Fashionable it may be, but it is a smokescreen for a bigger problem ignored by this government — inequality of income and outcomes

The church is doing it. Gordon Brown's people are doing it. Large companies are doing it. And, inevitably, David Cameron has started to do it. Debating happiness, and the role of the state in delivering it, has become the hot political topic. After proclaiming growth as the primary factor for public good, politicians have begun tentatively to acknowledge the weak connection between wealth and contentment (although there is a clear link between severe poverty and discontent). Happiness indices have sprouted from think-tanks and universities, giving an empirical prop to what was once regarded as an unquantifiable instinct. Some local authorities, as Mark Easton reported in the NS last month, are setting themselves targets for increasing happiness among their citizens.

Fashionable it may be, but to a large degree it is a smokescreen for a bigger problem that this government has refused to address - inequality of income and outcomes that affect us all. One minister, frustrated at the excesses of Labour's don't-offend-the-City mantra, calls it "the burglar-alarm factor": earn your money and fortify your defences.

At the 2005 election, Labour paid some heed to the issue, promising more support for working parents and their childcare needs. Yet Labour's record in this area has been disappointing. Britain may have enjoyed the longest period of sustained growth in its history, as the Chancellor proclaims, but per-capita gross income does not correlate to well-being. Standard of living is no indicator of quality of life, and virtually every barometer used in recent years puts Britain close to the bottom compared to equivalent countries.

These questions are addressed by the Church of England in an important report just published, Faithful Cities. It is scathing about government initiatives on social exclusion and, unfashionably, laments "destitution as a tool of coercion when dealing with refused asylum-seekers". The report focuses on inequality in its most general sense, calling it a test of a society's moral adequacy. The "increasing marketisation of life" might generate benefits "but it incurs grave costs which bear down particularly on the poor", it says. Nick Pearce of the IPPR points out (p20) that though the situation has improved , inequality under Labour remains acute.

The document is a follow-up to Faith in the City, the culmination of a furious fight between the Church and the Conservative government when published in 1985. Now there is seemingly little from which the present Tory leader would demur. Just as Tony Blair spent the mid-1990s promising not to intervene in the markets, so David Cameron rarely forgoes a chance to pledge his conversion to social compassion. The requirement to secure investment and create jobs is as acute as ever in a globalised, competitive world, he said in a speech on 22 May, "but we should also acknowledge a vital truth, that the pursuit of wealth is no longer - if it ever was - enough to meet people's deepest hopes and aspirations".

Scepticism of Cameron's motives is merited. It may be nothing more than a rehearsal of middle-class lifestyle dilemmas. But, by occupying Labour's ground, and in many ways going further, he is providing an important service. Labour, if it had any courage, could use this to push inequality to the forefront of the debate.

What can and should the government do? Geoff Mulgan, a one-time Downing Street strategist and political thinker with rare experience of administration, has sought in a new book to define the duties of the state. Largely they have not changed: to protect citizens, to provide justice, to ensure truth and knowledge, and to promote welfare. While all governments struggle to fulfil these tasks, the first three duties tend at least to be clear in their definition. It is the issue of well-being that has been interpreted too narrowly.

Why is marriage breakdown disproportionately high in the UK? Why is antisocial behaviour so widespread among young people? Why has productivity remained stubbornly low? Why do so many people on wages that might seem reasonable still struggle? Why are parents with young children still so badly served?

Unless the debate moves on more specifically to our economic and social priorities, politicians' talk of happiness will raise false hopes, and in so doing will bring only unhappiness.

The rain in May

As the Chelsea Flower Show mops up, the Edgbaston Test begins and Wimbledon beckons, the climate is reminding us of its sense of humour. On average, 59mm of rain falls on England and Wales in May, yet at the time of writing we have had 85mm, or 143 per cent of the average - and this is after four months of rainfall well below average. It is hard not to feel indignant, and yet, as so often, there is consolation in the record books. First, we are making a tiny bit of history: this could become the wettest May since 1979, or even 1967 - isn't that something to tell the grandchildren? And then there is the satisfaction of contemplating those worse off than ourselves. In May 1773, the records show, a torrential 152mm of rain fell. That was the month in which parliament passed the Tea Act, which so provoked the American colonies. Have the historians ever considered that MPs may just have been in a bad mood?

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website