Gordon Brown and the Taboo around Mental Health

Now, I've already written about Gordon Brown's mental state, and I'm not going to rehearse those arguments in this post. If you want to read my thoughts, then go here. But since the speculation about Brown's mental health is becoming pretty much a hobby for the national media, it is worth looking at another aspect to all this. Namely what this story means for mental health in general in this country.

Over at Liberal Conspiracy Laurie Penny argues that - if Brown is indeed on anti-depressants - it is a good thing:

My response? Good. Great. If the Prime Minister of Britain is suffering from depression or some other mental health condition, which given the stresses of his current position seems highly likely, then I’m glad he’s getting treatment for it. I’m glad he’s man enough to admit that he might need help.

Anti-depressants are used by millions of people in this country, although the stigma attached means that many of us don’t talk about it, and in almost all cases barring those of people detained against their will in institutions, the process is both voluntary and helpful. It takes courage to go to the doctor and say that you have a problem, even if you’re not a leading political figure who’s constantly in the public eye.

The first point is to question whether the best way to treat depression is actually through drugs. A psychiatrist would say so, but the anti-psychiatry movement would argue otherwise. By seeking medication, a depressive is simply looking to alleviate the symptoms rather than looking for a cure. If Brown is taking anti-depressants, then he should also be in some sort of therapy as well. Which then leads potentially to the dual revelation that the sitting Prime Minister is not only taking drugs, but also is in therapy. And there would instantly be massive pressure on any therapist and brutal speculation about the nature of any therapy sessions. Yet it would be comforting to know that, in a scenario whereby someone is taking anti-depressants, they are also trying to reach the route cause of the condition through therapy.

Now, Penny is right to point to the stigma surrounding anti-depressants. And the stigma is wider than that. It is around the whole of mental illness, despite the prevalence of it within society. Penny argues that it is good that Brown - if he is mentally ill - to be "man enough" (a curious turn of phrase for a feminist) to go to the doctor. Again true. But there is a wider issue at play here. If Brown is suffering from depression, then his behaviour is doing nothing more than reinforcing the stigma, and building up the taboo, around mental illness. If he is suffering, then his secretive behaviour is showing other sufferers that mental illness is something to be swept under the carpet. Brown seems to be showing that depression is a dirty secret, something to be hidden away like the mad woman in the attic.

Of course, Brown has a right to privacy, even given his elevated position in this country. And I can understand why, given the speculation around his mental health and the snide insinuations that he is not capable of doing his job* if he is suffering from a psychiatric condition, he wouldn't want to go public if he is mentally ill. Hell, if I was in his position, I probably wouldn't want to go public either. But Brown's failure to discuss this issue is further hampering his already beleaguered administration and reinforcing the negative perception in this country that mental illness is a dirty secret to be ashamed of.

And there could be an upside to Brown talking about these issues in public. If he isn't suffering from depression, then a categorical statement to that effect won't stop the whispering, but will at least reduce it and make those perpetuating the rumour look vindictive and politically motivated.

On the other hand, he may go public and admit he has a mental illness.

If the latter happens, then there will be thousands of deeply personal questions and sickening insinuations. There will be arguments that he can't do his job. Yet there will also be a national debate about depression. For the first time, many people will be exposed to the truth about an illness that will, statistically, affect someone they know. Preconceptions, assumptions and downright ignorance can be challenged and overcome. Discrimination against those who suffer from depression and other mental illnesses can be met head on. Brown can become living proof that those who suffer from depression can still do their jobs and live their lives.

Ultimately, taboos aren't eliminated and discrimination isn't ended by silence. It requires those affected by the discrimination to stand up and talk. It relies on them to challenge the false assumptions of society as a whole. If Brown is suffering from depression and seriously wants to make a difference, he could go public with his illness. It isn't something he has to do, and it would require a level of courage that hasn't been seen in him thus far. But it would create a national debate about mental illness, and it could lead to Brown finding a positive place in history that, quite frankly, is not going to be forthcoming based on the rest of his premiership.

*He can't do his job, but that is down to his arrogance, Cabinet, lack of relevant policies and fucking stupid political beliefs.

Mental Illness and Being PM

Via Old Holborn - where the article is reproduced in full - we have a long piece looking at the failing mental and physical health of our Prime Minister. The article itself makes for grim yet compelling reading. For those of us who have described the Brown administration as a car crash, this piece of writing shows far more accurately what may well be - the slow disintegration, the long mental breakdown of our incumbent Prime Minister.

Of course, it is always worth taking any article that uses anonymous sources so liberally with more than a pinch of salt. You can argue pretty much anything if you refuse to specify where you got your information from. It will always be to the detriment of your argument, though. Yet there is much in this article that has a ring of truth to it. Gordon Brown looks ill these days, and his behaviour is awkward, difficult and self-destructive. It is more than conceivable that there would be a conspiracy of silence around a mentally ill Prime Minister - a conspiracy based around a mix of embarrassment and political expediency. But there is a wider problem identified by this article - namely, what the hell happens if a Prime Minister is effectively disabled by mental illness?

The Reality of Mental Illness

Of course, we need to be realistic about mental illness in the first instance. The fact is mental illness is common. If you yourself don't suffer from mental illness at some point in your life, then statistically one of your family or friends will. Which means that there is a fair chance that the Prime Minister is mentally ill. And the reality is that he won't have been the only Prime Minister in history to have suffered from mental illness. The stats are clear: mental illness is common.

And given that mental illness is common, it should be stated that suffering from a mental illness does not mean that you are incapable of doing your job. People suffer from all sorts of psychiatric conditions and get on with their jobs and their lives. Remember, other Prime Ministers will have suffered from mental conditions. Yet they got on with their jobs, and we never really heard about those conditions.

Yet this isn't a denial that mental illness can be a serious thing. It can be just as destructive and potentially fatal as the most virulent forms of cancer. And the article suggests that the Prime Minister is suffering from an extremely limiting form of OCD and deep depression. The implication is clear; the Prime Minister is very sick, and not capable of functioning in the way his job requires of him.

So - if the Prime Minister is too mentally ill to do his job - what the hell can be done?

Serious Mental Illness And Power

First of all, let's dismiss the idea that we can somehow see warning signs that someone is becoming mentally ill and therefore not allow them to reach high political office. Because warning signs tend to be clear in hindsight. Take Brown. You could argue that his social awkwardness is a good indicator that his mental health was not so strong. Yet Clement Attlee was socially awkward, and Harold Macmillan was painfully shy. You could point to Brown's work ethic and argue that it isn't healthy; yet our first female Prime Minister had a similarly masochistic attitude to work. What about disloyalty, and Brown's paranoid desire to destroy political enemies? Well, that's a prerequisite for anyone seeking political influence these days. You can't withhold power from people because you think they have a predisposition towards mental illness, partly because those potential symptoms are very much in the eye of the beholder. It would be very easy to turn mental illness into a modern form of McCarthyism, where it is used as a political tool to clout the enemy rather than anything else. Plus, in all discussions on this subject, we need to be careful of stigmatising mental illness. Remember, the stats say a friend or a family member will be suffer from mental illness.

So what to do if someone in power is suffering seriously from mental illness? We have a recent example of a party leader who suffered from a such an illness (if you can class an addiction as a mental affliction) - Charles Kennedy. And guess what? Charlie K was removed from power. There was no formal structure for such a removal, but it happened nonetheless. It was a mix of party and popular pressure that meant Kennedy stood down. Yet a more detailed look at what happened with Charles is less comforting than it first appeared. Senior Lib Dems knew that Charles Kennedy was an alcoholic long before he went public. The media knew about it as well. Yet there was a conspiracy of silence. Greg Hurst's biography of Kennedy details just how cynical the decisions around Kennedy were after it became clear he had a serious drink problem. Why do you think he fell from power when he did? Because it was politically expedient. It was a long way away from the next General Election, so the Lib Dems could change leaders without it reflecting too badly on them. It had nothing to do with the good of Kennedy or of the Great British Public; it was all for the benefit of the Liberal Democrats.

Now, to a large extent it doesn't matter who is Lib Dem leader - whoever holds that position has bugger all reach and influence over the fabled corridors of power. What happens if the Prime Minister is mentally unwell? Because it isn't in the best interests of the Labour party to admit that the person they made Prime Minister through an internal Labour party coronation is not stable enough to continue as Prime Minister. Regardless of whether it is their fault or not, it is far more politically advantageous for the Labour party to insulate the Prime Minister from the public, and pretend everything is A-OK. This isn't in the best interests of the country, and leaves a vacuum at the top of the British political system. The Prime Minister is too powerful a position to have someone who isn't stable enough to cope in it.

Under these circumstances, maybe we can rely on those around the Prime Minister to minimise the potential impact that they could have from their powerful position. The example of Nixon at the end of his time in the White House makes for an interesting example here. As Nixon struggled under the pressure of Watergate, steps were taken to minimise his power by those around him. It will always be a matter of considerable historical debate as to whether Nixon had a breakdown before he left office, but various additional checks and balances were put in place in case Nixon chose to do anything destructive and irrational - in particular in relation to the US military. And nothing bad happened. Yet this is reliant on those around the person in power taking the initiative and minimising the scope of that incumbent's powers. Can we really trust Brown's cabinet - a group of naked opportunists like Balls, wet behind the ears kids like the Milibands, and spineless wimps like Alan Johnson - to do the right thing if Brown is falling apart? Or will they simply cower from his rages and hope for the best? Besides, how democratic and constitutional were the actions of the political appointees around Nixon?

What is needed is a rediscovery of what the office of Prime Minister actually is. He isn't meant to be a presidential figure wielding huge amounts of power. He (or she) is meant to be primus inter pares - first amongst equals. In the event of a physical or mental illness that disables the Prime Minister temporarily, the Cabinet and Parliament should be strong enough to take the workload until the Prime Minister recovers. In the event that the illness is too much for the Prime Minister to come back from, then the Cabinet and Parliament should be strong enough to take power from the PM - replace them with someone capable of doing the job. The upshot of the Brown, Blair and Thatcher administrations is that the PM has become far too powerful - and that is why a Prime Minister effectively succumbing to serious mental illness in this country is now such a worry and such a problem.

The post of a modern Prime Minister forgets a fundamental truth - that humans are fallible and fragile. Against a long enough timescale, some sort of debilitating condition is not just a likelihood, but a certainty. Yet the job of Prime Minister now almost requires a superhuman to fulfill it. Furthermore, the very nature of the job - isolated from the people and from contemporaries at the same time as being under incredible pressure - almost seems to encourage some sort of mental or physical deterioration. Given what it means to be Prime Minister, is in any wonder that Thatcher descended into hubris? Or that Major couldn't wait to get off the national stage in 1997? Of course Blair had heart problems, and Brown is on course for a nervous breakdown - they have an impossible job.

A Proper Prime Minister

Fundamentally, the job of Prime Minister needs to change. The scope of it needs to be reduced, and the expectations associated with it need to be restricted as well. You could say that the job of CEO of a plc is the right model for the modern PM, but all we need to do is change the role of Prime Minister back to what it used to be. The Prime Minister needs to be the Chair of the Cabinet. They should delegate the detailed work to Cabinet Ministers, and instead manage and co-ordinate the process of running the country. The buck stops with the Prime Minister; that doesn't mean that the PM should try to or be expected to micro-manage the whole country.

Whilst we're on the subject, something else that might ease the pressure on the executive branch of our government is reducing the amount of things they actually legislate on and take responsibility for. Brown is an example of a Prime Minister who tries to comment on everything going on; from the economy through to Jade Goody's death through to X Factor. We don't need a Prime Minister who does that, and we shouldn't want one either. It is all very well calling for a Prime Minister who is in touch with things; but the Prime Minister is meant to be a politician, so what we should expect he or she to be in touch with politics rather than anything else.

In short, we need to drastically reduce the scope, powers and responsibilities of the office of Prime Minister. At the same time we need to actually lay down who covers what within the Cabinet, at also redefine what our political class should and shouldn't be concerned with. Finally, we might want to consider some sort of succession plan so there is some sort of concrete idea of what happens if the Prime Minister suffers some sort of mental or physical breakdown.

Imagine the CEO of Sainsbury's had a massive nervous breakdown. They would be replaced, and the company would go on functioning. The reason why Gordon Brown's mental state is so terrifying is that if it fails, there is a massive void at the head of our government and the head of our country. What we should take from the rumours about Gordon Brown's mental health is the urgent need to reform the office of Prime Minister, rather than anything else.

Punch Your Way to Mental Health!

Of course, it is very well known that the internet generates all sorts of freaks. And sometimes, I wonder whether some people on the internet can possibly be real. It appears that Neil Harding is an actual person, despite being a shameless Labourite cheerleader. And Councillor Terry Kelly proves the limitations of democracy by being not only a total moron, but also an elected official. By rights he should be a cliche of a Militant Tendency style Labour party member of the 1980's. Instead, he's an elected Labour politician in the 21st Century who seems impossible to unseat. As for Dirty European Socialist, well, I'm still pretty sure that he/she/it is a piece of obscure performance art rather than a real person.

Via Speak Your Branes, here's another person who, like the three people listed above, I'm not sure can be real. Red Rose Andy isn't just a socialist, he is also an environmentalist and a self-proclaimed psychotherapist. And that's where the fun starts. See, Red Rose Andy has invented the Kadir-Buxton Method, that he feels sure will revolutionise mental health. Let's take a look at what this method involves:

The cure, which I term the Kadir-Buxton Method, has been used on a wide variety of mental health problems. The procedure stuns and resets the brain of the patient, so that the patient returns to a normal condition. The Kadir-Buxton Method is done by making a fist of both hands, and striking both ears of the patient at exactly the same time and pressure with the soft part of the inner hand which is where the thumb joins the hand.

Right. Riiiigggghhht. So the miracle cure for mental illness is slapping someone in the head. Boxing their ears. That's going to overcome decades of psychiatry and psychotherapy, now, isn't it? Fuck me, this is real innovation. A procedure that makes ECT look sophisticated and lobotomy look like the future. Can't think why Red Rose Andy is struggling to get his innovative method accepted by the medical authorities in this country. Just as well he is on hand to explain why:

I am having a hard time getting the Kadir-Buxton Method used in the UK because it would cut down the number of professionals that are needed at present, and of course, cut the amount of expensive drugs that drug companies sell at present.

Ah, that would be the reason. The fears of pharmaceutical industry and health professionals are strangling this innovation. Nothing to do with it being one of the most ridiculous ideas in the history of crank medicine, then. Still, if you truly believe in this groundbreaking innovation, then you can sign up here to support it at the Number 10 petition site. Along side such luminaries as C. Nile, hardon spazjacket and the bassplayer from The Levellers.

But it gets even better. See, Kadir-Buxton has a blog. Well, a sort of blog. It seems to be a list of faintly right-on pronouncements that vary from the deeply dull through to the outrageous. A particular favourite of mine is the demand that fascism be treated as a mental illness. Mainly because the author doesn't agree with fascists. Now, as regular readers of this blog will know, I'm not a big fan of fascists myself, but do think that those who would suppress the free speech of fascists run the risk of being of being classed as a fascist themselves. Besides, those who would declaim their political opponents by classifying them as mentally ill remind me a lot of the leaders of the former Soviet Union, who created the condition of sluggishly progressing schizophrenia to act as a tool to imprison political dissidents.

Perhaps that's another reason why the medical elite in this country don't want to back Kadir-Buxton. He wants to classify those who don't agree with him as mentally ill. And then wants to punch them in the side of the head to "cure" them.

So is Andy Kadir-Buxton real or not? That's up to the individual reader to decide. However, I'm not sure which would be worse - the idea that someone can make up a person as ridiculous as Kadir-Buxton, or whether such a delusional person could actually exist.

So is Gordon Brown actually mad?

From Guido Fawkes:

A rumour went round after Monday's disastrous press briefing that Gordon had wet himself. Guido didn't report the story because he was unable to substantiate it from the video evidence. That it was even rumoured and given any credence whatsoever shows that people in the Westminster Village think he is a man close to the edge of total breakdown. The humiliating truth is that Gordon Brown is not mentally fit for purpose.

Now, whether or not Gordon actually wet himself is pretty unimportant as far as I am concerned. On balance, I don't think he did. This is like the story about John Major tucking his shirt into his underpants; it is comedy, it is quite funny, it is sort of believable; but I don't think it is reality. The real point is the one Guido mentions at the end of that paragraph. That Gordon Brown might not be mentally fit for purpose.

Making any sort of diagnosis of Gordon's mental state is problematic for me; I'm not a psychiatrist or a psycho-therapist, and I have only second information on Gordon's mental state through the media. But there are some tell-tale signs that all is not well for Gordon, and he looks like a man on the brink of a breakdown. As times, Gordon almost comes across as positively psychotic - something backed up by the talk of bullying and violent (at least towards mobile phones) rages. Gordon may be suffering from depression, he may be on the verge of a breakdown and he may be mentally ill; however, I don't think any of these should really matter.

Mental illness is far more prevalent across society than many realise. People function with depression, they have breakdowns but survive and get better. Very successful politicians have suffered from mental illness. Famously, Winston Churchill was a depressive. And some leaders have had breakdowns, but have still gone on leading. Stalin, for example, appeared to have a complete mental breakdown after the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. Yet he recovered, and led his country to victory in that war. Gordon may be suffering from some sort of mental illness; that doesn't necessarily mean he should be forced from office. 

The real issue with Gordon isn't mental illness, but it is something relating to his mental state. He has become completely detached from reality. He has listened to his own hype, his own spun, for too long. He was destined - according to his own prophecy - to be the man who would take Labour from the shadow of Tony Blair and be a more honourable and decent leader. Britain was crying out for him, and he had been forced to keep us all waiting. And when the credit crunch started to bite, it became more and more clear that Gordon was the man to lead us from the shadows into the light, like a Winston Churchill for economically difficult times. In the world of Gordon Brown, he is the hero. He is our salvation. And those who do not back him are being difficult, unpatriotic and have, quite frankly, are standing in the way of history. 

Of course, as anyone with half a brain cell will tell you, that is all palpable nonsense. It has no connection whatsoever with reality. Yet Gordon has absolutely bought into a myth that he created in the first place. And this is the problem we have in this country today. We are facing serious problems, we need to have a government with a consistent and realistic view of what is happening and what should be done to deal with it. Yet our Prime Minister has no concept of what these serious problems are, and does not understand that they have to be dealt with in an effective way as soon as possible. In fact, the PM seems to resent reality interfering with his carefully constructed facade of a life. His problem isn't mental illness, it is a fundamental refusal to connect with reality on any level.

Which makes Gordon a very dangerous man to have as Prime Minister. He has the power to cripple this country financially as he pursues his insane agenda to make his self-created vision of himself and of his destiny into a reality. He could bankrupt this country in his vain attempts to fulfill a prophecy that he has created and is important to him, and him alone. We should all be worried, very worried, by the arguably delusional status of our Prime Minister. He is pursuing a selfish agenda utterly disconnected from reality. And is dragging each and every one of us with him as he does so. 

Is the PM a Mentalist?

This story has gone into overdrive this week, with Guido openly talking about Brown having mental problems, closely followed by speculation that Guido himself is a mentalist and that the current mental health problems of a former PM might have interesting roots. There is more (and sweary) analysis here and here.

Whatever you might think of Thatcher, or Guido, or about the mental health of any private citizen, you can always fall back on the knowledge that it doesn't really matter. Thatcher may have dementia, Guido may be a drunk - I neither know nor do I care. Brown, however, is a different kettle of fish. Like it or not (and I fall definitely into the latter camp) Brown is PM - he is in charge of this country, and the head of a very demanding and invasive bureaucracy that controls everyone in this country. He is making laws that affect every one of us. And if he is suffering from major mental health issues - if he is having a nervous breakdown - then it could have major problems for the nation as a whole. I don't care whether you think Brown deserves mental health problems or not - if he is a mentalist, then we should all be very, very concerned.

But there is the problem - if. No-one really knows whether he is having a breakdown or not. Even those closest to him might not know whether he is having mental health issues - such is the general ignorance about mental health in this country. We can all speculate, and note some increasingly odd behaviour, but there is no real hard evidence that Brown is mentally unhinged. However, even if he is technically "sane", I'd argue that he is not in the best mental position to be PM.

Think about the position the Prime Minister finds himself in. He has lusted after this role for decades. For pretty much his entire adult life. He has plotted to get it, lost friends to get it. And he has listened to a narrative for over 10 years that he is the one; the man of integrity who is going to save Labour. That, of course, was shite - and now it is clear to everyone, including Brown. The country hates him, his party are despairing of him and the media are going for his jugular - every day he gets evidence that he is utterly shit at the job he has lusted after for so long. Even if he isn't suffering from a mental problem that could be diagnosed, Brown is still in the wrong mindset to be our Prime Minister. He is broken, bitter and angry. He is Britain's answer to Richard Nixon - destroyed by circumstance and paranoid and ineffective as a result.

Which is ultimately why these gossipy questions about his sanity are a distraction from what is important. Regardless of whether it is an issue of mental health or competence or both, Brown is not fit to be Prime Minister. It is that simple.