Ed Miliband attends the launch of an online mental health resource. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

It is no longer enough for our parties just to talk about mental health

Since the last election, mental health has risen higher in the agenda than many campaigners even dreamt of. Labour, however, is behaving as though just talking about the issue is still good enough. 

Of all the many depressing developments in politics over the past years there has been the odd beam of light breaking through the cloud; one such beam is mental health. Mental health has become steadily more and more important in Westminster politics and now it figures as a significant element in each party’s health policy. Every party will at the very least mention mental health in the short paragraphs that they will try and win the public’s votes with. But lip service is no longer enough and sadly Labour in particular is guilty of doing just that.

It’s not all that often that the Lib Dems are called the most progressive of the three main parties and although it would be contentious to call them the most progressive party on mental health, it is not controversial to say that they are the clearest on it. Nick Clegg’s conference speech last year was filled with mental health announcements, including the much lauded announcement creating waiting times for the first time for mental health. Despite the fact that the financial figures used in his speech were a mish-mash of government plans and manifesto promises, the Lib Dem website explicitly lists the party’s financial commitment for mental health. £400m is to go on psychological therapies and £54m on widening children’s access to mental health care.

The Conservative party has publically declared mental health to be a priority, Jeremy Hunt’s conference speech last year proved as much. But when it comes to specific policy commitments there are none of any substance. This makes a degree of sense since mental health seems to have largely been delegated to their coalition partners. However, this excuse is not one that Labour can use; Andy Burnham has won a fair amount of praise for his adoption of "whole-person care", an integrated system of health and social care, giving due priority to mental health. Beyond this though, there has been little progress toward any kind of precise figures and/or policy.

Whereas the Lib Dems have pledge £54m to the problem, Ed Miliband has so far only really identified that children’s mental health is a problem. Children’s mental health services have suffered a real terms cut of 6 per cent since 2010, a "neglect" that Miliband has rightly pledged to stop. Aside from showing us how much they have been cut and saying that Labour will increase spending, we are voting blind on this; how much will they increase spending by? When?  Where will they target the money?

Labour’s recently released independent report on mental health by Stephen O’Brien, which has been two years in the making, has committed the same crime as the central party; it comprehensively identified the problems and false economies in our current approach, but it hasn’t provided any solutions. This is a problem across all parties; considering that the field is pretty well open for any of the main 5 parties to play a role in the next government, there is a worrying lack of specifics and figures. The election is 92 days away, that is fair enough, but soon enough they will need to tell us what they intend to do.

There is an opportunity right now, before the manifestos are launched, for the political parties to take mental health seriously enough to get specific and set out their spending plans. Mental health funding is in dire straits and it is absolutely not adequate just to say you think it’s important. If Labour is not careful, this playing-it-safely approach will give the other parties an open goal on mental health, in much the same way that they let the Tories score on postgraduate funding. As the main opposition party, they cannot let that happen. 

Dan Holden is deputy editor of Shifting Grounds

Show Hide image

Heathrow decision: 6 things we learnt about the third runway plans

Affected homeowners will get 25 per cent extra for their homes. 

After years of ferocious campaigning by both Heathrow and Gatwick to be the site of a new airport runway, Heathrow has triumphed. The government has accepted the recommendations of the Airports Commission and backed a third runway at Heathrow.

Confirming the decision, the Transport secretary Chris Grayling said: “The decisions taken earlier today are long overdue but will serve this country for generations to come."

So what happens now? Here is what we learnt:

1. It’ll be a while

Grayling said the draft policy statement will be published early in 2017. There will then be a full public consultation, before MPs get a chance to debate the details and vote on the proposals.

Only after that, will Heathrow be allowed to submit a planning application for the third runway.

2. Affected homeowners get a bung

Building a third runway will require the destruction of local homes, and Grayling said these homeowners can expect to be paid 25 per cent above the market rate. All associated costs, like stamp duty and legal fees, will be covered. 

3. So will the local communities

The government is promising £700m for insulating homes against noise, and it is floating the idea of a Community Compensation Fund that would make a further £750m available to local communities, although the details will be confirmed through the planning process. 

4. No flying at night

The government is demanding that flights are banned for six and a half hours a night to give locals some peace. Heathrow will also be expected to continue to give local residents a timetable of aircraft noise.

5. Air quality matters

Heathrow’s successful proposal included an ultra-low emissions zone for all airport vehicles by 2025. The airport can only get planning approval if it can meet air quality legal requirements. 

6. There will be a by-election

Zac Goldsmith, the MP for Richmond Park, is to resign in protest at the decision, and is expected to run again as an independent candidate. Speaking in the Commons, he warned that the decision to choose Heathrow was full of legal complexity and "will be a millstone around the government's neck". 

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.