The Problem with Cultural Appropriation

Much like other industries, fashion has seen its designers seek inspiration from beyond their world's, leading to what are often regarded as innovative, unique creations that push the boundaries of modern apparel. This method of creativity, however, can often result in objective offence and accusations of cultural appropriation, only to be enhanced in today’s digital world.

Large players within the fashion industry have caused stirs among communities, resulting in accusations of ignorance and sometimes even racism. High-end designer, Marc Jacobs, experienced a social media uproar after he was accused of cultural appropriation in his 2016 show at New York Fashion Week. A cast of predominantly white models – including the likes of Gigi Hadid, Kendall Jenner and Irina Shayk – walked the runway for his spring/summer 2016 collection donning colourful faux dreadlocks.

But what made this case even more controversial was Jacob’s response to the social media backlash escalated when he stated that Rastafarian culture had not been an influence on the collection and that it was in fact inspired by film director Lana Wachowski. He then went on to make matters worse when he said: “…funny how you don’t criticise women of colour for straightening their hair,” and continued by saying: “I don’t see colour, just people.” Due to the negative headlines and increasing disapproval from the general public, Jacobs later backtracked with a statement of apology on his Instagram account.

To many, a piece of someone’s culture – such as dreadlocks to the Rastafarian and wider black community – cannot simply be seen as a hairstyle but must be appreciated as being part of something larger. Dreadlocks are a pivotal part of many people’s self-identity. By dismissing this, Jacobs is somewhat unwittingly attempting to erase the history and context of this culture. By applying the comparison of black women straightening their hair, he is essentially disregarding centuries of the black community having to integrate with the western world as a result of being told that their natural hair is inappropriate and unprofessional. This is made worse with his statement of “I don’t see colour, just people.” As a white American making a throwaway remark like this, Jacobs is disregarding the persecution and inequality that many black people experience on a daily basis. It is easy not to see colour when yours allows you to be favoured by society in almost every aspect of your life. If you live in a world where the colour of your and people’s skin does not have a direct impact on you, then I would argue that you are privileged, not humble.

In a more recent incident, retail giant Zara came under fire for selling a chequered skirt that was compared by consumers to the traditional ‘lungi’, worn by men throughout Southeast Asia. Twitter users were outraged, stating that if Zara is going to profit through Asian culture, they should at least list the item by its original name instead of referring to it as a skirt. Some may see this as clutching at straws, however it is important to note that many of Zara’s factories are based in Asia and just last year the retailer faced huge accusations of underpaying their staff when factory workers left secret notes in the garments reading: “I made this item you are going to buy, but I didn’t get paid for it.”

The idea of a billion dollar company profiting off designs, supposedly taken from Asian culture, while undercutting wages to their Asian factory workers demonstrates how cultural appropriation can be problematic.

Trends in fashion have often been inspired from prominent figures and genres in the music industry; one significant example being Hip-hop. When Hip-hop integrated into popular culture, it gave designers, stylists and celebrities the opportunity to create looks based on a genre of music that originates from black culture. This is why we now see hairstyles such as cornrows and braids on fashion runways and magazines. Popstars and fashion icons such as Kim Kardashian, Miley Cyrus and Cara Delevingne have taken on trends originating from black culture but presented them as modern and used them as a way of distinguishing themselves as trend setters.

Parallel to issues of cultural appropriation, mass police brutality and persecution towards the black community remains a turbulent social issue. 2013 saw the birth of the Black Lives Matter movement which blasted across the global platform of social media after the acquittal of George Zimmerman, who shot and killed African-American teen Trayvon Martin. The movement became wider and more prominent in 2014 after the deaths of two African-Americans: Michael Brown and Eric Garner. As more shootings followed, the movement continued to grow; pushing the issue of police brutality towards the black community into our newspapers and television sets. Issues like this are at the core of the argument against cultural appropriation; privileged white communities taking and profiting from trends based on black culture at the same time as we kill them and deny them the same rights as white people.

It is clear to see why people may take offence to the adoption of their personal identities. However, there is still some confusion and it could be argued that there is a flaw in the overall label of cultural appropriation. The phrase makes the assumption that all cultures are completely original to themselves when, much like the way fashion evolves over time by borrowing inspiration from different countries and societies, cultures do the same. Some could argue that there is no such thing as cultural appropriation because there is no such thing as an original culture. For example, as much as dreadlocks are a representation of Rastafarian culture, they can be dated back as far as the Vikings or even ancient Egyptians, a time when pharaohs wore their hair in dreadlocks. It is almost impossible to put cultures into a set of rigid boxes that encompass only their own unique norms and traditions. It is true that all cultures coexist and therefore, could be argued that all cultures co-create.

Where this argument is flawed, however, is within modern day society; as much as one could argue that we co-exist, it cannot be argued that we do so on an equal footing. When fashion designers and icons adopt trends that are essential parts of black culture, yet refrain from speaking out about issues of racism, or even worse like in the case of Marc Jacobs, completely disregard such issues -or even more insulting, profits off a culture while underpaying the very people born of that culture – this becomes an issue. This portrays the very real message that white people can successfully take anything from BAME communities and profit from it, whilst at the same time robbing them of their own identities, rights and even lives.

Western fashion will always continue to take inspiration from different cultures and by doing so, will continue to evolve. However, while there is such a direct correlation between fashion and social and political movements, it is important for us to continue to do so while celebrating the origins of these trends, as well as standing up against the oppression of those who created them.

Image 1 source

Image 2 source

Gender Fluid Fashion and the Androgyny Revolution

Traditionally clothes have been used as a way to identify gender. From the moment we are in our mother’s womb, she is given either pink or blue gifts depending on what she is expecting, through to school uniforms providing summer dresses for girls and blazers and shirts for boys, even in many jobs the work uniform that you are provided with categorises men into wearing a shirt and tie while other employers state that all women must wear high heels as a requirement for the role.

But fashion is fighting back. With the likes of Kanye West making skirts an essential part of his wardrobe and Jaden Smith modelling for Louis Vuitton in a dress, it seems the lines of these neat little boxes set out for us by previous generations are becoming increasingly blurred. It’s not just the clothes either; last year the world welcomed the idea of the first gender-flued model to walk on an Indian runway – Petr Nitka participated in the Lakme Fashion Week Summer/Resort 2017, bringing with them a huge sense of empowerment and social progression to the LGBTQ community.

So, what has sparked this sea change that is making tidal waves across the apparel industry? Fashion is never just created, it is born from social, economic, environmental and political movements. Much like the punk subculture brought to us through the frustrations many were feeling about the middleclass hypocrisy and neglect of working people struggling to survive, this gender-neutral trend can be tracked back to changes in gender roles and awareness spread by feminist and queer movements – ultimately building a society that is identity flued. Men who traditionally took on the role of the sole bread-winners of the family are now becoming stay at home dads, while we are seeing more women going into highly paid, powerful jobs.

It is important not only to recognise the social changes that have brought about this transformation but also the way in which we communicate. Social media has allowed us to experiment with our clothing and find more diverse ways to style ourselves. The street style culture, catapulted onto the screens of our smartphones and tablets through the power of social media, has not only empowered consumers to become much more accepting of different styles of clothing but has in fact encouraged them to find their own unique identity through what they wear.

Movements towards todays changes date back to the early 1900’s, where arguably the most influential fashion designer of all time, Coco Chanel, reshaped the way that women wore clothes. It was an era of change due to post-war circumstances, where fabrics were difficult to source and the roles of men and women had been drastically shifted. The high-end designer capitalised on this by introducing trousers into women’s fashion which were previously only worn for work. She was also the first designer to inaugurate jersey, a fabric that had largely been used just for men’s underwear – into her collections. This comfortable fabric was a juxtaposition to the uncomfortable corset style clothing that women had previously worn. But of course the most ground-breaking piece to Coco Chanel’s platter of revolutionary styles was the iconic women’s suit. The piece encompassed a collarless boxy wool jacket with braid trim, fitted sleeves and embellished buttons with a complementary slim line skirt. This outfit was ideal for the post-war women of her generation who were embarking on career path's in the male-dominated workplace.

Although it has been more acceptable for women to ignore the boundaries set out by gender in fashion, school uniform is an area in which these rules have remained stringent up until recent years. We are now seeing gendered uniform rules being scrapped by an increasing number of institutions. Schools are going from a ‘boys uniform’ and a ‘girls uniform’ to a ‘skirt uniform’ and a ‘trouser uniform’, allowing students to make their own decisions when it comes to how they identify themselves. This stems from a recognition of students rights who have, in the past, felt that they do not conform to the binary genders.

Recent years have seen big brands pushing the identity boundaries with Urban Decay appointing gender fluid model, Ruby Rose as their ambassador and retail giant, Zara, releasing an ‘ungendered’ line and of course John Lewis sparking controversy by introducing it's ‘gender natural’ children’s line. Even before that, Selfridges launched its Agender space – an area allowing consumers to purchase whatever fashion and beauty products they desired with no ridged guidelines to adhere to. It seems that for a while now, the line between male and female codes has clearly become increasingly extraneous within the industry.

Looking forward we can see that this is not just a gender fluid trend but instead an androgyny revolution. A recent study conducted by trend-forecasting agency J. Walter Thompson Innovation Group, showed that only 44% of Generation Z - the demographic unit born after the millennials - and 54% of millennials were reported shopping for clothing designed specifically for their own gender, pointing to a vast and growing selection of consumers that refuse to play by traditional rules of gender profiling. Androgyny in the fashion industry is a culture change that is here to stay and although some may be hesitant to see it as anything more than a marketing ploy, the social movement that it represents is surely something to be celebrated. As long as we continue to strive for equality outside of the dressing room, there is nothing wrong with continuing to fight the androgyny revolution in one of the most influential industries in the world.

The Victim Narrative

As a result of the New York Times bringing to light the allegations of sexual harassment in the case of Harvey Weinstein, the general public has been given a chance to see into the dark side of Hollywood. Sadly these stories caused a domino effect that rippled across the Western world, in which modern day rape culture rears its ugly head and we are surrounded by hostility towards victims of sexual assault.

Victim blaming comes in a variety of different forms and is not limited to sexual assault but also cases of murder, kidnapping, theft and other crimes. Convincing ourselves that the only way something tragic has happened to someone else, is because of something they have done wrong helps us to feel safe in the illusion that the same thing would not happen to us. This can be attributed to a person’s actions, class, gender, dress sense and career choice. There is a certain narrative that many people feel an individual should follow in order to be treated as a victim and it seems that someone who has fame, wealth and strength within their career does not fall into this narrative.

Just as high profile figures such as Emma Thompson, Ryan Gosling and Julia Roberts spoke out to condemn Weinstein’s behaviour, a vast amount of the general public also spoke out, this time questioning why the actresses did not come forward sooner, as well as pointing out certain privileges in the women’s lives that they feel eliminates their status as a victim.

Victims should be vulnerable in almost every aspect of their life, they should not be wealthy as we tend to associate money with power and if someone has power they can’t possibly be a victim. At the same time, they should also not be poverty stricken as we saw with the kidnapping of Shannon Matthews and the stark comparison between her and Madeline McCann’s case – Shannon being from a council house in a deprived working class area, while the McCann family had their "respectable" careers in medicine. The socioeconomic differences between the two are widely acknowledged as the reason for the vast difference in funds raised for each case - within two weeks of Madeleine's disappearance the rewards totalled £2.6m while those for Shannon amounted to £25,500 (including £20,000 from The Sun).

The way that a victim should present themselves is a huge issue that is often discussed in the media. Big Bang Theory actress Mayim Bialik recently wrote in an op-ed: “In a perfect world, women should be free to act however they want. But our world isn’t perfect…Nothing — absolutely nothing — excuses men for assaulting or abusing women. But we can’t be naïve about the culture we live in.” She wrote that she still makes choices that she considers to be “self-protecting and wise” and that her “sexual self is best reserved for private situations with those I am most intimate with. I dress modestly. I don’t act flirtatiously with men as a policy.” Although Bialik is a self-professed feminist, the opinion that the way that a women presents herself can tip the odds of her being sexually assaulted is not only extremely damaging but also just wrong. It suggests that sexual assault is a product of sexual desire when actually it is usually linked to feelings of power belonging to the abuser.

In the case of the late Hugh Hefner, we can see how a woman’s career choice can have a huge impact on whether people will see them as a victim. Former Playboy Bunny, Holly Madison, wrote a tell-all book sharing her experiences of her time at the Playboy Mansion. Madison spoke about her “disconnected” sexual encounters with Hefner that were expected from all of the girls. She said: “I felt stuck in my life, trying to make ends meet…I lost the lease on my apartment. I felt like I'd already thrown myself to the wolves, so I might as well reap the rewards and not just be one more slut who walked through those doors.”

Madison suffered with depression during her time at the mansion, however, Hefner would not let her see a psychiatrist, fearing the doctor would just tell her to leave. When these stories resurfaced after Hefner’s death on 27 September 2017, we saw comments from the public who believed that because the girls were given £1,000 “allowance” per week, they could only be considered as victims “of their own greed”, with people firing the question; “if it was that terrible then why did they not leave?” Bear in mind that the number one reason that domestic violence survivors stay or return to the abusive relationship is because the abuser controls their money supply, leaving them with no financial resources to break free.

Central to victim blaming for sexual assault is the assumption that as soon as a person is assaulted they automatically hold the responsibility of bringing down their abuser. Throughout the Weinstein case we have seen people condemning Angelina Jolie and the other women that have come forward for not speaking out sooner. First of all, this not true – Former New York Times reporter, Sharon Waxman recalled trying to file a story in 2004 about Weinstein’s sexual misdeeds, only to see it killed by editors. It is also a completely backwards way of placing blame. The idea that an abusers future assaults are the direct responsibility of a previous victim is absurd. We have to consider the fact that in cases like Weinstein’s, abusers are often people in positions of power and victims run the risk of being shut down as soon as they speak out. Just take a look at what happened to Rose McGowen - after using Twitter to speak about the scandal the actress has now been banned from the social media platform. Compare this to the multitude of misogynistic and racist abuse given to MP, Dianne Abbot, via Twitter earlier this year which was left public for the world to see. 

To put our current rape culture into perspective, we only need to think as far back as Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in which he was literally recorded speaking about “grabbing a woman by the p***y” and just months later was elected POTUS. What message does this send to victims who are suffering in silence?

When Hefner died, stars such as Kim Kardashian praised him as “legendary” and we were flooded with articles about how he played a vital part in the movement of feminism. This is a man who once said: “It's the attraction between the sexes that makes the world go 'round. That's why women wear lipstick and short skirts" and "Several girlfriends are easier to handle than one wife." He also wrote: “These chicks [feminists] are our natural enemy. It is time to do battle with them,” in a secret memo leaked to feminists by secretaries at Playboy. “It is time we do battle with them... What I want is a devastating piece that takes the militant feminists apart.”

It would perhaps be a wise idea to spend less time condemning victims for not coming forward and more time exploring why they don’t feel safe to in the first place. How can we take the moral high ground of demanding they should have come forward sooner when we carry the exact attitudes that stopped them from doing it in the first place? The sad truth is that no one is immune to assault, crime or murder and while blaming victims for their tragedy may help us to deny this, all it is really doing is making it easier for the abusers to get away with their actions and remain in their positions of power.

We have to fight this epidemic of abuse and to do so we need to hold the abuser to account, not their victims.

 

The Austerity Illusion

 

There are now just hours to go until the public will be taking to the polling stations and casting their votes for the general election. Tensions are running high and I swear to God if I hear Theresa May come out with a pathetic sound bite one more time I’m going to lose my shit and run through a field of wheat with a covfefe on my head.

The reason that these sound bites are so frustrating is because they hold about as much irony as when she said that the UK hasn’t done enough to tackle terrorism, when that has literally been her job for seven years.

Coalition of Chaos

We have heard countless times, members of the conservative party referring to a Coalition of Chaos, supposedly headed up by Jeremy Corbyn. How unthinkable – parties with opposing views joining together to run the country as an unelected Government! The fact is that we have already seen a coalition of chaos. 2010 brought us the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition, providing with us with David Cameron, our very own unelected Prime minister (they seem to have a habit of doing this). During their five years in power, the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition embarked crippling austerity, causing the start of unimaginable chaos to our public services. The parties introduced the following austerity measures;

The bedroom tax; aimed at low income/unemployed families - according to the TUC, this affected a total of 31% of all working age families in the social rented sector. They also slashed Legal Aid, the top rate of tax was cut from 50p to 45p, we saw Sure Start centres from across the country being shut down (612 in just four years) [site 4children], the Sure Start Maternity grant was also abolished - costing low income mothers £500 and hitting the poorest the hardest, education maintenance allowance for 16-18 year olds was snatched from the hands of the poorest students attending further education, the armed forces were cut - creating a loss of thousands of soldiers, as well as the RAF losing hundreds of helicopters and planes, Child Trust Funds were totally abolished, we have also seen huge numbers of changes to benefits. Child benefit was frozen for a total of three years, inciting a cumulative loss of £1,000 to families with two children, families receiving working tax credits saw a rise in the number of hours they had to work from 16 to 24…the list goes on, including cuts to GP surgeries, Remploy, Youth Centres, local council funding, local parks, police, buses, education, income support, youth employment and support allowance, prisons, public sector pay, mental health.

Basically the coalition government slashed everything they could get their paws on, if I were to list it all in detail it would take up the full blog post, however you can find all the information here.

Strong Economy

Two years on, now with a Conservative government in power and we are still seeing violent austerity across the country. We are being told that we must live within our means and that these measures will create a ‘strong economy’ (you know, that thing they have been promising us for seven years but we are yet to see).

Wrong.

The conservative government displays public spending in the same way as managing a household income. When you are tight on money you make savings through cutting out luxuries; you stop shopping at Sainsbury’s and go to somewhere like Aldi, you decide not to take that holiday that you’ve been planning, you cancel your gym membership – because who are you kidding? You never go anyway.

Cutting back on luxuries works well as a way to survive when you are low on money. The fact is that this logic is not transferrable to government spending and austerity is not about cutting down on luxuries – it is about cutting vital public services that help the majority of people living in this country to thrive.

By cutting funding to education, the poorest children are unable to gain the knowledge and skills that they so desperately need for the future. By cutting spending on mental health services we see individual’s health deteriorate, often resulting in a loss of employment, then housing and sometimes a loss of their own lives. By cutting benefits we see more people pushed into poverty and therefore further from the jobs market, more reliant on our underfunded NHS, more reliant on our underfunded social care services and more reliant on underfunded local authorities.

Do you see a pattern here yet? Circa 100,000 children fell into relative poverty in 2015-16, showing a year on year increase of one percentage point. Not only that but people with disabilities have had to withstand the worst of our government cuts, many of whom have literally had their human rights violated as a result of austerity. Between 1st April 2016 and 31st March 2017, The Trussell Trust’s Foodbank Network provided 1,182,954 three day emergency food supplies to people who literally could not afford to eat. Of this number, 436,938 went to children.

The Tories boast that they have created record numbers of jobs, yet fail to mention the record rise of in work poverty under their leadership; the Nuffield Foundation found that the risk of poverty for adults living in working households rose by more than a quarter (26.5%), from 12.4% to 15.7%, during the ten year period 2004/5 to 2014/15.

The fact is that there is nothing strong about one of the richest countries in the world having literally hundreds of thousands of citizens who can’t afford to feed themselves.

Magic Money Tree, Magic Money Tree, Magic Money Tree

On the BBC Election Debate, the night that our Prime Minister Theresa May went missing, we heard Amber Rudd squealing about Labours ‘magic money tree’. Throughout the campaign we have seen this phrase banded about – probably a tactic used to avoid the fact that the Labour manifesto is fully costed and has the backing of 120 economists from across the globe, while the only figures that appear to be in the Conservative manifesto (in the words of John MacDonnell) are the page numbers.

“There is no magic money tree!” we hear them scream, “We can’t just find this money from nowhere! We have to build a strong economy to afford such luxuries as money that allows people with disabilities to live independently and…you know…eat.”

Funny that, because it seems that there is quite a large sum of money floating around.

In March, the conservatives managed to implement their inheritance tax cut, meaning that couples who pass on homes worth up to £750,000 pay no inheritance duty. Not only this, but by 2020 even homes up to £1million will be exempt from the tax. According to figures from the House of Commons library, this measure will cost the taxpayers £1billion over the next three years, while only benefitting 26,000 of the country’s richest households – and I can guarantee those are not the ‘just about managing’ that Theresa May loves to speak about.

We have also seen a huge tax cut for high earners by pushing up the threshold for paying the 40p rate of income tax, we have seen a reduction in corporation tax and cuts to capital gains. They implemented the new ‘lifetime ISA’ which means that wealthy parents are now able to open tax free savings accounts for their children, deposit up to £4,000 a year and gain £1,000 of tax payer money as a bonus. On top of this they have allowed people with spare rooms, houses or flats to get a tax break on the first £1,000 a year they make renting them out online, not only benefitting people with extra properties but encouraging them to let them out on a short term basis rather than long term.

The fact is that austerity does not work. The method has been widely discredited by economists. Back in 2012, the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) chief economist, Olivier Blanchard, said that although his organisation never bought into the notion that austerity would actually boost economic growth, the IMF now believes that it massively understated the damage that spending cuts inflict on a weak economy.

But why would our Conservative government continue down the path of austerity if it is doing nothing but pushing thousands of people into poverty and taking away any hopes for decent employment? It’s not like they are too stupid to realise what is happening. They aren’t doing it just because they hate poor people, people with disabilities, mental health needs, single mothers and everyone else who is losing out. Nor is this an accident. This is a very well planned out dismantling of our welfare state and it is happening because it widens the gap between the rich and the poor, it strips the pockets of the most vulnerable and in return, lines the pockets of the most wealthy.

I was going to go into a more detailed answer to this question but I think from today’s events and the headlines printed across our right wing mainstream media, it is very clear. The priority of the Conservative party is to enhance the interests of the ruling classes. The majority of our main stream media which happens to be owned by billionaires will continue to push austerian messages to keep this government in power, meaning that they can keep getting those juicy tax breaks.

Austerity is not just about cutting spending, it is also very much about privatisation of publically owned services. Conservative values mean that they are ideologically opposed to having a public sector. By privatising and selling off our public services, capitalism prospers, shifting the priorities of these services from serving the public to generating profits. Cue: zero hours contracts, low pay and restricted worker’s rights.

Is it any surprise that in 2015, the Conservatives signed their biggest private deal on our NHS - £780million to be exact – to private firms, half of which have ties to the party.

For the Many

Whatever the result tomorrow, we can take a glimmer of hope from this election. Not only has Theresa May’s car-crash of a campaign been highly entertaining to follow; starting by basing all promotional materials around May herself, rather than the Conservatives as a whole, presenting herself as a ‘strong and stable’ leader, followed by her refusing TV debates, avoiding the general public at all costs and basically imploding during questions given by TV audiences.

The real hope that we can take from this campaign is the excessive support that Jeremy Corbyn has harnessed from previously disillusioned voters. People from all walks of life coming out and backing him. The most vulnerable in society finally finding a voice in politics. The anti-austerity message that has finally been brought to the table.

Even if we lose tomorrow, this campaign has touched so many people and it won’t be forgotten by them. They will continue to vote and they will continue to hold our government to account. During Corbyn’s time as leader he has forced the Conservatives to make huge U-turns on policies that would have had a detrimental effect to the poorest in our country, with the backing of new voters, he or whoever takes his place, can and must continue to do this.

Social mobility on this level has never been easy and if Corbyn were to win it would be the most monumental change in political history dating back to the war. We must take his campaign as a victory and we must make a promise to ourselves and each other that we will continue to fight, for the many, not the few.

 

Mental Health - We Need More Than Just a Conversation

As we come to the end of this year's Mental Health Awareness Week, we have yet again seen mental illness brought to the forefront of our media platforms. This time, the lead up was more prominent than ever with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry launching their campaign, ‘Heads Together’. The campaign highlights personal stories of central figures in popular culture. Prince Harry himself spoke about his experiences of psychological distress after his mother’s passing. We also saw stories shared by the likes of Lady Gaga, Professor Green and Ruby Wax – who all spoke about their own journeys with mental illness in order to 'start the conversation'.

There is no getting away from the fact that as a result of the Royals giving this traditionally taboo subject a platform, awareness has been brought to some of the struggles that come with living with mental illness. But is sharing stories from arguably some of the most privileged members of society really enough?

It is all well and good to hear Harry talk about his struggle to ask for support and you could argue that at least it highlights the fact that no one is immune to this situation, therefore encouraging sufferers to seek support when they need it. But what comes after the decision to find help? This part of the journey to mental wellbeing seems to have been pushed to one side throughout the campaign.

The sad reality is that these stories are not representative of the majority of people struggling with mental illness in our country. When Harry finally spoke up and asked for help, he wasn’t put onto a waiting list that could take months like anyone using our NHS services. He also didn’t have the added stress of the prospect of losing his job or his home if he decided to disclose his illness to an employer. The problem with this sort of campaigning is that it puts the emphasis on the individual to change their own life, situation or journey themselves. The narrative is that if you disclose your illness, then the help is readily available and it’s down to you to harness that support and use it to your advantage.

Not once has the campaign spoken about cuts to benefits that so many people in this situation bear the brunt of. It also doesn’t speak about waiting lists or even the length of time it might take to book an appointment with a GP in the first place. Nor does it mention the many ‘high-risk’ people with mental health needs who have been held in police cells because of cuts made by the Conservative government, causing a decrease in the number of hospital beds available.

There has been no exploration of the causes of deterioration to so many people’s health. There has been no mention of the ‘fit to work’ assessments carried out by the DWP that have led to hundreds of suicides. It doesn’t mention the housing crisis that our country is facing and the pressures this inflicts on thousands of people. It certainly doesn’t mention the growing number of people under the current government using food banks - indicating malnourishment in hundreds of thousands of adults and children which often has a knock on effect to their mental wellbeing.

We are living in a society where those affected by mental illness, who find themselves relying on support from the state, are perceived scroungers that don’t help themselves. This, coupled with the traditional British perception of ‘stiff upper lip’ and ‘there are plenty more people who have it worse so just get on with it’, causes significant damage to the most vulnerable in society. The sharing of personal stories and the idea that we all have the tools to help ourselves, just as much as the Royal family might, only perpetuates these issues. Personal stories from a handful of privileged people can only act as a plaster to cover the root cause of this growing epidemic. Fair enough, you might find yourself in Professor Green’s situation who struggled with mental illness before his rise to fame – but how many of us are suddenly going to break through as music artists and make our millions?

To reiterate, there is no getting away from the fact that by using their platform to speak about such a significant issue, the Royals are doing something fantastic. But there is also so much more work to be done. Lady Gaga talking about having to get up on stage each night while battling with depression – no discredit to her situation and her struggles – is not going to benefit an unemployed individual with a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

So what can we do to make a difference? Speaking up about mental illness is a positive start, but we also have to recognise the real issues that people are facing in these situations. We have to stand up to our government when they are closing hospitals and cutting funding to services that support people who find themselves at the bottom of the pile. We have to hold our government to account and we have now been presented with the ideal opportunity to do so. The general election gives us the chance to drive out the Conservatives and put our country in the hands of a government that will invest in these vital services that we so desperately need.

Theresa May has made mental health a key focus of her election campaign by promising to scrap the 1983 Mental Health Act. The party has pledged to spend 1bn more on mental health which will go towards funding 10,000 extra staff. This all sounds good in principle but aside from that fact that there has been no indication of where this money is coming from, there has been no acknowledgement of the desperate need for more hospital beds.

The phrase actions speak louder than words comes to mind. The Conservatives have not only failed to invest in mental health services throughout their time in government, they have also consistently cut vital services that are there to support people struggling with mental illness. Between 2010 and 2015 the Conservative/Lib Dem government slashed the equivalent of £598m from mental health budgets each year.

May’s voting record also shows her personal feelings towards some of the root causes of the mental illness epidemic in this country – she voted for the bedroom tax, voted against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability
and she consistently voted to reduce welfare.

The party’s reputation as the government of U-turns also shows that a Tory promise is an empty promise.

It seems more likely that the Conservatives will be going down the route of privatisation when it comes to our health services. During their time in power we have seen steady signs of this with NHS budget going to firms such as Virgin Care, Care UK and Bupa. Department of Health (DH) figures have shown that the amount of funding that went to ‘independent sector providers’ between 2015 – 2016 rose to £8.7bn. We are now at a time where nearly 10% of NHS funding goes to private companies.

To make matters worse, the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) has given new criteria that directly discriminates against claimants with mental health needs. Claimants who have limited mobility due to mental health conditions are now being told that they are not entitled to the mobility component of Personal Independence Payments (PIP) – even if the effects of their illness equal that of someone with a physical impairment.

Although Labour is yet to release their official 2017 manifesto, a leaked document has revealed that they plan to invest £6billion-a-year into the NHS, raised from new taxes on the nation’s highest earners. This is good news for people struggling with mental health needs as it will allow millions to be taken off waiting lists and receive the treatment they so desperately need. The document also stated that NHS privatisation will be “reversed” and the NHS and Social Care Act 2012 repealed.

It is a sad state of affairs when our Royal Family is doing more than our own government to support some of the most vulnerable in society. But starting the conversation is only that – the start of gruelling mission to fix the tremendous damage caused by our current government. We can share our personal struggles as much as we want but in the end we must come together and take action to stop such situations from happening in the first place.

If you really want to make an impact on mental health in this country then vote Labour on June 8.

Forget being tactical this June – will you be able to justify your vote?

On Tuesday 18 April Theresa May made her biggest U-turn to date. After months of rejecting the idea of an early election, May stood outside Number 10 and announced that she had changed her mind and would be holding a General Election on 08 June 2017.

Whatever May’s reasons for doing so; be it the Conservative’s lead in the polls, the divide between Corbyn and his PLP or – most likely – the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service is currently investigating more than 30 people, including a large number of Conservative MP’s and their agents, over election expenses from 2015 - I wouldn't like to say.

Reasoning aside, the future is looking pretty bleak for any Labour supporters. The Tories have a good chance of winning this election, possibly with even more seats than they have already, after which they will run riot with Brexit negotiations and continue to slash our NHS and public services, implement policies that reduce equality and increase child poverty, cut funding for schools, social care, decrease wages and workers rights, increase homelessness and the need for food banks, introduce Grammar Schools, cut benefits to the disabled and sell off council houses, all while cutting corporation tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax. To anyone who thinks this is an overreaction – all of this has been happening for seven years. This is very real.

As for Labour, if they were to lose this, I’m sure Corbyn would be forced into resignation – something that many of the PLP have been desperate for since he became leader (twice). The chances of re-electing anyone remotely left wing will be slim-to-none (unless the McDonnell amendment is passed), Labour would then probably lose a majority of the hundreds of thousands of members that joined the party under Corbyn. This means that the biggest fear since the announcement of the snap election is not just the idea of another five years under a Tory Government, making it a total of 12 if you include the coalition, but the end of the Labour party. The party that, among other things, created the NHS and welfare state, and introduced pensions and the minimum wage.

One thing that I have been trying to get my head around is why people vote Conservative – something that seems so alien to me but is obviously a popular opinion. We now have a party that is speaking about renationalising rail and energy, creating a million good quality jobs, scrapping zero hours contracts and the bedroom tax, building new homes and introducing rent controls and secure tenancies, offering stronger employment rights, ending the privitisation of our NHS and social care, implementing universal childcare, ensuring quality apprenticeships and adult skills training, transitioning to a low-carbon economy, increasing the use of renewable energy, shrinking the gap between the highest and lowest paid, taking action to tackle violence against women and girls, racism and discrimination on the basis of faith, securing equality for all LGBTQ groups and people with disabilities, ending support for aggressive wars and alleviating the refugee crisis. Who is voting for Tory policies that have caused the effects listed in paragraph three, over these policies and why?

I guess what really matters is that we all wake up on 08 June and feel proud of the way we voted. Being able to look yourself in the mirror is one thing, but what about looking into the eyes of your fellow citizens, your fellow humans?

If you are considering voting Conservative, or even using your vote as a protest against Brexit and therefore voting Lib Dem, who hold much of the responsibility for the Conservative’s rule of tyranny, please ask yourself if, when everything is said and done, you would be able to look into the eyes of those effected and feel justified with your decision.

Will you be able to look into the eyes of someone who has a work-limiting disability, who has had their benefits consistently slashed, making it nearly impossible to live independently, who faces physical and verbal abuse on almost a daily basis as a result as being labeled a scrounger, who has to go through tiresome checks and assessments to prove to the DWP that they cannot work, who, even if they are able to work, would be 30% less likely to be employed simply because they have a disability, who has literally had their human rights violated by the current government, and tell them that your vote was justified?

What about an asylum seeker who has fled political oppression in their own country and managed to make it to the UK, who then, after six months, gets their asylum claim rejected and is left homeless, hungry and living in constant fear of being deported, who is demonised for being here without paying back into the system but is unable to work because of not being granted asylum. Could you look into their eyes and tell them that your vote was justified?

What about a single mother who is trying her best to put food on the table for her three children after losing a job and her partner, who is unable to work due to extortionate childcare costs, who has been accused of “breeding” in order to receive more benefits and is now having those benefits cut because she has one too many children, who is having to choose between feeding herself or feeding her children, who is having to face the humiliation of relying on food banks just to stay alive. Could you look into her eyes and tell her that your vote was justified?

What about a child who has fled from Syria after seeing their home, school and neighborhood destroyed, losing their parents in the process, who then went on to face the horrendous conditions of the refugee camps, maybe she is a girl and is not even able to get hold of sanitary products so has to face the humiliation of stained clothing from her period, who, after that, was subject to police brutality and sexual exploitation, maybe even sex trafficked, due to our governments insistence of only taking the minimum amount of refugees possible, who longs for nothing more than to be back with their family and to be able to go back to school and continue with her previous life, who is scared and alone without anyone to protect her. Could you look into her eyes and tell her that your vote was justified?

What about a mother who has had the same upbringing as you or I, who had a child that grew up and developed mental health needs but despite suffering from severe anxiety and depression - making most social situations terrifying to manage - was forced to find work or face having their benefits cut. Who couldn’t cope with this ultimatum and believed that the only way out was to end their life, making them one in 590 “additional suicides” brought on by ‘fit-to-work’ tests. Could you look into that bereaved mothers eyes and tell her that your vote was justified?

Everyone’s votes are based on different reasoning, some think about wider society, and some think only of their own situation. This election, many people are voting solely on Brexit and forgetting the many other issues that will be affected. If you are voting Lib Dem purely on the basis that they are opposing the referendum, while disregarding their track record in government from 2010-2015, then you might as well be voting Tory. Brexit will go ahead no matter what, there is basically nothing we can do to change this, even if we wanted to. We can, however, put our society into the hands of a government that cares and that will help all of the people listed above and more.

My plea to you is to vote Labour on 08 June 2017. They are the only party that can offer this country the social progress it so desperately needs. If you decide not to, then I really hope you are able to justify your decision because we are all responsible for the lives of others within our society.

If you still need to register to vote, you can do it here now: https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote