For the Record

by David Cameron

  I found the phone number of Kensington and Chelsea council’s social workers, and soon, to my great relief, one of them was sitting in our kitchen, notepad in hand, talking about the help that was available.

  The list of people who assisted us, in both London and Oxfordshire, is a long one. Children’s hospices like Helen House and Shooting Star, and dedicated public servants like the community nursing team, who Samantha would say did more than anyone to save her life and her sanity.

  At the moment of greatest crisis, when we were near to breaking point, I found someone who would become very special in the life of our family. Gita Lama, a young Nepalese woman, had worked for a diplomatic family in London and subsequently registered with an organisation that represented domestic workers at risk of abuse and helped them find new work. She became Ivan’s night carer, and would later help us to look after him at the weekends at Dean. She loved Ivan as if he were her own, and went on to look after our other children in Downing Street. Now with a son of her own, she remains a good friend of the family.

  Kensington and Chelsea were incredibly helpful, and gave us carers who stayed in with Ivan several nights a week. Again, these amazing women – the main two were Shree and Michelle – became devoted to him, and close to us.

  Yet for all this help, the emergencies continued. We would often exhaust the range of drugs we were allowed to administer at home, and have to drive at breakneck speed to hospital. Children’s A&E at St Mary’s became something of a second home: we would arrive and say a familiar ‘Hello’ to the doctors and nurses. Then the desperate ritual of what became known as ‘the protocols’ – the administration of a range of ever-stronger drugs to control the seizures – would begin.

  The last-but-one stage was a drug called Phenytoin, which was administered rectally. The chemical smelt so strong, you could hardly breathe. A glass test tube had to be used because it could melt plastic. What it did to our little boy I could hardly bear to think of, but it worked. From violent spasms, he would go limp and floppy, and we would hold him in our arms, thankful that the ordeal was over.

  The final protocol was for him to be rendered entirely unconscious and put on a ventilator. Once this happened there was no guarantee he would regain consciousness. While we came close at times, we never reached this stage.

  We learned a lot about navigating the system to try to get the best for your child. When dealing with epileptic seizures in the A&E department, watch out for the four-hour waiting target: there is a danger of an entirely unnecessary hospital admission. (Once you get close to the deadline the staff, quite understandably, want to shunt you onto a ward, whereas it may be that after just a few more minutes in A&E things will be good enough for you to go home.)

  Once your child is in a hospital ward, try to order your next batch of drugs hours before you’re due to leave, as they take forever to come. (I used to joke that hospitals were easy to get into, but impossible to get out of.)

  When the doctors begin their ward rounds, never leave your child’s bedside; it is the only time you have a real chance to find out what on earth is going on.

  Nowhere was parental navigation more essential than in the highly charged world of special-needs education. I had already seen as a constituency MP that special schools were struggling, partly because of their high costs, but principally because of the doctrine of inclusion. At its most extreme, this held that all children, whatever their needs, whatever their disability, should be taught in mainstream schools. Of course it is right that children with special needs who can be integrated into mainstream schools should be able to be, but some children are undoubtedly better off in a special school. In any event, parents should be able to make informed choices. Far too often they simply weren’t being told about what was available. Even though I had seen this happen to others, I rather irrationally didn’t see it coming. But of course it did.

  We had heard about an amazing special school called the Cheyne Day Centre, attached to the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital. But when the education adviser from the council came around to talk about Ivan’s schooling they failed to mention it. We then began a battle to get him in; and once he was, we found ourselves having to fight another battle to keep it open. For a time we were successful, and he received the best possible start. Care, stimulation, therapy and education, all in a place where we knew he was safe and where the staff could cope.

  After his fifth birthday Ivan needed to move on. While we had fought valiantly, the cost of Cheyne was too great, and a new special school was being built next to Queen’s Park Rangers’ Loftus Road ground, which was near where we lived. We accepted the inevitable and agreed to a place at this school, Jack Tizard, which in the end turned out well.

  My friends say that the experience of having Ivan and helping to care for him changed me a lot. I am sure they are right. A world in which things had always previously gone right for me suddenly gave me an immense shock and challenge. I tried to rise to it, but am very conscious of the ways in which I failed. I was always there for the emergencies, good at the technical things, never one to hold back when nappies needed changing or drugs delivered. And I loved Ivan with all my heart. I adored bathtime, bedtime, walks, wheeling him everywhere and nowhere. As he got older I would throw him over my shoulder and make sure he was part of everything we did together as a family. But I know that I lacked the real patience and selflessness that are required to be a truly great carer. And that is the truth about accidental carers: we are not perfect, and there is a lot of muddling through. No wonder so many marriages break down when challenges like this come along.

  Yet perhaps that was the greatest discovery of all. While I can think of ways in which I failed, I cannot think of a single way Samantha did. I still marvel when I think of how she managed and cared and loved and coped, not just with Ivan but with the rest of our growing family.

  The end is almost too painful to relate, even to recall.

  We had had some scares and close shaves. Seizures that never seemed to end. Chest infections that he would struggle to shake off. And then one night, 24 February 2009, Shree woke us to say that Ivan’s stomach had become badly swollen and he was in terrible pain.

  This time Sam said she would take him to hospital, and I should stay with the other children. I will never forget holding Ivan in my arms in the cold night air as Sam threw some clothes and blankets on the back seat and started the car.

  As soon as they were gone, I started worrying that this time it was different. So I too dashed to the hospital. When I got there the situation had deteriorated badly. A team was standing over Ivan in the emergency room, working desperately to resuscitate him. But he had gone. Adrenalin injections. Defibrillator pads. Nothing worked. He had suffered a massive organ failure. Sam and I were left holding him as the team, visibly moved, backed away to give us some space. We had always known this might happen, but nothing, absolutely nothing, can prepare you for the reality of losing your darling boy in this way.

  It was as if the world stopped turning. Explaining what had happened to the children was so hard, because they were so young. And I had to call Gita, who was visiting her family in Nepal; she was desperate to be there with the child she loved so deeply. I called Ed Llewellyn and told him what had happened and that I would be staying at home. I was leader of the opposition at this point and, as it was a Wednesday morning, I was meant to be at Prime Minister’s Questions. What happened later, when Gordon Brown led tributes and the House adjourned for the day, meant a lot to us. It was much more than I had expected, and it showed the real warmth and humanity of Gordon Brown, who had of course suffered in a similar way with his daughter Jennifer Jane, who died shortly after she was born.

  The next few days before the funeral were a blur. At least we had to focus on the songs and poems we wanted to remember him by. A friend of Sam’s called Damian Katkhuda, who had a band called Obi, sang and played his guitar in St Nicholas church, C
hadlington. It was a beautiful service, with our closest friends and family around us. But there was nothing but darkness for us.

  You never fully recover from the loss of a child. But you can steadily learn to cope. I threw myself back into my work as a way of trying to manage. When I look back, I realise that I started working again too quickly. For a while I was too fragile and not in the right state of mind to make decisions. Nothing else seemed to matter alongside what we had lost.

  But what is often said about grief I found to be true. While at first you think the gloom will never lift, there comes a time – and for me it was many months later – when some of the happy memories start to break through and you remember what you had, not only what you have lost.

  And having Ivan taught us so much. About unconditional love. About our total devotion to each other. About the extraordinary compassion in our health service and the lengths that people go to in order to help. We learned about our strengths, but also our limitations.

  Ivan lies buried opposite the church in Chadlington. We take the children there, and tell him how things are going and how much we still miss him. Sam found an inscription from Wordsworth for the headstone that sums up so much of what we feel.

  I loved the Boy with the utmost love of which my soul is capable, and he is taken from me – yet in the agony of my spirit in surrendering such a treasure I feel a thousand times richer than if I had never possessed it.

  8

  Men or Mice?

  At the time, Michael Howard’s 2005 general election campaign was seen as slick and professional. But it was also too right-wing and rather mean-spirited, putting people off rather than turning them towards us. It resulted in another disastrous defeat for the Tories.

  I had been responsible for policy coordination, writing the manifesto and acting as one of the party’s principal spokesmen around the country. I saw the campaign close-up. Yet just a few weeks after it was over, I was planning an aggressive leadership campaign in favour of a more modern and liberal Conservative message.

  How does all that make sense?

  The short answer is that in modern politics the tone and content of a manifesto and a campaign are predominantly set by the party leader. Michael Howard was sure that if we were robust and effective, we could make a fairly traditional Conservative message work. He also felt he had to be true to himself. I was already convinced that we had to change, but I understood Michael’s position. I owed a lot to him, and wanted to help him make his chosen strategy as successful as possible.

  The manifesto itself was short and focused, but it was lacking in policy detail. With Michael’s permission I drafted in Michael Gove – who I had helped to persuade out of journalism and into politics, and who was standing in the super-safe Conservative seat of Surrey Heath. We sat in my pokey House of Commons office for several days, dividing the chapters up between us and writing one each before passing what we had done to the other for polishing and improving. We were already friends, and this work brought us closer.

  The policies may have been rather workmanlike, but they did actually work. We know this because, while Labour derided our manifesto at the time, they copied and implemented many of its most significant proposals straight after the election. The points system for immigration; the proposals on school discipline. Tony Blair pursued his usual tactic of trashing his opposition, and then coopting any idea that was halfway sensible.

  But in modern elections the campaign itself is what matters, and the tone of ours was set not only by Michael Howard, but also by someone I’ve come to admire as one of the great political campaigners: the Australian Lynton Crosby.

  Lynton’s hard work is combined with great leadership skills. Twice – in 2005 and 2015 – I’ve seen him build the happiest, most cohesive, most hard-working teams in Conservative Central Office that I have ever known. His strongest weapon is plain common sense. What’s the target? What are your strengths and weaknesses? What are those of your opponents? What, given those things, is the best route to victory? Above all, what’s the plan?

  In 2005, Lynton came in at a relatively late stage. His view was that the best chance Michael had to win the election, or at least to deprive Tony Blair of another massive victory, was to focus on some straightforward issues that people cared about, while encouraging them to take out their frustrations with the government by voting for the Conservatives.

  The famous poster slogan ‘Are you thinking what we’re thinking?’ fitted with this strategy. It was punchy, and it channelled frustration with Labour. It focused minds on down-to-earth-issues: clean hospitals, more police, ‘It’s time to put a limit on immigration,’ and so on. But the tone reinforced the problem with the Conservative image. It was mean-spirited. Too many people answered the question ‘Are you thinking what we’re thinking?’ with ‘Well, even if I am, I’m not voting for you lot.’

  Added to that, in my view the campaigning on immigration went too far. The message wasn’t an unreasonable one. Indeed, I was a strong supporter of immigration control, and had been closely involved in drafting the proposals we put forward. And you could argue that, in the light of what subsequently happened, the decision to make this issue a central one was prescient. But its domination of the early part of our campaign was too much. It felt wrong. It appealed to voters we already had, but made some of those we needed to attract feel uncomfortable – even those who agreed with the policy itself.

  The result was the fourth-worst Conservative performance for a hundred years. While we gained thirty-three seats, we only increased our share of the vote by 0.7 per cent, a smaller increase than William Hague had achieved in 2001. Overall, we got fewer votes in 2005 than we did in 1997 – 8.8 million versus 9.6. We won some of our target seats, but even then more than half of those only came to us because of Labour voters switching to the Liberal Democrats, rather than directly from Labour to us.

  One other polling figure tells the true story. When people were asked whether a party ‘shares your values’, the Conservatives came off worst, at around 36 per cent, while Labour and the Lib Dems were at around 50 per cent. Maurice Saatchi put it crisply when he said: ‘More anger at the problems of the world we live in is not enough to convince voters that the Conservative Party is fit to solve them.’ The problem went much deeper. We needed to change.

  Michael announced that he wouldn’t stand down until there had been a review of the leadership rules. He favoured a system where if more than half of the parliamentary party settled on one candidate, there would not be a vote of the party membership. In the event this proposal went down badly with both the membership and a significant number of MPs, and wasn’t adopted. But the delay in the leadership election that it caused would make all the difference.

  If it had taken place sooner after the general election, there can be little doubt that the favourite, David Davis, would have been elected. He had a machine in the parliamentary party, and something of a public profile. There wasn’t an obvious challenger. Before one arose, the contest would have been over.

  Instead, the party would wait until just before the party conference in the autumn before candidates’ declarations were made. A formal campaign would then be held during and after the conference, with the results in December.

  But before any of this got under way, Michael needed to appoint a new shadow cabinet. He wanted to give newer MPs a chance, and sounded out both George Osborne and me about what jobs we most wanted to do. I was in no doubt: I wanted to be the shadow secretary of state for education. It might not have been seen as one of the ‘big jobs’, but for me it stood out above all others. So much depended on it: the life chances of our young people, the future of our country. Our party’s prospects too rested on the answers we came up with on such policy challenges, and I wanted to be one of the people driving them.

  But choosing the education role wasn’t, of course, the most important decision I took after the election.
/>
  Slightly to my surprise, and certainly to the surprise of many others, I found myself running for the leadership.

  Perhaps for others, deciding to run for such an office comes swiftly, and with few doubts. That is not how it happened for me. Everyone said that I was too young. That I had no ministerial experience. And that I had only been in Parliament for four years. I could be a candidate, maybe a credible candidate, but would I be a credible leader? Would I be part of the party’s problems rather than a solution?

  During those pizza evenings in Policy Exchange before the election, one of the things our small group of modernisers had discussed was how we might persuade our future leader to act. But nothing we came up with had seemed convincing. We knew, partly from experience with Michael Howard, that it wouldn’t be enough to persuade a new leader to mouth words about modernisation. We needed someone who really believed in it, and embodied it in the way they talked and acted and felt.

  Gradually some of the group began to feel that maybe the answer was to try to capture the leadership rather than merely influence it. We didn’t spend a lot of time on what, at that stage, seemed a little presumptuous and some way off. The moment the election was over, however, it all suddenly seemed more real, and more possible. But was it right?

  George’s wife Frances was particularly outspoken. The daughter of Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet minister David Howell, she knew the brutality of modern politics, but wasn’t in any doubt. The four of us were having dinner together at our house in North Kensington shortly after the general election when she looked at her husband and me and asked, ‘Well, are you men or are you mice?’

  From the moment I really looked at it properly, I thought that I could win. Not because of any special brilliance or powers I possessed; I just saw that all the other potential candidates had flaws that made them eminently beatable.