Should the state make us happy?
Is it government's job to make us feel happy? Today a ground-breaking independent report published by the Government Office for Science answers with a clear 'yes': "Government polices and choices need...to nurture the mental capital and wellbeing in the wider population, so that everyone can flourish throughout their lives."
Even more radically, suggests politicians might develop "an over-arching mental capital and wellbeing measure" based around targets for every government department.
This is a huge idea - putting emotional well-being at the heart of everything government does.
In layman's terms, this influential group of scientific advisors is arguing that Britain needs to measure how happy/unhappy we are and develop a strategy to get more of the former and less of the latter.
Politicians find all of this very uncomfortable.The last thing they need right now is a headline to the effect: "As Britain heads for recession, the politicians tell us we must be happy."
That is why cabinet minister John Denham sounds so wary in his introduction to today's report. "Mental capital and wellbeing are in many ways very personal concepts" he writes, "but Government has a role in creating an environment in which everyone has the opportunity to flourish."
A 'role in creating an environment' is a long way from the kind of interventionist, policy driven agenda the advisors envisage.
They are clear that there is a clear economic case for significant government intervention.
Improving mental capital and wellbeing could have "very high economic and social returns" they suggest. Indeed, their report reckons there are a whole range of measures government could take in which "the economic and social benefits are likely to significantly exceed the costs involved."
When it comes to happiness, they are arguing, we are able to eat our cake and have it too.
Before we dismiss all this as unworkable, unachievable or undesirable, let us look at the price of unhappiness. The report does the sums and calculates that depression costs the economy £9 billion a year in lost production through absence from work.
Mental ill-health's impact on the wider economy is put at £77 billion in England. And they suggest those costs are about to rocket. Within thirty years, dementia alone will cost the UK £50 billion a year.
I guess people feel a lot less uncomfortable about politicians reducing suffering than the idea that they might dream up some Whitehall plan to have us all smiling benignly so they hit their happiness targets.
But it is arguable that social policy is all about creating contented, prosperous, happier communities. Targets to reduce people's fear of crime or satisfaction surveys about traffic calming, anti-social behaviour or pollution are surely measures of people's quality of life. The health service is looking to do more than cure people of disease - it is about improving the physical and mental well-being of the population.
In any case, government has been flirting with the happiness agenda for years.
In 2002, government strategists published a pamphlet entitled "Life Satisfaction: the state of knowledge and implications for government". It was circulated the following month and clearly stamped: "This is not a statement of Government Policy."
Its conclusion was that "there is a case for state intervention to boost life satisfaction". Who could argue with that? But the statement implied a redefinition of political purpose. Instead of simply making us richer, politicians should aim to make Britain happier.
"Government has got to rethink it's priorities", insisted Lord Layard - Labour peer and LSE economics professor. "I am hoping that each department will review its objectives and see how closely they are in line with the idea of promoting the happiness of the people."
The 'new utilitarians' have been nudging government towards a well-being agenda ever since. Local authorities in England now have a duty "to promote well-being" enshrined in legislation. There was a committee called the Whitehall Well-Being Working Group (aka W3G) which was a cell of happy evangelists beavering away close to the heart of government.
More recently mental health professionals at the Department of Health have been working on a well-being strategy which includes ideas on how government might promote "meaning and purpose" in people's lives through 'creativity, coherence and flow'.
To some this stuff is simply common sense. To others it is a dangerous expansion of the role of the state.
As ever, I would be interested in your thoughts.
I'm 
Comments
or to comment.