Is social cohesion a moral good? And can governments influence it?
Are we at risk of becoming “an island of strangers”? The Prime Minister, backtracking on many fronts, has apologised for the phrase - he says he hadn’t read it properly before he said it – but he’s backed a grand-sounding Independent Commission that’s now at work to fix a society it says is a “tinderbox of division”.
Is it? Social attitude surveys suggest we’re one of the most tolerant countries on earth.
What do we mean by social cohesion? Is it something wider than community cohesion? What about the class divisions?
Is it important for us all to mix with each or a natural human instinct to cleave to those who are like you?
Is social cohesion a moral good in itself? And is ‘getting on with each other’ something that can be achieved by government fiat?PANELLISTS: INAYA FOLARIN-IMAN, LORD JONATHAN SUMPTION, PROF MONA SIDDIQUI, SONIA SODHA
WITNESSES: MATTHEW SYED, Journalist
SIMON LEVINE from ODI, a global affairs think tank
JULIE SIDDIQI, Community relations consultant
RAVI GURUMURTHY, CEO of NESTA, the UK innovation foundation for social good
Chaired by Michael Buerk PRODUCER: Catherine Murray
ASST PRODUCER: Peter Everett
EDITOR: Tim Pemberton
--------
56:53
--------
56:53
Is Privacy an outdated concept or a moral right?
ID cards are back on the political agenda, digital this time, being pushed by an influential group of Labour MPs, and – surveys suggest – public opinion, which is increasingly worried about illegal immigration and benefit fraud. Time was, when privacy was a free-born Briton’s birthright and a policeman asking for your papers anathema, the mark of foreign dictatorships. We live in a different world now where even your household gadgets are capable of gathering information on you. Is privacy out of date, or a moral good that’s the basis of freedom? Can we no longer tell the state – or Big Tech – to mind their own business, and does it matter?WITNESSES:
Kirsty Innes, Director of Technology at Labour Together
Rebecca Vincent, Interim director of Big Brother Watch
Dr Hazem Zohny, University of Oxford
Tiffany Jenkins, Cultural HistorianPANELLISTS:
Rev Dr Giles Fraser
Anne McElvoy
Lord Jonathan Sumption
Matthew TaylorChaired by Michael Buerk
Producer: Catherine Murray
Assistant Producer: Peter Everett
Editor: Tim Pemberton
--------
56:57
--------
56:57
What is the ethical purpose of the NHS?
The National Health Service is at a crossroads. Systemic pressures are lengthening hospital waiting times. Resources are finite. That’s why the government is coming up with a 10 year plan to make the NHS ‘fit for purpose’. But what is the ethical purpose of the NHS?
The ethical ambition has always been that everyone, regardless of their background, should have equal access to healthcare. It’s seen as a moral triumph of civilization and political suicide to meddle with it.
But when we look at the statistics about the effectiveness of care alongside other comparative countries – the cancer survival rates, premature deaths from cardiovascular disease, and the disparities of life-expectancy according to UK postcode – is it time to question this foundational principle? This is not simply a matter of which funding model works best. It is fundamentally ethical.
For example, rather than focussing on equality of access to healthcare, should the goal instead be the equality of health outcomes across society? In other words, should we prioritise care for the most disadvantaged patients? Or would doing so be addressing a symptom and not the cause of deeper intersecting inequalities?
Practically, it’s a question of who gets treated first. Philosophically, it’s a collision between competing notions of equality and fairness. Should we care more about equality of outcome – being equally healthy – or equality of access – treating everyone the same? What is the ethical purpose of the NHS?Michael Buerk chairs a special debate at the Nuffield Trust Summit 2025.Producer: Dan Tierney
Editor: Tim PembertonPanel:
Mona Siddiqui
Tim Stanley
Matthew Taylor
Inaya Folarin-ImanWitnesses:
Kiran Patel
Sheena Asthana
Tony Milligan
Jamie Whyte
--------
56:58
--------
56:58
Was Israel right to launch strikes on Iran?
Self-defence, as a justification for war, is much more difficult to argue if you strike the first blow. The Israelis say their devastating pre-emptive strike on Iran is a special, truly existential, case. A regime, long committed to their destruction was, according to Israel, within weeks of developing nuclear weapons, just one of which could effectively wipe out their state and most of its citizens.
How far does that justify the abandonment of diplomacy, the targeting of leaders, the collateral damage and death? And, by the way, why is it ok for some countries to have The Bomb- and not others?Witnesses:
Sir Richard Dalton, Jake Wallis Simons, Prof Mary Kaldor, Prof Ali AnsariPanellists:
Carmody Grey, Giles Fraser, Inaya Folarin-Iman , Mona SiddiquiPresenter: Michael Buerk
Producer: Catherine Murray
Assistant Producer: Peter Everett
Editor: Tim Pemberton
--------
56:50
--------
56:50
Is having children a moral duty?
There’s been a fair amount of focus on the concept of pronatalism recently and debate over whether it is left or right wing for governments to introduce policies that encourage women to have more babies. Others argue that the matter is too big to be consumed by the culture wars.This week, the United Nations Population Fund issued its strongest statement yet on fertility decline, warning that hundreds of millions of people are not able to have the number of children they want, citing the prohibitive cost of parenthood and the lack of a suitable partner as some of the reasons affecting birth rates across the world.For a country in the developed world to increase or maintain its population, it needs a birth rate of 2.1 children per woman on average. Last year in the UK, it fell to 1.4. Like many developed nations, women are having fewer babies, which poses economic problems as countries face the impact of both aging and declining populations, and a smaller workforce in relation to the number of pensioners.Why are people in richer nations choosing to have fewer babies? Has parenthood had a bad press? Is it too expensive to have kids or do people just wait too long to tick off life goals before they realise their fertility window has closed? And is it manipulative for governments to encourage women to have more children? For some, a low birth rate is the sign of a civilised society where women have reproductive autonomy. Is there a moral duty to have children?PRESENTER Michael Buerk
PANELLISTS Ash Sarkar, Giles Fraser, Mona Siddiqui, James Orr
GUESTS Caroline Farrow, Prof Anna Rotrich, Prof Lisa Schipper, Sarah Ditum
PRODUCER Catherine Murray
ASSISTANT PRODUCER Peter Everett
EDITOR Tim Pemberton
Österreich