Would the general wellbeing survey have saved us from the coalition cuts? David Cameron’s grand plan to make Britain happy again may be one of the most positive policies – to the distaste of some in Downing Street, according to The Guardian – coming out of Number 10 since he became Prime Minister. Perhaps, to be cynical, the pursuit of happiness will actually gauge how unhappy people truly are during the deepest cuts and biggest reforms of public services in generations.
Cameron’s litmus test will involve handing over a wealth of data over to the Office of National Statistics and sociologists to analyse. Some of this information will be of interest to policymakers in Whitehall. But if the Government really wants to make Britain a happier place, why subject us to more
tick-box bureaucracy before bringing the axe down on things that make our lives less stressful?
The effects of the economic downturn are not merely financial. Research suggests there is a 70 per cent increase in the risk of a person attempting suicide if they are made redundant. Last year, 427,000 people claimed incapacity benefit because they were suffering from depression – leading to an earnings loss of £9.2 billion.
How exactly does Cameron suggest we ease the burden on vulnerable people at a time when his Government is actively cutting help? Making more people unemployed will surely increase mental health problems and the bills associated with social care.
“Mondeo man” and “Asda mum” have already taken a pummelling with increasing rents, bills and all the other woes that to go with economic reversal. Now the Government is poised to add to the
gloom and despondency of the low-paid and unemployed. Cuts and changes to local and national public services will make most peoples’ lives more difficult.
Have you been looking for work without success for more than a year? You face having your housing benefit reduced by 10 per cent. Does the roof above your child’s desk in their classroom leak? Sorry, there is no money to fix it. The numbers of those waiting for cancer tests have doubled since the coalition started running the country.
How content are people supposed to stay with the constant stream of bad news emanating from the tabloid press?
Many parliamentarians are still out of touch with wider public attitudes, as Lord Young has reminded us. David Cameron’s enterprise tsar was forced to resign last week when he commented that we had “never had it so good”, despite the “so-called recession”. Remember when Nick Clegg scored an
own goal in 2008 when he guessed the state pension was “about £30”? At the time, it was three times that for a single person.
The happiness index may show that people in Pimlico are happier than the residents of Preston, but how would that affect policy – especially when some members of the coalition don’t see the point of a wellbeing test?
If politicians don’t understand the problems, how can they come up with solutions? Clegg is not the only politician who has not lived a “normal” life – which is one of the main reasons for the gulf between Westminster and much of the rest of the country.
Assuming Jill Matheson, the country’s national statistician who has been given the task of testing psychological and environmental wellbeing, delves deep enough to determine the real causes of happiness or misery, what will Parliament do to end inequality?
The last Labour Government had 13 years to tackle the problems that caused an increasing number of people to slip below the poverty line. And it failed.
Financial exclusion is one of the biggest causes of unhappiness in Britain. And yet more and more people face unemployment, which means the numbers of those living in poverty will increase – especially once the housing allowance rules are amended.
A more equal society is a happier one. Those on the left must focus on the social democratic values of championing aspiration and enabling people to achieve their full potential. Simultaneously, we must argue that universal access to good quality services can only increase general happiness.
