The incorporation of wellbeing into British policy frameworks since the early 2000s reflects a significant conceptual shift: from collective welfare toward an individualised understanding of wellbeing, mirroring the broader ideological transformation associated with neo-liberal governance. This reframing emerges from a series of national strategies, beginning notably with the 2005 Whitehall Wellbeing Working Group, which sought a unified interpretation of wellbeing but ultimately settled on a vague, multi-sectoral definition. What stands out is the emphasis on individual empowerment, personal relationships, and self-actualisation, sidelining more structural or collective determinants such as inequality, social justice, or redistributive policies. By grounding its understanding in Sen’s capability approach, policymakers adopt a framework seemingly fit for promoting justice and empowerment, yet its implementation reflects an adaptation to market-friendly policies that valorise entrepreneurial agency over social cohesion. At the local level, initiatives following the Local Government Acts of 2000 and 2011 perpetuate this model: local authorities are encouraged to foster wellbeing by enabling residents to “solve their own problems”, as epitomised by the Big Society discourse. The case of Manchester’s wellbeing strategy—focused on optimism, resilience, and aspiration—illustrates how nebulous, self-regulated wellbeing metrics avoid addressing the embedded inequalities within urban geographies. Consequently, measurement systems like those developed by the ONS centre on subjective indicators—life satisfaction, happiness, anxiety—while bypassing material conditions, thus reflecting and reproducing the political malleability of the concept. Local wellbeing projects become tools of governance, not transformation, as seen in the Brent LBC v. Risk Management Partners case, where wellbeing policy clashed with economic priorities. In essence, the neo-liberal orientation of wellbeing policy reframes public responsibility as personal endeavour, reducing complex structural challenges to individual lifestyle choices and thereby diluting the radical potential of the wellbeing agenda.