Ben Wealthy

The former Conservative Chancellor Nigel Lawson once described the NHS as the closest thing we have to a national religion. A phrase that suggested he had, at least part of, his finger on the pulse of the nation. Polling consistently puts the NHS top of our concerns. Forged in the penniless post-war years it has survived and thrived in the rockiest economic storms since. Today our health and social care system has a Titanic-sized financial hole. The combined deficits of NHS trusts have reached £1.6bn this year. A sea brimming with icebergs has forced NHS Captain Simon Stevens to send out a Mayday call with 'five tests' that the Comprehensive Spending Review must meet to guarantee the NHS's modest plans . Will the Government plug the leak or sink services? On public health, the Government has already confirmed in-year cuts of £200m for local authorities - somewhat departing from the commitment to a "radical upgrade in prevention and public health." N

Productivity is proving a tough nut to crack. Worryingly, there is a glaring omission from the Government’s recently published Plan . It doesn’t mention the nation’s wellbeing.  A passing word is dedicated to plans for the devolution of health powers – but nothing on the relationship between wellness, work and wealth creation. This is perhaps unsurprising. In the lead up to May’s election the Health Secretary had a favourite catchphrase. He would tell us that "a strong NHS needs a strong economy” - economy first, health second. Actually it should be the other way round. We all know that our productivity at work suffers when we’re unwell, tired, stressed or distracted by the health of family members. Often our job is the primary source of our anxiety. During the working week we try to look after ourselves, eat fruit and vegetables, exercise, keep alcohol consumption down and go to bed early on school nights. But the strains of modern life do inevitably have an impact on our

A body of counsellors (not to be confused with political councillors) made a rare and compelling intervention in politics yesterday. 400 psychotherapists, counsellors and academics wrote a letter to the Guardian highlighting the "profoundly disturbing psychological" impact of cuts on our minds. During the election campaign the health service has been discussed, debated and deliberated upon in much the way that was predicated. But the nation's wellbeing, despite 5 years of austerity and hardship, has been surprisingly absent - aside from a belated, although warmly welcome, conversation about mental health. The letter represents a sharp critique of austerity as a recipe for national wellbeing. In three paragraphs the signatories make three points - a lesson in powerful narratives that every party and politician should study. Firstly, they argue that the caseload of counsellors is different from pre-2010: inequality and poverty, social cleansing (my words not theirs) and

200,000, 250,000, 300,000? The conversation about housing policy is more auction that action plan. Politicians of all parties are coming, painstakingly slowly, to 'get' the pain our housing crisis is causing. They're pledging to build more - one of the main problems we face, although far from the only one. But understanding isn't the same as acting, and saying you'll do something doesn't explain how you'll make it happen. Within that space, between rhetoric and reality, sits a worrying credibility gap which we must work through. If we don't we'll end up in the same cul-de-sac five years hence asking why so few new homes are being built. Let's look at just a couple of examples to illustrate why the number of new builds is so low. The government has been quick to point the finger of blame at the planning system. We are repeatedly told it is the root cause of the failure to build more homes. Developers tend to agree - a cosy consensus. Who is g

Happy World Book Day! Just. I could not let today end without churning out a few words about the joys of books. Although I am not a big supporter of these kind of days to be honest. They are a dreadful coming together of money people desperate for more money (they already have loads) and PR people trying to resuscitate a dying brand, product or celebrity. Without a doubt the worst pitch in the world invariably starts with "Thursday is World Muffin/Heron/Wood/No Trousers/Walk Upside Down/Call Your Boss a Dictator/Swim in a Puddle of Camomile Tea Day". Journalists, hang up. But books are different, the exception to the rule about how awful naming a day other than the name of that actual day is. Books are worthy of a day, every day. Books actually matter. A lot. Firstly, books are priceless. Their value is not always tangible or quantifiable. Their worth can be personal, sentimental, romantic. Their meaning grows as we read them in families, spill tea on them, leave them on a

Home ownership in Britain has long been synonymous with living the dream. Phrases like "an Englishman's home is his castle" capture a sentiment that freedom can be brought. Hard working families who save the pennies are rewarded with a slice of suburbia. This British Dream has sustained our social order for decades; there's usually been a majority fully signed up. The minority left have endured slums, then social housing, and now the private rented sector.  The relationship between housing and freedom is a defining one. Of course owning your own home is not the only route to housing freedom. But it is certainly the case that, particularly in the context of a deregulated private rented sector, buying a home buys you much more freedom than renting. Basic shelter isn't really a choice, or luxury, it is the foundation for living. If you don't have somewhere to lay your hat every other aspect of your life will be stifled and devalued.  Fashionable libertarians

Valentine's Day is, if nothing else, an important reminder that we are ultimately judged by what we do, not what we say. This goes for politics as well as relationships. Flowers, teddy bears and cards are lovely and everything but - let's be honest - without all the thoughts, feelings and actions alongside them they are nothing more than tokenism. The leaflets, announcements and giveaways being churned out by politicians in the lead up to an election run a similar risk.  When it comes to housing there has been a lot of gestures from politicians in recent years, and a fair few promises of a new chapter. When we are told things will be different we're understandably skeptical; we've been here before. A diet of spiraling price rises and crumbs of new homes means that the first rung of the housing ladder is getting ever higher. More and more of us are renting but there is no cogent framework to improve standards and promote rights. Homelessness is rising, in large part du

When I was at college, an undisclosed number of years ago, my ever provocative sociology tutor posed this question to the class: "how much can one person 'earn'?" It came back into my mind this week when watching the second instalment of Jacques Peretti's powerful exploration of inequality The Super-Rich and Us . This question really does go to the heart of our current debate about the ever-widening gap between that top 1% and everybody else. It prompts a discussion about human value, and how pay scales, and wealth, correspond to the actual contribution to society people make through their work. The comments made by Countess Bathurst, in The Super-Rich and Us, were both despairing and, as a consequence, rallying. I'll quote her verbatim: "I think that human nature, by human nature, will always be a little envious of those who have more than they do." She went on "I think there is also an element of, shall we say, not realising what is means