As a psychologist I see the fantasy of neoliberal values having a devastating effect on mental healt

Yep - but pretty sure they stopped at rule #11 last time I checked, which may have been not much more than a week ago, well, the second to last time

dunno....maybe I missed it

 

Guessing we have a wide diversity of political opinions on the forum including conservatives & neo-liberals

In the UK the biopsychosocial (BPS) psychiatrists who developed the "false illness beliefs" model have had a big impact on on the health & welfare systems.

People like Simon Wessley, Michael Sharpe & Peter White who developed CBT/GET have been consulted regularly by Labour & Conservative governments.

eg infamous quotes from Simon Wessley below (via @Valentijn on another forum )

 

Following statement discussed and approved by the moderators:

Rule 12 is intended to avoid members getting into divisive religious or political disputes with each other, and should be interpreted in that spirit.

Although the OP posted an article which is political, many of the subjects covered by the article are of direct relevance to ME sufferers. ME has political context, and a discussion of policies which affect ME sufferers, or the impact of a political ideology, without making generalizations about members of the relevant party/parties is not prohibited by rule 12.

The article does not generalize about members or supporters of political parties. It discusses the effects of neoliberalism, which is not a political party but an ideology. In fact the author of the article states that neoliberalism has been espoused by all the political parties who have held power since Thatcher, so although the word "Tories" appears at the top of the article, it is the only reference to any specific political party, and only because they are currently in power. At no time are members or supporters of political parties generalized about.

No posts on this thread have gone over the line that rule 12 was intended to prevent, ie nobody has said anything like "bloody conservatives, they're all ... " etc etc. That's the kind of situation we wanted to avoid with rule 12. It was not intended to discourage discussion of the policies, political context or ideologies that affect ME sufferers.

 

Thank you for that wise ruling.

There is parsing each word for the literal meaning of a thing and then there is the intent of a rule. It is important to consider the concerns of the people posting over and legalistic rendering of a rule. Wording of any rules can only be a guide not an absolute IMO.

Also though: is there some way of placing a clickable word somewhere so that the rules can be accessed more easily?
On PR that would have been 'wiki'. I went looking for the rules but could not find them until Andy posted a link. And I have seen the rules when they were made--I just have no memory of them.

 

@Snowdrop

The rules are in the "Welcome" section of the forum main page, a more logical place for them than where they were located on the other place

 

Yes, thanks @Wonko This is my bad. I see they are visible in the welcome section but did not when looking. Poorly functioning at the moment.

 

I don't think it's appropriate to label this as "neoliberal propaganda" as it isn't. Neoliberalism is an economic theory, which doesn't care about who is sick and who isn't. It simply states that "it is what it is". Of course I also find the ideas of 0% tax and 0 disability benefits quite extreme, but I don't see how this comes any close in a country where corporate tax is 30% and VAT - 20%. So why the label, neoliberalism ?

 

The problem, as I see it, is that while the term "neoliberalism" has a well-established meaning in political science (referring to those who embrace "Austrian School Economics or "libertarianism") it has as of late devolved into a slur against liberals who do not self-identify as "neoliberals" and who reject "libertarian" economics.

So the perceived slur is inaccurate when describing the economic philosophy of many who feel smeared when called neoliberals, which make the term inflamitory.

No term causes more offense amoung liberals here in the United States than being called a "neoliberal."

So I respectfully disagree with the decision if you hope to avoid divisive politics on this board. A liberal Democrat in the US, for example, is liable to take much greater offense being called a neoliberal than being called a "bloody Democrat." I expect the same is true of those in the anti-Corbyn wing of the Labour party.


Best,

Bill

 

That would be a very good question for the author of the article.

I have no idea how offensive or otherwise the term "neo-liberal" is. If it is offensive it's unfortunate that the author chose it as the angle for his article. I think the main interest in the article for members of the forum is the issue of how the disabled and those with mental health needs are currently provided for, and that it is being written about.

As long as nobody on this thread calls anybody else on this thread a neoliberal, a bloody democrat, an anti-Corbynite or starts banging on about politics we should be fine.

 

I assumed you were unaware of just how inflammatory the term neoliberalism has become, or I'd suspect you'd have made a different decision.

Bill

 

The question is also to anyone who shares the author's point of view.

 

I was.

 

Never mind.

 

All terms like this are a bit difficult, but I think that it's fair to tie aspects of the current British Establishment's assumptions about individual's responsibilities in life (including for their health) to aspects of a 'neo-liberal' project.

This is all complicated by the fact that there have long been complaints from neo-liberal thinkers that British Conservatives take their ideas about society and then add unwarranted moralistic assumptions about what people 'deserve'. This article was clearly talking about 'neo-liberalism' within the context of contemporary British politics, rather than engaging with the ideas of Hayek, or anything like that.

I take the point that some people don't like how 'neo-liberalism' has come to be used, but words do change in English. I reckon that's just another reason why it's worth trying to engage with people's arguments rather than being too concerned about a particular term.

 

It was only a couple of months ago that I found out what 'neo-liberal' actually meant, and up until that point I'd been thinking it described someone who had newly become liberal and I'd always thought, 'Oh, that's nice.'

 

Words evolve, but in this case it has changed from a term to (rightly) refer to people like Hayek in a politically neutral fashion to a way to slur people like Hillary Clinton and Tony Blair for beng insufficiently socialist through a deliberate misuse of an established term with an established meaning.

In the US calling a liberal a "neoliberal" is a surefire way to start a row.

Bill

 

I'm posting as a member now and not as a moderator, because I haven't discussed this with my moderator colleagues.

I've just re-read the article, it starts well with a description of the appalling state of provision for those with mental health needs, cutbacks, sanctions in the benefits system etc. To have these issues written about in the Independent is of interest to PwME, as they are also affected by these issues.

But the article is in the "voices" section, which I assume means "opinions", and is written by a psychiatrist, so when the author goes on to "Why has this happened" and gives their views on "neo-liberalism" and the "neo-liberal agenda" you should be allowed to say what you think of this if you find it offensive. If you strongly disagree with the author's use of terms or views it's fair enough to point that out. The article was written for a British audience, so maybe the author wasn't aware of how offensive the term was in the USA, or maybe he was and was trying to provoke, I don't know.

If you had left "so why the label, neoliberalism?" as a rhetorical question, you would have made your point well. I'm not sure inviting anyone who shares the author's point of view to answer the question on this thread is such a good idea, because it could take the thread in the direction of a heated political debate in which all connection to ME or ME issues is lost. So I'd suggest just making your point and getting back to talking about ME issues?

If anyone's said anything on this thread that you find offensive, ie by agreeing with the author's political assumptions, the preferred way of dealing with it would be to contact the moderators rather than issuing an open challenge to them on this thread.

 

I think that there could also be differences between the US and UK? In the US 'liberal' seems to more mean 'left'. I know that when I first started discussing politics with Americans on-line I found their use of 'liberal' quite confusing. Also, this article is very UK-centric.

Blair played a key role in undermining disability rights in the UK, and promoting the sort of values that have been so damaging to ME patients around the world. I don't think it's likely that this is really a divisive issue here, unless it's just about the use of the term 'neo-liberal'. It's not about him being 'insufficiently socialist', but about an ideology where "state provision is situated as something that fosters a state of dependency. Dependency is seen as an impairment to individual growth, and a drain on society. People who question these values are positioned as functioning under an illusion that the state has infinite resources, and denying individuals their right to an upward journey." There are plenty of honest people throughout the political spectrum who reject that thinking, but nonetheless this sort of thinking has guided UK government policies on disability for government after government. Rightly or wrongly, this project is commonly labelled as being one of 'neo-liberalism'.

 

My understanding is that the situation in the UK is basically the same as in the US. That every government since Thacher has been labeled "neoliberal" included Tony Blair. Now some on the left may not be enamored with Tony Blair, but he isn't Ayn Rand or Fredrich Hayak.

The term has devolved into slur intended to suggest certain politicians are "corporate sell-outs" and are insufficiently socialist.

Bill

 

No, I think most American liberals see themselves as part of a mainstream political center, to the left of that center, but not as leftists. That isn't to say that we haven't seen tremendous friction here between liberal supporters of Hillary Clinton and those on the left who supported Bernie Sanders. The split fractured the Democratic Party and resulted in the election of you know who.

And IMO it isn't about being insufficiently "liberal," it is about being insufficiently "socialist" (at least in the minds of those tossing around the term "neoliberal"). So neoliberal has become a catch-all insult for any non-socialist politician no matter how progressive he or she might be relative to the right.

Bill