Wes Streeting Thinks Mental Health is Over Diagnosed.
Who’s gonna tell him ?
Wes Streetin always struck me as an odd choice for a ministerial position. He generally just seems to go out of his way to put his foot in his mouth.
Because he thinks speaking confidently about something is the same as actually knowing what hes talking about.
He also has a massive throbber for the private sector, which compromises his stance on things.
He’s gonna be the next leader so get used to him!
I don’t really think the membership is all that keen on him though so I’m not sure how easy that would be for him to achieve. There are others that I can think of as more likely candidates for future party leader.
When asked if he agreed with experts that warn of an overdiagnosis of mental health conditions, Streeting said he wanted to "follow the evidence and I agree with that point about overdiagnosis" (my emphasis).
Is this really an unreasonable exchange of views? Shall we perhaps hold off on the outrage till we’ve read the whole article? Or even the whole of the sentence in question?
Very carefully worded question that avoids any mention of who specifically the “experts” in question are, or what study exactly came to these conclusions.
There are “experts” that claim the world is flat, and “experts” that claim vaccines cause all sorts of problems worse than the diseases they prevent.
One can always dig up an expert that agrees with whatever bullshit you wish to peddle.
I’d bet folding money that the “expert opinion” referred to is in fact, in the report by the IFS they mention above in the article rather than any medical study examining the subject.
‘Bet folding money’ or ‘speculate baselessly’?
I wouldn’t call 40+ years of exposure to politicians’ half truths and twisting of words “baseless”, but you do you.
This is, in fact, baseless. There are experts in, e.g., ADHD, who thinks it’s over diagnosed, so the base assumption here is: he’s referring to those experts.
Given the real questions about over-diagnosis, your assumption, ‘I bet in this interview I didn’t listen to he was referring to a report I haven’t read’ is, indeed, baseless.
Likewise, there are experts in neurology and psychology who dismiss said assertions, pointing to our progress in understanding and ability to diagnose now what we couldn’t previously.
Many individuals previously labelled “difficult”, “lazy”, and “unmotivated” are now understood to be afflicted with medical problems. We can’t yet do all that much about it, but we know more than we did.
As you can see, it largely depends on how much background knowledge you already have on the subject at hand as to what conclusions can be drawn from the wording.
Perhaps your view might not be the correct one, after all?
Edit: It is worth drawing attention to the fact that it suits no politician to lose the oft derided “lazy do-nothings” supposedly responsible for society’s decline, or at the least a “drain on hard working families”.
The pounds sterling cost of the entire welfare state would fit numerous times over into the unpaid taxes of the likes of Amazon et al.
So who exactly are the politicians really looking out for?
Edit 2: Going forward, Labour under Starmer will continue to be Tories in Red ties. The less well educated voters will, instead of “voting Labour 'cos they always have” will be taken in by “the pretty lie” and vote for Farage’s Fascists instead, you just watch.
Equally, we shouldn’t label certain patterns of thinking as ‘disordered’ when they’re actually just different. We certainly shouldn’t medicate differences away. Over diagnosing is (almost by definition) not a good thing and we should take seriously the possibility that it’s happening with some disorders. This in no way precludes supporting those who do have disorders.
The problem is not the factual accuracy of what he’s saying but why he would say it.
To anyone who follows politics even remotely, Wes clearly here is doing a dog whistle. He’s signalling to the boomers that labour also thinks people with mental health issues are just lazy. Hes doing reactionary politics on purpose.
You are correct for the most part.
However, until the “world of work” accepts those “differences” without needing laws to force them to do so, labelling of differences will remain a requirement for those that require the help.
Taking away some the pittance they get to assist with how the world refuses to service the “different” is bad enough, to justify it with intentionally bent statistics and the medical opinions of “experts” that are actually economists is pure Tory territory.
Starmer’s Labour is as bent as they come, and they’re handing power to Reform at the next election with their disgusting policies. Calling it now for future reference.
It would require a level of naivety that most lack.
What a stupid thing to say in an interview. Labour need to get their shit together comms-wise.
This was done on purpose, it’s not a mistake. Wes is literally this cruel.
And all doctors should listen to a history graduate because?
Historically they were undiagnosed seems to be the best advice he can offer. Or is it the usual political solution. Deny anything you don’t like exists.
