To think that it's not the job of government to make people happy?

[FloPen]

This is on the back of a programme on loneliness on r4 this morning. There seemed to be a general consensus that it's a responsibility of the government to make people happy. So, money to be spent on consultants, commissions etc.
Surely the job of government is to keep the peace, mend the roads, and otherwise create a framework where people can be happy. But it's not their job to ensure that they are?

I think we should always aspire and work towards a fairer world. But recognise that where those aspirations have been wholesale adopted by government, the results have always been disastrous.

I wouldn't say that's true at all. Look at the NHS - a glorious beacon of what can be achieved if you really want to establish fairness and a basic standard for all - until the Tories decided to screw it into the ground.

Also look at Denmark. Much more egalitarian society than ours, and I daresya they still feel there's more they can do.

The NHS is wonderful. But was built to deal with a specific issues, with definate boundaries(then). And, while the Scandinavian countries seem to get so much right, the suicide rate in Denmark is higher than ours.

It was, and it was developing to cope with new challenges and expanded population very well, until it was mindlessly assaulted with swinging real terms cuts and needless reforms. This was a deliberate, concerted attempt by the Conservatives to force collapse and privatisation and nothing will lead me to believe otherwise I'm afraid. It is not the inevitable outcome of trying to do good in the world.

Scandi suicide rates are a bit mysterious, as rates of happiness reported are consistently high. Personally I have a theory it's geographical and to do with SAD but I have no evidence for this beyond a hunch. So fair enough, I discount the Danish example.

This has been a good debate though!

Yes, unusual for aibu!
Yes, I agree with you about the NHS but ( and there's always a but) it is also having to deal with far more issues than it was designed to deal with. And Labour's dedication to using pfi's didn't help.
And we live longer, and are fatter. Imo the NHS is a bottomless hole which will absorb infinite funds. Blaming their problems on tory cuts is disengenous.

This was a deliberate, concerted attempt by the Conservatives to force collapse and privatisation and nothing will lead me to believe otherwise I'm afraid.

This is just political tub thumping.

The fundamental problem with the NHS is it is built on a false premise. There is this almost nostalgic bullshit view about how great the NHS was in the past. It wasn't. The NHS has been asked to do more, and more and more, and as people got healthier, demand grew rather than shrank. The demand for healthcare is infinite due to that paradox, and due also to demand adaptation. Obviously it is impossible to satisfy an infinite demand. The answer really is to set out very clearly what the NHS is for, and what it isn't for, then draw a line after that. Further expansion of that remit should be subject to parliamentary vote.

The UK is a really weird phenomenon, in that despite all the services provided by the Government, anger with Government is higher than in countries where objectively, the Government does a lot less for its people. I do not know if it is the education system, or if it is the establishment of the welfare state, but there is something weird going on, especially among the younger population that goes far deeper than simple rehtoric of "the tories are evil"

The fact that you ended it with and nothing will lead me to believe otherwise I'm afraid. kind of shows your only looking at things from a particular angle to confirm your bias.

While making people happy seems like it's beyond the government's normal scope of responsibilities, I think, in this particular instance, there are many issues affecting people's happiness.

For example, there are a lot of places in the country with very poor employment prospects for the young. So young people are almost forced to leave their areas if they want to find work and create a viable future for themselves. That often means that their ageing parents and relatives are more than likely to be left on their own as the time goes by. The young themselves are also pulled away from their normal support network and can't necessarily benefit from even occasional family help when they go through their major life events such as having a baby. If any of these young choose to be a SAHM, then being away from friends and family can also contribute to their loneliness.

Can government help? Absolutely! How? By considering how to incentivise employers to create work in areas of high unemployment to allow communities to prosper.

In The Netherlands, for example, there is a a whole village, where people with dementia and similar conditions live as a community. The entire infrastructure was created around them to allow them not to have to use cards for payments in shops etc. That way they never have to worry about not remembering their PINs or other similar stuff.

Isn't that a great initiative and should our government consider how to help the less fortunate in difficult life situations? To me, the answer is yes. Why? Because that's a sign of a civilised society.

We live in a society where people abuse their bodies. I went to my local hospital where smoking on site is banned.

Outside the door where 4 or 5 people puffing away, 2 had lost their legs and where only aged in their 50's.

On the way out I was behind a morbidly obese woman who couldn't walk but sort of rolled. She was wheezing and struggling to breathe. When she got outside she slumped onto the wet concrete floor and lit up!

Suicide rates in Scandinavia are not higher than average. That is a myth descended from the mid 20th Century.
Interestingly, a PP mentioned Bhutan, as a bastion of contentment yet that has a high(er) suicide rate...
This has generated some really interesting ideas and discussion. Thanks OP.
In my (non-evidence based) opinion, resilience is one key to happiness. Without meaning to harp on about suicide rates, interestingly Afghanistan and Iraq have surprisingly low rates. I wonder whether it's due to society, community, religion or a combination of such things, or a general spirit of resilience, bought about by years of tough living...

Oh and I agree about the Government having a responsibility to drive forward in a bid for societal and economic improvement, and should support the populace ( of which parliamentarians are also a part of) in maintaining and improving our social fabric. But people do need to take the bulk of responsibilty for their happiness. Loneliness is tricky, as it can be situational rather than entirely of an individuals own making. But those who are grateful for what comes their way and what they DO have, are surely going to be happier?

That’s ONE person Neshoma. You can’t extrapolate that to the entire population, you also know nothing of her history or why she was like that.

The Govt have made masses of cuts and people are more isolated than ever. Have you read ANY of the stuff above or just focused on your one narrow minded experience.
We can all do things to make our lives better bit sometimes once someone has given up for whatever reason they are hard to reach,

I didn't state that Denmark was higher than average, just that it's higher than us.
I don't believe that cuts have made people lonelier. I believe that society is fragmented, in part because people have been told that their personal freedom is of prime importance. Also, the elephant in the room, few people attend regular religious worship.
I'm not saying that these things are right or wrong, they just are. I, for one, am very glad to have moved round the country in my life, and would have hated to have stayed in the orbit of family and childhood friends. I have been unhappy, but staying put would have made me unhappy in other ways.
We have thrown the baby out with the bathwater as a society, but can't turn back the clock. But it's not the job of government to sort this out. And they can't. The problem with our wonderful welfare state (meant non-ironically) is that everybody expects the State to take over responsibility.
Society is not government, and will have to sort itself out, or not.

Trouble is there be a huge increase of 'self inflicted' conditions in the next decade. Developing diabetes at 50 and having your leg amputated probably won't make you happy.

We always laugh as they patients push out the A and E wheelchairs to sit on and have a fag under the Tannoy announcing 'this is a no smoking site'

as a side note, I do local history research on the 19th century in a Gloucester village. Most of the young people had left their families and moved far away by the time they were (early) adults. Many younger children didn't even live with their own families but were informally fostered out. Victorian England was even more dislocated than we are. (but not saying that dislocation is a bad thing).