Please see below a letter to The Psychologist from Dave Harper suggesting how the BPS should be responding to the Govt cuts. 

Please send replies or support to Dave. [log in to unmask]

Hi all,

I've been growing increasingly unhappy with the lack of public comment from
the BPS and lack of discussion within the pages of the Psychologist of the
oncoming cuts in public services and radical restructuring of higher
education, the NHS etc.  In consultation with others I've drafted a letter to
be sent to the Psychologist.  It's under their word count for letters.
Please distribute it around your various networks.  If anyone wants to add
their name they need to send me an email with their name and affiliation or
job title etc by Tuesday 3 May.

Cheers,

Dave Harper
Reader in Clinical Psychology
University of East London





‘Experts of all kinds sound off in private about the impact of the
coalition's cuts – but timidly zip their lips in public’ ran a Guardian
headline accompanying Polly Toynbee’s article on 1 October last year.

As the public sector cuts deepen and we see de facto privatisation of the NHS
and higher education sectors, the effects will be wide-ranging and profound.
Yet we wait in vain for a thorough discussion of these issues in ‘The
Psychologist’, or reports of Society representatives raising concerns about
these developments. Once again the Society seems out of step with public
feeling: March, for example saw nearly half a million people marching in
opposition to these cuts.
  
There are many things the Society could be doing. It could report the effects
of the cuts that are directly affecting NHS services.  It could join the BMA,
the RCN (and even the Liberal Democrats on the NHGS reforms) and campaign
against the creeping marketization of the NHS. It could contrast the launch
of the Big Society initiative with the cuts in support for charities as a
result of local authority cuts. It could examine the social and psychological
impact of increased tuition fees – likely to reduce social mobility even
further. It could open up debate of the continuation of neo-liberal policy
frameworks that have already failed in the financial sector. It could
challenge the Coalition’s single narrative that public debt has been caused
by profligate public spending.

All these issues are of immediate interest to psychologists. Psychological
processes are involved in Government attempts to make the cuts appear
reasonable, acceptable and inevitable. The cuts will deeply affect the lives,
careers and working practices of many psychologists. And most of all, they
will have a profoundly damaging impact upon many who use their services.

To those who would say that the Society’s charitable status prevents it from
engaging in political debate, we note that the Charity Commissioners actively
promote public debate by charities on issues where they have expertise so
long as they do not support a particular political party line.

Perhaps the Society is afraid of putting its head above the parapet – we are
aware of no public comment by the Society following the sacking by Andrew
Lansley of David Richards – adviser to the IAPT initiative which was much
promoted by Society representatives.  He had had the temerity to ask
searching questions about the funding of IAPT
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/07/dismissed-asking-difficult-que
stions-mental-health).

The Society and, indeed its members, needs to put pressure on the government
to change its course before irreversible damage is done to the public sector
and to society. If it does not do so, it will be failing its members in
spectacular fashion. As another Toynbee headline put it ‘those who know
disaster looms mustn't stay quiet’
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/01/conservative-conference-
public-sector-cuts)