own, but the allegations must be investigated properly"? This would hardly slander the nursing profession as a whole and would please the public, as well as having the advantage of being the right thing to do.

IF LORD MANCROFT IS TELLING the truth, what he has exposed is a public outrage that demands urgent action -- and not, of course, for Lord Mancroft's sake alone: he could afford to go to a better hospital. Millions can't.

Possibly Cameron is afraid of angering nurses, or some nurses (there are nurses in my most immediate family and I know many others well, and I know that they would be the first to demand any such scandals, if true, be instantly exposed and ruthlessly dealt with). But he is also running the risk of angering hospital patients -- a considerably larger demographic. Since the story broke, the British press has received hundreds of letters supporting Lord Mancroft's story. Looking at the matter in a purely political light the Tories still have to find about 150 seats at the next election if they are to govern in their own right. They need all the ammunition against the government that they can get.

Cameron seems to have dealt with news of what may be both a public scandal that needs urgent action and a political opportunity by shooting the messenger. Somehow I can't imagine a Churchill or a Thatcher behaving this way.

topics:
Education, Business