In a fascinating new biography of Brian Abel-Smith, Sally Sheard describes how this towering intellectual LSE professor influenced a generation of social scientists, global thinking on health, welfare and poverty, and over three decades of Labour thinking. (Sally Sheard, The Passionate Economist: How Brian Abel-Smith shaped global health and social welfare, Policy Press, 2014.)
In some ways, Professor Abel-Smith was the first “SPAD” (not that we called them that then) – a politically committed specialist, brought in to advise and assist a Secretary of State (Barbara Castle first, then Peter Shore) develop and implement policy.
He was not, however, simply an academic, but also a pamphleteer, campaigner (helping set up the Child Poverty Action Group), Labour party activist (sitting on a swathe of working groups) and a Fabian. This latter both witnessed his astonishing ability to bind together expertise and evidence-based policy with deep political commitment in a searing practicality, but also the numerous hours he spent on the mundane tasks of Fabian committees, peer reviewing draft pamphlets and even the thankless post of Fabian treasurer.
He inspired, he wrote, he thought, he was an activist – but never in parliament. It’s said his loss to the Commons was due to his (then illegal) homosexuality which would have made a candidature difficult. What is not explained is his absence from the Lords, where his flair for working across boundaries, with a range of others and with an outcome focused approach to policy would have flourished and enriched the Chamber.
Let me say a grass-roots-friendly ‘hello’, Baroness Hayter;
because whilst any good that Brian Abel Smith set in motion should be recognised, and I do that,
nevertheless some scrutiny matters need also to be highlighted
and some possibly be relentlessly pursued:
(1) Why, despite all that leaderful Health. Poverty, and ‘searingly-practical’ work Brian was involved with, did he and the Teams he worked with and in deliberately foist into constitutional, legislative and common-parlance such conflations-of-clear-mind-functioning as
(a) “National Health Service” when it is rigorously and highly-expensively, despite being truly medically-successful,
Britain’s “National Hospitals & Illnesses Sector” ?
(2) Why did he/they fail to found, proactively-implement, and legislatively-constitute,
a true, and UN WHO 1978 Primary Health Care Declaration-friendly,
longest-possible-term sustainworthy
British Individual’s Wellbeing Support Service ?
distinctly separately from the dominant [highly-costly but nonetheless successful] UK Medical-Nursing-Pharmacological Sector ‘namely’ the “NHS” ?
(3) How far did so huge a mundane ‘drudgery-load’ blunt his insight and intention ?
(4) Likewise, how far might his social part-ostracisation have limited, even ‘stifled’, his part in
and the future of
a possibly grander statesmanlike spirit, such as of
Health-&-Wellbeing-Building
and of Lifespan Individual Human Development,
both of which were needed to be coherently established and genericly-publicly-delivered
– and still do ?
It’s said his loss to the Commons was due to his (then illegal) homosexuality which would have made a candidature difficult.
Unlikely, considering the number of prominent figures in all parties we now know to have been gay.
Clearly homosexuality has now become a whipping boy for every decision taken, for or against, a persons previous work or heralding. And it’s total nonsense. It’s simply another ‘in vogue’ lets use this politically correct statement to show how in step we are with our comrades views on the new mantra.
His sexuality had nothing to do with his acceptance or rejection, had it been he would never have found his way into the position he did.
‘Political’-correctness is the last thing any real-life issue needs !
I dare to venture advocacy
for This Earth
as well as for all of the Creatures and People that depend or dwell upon it
that what is Needed at all times primarily above and “trumping-wise” over, is
Life-Correctness.
By the definition of ‘political’ ‘Correctness’ is an impossibility:
because the first ‘skill’ the politician needs,
after using an opening line that is popularly- true*,
is to deliver a fallacy, falsehood, lie, or incorrectness, wrapped up in attractive sounding promises, ad baculums, and “‘we experts’ or ‘everybody’, knows it to be so”.
————————
We would all do well, in Lifeplace as well as Workplace, to serve primarily only The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But The Truth.
Incidentally, Baroness, under your topic heading’s between the lines ‘sub-topic’ “The _ _ _ _ That Never Was”
last week I needed rto seek Legal Aid advice, for myself and for my caree, as to how much legal support or protection we could get in order that we might pursue and practice the best in all-round Individual-‘tailored’ Holistic Health Improvement and longest-term Wellbeing building;
only to be told
(“) ‘Holistic Health’ simply does not exist; therefore even if you could fund us up front to the tune of £100 million, we still would be unlikely to win any legal support for to make your own Life-Plan, even if the prevailing Mainstream Authorities agreed to compatibilise their Care, Support, and GP Plans with such indivifdual Life-Plans.
So: sorry, your Case can not exist; therefore UK Law can’t help you(“).
Ergo, by a simple process of reasoning,
neither I
as an individual nor as a voluntary unpaid, part-trained, advocate, carer, cleaner, cook, platonic-companion, security & safety minder, and outdoor-escort; all 245/7
nor my caree as an individual and a care-dependent
“exist” anymore !
——————–
Maybe therefore Brian is luckier than we, now that he exists with God in Heaven ?