In principle definitely good that David Cameron is making "happiness" a government target, since surely this is the end to which all policies are means, but as in everything, the devil is in the details, or more precisely, the definition. What kind of happiness is to be pursued? What is really meant by happiness? An unrealistic ideal or a solid, achievable state? So Labour's Andy Burnham is starting an important debate when he says:
"Cameron and Clegg have done this whole thing about happiness, and I am not against the principle, but I think that is the wrong word. There is a slight danger that it sets people up: 'You have got to be happy. If you are not happy, you are failing'," he said. "So talking about mental health in terms of happiness has become the modern way of talking about mental health: 'Mental health is happiness'. And I don't think it is. It is slightly in danger of being a middle-class construct there, builds a bit of materialism into it. I think what we are talking about is resilience. Are you coping? Are you getting by? That is the bottom line."
Labour scorns Cameron's 'happiness' agenda | Society | The Observer
No comments:
Post a Comment