Support our Nation today - please donate here
Opinion

By stigmatising autism and mental illness, Kemi Badenoch does nothing to address the crisis left by Conservatism

16 Oct 2024 6 minute read
Conservative Party leadership contender Kemi Badenoch, appearing on the BBC1 current affairs programme, Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg. Photo Jeff Overs/BBC/PA Wire

James Downs, Mental Health Campaigner

As the campaign to become the next leader of the Conservative Party ramps up, so too it seems does the rhetoric.

Kemi Badenoch, the frontrunner to lead the opposition – and potentially become the next prime minister, has built her platform on a mixture of economic conservatism and culture war battles.

As a mentally ill, autistic person, Badenoch’s fire is now being turned on people like me, in a way that doesn’t just reveal a deep level of ignorance; it actively harms the very people she seeks to govern.

Problematic

In her Foreword to “Conservatism in Crisis”, Badenoch manages to achieve a unique blend of fundamental misunderstandings, stigmatising narratives and conceptual incompetence to reach misguided and unethical conclusions.

There are so many problems with what she has written that it is difficult to know where to start. For one, she fails to understand the difference between neurodiversity and neurodivergence.

She talks about being “diagnosed as neurodiverse” and gives examples of anxiety and autism, but anxiety is not a neurodivergent condition. neurodivergent can certainly cause anxiety and other mental health problems – but there is a distinction.

Nobody can be diagnosed as neurodiverse, as we are all neurodiverse; only some of us are neurodivergent.

Lack of understanding

If Kemi Badenoch was really seeking to offer a genuine understanding and solutions for neurodivergent and mentally ill people, perhaps she would listen to our experiences.

She would soon realise that being diagnosed with a neurodivergent condition doesn’t come with a suite of advantages.

I was diagnosed with autism and ADHD in my 30s, after struggling with severe mental illness for decades – in part because of a lack of understanding and misdiagnosis.

Having an explanation about why I have found it so difficult to function and take part in society has been helpful, and helped me to move from being too unwell to work to building a life I find easier and more rewarding.

But the idea that diagnosis will “confer advantages” is laughable for many of the millions of people in my position.

Magic wand

At best, a diagnosis might, if you are lucky, help to ameliorate some of the significant disadvantages that neurodivergent and mentally unwell people face in this society.

It doesn’t magic your problems away, with everyone around you bending over backwards to accommodate you, as Badenoch infers.

The support that neurodivergent and mentally unwell people can access will never make it as easy for us to take part and have the same opportunities as everyone else – especially after 14 years of Conservative rule, which has left mental health services on their knees and waiting times for assessments longer than ever before.

The idea that mental health is something individuals should “work on themselves” overlooks the structural barriers and lack of support that many people face.

This kind of rhetoric implies that needing help is a personal failing, fostering shame and preventing people from seeking the support they need.

I know firsthand the harm of such narratives.

When I thought I should find it within myself to get better rather than seek help, it only led to me becoming more unwell, eventually unable to work and forced to claim benefits to survive.

In my case, the very things Badenoch criticises—such as mental health spending in the NHS and reasonable adjustments in the workplace—are what enabled me to recover and contribute meaningfully to society.

It’s precisely because of these supports that I now pay more in taxes than I receive in benefits.

Badenoch’s refusal to recognize the importance of societal support for neurodivergent and mentally ill people, coupled with her focus on individual responsibility, ignores the real challenges we face and does nothing to address the crisis in mental health that has been exacerbated by years of Conservative policies.

Cause and effect

Mental health problems, disability and diagnosis are increasing for many real and valid reasons. They are not a product of self-indulgence, expecting other people to fix your problems, or wanting economic advantages and protections.

They are in part because the Conservative government has consistently failed to provide adequate mental healthcare, and has been insufficient in planning care that responds to the significant challenges of a rapidly changing society beset by economic pressures, climate crisis, pandemic, and so much more.

The expansion of the ‘bureaucratic class’ that Kemi Badenoch attacks – who often pick up the pieces where there people have had little support or treatment – might not be needed if a sufficient mental health and social care workforce was there in the first place.

The backwards model of healthcare which doesn’t prioritise preventing people becoming unwell and economically inactive in the first place is the responsibility of the political class.

Perhaps Badenoch would say that I am an example of someone who “cannot cope with microaggressions”, or that people who share concerns about her comments are part of “a victimhood and complaint culture”.

She might think people who advocate for investment in mental health services and a more inclusive society are offeringsimplistic knee-jerk answers” based on the needs of self-appointed victims.

Yet her writing in Conservatism in Crisis offers no answers or constructive ideas on such vitally important aspects of public health.

Rather than focusing on the crisis that has beset Conservatism, the first duty of public service is to think about the people and their needs.

Instead, Badenoch has managed to deflect from her duty to vulnerable people with that particular Tory brand of navel-gazing and scapegoating she does so well.

This does nothing to address the real task of the next leader of her party – not to fix the crisis in Conservatism, but to tackle the crisis left by it.

James Downs is a mental health campaigner, researcher, psychological therapist and expert by experience in eating disorders. He lives in Cardiff and can be contacted at @jamesldowns on X and Instagram, or via his website: jamesdowns.co.uk


Support our Nation today

For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
16 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Y Cymro
Y Cymro
22 hours ago

Nasty parties attract nasty people. The Conservative party in a nutshell.

Ash P
Ash P
11 hours ago
Reply to  Y Cymro

Starmer seems like a pretty nasty guy. Is that why he’s turning Labour into the Conservatives?

Megan
Megan
2 hours ago
Reply to  Ash P

Yup

Annibendod
Annibendod
22 hours ago

There is a real danger of this woman being in the UK government in future and so by the twisted constitution that passes for democracy on these isles, in part responsible for government of Wales. Her profound ignorance of these matters is bad enough. What is wholly iniquitous in my opinion is her arrogance and ego in peddling such utter garbage with such certainty. She is a dangerous idiot. Wales needs to protect itself from this chaotic Westminster cabal. They keep inflicting these appalling people and their destructive politics on Wales against our will … and Welsh Labour ministers stand… Read more »

Steve George
Steve George
22 hours ago

What is “an expert by experience”? It seems euphemistic at best and woolly to say the least. Would Jack the Ripper be considered an “expert by experience” in psychopathy?

James Downs
James Downs
11 hours ago
Reply to  Steve George

Yes, it is vague, that’s for sure. In general terms, it is someone who applies knowledge generated through subjective lived experience – in my case that would be as someone who uses my experience in policy, research, service development, advocacy. Very often this is needed because of significant knowledge and treatment gaps, the solutions to which are more likely to be helpful if they come from those who need them. To your last point, it generally requires a capacity for self reflection and willingness to be collaborative in applying knowledge to help others.

Steve George
Steve George
7 hours ago
Reply to  James Downs

My problem with ‘lived experience’ is that it’s an expertise possessed by everyone and, therefore ultimately just opinion. My lived experience might lead me to different conclusions to yours. Why does one set of lived experiences trump anyone else’s?

Having said that you clearly have spent much time researching this particular area and have built up expertise.

While I disagree with Ms Badenoch on most things, and on this actually, I do think she has the kernel of a point if she’s arguing that we’re pathologising many things that would previously just have been considered ‘life’?

CapM
CapM
3 hours ago
Reply to  Steve George

“My lived experience might lead me to different conclusions to yours. Why does one set of lived experiences trump anyone else’s?”

If your lived experience has been comparable to the author’s over his lifetime and you have reflected extensively on that experience then if you wished you too could say you have ‘lived experience’ on this subject.

If not so then you only have an opinion as I have.
One person’s ‘lived experience’ may contribute more or less than another’s ‘lived experience’ to the discussion but for obvious reasons both will usually trump opinion.
Where’s the problem?

James Downs
James Downs
2 minutes ago
Reply to  Steve George

Thanks Steve, I think this is absolutely an emerging area. We know there is value in listening to people’s lived experience and that the phenomenology of these experiences can be insightful… also that sharing power in making decisions (e.g. about healthcare provision and in research) with people with experience of the conditions/characteristics in question can lead to better outcomes. But, it is not well defined. Lots of Qs remain around what constitutes expertise, and how to apply it. So you ask a very important question. In my own work I am super careful not to generalise from my own experience… Read more »

Megan
Megan
21 hours ago

I’m sorry you are amongst the latest victims of the “culture warriors” James. But this is what they do. They invent enemies to distract from their utter lack of worth as human beings. They “other” poorly understood and persecuted minorities. They unite hateful people behind their vile views. Although with neurodivergent people they may have bitten off more than they can chew. Whilst immigrants are a small minority and transgender people a positively tiny minority, both easily denied a right of reply by the media, which is one of the biggest enablers of dehumanising rhetoric, neurodivergent people make up an… Read more »

Last edited 21 hours ago by Megan
James Downs
James Downs
11 hours ago
Reply to  Megan

absolutely – makes you wonder who is left

Llyn
Llyn
14 hours ago

Those with autism are now thrown onto the long list of culture war hate figures put together by the fevered imaginations of the Tory right.

Jack
Jack
10 hours ago

We have over medicalised these conditons. Look how many zillion people are now on benefits from all these sorts of issues where before the vast majority were working. Badenoch is right.

Megan
Megan
4 hours ago
Reply to  Jack

You can provide evidence of this of course. No fewer people are working because of these conditions. If anything, more people are working in better jobs where the employer is forward thinking enough to make reasonable accommodations for those that need them. The wage disparity is awful, but if anyone had thought to record this data in previous years I’d bet you any money that the gap has closed since inclusive companies have started making small reasonable accommodations. Badenough is FAR right. And stupidly, embarrassingly wrong. If you agree with her, you are too. This is not an opinion. The… Read more »

Last edited 4 hours ago by Megan
James Downs
James Downs
48 seconds ago
Reply to  Jack

It can both be true that mild mental distress and subthreshold symptoms could have been overmedicalised, and that those with serious mental illness and autistic people are being under-supported.

Richard Davies
Richard Davies
4 hours ago

Nastiness runs through the tories like seaside town names run through sticks of rock!

Our Supporters

All information provided to Nation.Cymru will be handled sensitively and within the boundaries of the Data Protection Act 2018.