As we continue to witness the growing levels of hatred in our society, and we listen to the insidious and disingenuous individuals stoking those fires, I often wonder; how long will it be before we see – or arguably need – another Battle of Cable Street?
In October 1936, thousands of Londoners gathered to stop Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists marching through the East End. (London Museum)
The “battle” emerged from the hardship that followed the international economic crisis of the 1920s, when many across Europe turned to more extreme political movements led by seemingly strong, charismatic figures. Communists and fascists alike called for drastic action, appealing to those who had lost faith in mainstream politics. The far right, in particular, sought to restrict immigration and blamed immigrants for economic hardship and social unrest. Does that familiar tone of “pure rage” sound uncomfortably close to today?
Skewed Values
Despite this understandable anxiety, often rooted in economic hardship, I often wonder whether the problems we are seeing today go deeper than money alone. Financial pressure undoubtedly matters it can sharpen resentment, expose insecurity, narrow people’s sense of possibility and make simple explanations feel more attractive than complex truths.
When households feel squeezed, communities feel neglected and public services appear strained or distant, people naturally look for someone—or something—to blame. But economic hardship does not fully explain the erosion of empathy, trust and shared responsibility that seems to be taking hold across so much of public life. Something more fundamental may be happening: our individual and collective values appear increasingly distorted, not only within society as a whole, but within the neighbourhoods, institutions and communities that shape how we understand one another.
Fear too easily overwhelms compassion; suspicion replaces solidarity; blame crowds out curiosity; and people who should be seen as neighbours, colleagues or fellow citizens are too often reduced to burdens, threats, abstractions or costs. When that happens, the language of value itself becomes corrupted. We stop asking what strengthens people, communities and relationships, and begin asking only what can we afford, measure, or cut and who is to blame? The simple answer to that latter question is, we all are. Because we have lost sight of the human beings behind every social problem, every public service and every desire to fix a social problem. The real question, then, is not simply what these divisions cost us economically, but what they cost us morally, socially and humanly—and whether we still have the courage to value one another beyond price. Sadly I’m not so sure that we always do.
Redefining VFM
There is a famous aphorism coined by Oscar Wilde – “A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing” (Act III Lady Windermere’s Fan -1892), where Lord Darlington is asked, “What is a cynic?” and he gives that answer. But there is also an interesting wrinkle to that phrase: Wilde had already used an earlier version in The Picture of Dorian Gray (1891): “Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.” So the idea was actually in print before Lady Windermere’s Fan, and Wilde subsequently sharpened it into the definition of a “cynic” – is it possible that perhaps Wilde had been aware of my eventual coming?
The phrase – or similar versions of it – is commonly used when observing social issues – and I’m utilising it here – because it’s pertinent. Wilde’s line has endured because it captures that distinction between price (what something can be quantified or exchanged for) and value (what something is actually worth in human, moral, cultural, or social terms). Which makes it applicable for issues far beyond money. For example, to criticisms of treating education, nature, public services, art, relationships, human dignity, or community purely in terms of economic cost or measurable output, rather than who they relate to human values..
There is also an irony here: Wilde was using wit to make a social criticism, not setting out an economic principle. And so many of today’s leaders do something remarkably similar and with wearying regularity.
Redefining ‘effective’ delivery of Public Service
Commentators such as Re:State, the self-styled “preeminent public services think tank” in Britain, have also drawn on Wilde’s phrase in their ongoing campaigns for public service reform. Like me, and many others before me, they argue that public services are vital to the nation’s health and prosperity; but please don’t lose sight of the people part. Today, perhaps more than ever, that seems self-evident: too many services, and too many organisations across our wider society, need meaningful reform and swift improvement; to better serve the people.
Many social activists will often focus on moral arguments [value] while overlooking, or dismissing, many of the financial [cost] implications. Whereas Re:State seem to be challenging the tired assumption that more money or activity automatically produces better services. Which is rarely the result. Once again, cost versus value becomes the seemingly insurmountable barrier between policy and outcomes—one that many politicians and organisational leaders appear unable, unwilling, or ill-equipped to cross.
Increasingly, “service delivery” seems to be judged primarily by cost, while the outcomes for people—the human value those services are meant to create or sustain—are treated as secondary. I find this especially troubling when services exist only because people need them, yet too often lose sight of those they are supposed to serve. Many organisations proclaim themselves “outcomes-driven” in mission statements and strategy documents, but too many have become mechanical systems that feed mainly on themselves.
Budgetary Constraints
I understand that achieving Value for Money (VFM) in public services is a difficult balance. I am not naive about cost: everything has one. But when costings begin to override values, society loses something important. Public services should help transform lives, strengthen communities and build a more dynamic society, with a stronger economy emerging as a consequence rather than becoming the overriding objective. Too often, however, we fall short because we focus almost entirely on money: the cost of services, the limits of available budgets and what can be afforded, while paying far less attention to the value those services create for people and communities.
Business Practices
Today, our service sectors – public and charitable – are often floundering around in the deep murky waters of commercialisation. A place where almost everything is heavily shaped by American business models. A place where service systems too often treat people as units on a production line. Individuals have become commodities to be processed, counted and traded, while organisations define outcomes through profit-and-loss thinking and measure success against KPIs set out in strategic plans. What is too often missing is any serious consideration of the unintended consequences and the risks that they failed to anticipate, understand or mitigate during those same strategy discussions. Because often, there appears to be little or no robust accountability across the service sector – until it becomes too late. And the only people they are truly concerned about are those within their organisations, who often sit near the top!
Nothing New
An interesting part of Wilde’s phrase is the fact; he probably wasn’t originally responsible for the underlying distinction between “price” and “value” that we use today. In reality, he merely crystalised – arguably one of the most memorable formulations in the English language – from a philosophical ethos that, in reality, has been metamorphosising over millennia. A basic distinction that clearly goes back much further than Wilde himself.
Aristotle — value isn’t simply exchange price: In Politics and Ethics, Aristotle distinguished between the use/value of a thing and its exchange value. His most famous example was essentially that a shoe can be used as a shoe, but it can also be exchanged for something else. The two ways of valuing the object aren’t identical. For the wearer, or the person who has no shoes. This is an important ancestor of the modern distinction: What is something worth as a human good? Versus; What can it be exchanged for, because something else is needed, and often, by someone else who – for any number and manner of reasons – happens to be less fortunate than me?
Early-modern thinkers – market value: Scholastic philosophers – like Thomas Aquinas – often wrestled with the question of a “just price”—whether the market price of something necessarily corresponded to what it was really worth. This subsequently became a major philosophical problem because; buying and selling involved moral questions, not merely arithmetic.
The “value in use” vs “value in exchange” distinction: probably the most important direct intellectual precursor to Wilde – In The Wealth of Nations (1776) – was Adam Smith, who observed the apparent paradox that things essential to life can have very little exchange value, while things with little practical usefulness can command enormous prices. His classic example was water and diamonds: (1) Water has enormous value in use but generally very little value in exchange; until today perhaps, but that’s a far wider conundrum for debate. And (2) Diamonds may have relatively little practical utility – other than adornments of vanity, or some industrial use [today], but usually have enormous value in exchange [currency]. A problem became known as the “diamond-water paradox” within philosophical circles of academia.
However, Smith’s and Wilde’s arguments were not the same. Smith was highlighting the danger of assuming that market price reveals what something is truly worth—an assumption that, as I am suggesting here, is often misleading and rarely sufficient. Wilde, entering stage left, sharpened that philosophical problem into a memorable line, simplifying a paradox that has troubled scholars far wiser than me for generations. Yet this distinction applies far beyond shoes, water or diamonds:
- education: measuring schools by financial costs, rather than intellectual development
- healthcare: calculating costs while overlooking dignity and quality of life
- care work: valuing paid labour while treating unpaid caregiving as economically invisible
- housing: viewing buildings as financial investment, rather than homes in communities
- environment: putting a monetary price on forests, while ignoring their ecological significance
- technology: measuring efficiency while overlooking human consequences
- public services: asking “What does this cost?” without asking “What is this worth?”
This brings us back to Aristotle: this philosophical – moral, ethical, political and yes, financial – problem is far older than capitalism itself. The modern variation of Wilde’s line— “An economist is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing”—cannot be attributed to him. Wilde’s original wording referred to a “cynic,” not an economist. The economist version is a much later popular adaptation, though arguably still apt. Either way, Wilde’s phrase captures an ancient distinction that remains just as relevant today: market price and human value are not the same, and they should never be treated as if they were. Yet too many people – within our modern business-driven public services – still do, and that leaves me feeling sad.
Today, perhaps more than ever, the government and the agencies responsible for delivering public services must urgently revisit their raison d’être. Their purpose is not to protect systems, preserve hierarchies or reward failure, but to serve the public with competence, compassion and accountability. Yet too often, those entrusted with delivery appear detached from the reality experienced by the people who depend on these services, while senior leaders continue to be well rewarded despite persistent underperformance. That is not merely inefficient; it is a failure of public and societal duty.
Now is the time to think outside of that comfortable box; by redefining outcomes that align budgets with genuine social needs. To build services around the people who rely on them, rather than around overcomplicated systems that too often fail them. The clue is in the word “service”: politicians and service leaders should remember that they work for the public, not the other way around. People shouldn’t need to navigate ineffective structures that deliver inferior support, while too many of those at the top continue to draw excessive salaries and additional rewards. It is understandable that ‘ordinary’ people are getting increasingly frustrated, and angry. An anger that is unfortunately also being preyed upon by some.
Unless meaningful action is taken soon, by policy makers and political leaders, the anger and division that once led to battles like Cable Street – currently bubbling under the surface again now – may well become a far more common occurrence in the future. You only need to observe the recent ‘occupation’ of the Port of Dover for evidence of my point. Which also leaves me feeling sad.
Dave's Bankside Babble 