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 a "new, intimidatory kind of disciplinary [benefits] regime." Secondly, they attack "get to work therapy" as "professionally unethical". Finally, they suggest that the "emotional toxicity of neoliberal thinking" is damaging our mental health.
In recent years the pursuit of wellbeing has become an area of interest for policy wonks, thinkers and a range of professionals. Sir Gus O'Donnell, the former Cabinet Secretary, chaired The Commission on Wellbeing and Policy which, in it's final report in 2014, asserted that GDP was an insufficient measure of national success, and that a measure of wellbeing should be developed and used to inform policymaking. As a result the government launched the What Works Centre for Wellbeing which will commission research to enlighten decision makers. Outside of the conventional political sphere the campaign Action for Happiness has been busily building a movement for the happy society - from which local groups and rich ideas have sprung.
Ultimately limited political dialogue means the wellbeing agenda has remained contentedly on the political fringes of a 5-year story defined by chasing austerity at all costs. Few would suggest this cause has kept pace and prominence with the politics of cuts and economic growth. Each party is now promising moderate change, notably parity of esteem in the NHS between physical and mental health. But, in a sense, this only goes to demonstrate how far behind politics is. The weight of this latest contribution, and those making it, is worthy of reflection during the home straight of the election campaign. It will add to the pressure on politicians to see wellbeing as much more than just a 'nice-to-have'.
The next government, indeed the next Parliament, needs to offer bold, new thinking and leadership on wellbeing, relationships, work and community. A society that is anxious, insecure and unhappy can never be a fully peaceful or productive one. We usually associate going to counsellors for talking therapy, we must now take a moment to listen to professionals usually detached from the political fray yet who have huge insights into our collective state of mind. Politics must catch up with what's going on in our ever increasingly thoughtful civic life.
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 a "new, intimidatory kind of disciplinary [benefits] regime." Secondly, they attack "get to work therapy" as "professionally unethical". Finally, they suggest that the "emotional toxicity of neoliberal thinking" is damaging our mental health.
In recent years the pursuit of wellbeing has become an area of interest for policy wonks, thinkers and a range of professionals. Sir Gus O'Donnell, the former Cabinet Secretary, chaired The Commission on Wellbeing and Policy which, in it's final report in 2014, asserted that GDP was an insufficient measure of national success, and that a measure of wellbeing should be developed and used to inform policymaking. As a result the government launched the What Works Centre for Wellbeing which will commission research to enlighten decision makers. Outside of the conventional political sphere the campaign Action for Happiness has been busily building a movement for the happy society - from which local groups and rich ideas have sprung.
Ultimately limited political dialogue means the wellbeing agenda has remained contentedly on the political fringes of a 5-year story defined by chasing austerity at all costs. Few would suggest this cause has kept pace and prominence with the politics of cuts and economic growth. Each party is now promising moderate change, notably parity of esteem in the NHS between physical and mental health. But, in a sense, this only goes to demonstrate how far behind politics is. The weight of this latest contribution, and those making it, is worthy of reflection during the home straight of the election campaign. It will add to the pressure on politicians to see wellbeing as much more than just a 'nice-to-have'.
The next government, indeed the next Parliament, needs to offer bold, new thinking and leadership on wellbeing, relationships, work and community. A society that is anxious, insecure and unhappy can never be a fully peaceful or productive one. We usually associate going to counsellors for talking therapy, we must now take a moment to listen to professionals usually detached from the political fray yet who have huge insights into our collective state of mind. Politics must catch up with what's going on in our ever increasingly thoughtful civic life.
Comments