20 Comments »

1. Whilst I agree that the PMs family life should remain private I think that there should be exceptions.

   In this situation the PM is asking us to believe that MMR is OK, its safe and in fact it is necessary to protect your child.

   He either believes this or not. And it is for him to provide leadership on this – because if he doesn’t think that it is safe he needs to ask himself why his child’s health is more important than the 700,000 born each year.

   Comment by Simon Crisp — 1 Mar 2004 on 6:21 pm | Link

2. The Prime Minister says that he wants to protect his baby’s privacy, but he’s happy to be filmed asking some pensioner, student or jobseeker a series of highly personal questions because he believes it will make him look caring and interested.

   He says he wants to canvass the public in "the big conversation" in order to shape government policy, yet when the public canvass him in order to shape their own healthcare policy, the shutters go up.

   Is it any wonder poeple don’t have confidence in government advice and policy when the top man’s principles and practice are so inconsistent?

   Comment by Neil Moore-Smith — 1 Mar 2004 on 6:24 pm | Link

3. Note
   http://www.downingstreetsays.org/archives/000157.html
   in which the PMOS summarised Blair’s position as,
   "the Prime Minister would not ask parents to do what he wasn’t prepared to do himself."

   Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 1 Mar 2004 on 6:26 pm | Link

4. He shouldn’t have to say at all. I think it’s very likely that Leo did have MMR, but I think that’s it’s ridiculous to have a principle (i.e. respecting the privacy of our politicians and not conflating their private lives and their public lives), and then not stick to it. This is what principles are for, or else they’re meaningless. He’s right not to say for that reason alone. It would set a horrible precedent.

   Comment by Arty — 1 Mar 2004 on 7:59 pm | Link

5. If Tony Blair cannot give a straight yes or no answer to this straight question, then the answer has to be ‘NO’ – a ‘YES’ would be easy and draw a line under this debate. A ‘NO’ would be better than no answer because it would at least tell us that he has the balls to stand by a personal decsion, even if it flies in the face of ‘accepted medical opinion’ No comment, whilst inferring ‘yes’ is just hypocritical.

   Comment by Paul roebuck — 1 Mar 2004 on 9:38 pm | Link

6. This is an incredibly emotive issue for parents, and while I understand people feeling that if MMR is good enough for their child, they have a right to know whether it is safe enough for Leo. However I disagree strongly.

   We do not have a right to know medical details about the PM’s family – or any other politician’s family. The press can be unbelievably intrusive, and if you answer this question what else would they think they have a right to know? Cherie had a miscarriage – do they have the right to ask questions about that? The right to keep family medical details private applies to all – including Michael Howard – the Tories should remember that.

   I’m sure Leo had the MMR – everyone I know who works in the NHS thinks it is safe and recommends it. The press are useless at reporting on medical and scientific matters, they whip up scare stories on very little evidence. They simplify everything and do not understand that no scientist will ever say something is totally safe, because they evaluate risk in a mathmatical way. The rest of us calculate risk in an emotive way.

   The press should back off and stop using Leo’s medical details as a political football. None of their business.

   Comment by Ellen Wilkinson — 1 Mar 2004 on 11:48 pm | Link

7. It seems to me that parents are not being ‘asked’ to give their children the MMR, but are being put under enormous moral pressure to do so.

   Sweeping great plagues of killer illnesses will be blamed on those who choose not to succumb to the hypodermic. But many parents are still genuinely worried that the MMR is unsafe and could harm their children. GPs have targets to meet, and our medical records clearly show whether we have had a full programme of immunisations.

   So it seems to me very disappointing that our Prime Minister should not be open and honest about his own family’s immunisation take-up. It makes him appear to be lacking integrity, and allows doubters to question his confidence in the MMR Vaccine.

   Comment by Cavy — 1 Mar 2004 on 11:58 pm | Link

8. As a new parent I’m still not sure what way to go with the MMR jab despite the new reports seemingly trashing the original evidence. In the newspeak era I’m not sure who or what to believe. If Tony had come out and stated that Leo had been given the MMR it would give me at least the confidence that if anyone ought to know he should – on the assumption that surely he would only do the best for his own children.

   Comment by AK — 2 Mar 2004 on 12:13 am | Link

9. Oh my God, what’ve I said! I was only joking

   Comment by manar — 2 Mar 2004 on 12:56 am | Link

10. If the disclosure, that Leo Blair had or had not had the MMR jab, would have got Tony Blair brownie points then I’m sure it would have been made public. He’s probably storing the announcement ( along with others)for a time when it will deflect attention from something more serious.

    Comment by Keith Baldwin — 2 Mar 2004 on 8:00 am | Link

11. If Govt ministers are prepared to eat British beef in front of TV cameras to assure public about British beef’s safety (during mad cow disease crisis) why PM can not disclose whether his baby was given MMR jab. Every one should walk their talk ministers including. This is another hypocrisy of politicians who put their children in private schools while sermonising to others.

    Comment by Tholkappiyan Vembian — 2 Mar 2004 on 12:31 pm | Link

12. Well, the Gummer thing was still worse– he *fed a hamburger to his daughter* in front of the TV cameras.

    Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 2 Mar 2004 on 12:45 pm | Link

13. We gave our son the MMR, because whilst we think there MAY be an increased risk of bringing out autism in those already pre-disposed, it is a vanishingly small risk in comparison with the risk of a fatal traffic accident whilst on the way to the doctors surgery the extra two times that would be required if using single vaccines.

    (ducks for flame-war cover 😉

    Comment by PaulS — 2 Mar 2004 on 1:05 pm | Link

14. Although I generally disprove of most of the governments decisions, I respect the position on Leo Blair’s MMR. The medical records of a baby are not the business of the general public or press, and I’m glad TB is sticking to his guns. The government makes these decisions, not one parent, whether he is the PM or not, so it TB as the leader of the government who should comment on the issue, not TB the dad. If he wants to keep his family’s medical history out of the papers, we should respect that.

    Comment by Andy Bellenie — 2 Mar 2004 on 1:28 pm | Link

15. I disagree with Tony Blair on many things despite being an instinctive (though not a guaranteed Labour voter). However I feel his child should be kept out of politics.

    As a trained biomedical scientist with children I am convinced (on current evidence) that taking the MMR jab is the safer option. My wife is a trained veterinary surgeon – we are both agreed on the MMR vaccine. This is based on our evaluation of currently available evidence. All our children have received the MMR vaccine. All our children are fine. I advised my sister to have her daughter vaccinated based one best available evidence – she too is fine.

    The nature of autism is that it will present at an age coincidental with MMR. Coincidence does not mean causation. Some will swear that MMR caused their child’s autism – perhaps that is their comfort.

    You must make your own choice on this matter – as the Blairs have. Our choice as parents was to go with the MMR – based on evidence from numerous studies we felt that was the best we could do for our children. More than that cannot be asked…

    Comment by James Jarvis — 3 Mar 2004 on 2:25 am | Link

16. I’d not be reassured even if I knew that Leo Blair was subjected to MMR.

    A criminal psychologist friend of mine is convinced simply from watching them perform on TV that the vast majority of senior politicians are psychopaths.

    If he is right, then politicians might think nothing of exposing their children to risk in order to further their political careers – because they don’t feel the same things that normal parents do.

    How does he spot it? He looks at how politicians respond to unexpected "feeling" questions in live interviews. Psychopaths have to fake most emotional reactions, apparently, and criminal psychologists can spot this in interviews.

    <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1524500.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1524500.stm</a&gt;

    Comment by Simon Richardson — 4 Mar 2004 on 7:49 am | Link

17. Does anyone know if it is true that it was mainly boys that were linked with autism and the MMR (before it was disputed, obviously lol!)

    Comment by AK — 5 Mar 2004 on 11:23 am | Link

18. As a mother of a boy approaching his MMR vaccination why cant he just say "Yes" he had it. Surely the fact he is staying silent is proof enough that he hasnt given leo the Jab. Why cause controversey when its only the one word answer we need.

    Beleive its a case of typical politians, no wonder nobody trusts them

    Comment by kathy Langton — 28 Jun 2006 on 12:53 pm | Link

19. this is boring

    Comment by bob — 11 Dec 2006 on 9:57 am | Link

20. this is boring

    Comment by bob — 11 Dec 2006 on 9:58 am | Link

---

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.