Tight budgets mean mental healthcare isn’t a possibility for millions in Britain. Photo: Flickr/Lee Haywood
Show Hide image

Austerity is making life unbearable for those with mental health conditions

Strangulation of funds has seen the NHS Mental Health Trusts lose £253m, 2.3 per cent of their funding.

The core ideal of the NHS, that makes it so beloved by British people, is its promise of healthcare free for all. That promise has now become incompatible with the reality of austerity.

By 2020, the NHS will require an extra £30bn just to keep services at their present level. This strangulation of funds has seen the NHS Mental Health Trusts lose £253m, 2.3 per cent of their funding. These cuts translate into a dramatic loss of vital support for those with mental health conditions.

Half of early intervention programmes targeted at young people have been cut. The LSE estimates 30,000 people with mental health conditions have lost their social care, while 1,700 beds have been cut. Over a fifth of doctors said they had sent a child over 200 miles away from their families for treatment, and a similar number admitted sectioning people just to get them a bed. There are huge regional disparities too, as Birmingham City Council reduced its budget for adult mental health by an incredible 94 per cent.

Austerity has left the mental healthcare system in tatters. With all these cuts, universal healthcare at the point of need in Britain is now a myth. Less than a third of people with common mental health conditions get any treatment whatsoever, while only a third of people with illnesses as serious as psychosis and schizophrenia are on treatment.

I suffer from severe and chronic depression. When I moved to Brighton as a student, I suffered a breakdown, and after encouragement from a close friend, sought help. I was told that it would take at least three months to receive any treatment. For me, like millions of other people in Britain, mental healthcare wasn’t a possibility. The charity Mind have called this "a disgrace", while Rethink Mental Illness called it "scandalous", yet austerity is due to continue whoever wins the next general election, with Labour pledging to keep to Tory cuts after 2015.

Much of austerity falls on local government, who spend most of their budgets on social care. As early as 2011, just a year into the coalition, four out of every five councils scrapped care for people with "low" or "moderate" disability needs, an added punishment for people with the most debilitating mental health conditions.

But austerity doesn’t just take away people’s support. It causes poor mental health too. Academics are now coming to the conclusion that austerity translates into a death sentence for some. Stephen Platt, Emeritus Professor of Health Policy Research at Edinburgh University, says, "the rise in suicide in the UK wasn’t inevitable. On the contrary, it was the consequence of a deliberate policy choice: that of austerity." According to research he cites by Samaritans, those in the poorest communities are ten times more likely to take their own life than the affluent. Austerity is at its core a class issue, choosing to privilege the right of the wealthy to pay less tax ahead of the right of poorer communities to a basic standard of mental healthcare.

The slogan of our resistance should be this: austerity kills. We need to make the simple case that policy-makers have a choice: either they clamp down on tax avoidance of £70bn, put banks under democratic control like the TUC demands, or people will continue to suffer mental distress and commit suicide in a Britain where governments prioritise the defence of the wealthy over the rights of those of us with mental health conditions, to receive the treatment we need and deserve.

James Elliott is on the National Executive of the National Union of Students, and represents disabled students in the UK. 

James Elliott is Deputy Editor at Left Futures. He tweets @JFGElliott.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.