A-Z of mental health
Information and advice on a huge range of mental health topics
Not relegated to the fringes?
Posted Friday 5 October 2012
Politically, it may turn out to have been an important Labour party conference. Ed Miliband’s notes-free speech has now been dissected by the politicos and the media, and his performance was widely considered to be competent, confident, and emotive. Many commentators now consider him to be an authoritative leader of his party and potentially a future prime minister. Well, we’ll have to wait and see how things develop.
For us at Mind, it may also be a bit of a turning point.
Again, we will need to see how things develop, but when we talked and debated with MPs and shadow ministers at conference this week, there was certainly reason to be hopeful that our message is getting through.
One of the issues everyone seemed to know about was welfare reform. MPs had many stories from their own constituency surgeries about people who had been declared fit for work, when they were obviously anything but.
These backbenchers were clearly angry at what they saw as a terrible attack on the legitimate income of people at their most vulnerable. One MP reported that he had even set up his own welfare rights adviser to help people with their appeals because other services weren’t available locally.
We heard Ed Miliband too, in his leader’s speech, say it was: ...incredibly important that, to be One Nation, we must show compassion and support for all those who cannot work - particularly the disabled men and women of our country.
And yet Labour as a party has been too quiet about what’s happening to disability benefits. It is as if the ‘scrounger’ rhetoric, the ‘we must reduce the wasteful welfare budget’ narrative that we see in some of the papers has put them on the back foot. As one of the backbench MPs that we spoke to said:
It is a question of leadership – this is an issue that Labour need to speak up on.
We encouraged all of the MPs we met to challenge the rhetoric locally, to raise it in the Labour Party, and to join us in fighting for a better Work Capability Assessment.
On the healthcare front, it was interesting to hear Andy Burnham’s developing plans for the NHS and mental health. Andy Burnham was Secretary of State for health before the election, and he has shown a growing interest in mental health. In our meetings with him at conference, and in his big speech on Wednesday, he said he wants to see:
...an NHS with mental health at its heart, not relegated to the fringes but ready to help people deal with the pressure of modern living.
And he is starting to develop ideas about how this could be done.Well, again we’ll have to wait and see what comes – the next election is still a long way off, and at the moment it’s hard to say which party will come out on top.
Either way, we have made some useful contacts to follow up on and we’re pleased to see that mental health appears to be something that more MPs are interested in.
I’d encourage you to contact your MP and ensure that he or she is also taking up the issues that matter to you.
Sophie Corlett, Director of External Relations, Mind
9 Comments
-
All programs aimed at helping disabled people (mental health included) into meaningful work in my opinion always seem to have saving money as a starting and finishing point. Indeed, if saving on long-term benefits isn't at the core of such programs, then I suggest any other way of thinking has had no chance of getting a hearing with governments. I have heard nothing to suggest this is about to change. Yet there are many whos stability and management of various conditions only achieve this due to receiving the correct amount of benefit needed to be able to find stabilising avenues and are able to live with their diverse and often fluctuating conditions.
I would like to try more work than the £20 concession I'm allowed to earn each week. However, I am not prepared to jeopardize my health anymore due to having my stability undermined by unenlightened benefit rules. Governments and other well meaning bodies (including mind) must face the reality that some people are going to need financial support for the foreseeable future, perhaps the rest of their lives. Yet still still want to and be capable of putting in meaningful work. Why should we have to lose benefits where burden is shifted to individuals and the benevolence of employers to keep us stable. Why can't we top up our benefits with appropriate meaning remuneration for our contribution in stead of us being seen as a necessary evil that needs to evoke concessions. I need to know that I can financially seamlessly move into any kind of work and seamlessly move financially back out of it when needed. Governments and others want us off benefits and paying tax as their core motivation not well-being of the individual in my opinion. We know the aim is always once benefits are removed to never let you have them back without destructive and mentally damaging fights to get them...if you've got the strength.
What say you Sophie of externally things?
-
"One MP reported that he had even set up his own welfare rights adviser to help people with their appeals because other services weren’t available locally."
Which MP, please?
-
Mind knows exactly what ALL political parties are doing to us [and physically sick, disabled, unemployed]. Labour introduced Atos and have no intention of repelling welfare "reform", they only made it clear this week they intend to be harder.
People do not want MP's graciously setting up help for appeals because of the loss of CAB/legal aid services, people want these appalling assessments stopped because they're unfit for purpose and are killing people and destroying lives.
They are not bringing the appalling cases to parliament for debate, they are not going to 'join you' in any 'fight'. They are quite happy to let people be subject to no income, below min wage income or Workfare. The welfare state has been dismantled by Coalition [it was always their aim] and they've done nothing to stop it.
As for an 'interest' in mental health - we have services which dictate short term support is all that can be expected, and only at the point of crisis - and the right sort of crisis. This is hardly equal to physical healthcare - you wouldn't see diabetics or people with COPD told they can only access 6 months support for their conditions or to come back when in a coma or respiratory arrest.
None of the parties are going to help, and Mind can go on fooling yourselves that having chats with them and writing nice things will keep the scraps they throw at the charities to keep you all manageable, but I think most people have already worked it out.
I'd rather you did work which actually attempted to counter what is happening or not attempt at all and run the best voluntary sector services in your local associations. Please don't try to be political because you're not, and you can't -
This excellent piece places it all in context
-
Dear Concerned Citizen,
Thanks for your comment. As you say - 'saving' on welfare has become a bit of a Government mantra and it's clouding many of the real issues. Current systems don't fully reflect the needs or aspirations of people with fluctuating health - there are many like you who need to move in and out of paid employment as you are more or less able to work. A system which was more flexible would help people to keep well and allow people to fulfil their potential as much as they were able. Of course, in the end, it would cost less too. -
Dear Sophie.
Thank you for your reply. I realise you are aware of the real situations individuals face. I also agree that benefits cuts and welfare reduction is indeed clouding the issues. I have found myself attempting to see the logic in the attacks on the claimant. However, when I then look at my own and other individual situations I realise these attacks can only ever deal with lumpen groupings of people with no individuality. We know it is politically driven as there are certain groups the welfare attacks are not intended to affect. Namely, the demographic that tends to vote the most and by coincidence tends to agree most with welfare cuts.This is why I think you should not let the fog, smoke and mirrors cloud your message. even though it isn't politically the in thing at the moment, you must continue spelling out about the real needs of mental health, not just the things you feel might get a hearing. Maybe you should think about starting to talk to the public again. Why not have hard hitting poster and leaflet campaigns. Why not come to the table expecting a banquet instead of arguing over the dogs bones? We are not a necessary evil! I am not a necessary evil! So please just think about a real public campaign that exposes the real evil of a system that says we have to allow £120 billion in lost tax revenue due to evasion and fraud to incentivize the evaders (overwhelmingly by the richest and most powerful) while the sick, disabled and us are used as a scapegoat.
Thank you Sophie.
-
Dear Cinnamon Stick Figure, The MP in question asked us not to use their name (they may be worried about getting inundated), but we have checked with them and the caseworker specialises in welfare rights, primarily ESA and DLA cases.
-
Dear Mindreader, thank you for taking the time to comment. I can see we disagree with each other on how to approach things! I do agree with you that politicians often say one thing and do another. But I also think it's important to work with MPs, whether in Government or in opposition, for two reasons. First, because they hold the power and the purse strings, and we want to influence how they do that. Second, because I actually don't believe even politicians are all bad. My expereience is that many went into politics because they care about the fate of ordinary people. We try to work with these, and to influence the rest. Of course, we also aim to find other ways to change policy, not just via politicians.
You make a very good point about the terrible disparity between what happens in physical healthcare and mental healthcare. It's one of the issues we've been talking to the Department of Health about. A lot will need to change before this problem is sorted and we will keep working at it until it is. -
Sorry for a belated response - too busy and so little time. We must be careful not to fall into the trap of appearing to make party political points. If this is perceived to be the case by the government, they go on the defensive when what we seek is an open and honest debate. When I was involved in the unsuccessful capaign against the closure of the psychiatric unit in Preston, it was a Labour government which was in power and a Labour city council and others have made similar points in these comments.
While contact with politicians is important we must realise that they do whatever it takes to get votes and to avoid saying anything which loses them. Politicians are swayed by the public mood so we need to shape that mood. It follows that our efforts should be directed to educating the voters.
MIND members have contacts with schools, churches, Rotary, Round Table etc etc. We should be out there giving little presentations to raise awareness and break down stigma. An individual can do a little but lots of us, regularly, all over the country can do a vast amount. MIND, with it's resources could assist with a pack or map to information. What is needed is readilly available access to stats and info like the relative cost to NHS on cancer/mental disorder, comparitive spend on research, social costs etc - info ordinary people cannot easily access but which can then be used. This info is out there but you need to know where to look.
Commenting is now closed.