16th May 2011

From ghoulies and ghosties. And long-leggedy beasties. And things that go bump in the night.

Good Lord, deliver us.

To which I might add:  From Governments that want to improve our well being.

Good Lord Deliver us.

Well-being or Human flourishing has become the newest flavour to hit the public, from books, articles and Prime Ministerial speechifying.

It is the latest conceit of the Tory led coalition that having effectively reduced average household incomes by, depending on which definition you use, anything up to £1000 a year, returning the buying power of the average family income to the level of four or five years ago it has now decided that it is qualified to promote the 'well-being' of people in society.

Well-being is a well established ethical and philosophical proposition and any one of a number of names are associated with it, including that of John Rawls who argued that humans need liberty and freedom to pursue their interests as long as they do not harm others.

People accomplish happiness by freely pursuing interests within a supportive society.

Well being is defined by the Farlex On-line Dictionary as: The state of being healthy, happy, or prosperous; welfare.

But surely such a definition offers the Tory led coalition a dilemma?

Our health?  Is affected by the state of the NHS and its ability to promote better health across the nation but the NHS is clearly a target for the coalition. The changes are on hold whilst ministers 'listen' but the fear remains that the changes proposed will lead inevitably to a US style insurance scheme. Having attended an out of hours clinic in the UK with american friends and an american hospital emergency room with british friends I know who was most impressed by what they saw.

The NHS was the hands down winner of that contrast and compare excercise.

But how will our well-being fare if or when the proposals for 'reform' are put back on the table?

Happy? how can any one tell, happiness is totally subjective, apparently 70% of of responses to happiness questionaires are totally dependent on how you are feeling on the day you answer the questions. 

Bad day at the office? Row with your partner? Argument with your children? Bad commute? or of course the reverse, a compliment at work or better still a pay rise? Lunch with your girl friend/boy friend? Compliment from the grandchildren? Went to work on your Harley Davidson on a sunny day?

I guess it all depends on who asks and when as to whether we score well in that index.

Prosperous? well if family  incomes are falling, inflation is rising, interests rates go up meaning more expensive mortgages or it costs £150 to fill your cars tank with diesel, then not only will you not feel prosperous, you will not be prosperous.

Welfare? Or farewell child benefit, pensions, tax credits and public services, hello privatisation?

Two examples from the speech on well-being were thinly veiled attacks on Labour Policies, on immigration and on cheap alcohol.

According to the Guardian Report of Mr Cameron's speech, 'the "immigration free-for-all" ..... had been justified as being good for growth but there had been "little thought" about its impact on social cohesion and public services 'the same report included the view that 'a cheap booze free-for-all ..... justified on the argument that it was good for growth' was intorduced 'with little thought about the impact on law and order' tell that to the supermarkets.

Well-Being has a long and respectable philosophical history, I helped organise a conference on that subject over twenty years ago, but I cannot see how a Government that is pursuing the policies of this coalition can even consider that a well-being project will be taken seriously until, as John Rawles argued, justice is put back on the political agenda.

Along with the big society this is slogan politics, politics in soft focus, we need to seee a sharper image so that we can better examine the details.