By Lord David Blunkett
I was recently asked in an interview what I thought was the “good life”, which rather threw me. What is a “good life” for one person might be an absolute nightmare for another. For instance, being involved – as I have from a very early age – in public life, would, for many, be simply terrible. Being on the public stage, being loved and hated in equal measure… such exposure would drive many people to drink.
So, what does “wellbeing” and, therefore, making a “good life”, entail? How can we give young people the start and foundation that makes it possible for them to have a satisfying and fulfilling future?
It is a big ask to pin down all the elements necessary to provide that foundation. Not least because some things are out of our hands. Where you’re born, to whom you are born, and the wider support systems around you and your parents make all the difference.
We can’t solve everything through public policy, no matter how clever the politicians, or how dedicated the bureaucrats. However, it’s possible, through cash transfer, to provide the main carer with sufficient financial resource to adequately feed their family, heat the home and provide warm clothing. But this is an amelioration of poverty, not its removal.
Wellbeing isn’t purely about whether money is available for the bare necessities of life, but how that money reaches those most in need, how it’s deployed and what long-term difference it makes to independence and dignity.
What 25 years ago, when I was in government, we used to call a “hand up, rather than a handout”.
The original local Sure Start programmes, before they were effectively abolished by the austerity measures introduced through the coalition government from 2010, were an endeavour to develop a holistic, joined up public policy approach to “wellbeing”.
It wasn’t simply about professionals moving in and trying to change the life chances of youngsters, but the community itself becoming part of the solution – drawing upon the strength of even the most deprived neighbourhoods, and by doing so, building confidence and supporting constructive change for the adults in a child’s life; as well as nurturing the baby.
Some Conservatives, including the former Leader of the House of Commons, Dame Andrea Leadsom recognised the truth of this in the small replica of Sure Start described as Family Hubs, now known as the Best Start Family Service. It is not yet the Sure Start programme of the past, but it is an understanding of the critical nature of the early years.
Equal access to quality education provision is a must. There is no point in talking about the life chances of young people if the start we give them is as variable as it remains at the moment. The elephant in the room is the impact of the covid epidemic. It is still not clear why the UK suffered more grievously in terms of impact on mental health and overall well-being than other developed nations. The prior austerity years put us in a very bad place, as did overzealous measures in closing schools, colleges and universities, but that cannot be a full explanation.
That is why the recommendations of Sir Kevan Collins, who reported as the pandemic was dying down, should have been accepted and substantial investment made not just in recovery but in the long-term assistance needed to get the nation back on its feet. Now, we are faced with almost 1,000,000 16- to 24-year-olds who are not in education and employment or training. It’s a staggering figure and it’s almost impossible to appreciate the long-term effects.
Back in 1998 we set about finding employment or meaningful training for 250,000 young people. Now the challenge is so much greater. But so is the necessity of getting this right. Investment in mental health, including the child and adolescent mental health services, is easier said than done. However, ensuring that the ups and downs of life do not become medicalised is essential. We need to overcome isolation and loneliness, and one of the greatest antidotes has to be friendship. Without denigrating those whose friends are mainly online, having someone close who you can confide in, and will be there when things go badly wrong will make such a difference in life. To build a circle of friends and loved ones like this is a gift from God.
So, what is government doing? In the early part of the autumn, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill was debated in the House of Lords. It is a substantial piece of legislation which has provided an opportunity for those focused on “wellbeing” (including myself) to raise the issue in Parliament. An amendment to that Bill, led by Lord Gus O’Donnell, would introduce a “national wellbeing measurement programme” whose aim would be to better understand and therefore dramatically improve young people’s wellbeing in schools across the country as evidenced in PBE’s report.
In the end, well-being and “the good life”, comes at least in part from having a reason to get up in the morning. We’re all different. There is something in everyone’s life that makes meaningful activity worthwhile. If we can earn whilst continuing to learn, if we can create a reasonable income whilst enjoying, or at least find some satisfaction in, the work we’re doing, we are lucky indeed. But for all of us – and research has reinforced this again and again – work, paid or unpaid, makes such a difference to both outlook on life and our physical and mental health. Government can’t deal with these problems alone, but they can set the scene, provide targeted and well thought through initiatives to help all of us to help ourselves.
Like so many people, I had a lousy job before I went to university. For two years, I slugged it out through day-release to go to college, complemented by evening classes, in order to get the qualifications to gain a foothold on the ladder, which not only gave me my purpose in life, but the chance to make a difference. What I expected and hoped for myself in my early years, I want for others.
This article is the seventh in PBE’s new ‘Economics to improve lives’ series that explores a question at the heart of PBE’s mission: How do we ensure that wellbeing – the quality of life experienced by individuals – is the ultimate goal of government?
We’re bringing together thinkers and commentators from across economics, policy, academia, media and civil society to challenge conventional wisdom and consider how we might build an approach to measuring economic success that puts the lived realities of people at its heart and fits the times we live in. Opinions are the author’s own.
Read previous articles in this series from Diane Coyle, Hetan Shah, Nancy Hey, Sarah Davidson, Jon Franklin, Ed Humpherson.