YEP, IT’S AN ELECTION YEAR.

BUT LET’S REMEMBER (PLEASE) THAT MENTAL HEALTH IS A CLINICAL ISSUE, NOT A PARTY POLITICAL ONE.

6,000 PEOPLE IN THE UK PREFERRED TO END THEIR LIVES LAST YEAR.

YOU CAN’T SPIN THAT.

As a mental health campaigner, I try not to mess with party politics, but I do sometimes worry that party politics is trying to mess with me.

Well, not just me, of course, but anyone with a professional, evidence-based, and compassionate view of mental health.

So, as we enter the election season on both sides of the Atlantic, I thought I’d chance my arm and offer a few thoughts.

Politicians have always used mental health in one way or another.

Most commonly, the language of mental health (either today’s language, or that of previous generations) is routinely hijacked to describe, insult, and denigrate political opponents.

At a time when anyone who knows anything about mental health is trying hard to tackle the stigma which prevents people reaching out for help.

So, look, here’s something to think about.

If someone disagrees with you, or expresses views that you consider extremely unpalatable, well, hey, we live in a democracy, and having disagreeable views does not amount to mental illness.

And whilst I recognise that 21st Century politics are particularly divisive, and that hate-speech is part of the currency of modern political discourse, I would just gently say to everyone, from the extreme left to the extreme right, and to all stages in between, please don’t use either clinical or non-clinical references to mental health as part of your discourse.

Really.?

Please don’t do that.

Those of us who are trying to combat mental health stigma are doing that in order to reduce the appalling rate of suicide.

And we find it exquisitely frustrating when all our efforts are undermined by careless, thoughtless, angry people who are simply venting about party rivalries.

And if you struggle with that, let me invite to think about how embarrassing it might be if you loudly insult an opponent by misappropriating terms which should be restricted to intelligent discussion about mental health … and then you’re publicly called-out for doing that.?

Possibly by someone with a lot of credibility in that field.

That could backfire on you badly.

It risks undermining your whole argument.

The abuse of mental health language, and its use as a political insult is bad enough, and that happens everywhere in the world.?

But in the UK, we have another issue.?

Because we have the NHS, and the NHS involves public money, the provision of healthcare is far more politicised than in countries where all or most healthcare comes from private companies.

There are other countries where healthcare is provided free at the point of delivery, but not all of them are democracies.? In a democracy, public scrutiny of healthcare provision will always be more intense than it is in a Command Economy.

And the effect of that is that the NHS is a party political football.

When healthcare professionals go on strike, it’s the Government that they’ll see as their opponent, not a private company.

If waiting times for treatment rise, it’s the Government that will be blamed by the public, not a private company.

If the NHS buys infected blood from the US for the treatment of patients and infects people with hepatitis or HIV/AIDS, it’s the Government that will be pressured to pay compensation, not a private company.

I could go on, but you get the point.

At a patient-doctor level, treatment decisions will (hopefully) always be made by clinicians.? But strategic decisions about the NHS are (like it or not) political, because they’re about allocating national resources, and that’s precisely what we elect Governments for.

I’m an employer, I didn’t roll in on the last turnip cart, so I know that across the UK, occasionally, some people will claim to have conditions they don’t really have, in order to get paid time off.?

But this has always been the case.? Flu, back ache and ill-specified vomiting bugs have always been on that list, and stress-related illness is, too.? But I’d say two things to that (as an employer).

1.????? This is nothing new. The illnesses claimed may change, but employers have always had to deal with this issue. It comes with the turf, because employees are human beings.

2.????? The fact that this happens doesn’t mean that mental health is a bogus issue.

The brain is just an organ, and like any other organ in the body, it’s not immune from illness.? The heart, lungs, kidneys and liver (the other four major organs) are all vulnerable to illness.

It would be a bit weird if the brain, for some reason, wasn’t.

In the last few years, we have had a pandemic, a recession, war in Europe, terrorism, violence in the Middle East and the looming threat of a wider conflagration, and, yes, extreme political divisiveness.

In the domestic environment over the last few years we’ve had (to name just a few issues amongst many) Brexit, immigration, gender wars, and industrial unrest (particularly in the transport and health sectors).

But not everything is party political, and mental health definitely shouldn’t be.

Here’s the kicker.

According to the National Police Council, well over 6,000 people died by suspected suicide over the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.

And to make this strike home with the force it deserves, let’s look at the preferred methods of suicide.? They are, in order:

1.????? Hanging, suffocation and strangulation (3,596).

2.????? Poisoning (1,412).

3.????? Falling or fracture (355).

4.????? Jumping or lying in front of a moving object (337).

5.????? A category called “other, known or unknown” (315).

6.????? Drowning (207).

7.????? Sharp object (192).

Irrespective of anyone’s politics, those are the facts.?

Do some people swing the lead, and overstate minor conditions in order to shirk their responsibilities?

Of course.? Human beings aren’t stupid, and those few who swing the lead will naturally claim to have conditions which are less visible.?

But frankly, and I say this as an employer, dealing with the tiny number of employees who behave like that is just one of many hassles faced routinely by business leaders.? The important thing is that we don’t treat everyone with those conditions as though they are being dishonest.

We should have more respect for the 6,000+ people in the UK who, last year, didn’t think life was worth living any more, than to make them the subject of party-political invective, or turn them into some kind of political football.

On either side of the aisle.

As an employer, I want to be able to sleep at night knowing that I’ve behaved ethically, compassionately, and pragmatically.

When it comes to mental health, that means providing leadership to the highest standards I can achieve, having trained Mental Health First Aiders, having a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week helpline, and having Cope.

In terms of Xmo Strata, that’s pretty much all I can do.

I’m going to finish with an anecdote.? In the April 13 issue of The Times magazine, an interviewee said this:

“Young people feel less safe than two years ago and are crying out for places to socialise or play sport … they want structured, organised activity, particularly sport. And sadly, that has been reduced significantly. Since 2010, these services have been cut by about 70%; 4,500 youth jobs have gone since 2010, and 750 youth clubs have closed.”

Who do you think said this?? Jeremy Corbyn, maybe??

Nope.?

Kier Starmer?

Naah.?

It was a gentleman called Simon Henderson, who is the Headmaster of Eton College, and who (in his day job) supervises the education of some of the most privileged boys in the UK.? He was speaking in his capacity as Chair of an Inner London youth charity, and he referenced the mental health of young, underprivileged people in this context.?

Now, you may believe, politically, that real-terms reductions in youth and social services are necessary, because we have to cut our cloth.? That’s a legitimate political view.

You may believe these services are vital, but not the responsibility of Government.? A legitimate political view.

You may believe that cuts to youth services are merely ideological and should be reversed. Legitimate, as a political view.

Or you may believe something else, equally legitimate, that I haven’t listed here.

Arguments can be made on all sides … but people who make the argument contrary to yours aren’t demonstrably mentally ill because they’re doing that. ?You may consider the to be na?ve, unintelligent, unthinking, selfish, unpleasant, blindly ideological, lacking in humanity, Woke, or any one of a collection of other distasteful epithets.

Cuts to public services are one more potentially highly emotive subject, and when we feel strongly, we reach for the strongest invective.

Mental health, inevitably, will be part of the political discourse.?

Fair enough.

But please, let’s make the debate about policy.

Let’s choose our words with care, professionalism, and restraint.

Let’s remember that mental health is a clinical issue.

And let’s never forget those 6,000 people.