Moral Maze

Live debate examining the moral issues behind one of the week's news stories. #moralmaze

America’s Vice-President, J. D. Vance, has been talking about the end of the world, saying he “wouldn’t be shocked” if the Anti-Christ was walking amongst us. Most people are living incomparably better lives than generations ago - and history is full of warnings of apocalypse - so how should we respond to warnings of catastrophe and end times? Do such warnings encourage moral behaviour? Do they spur people to take action on important issues - or can they lead to despair and paralysis. Do thoughts of an end give life more meaning? Should we take threats to the way we live as a warning to look after our loved ones - or is it an opportunity to think more widely and work out how to strengthen our community ties. Which end of the political spectrum is more likely to resort to the language of doom-laden prophecy, and to what end? What does this increasingly apocalyptic view of the world tell us about the world we live in, the problems we face, and the society we’ve become? Witnesses: Leigh Price, Elizabeth Oldfield, Dr Ian Paul and Dr Daniel Nilsson DeHanas Presenter: Michael Buerk Panellists: Anne McElvoy, Matthew Taylor, Mona Siddiqui, Tim Stanley Producer: Catherine Murray Asst Producer: Jay Unger Editor Chloe Walker

A record one in seven people in England were prescribed antidepressants in the last year, according to NHS figures. More than nine million patients now take the drugs, and while they may be essential in many cases, the prevalence of mental ill-health – stress, anxiety, burnout – is a moral issue as well as a medical one. Why are more people, including under-18s, presenting to their GP with these conditions, and what should we do about it? Many clinicians believe anti-depressants serve an important function, including in milder cases, particularly where access to talking therapies is limited. This, they say, is both a practical and compassionate response to suffering, and a respect for patient autonomy. However, there is disagreement among psychiatrists, some of whom argue that everyday stress is being patholigised. They see drugs as morally hazardous in certain cases, since they alter mental sates, blunt emotions and create dependence on the drugs themselves, reducing people’s long-term capacity to cope. Beyond the clinical response, there are deeper questions to consider about our society and culture. NHS figures suggest patients in the most deprived areas were prescribed antidepressants 44% more than in the least deprived areas. Many mental health campaigners see the crisis as a social harm, caused by poverty, inequality and insecurity. They believe that rather than simply treating the symptoms of distress, we have a social responsibility to fix the structural causes: better housing, secure working conditions, and a fairer distribution of the resources people need to live dignified lives. For others, the crisis represents something even more fundamental: a loss of meaning, purpose, connection, and resilience. How should we respond to rising mental distress? Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Ash Sarkar, Giles Fraser, Anne McElvoy and Carmody Grey Witnesses: Ellie Cannon, Joanna Moncrieff, Polly Mackenzie and Mark Vernon Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Peter Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton

AI data centres are expanding across the UK and around the world. Tech giants and governments see them as essential infrastructure for future prosperity; the engines of economic growth, scientific innovation, improved healthcare and national security. Advocates believe they will bring about the next technological leap forward for humanity. But there are always trade-offs. Critics point to the immediate environmental costs; the demand for electricity, water and land. They question whether the promised rewards justify the sacrifices, particularly for local populations who face the disruption of new developments while the economic benefits go elsewhere. Are we, as a society, being swept along by an AI 'arms race' we didn’t consent to? Are we right to put faith in tech billionaires who prophesy a future of progress and human flourishing, or are we simply enabling more consumption? (Every video of Elon Musk as Austin Powers drinks around 4 litres of water). And even if AI promises to solve climate change and eradicate disease, how much are we willing to place on that bet today? Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Giles Fraser, Mona Siddiqui, Andrew Copson and Ella Whelan. Witnesses: Owen Espley, Michael Tobin, Carissa Véliz, Carlo Cordasco. Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Peter Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton

Reform's Robert Jenrick has described Britain’s welfare system as “suicidal empathy.” It’s also the title of a recent book by the Canadian marketing Professor Gad Saad, who argues that a misdirected sense of empathy can lead to favouring certain people over others – for example, the criminal over the victim. The idea has gained an admirer in Elon Musk who said that "the fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy". The claim is that unconditional compassion is not a strength but a soft spot to be exploited, clouding our moral judgements. Critics argue that empathy is the moral foundation of care for the most vulnerable in society and righteous anger against injustice. They see the language of “toxic” or “parasitic” empathy as laying the groundwork for inhuman treatment. Rousseau saw pity as the most natural of human virtues – an instinct which makes us not simply walk on by when we see someone suffering. Removing empathy, in other words, makes us both less human and less humane. Whether in the realm of welfare policy, immigration numbers or prison conditions, the philosophical argument is between those who say feeling for others is the foundation of morality, and those who believe empathy can be a moral liability. Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Mona Siddiqui, Tim Stanley, Sonia Sodha and Ella Whelan. Witnesses: Matt Goodwin, Paul Sagar, Philippa Smethurst and Luke Bretherton. Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Peter Everett Editor: Chloe Walker

Michael Buerk chairs a special debate from the Hay Festival examining the morality of networks. The release of the Epstein files has been a reminder that power often flows not just through formal institutions, but through webs of connection: political friendships, old school ties, and professional circles. There's been focused attention on how influential networks operate, and how access, opportunity and protection can follow. Critics say such cases expose a world where success depends less on merit than on who you know. But networks are not confined to the wealthy or the powerful. From journalism and politics to business, academia and religion, informal relationships shape how institutions actually work. People rely on contacts for jobs, introductions and advice. Trust is built through familiarity. Sociologists call this “social capital”, the networks of relationships that allow communities and organisations to function. Anthropologists go further: humans are a networked species, whose survival has long depended on cooperation, loyalty and mutual obligation. The moral tension is that the same instincts that create trust also draw boundaries. Networks build solidarity, but they also decide who is inside and who is left outside. Opportunity, influence and sometimes harm can circulate within closed circles. What looks like loyalty from the inside can look like exclusion from the outside. So when does social capital become social injustice? Are networks the glue of society, or the architecture of privilege? Chair: Michael Buerk; Panel: Anne McElvoy, Matthew Taylor, Mona Siddiqui and Ella Whelan; Witnesses: Aaron Reeves, George Pitcher, Andrew Graystone, Julia Hobsbawm; Producer: Dan Tierney; Editor: Tim Pemberton.

In 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal, endowed with unalienable rights... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. During his lifetime Jefferson owned more than 620 slaves. As America marks 250 years since the Declaration, that contradiction is impossible to look past: a document of universal liberty, written by men who denied it to the women in their households, the people they enslaved, and the nations whose land they were settling. One reading says this was hypocrisy - that "all men" never meant all men, that the rhetoric of equality was cover for the interests of rich, white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants, and that the centuries of struggle since have been a slow correction of a lie dressed up as a promise. Another reading says something genuinely radical was set loose that day - a principle larger than its authors, one that would eventually demand Abolition, Enfranchisement and the end of Segregation, precisely because the words of the Declaration meant more than the men who put their names to it could envisage. On this account, the Founding Fathers endorsed an ideal and left their descendants to grow into it. That same split runs through America today. The current presidency has departed from constitutional norms everyone had assumed were solid - over courts, elections, the press and the limits of executive power. One view says this is a crisis the Republic will survive: a serious one, but a blip in the two and a half centuries during which American institutions have weathered civil war, economic depression, and social upheaval, and during which the founding ideals have always held firm. The soul of America gets shaken, but it holds. The other view says the Republic was never held together by Constitutional Law - it was held together by a myth - a shared belief, perhaps deluded, that Americans would behave decently and that the norms would prevail. Once a leader has tested every one of those boundaries and paid no price, the myth shatters, and there is nothing to stop the next leader from going further. On this view, the current administration is a distorted reflection of what America truly is. Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Giles Fraser, Carmody Grey, Matthew Taylor and Tim Stanley. Witnesses: Richard Carwardine, Aziz Rana, Adam White and Claire Ainsley. Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant Producer: Pater Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton

If Andy Burnham has a four-word philosophy, it is 'the politics of place', a phrase he uses often. Burnham argues that politics must concentrate on meeting local needs, on the devolution of power and on 'levelling up' the places that have been doing badly. While he was winning in Makerfield, the Scottish Conservatives were winning in Aberdeen South, on a promise to revive the North Sea oil and gas industry. That too was the politics of place. Burnham’s philosophical opponents say that 'the politics of place' is wrong-headed. What really matters is the destiny of the United Kingdom as a whole. Localism, they argue, undermines national cohesion and elevates nimbyism. It rewards failure and punishes success. The Americans call it pork-barrel politics. The battle between localists and UK nationalists engages all politicians. Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party are by definition on one side of the line; the DUP in Northern Ireland is on the other. At Westminster, MPs go cross-eyed trying to watch over their constituencies and their careers at the same time. Boris Johnson created a Department for Levelling-Up. Angela Rayner called it ‘government by gimmick’ and abolished it in 2024. If localism is the answer for Makerfield, is it also the answer for Sparkbrook, where voters might like different licensing laws? Or for Adlington, where locals hate the idea of a new housing estate? Or for Harmondsworth, which doesn’t want a Heathrow third runway at the bottom of the garden? The politics of place; it looks good. But will Burnham, like Pandora, open this tempting box, only to release all the troubles of the world? In his victory speech he promised us ‘hope’. In the Greek myth, the gift of hope was merely a consolation prize. Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Anne McElvoy, Ash Sarkar, Giles Fraser, and Sonia Sodha Witnesses: Paul Vallely, Maxwell Marlow, Sir Paul Collier and David Goodhart. Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant Producer: Peter Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton

In his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, Pope Leo XIV warned that artificial intelligence threatens the dignity of the human person. Human exceptionalism - the belief that we are special, both within the animal kingdom and in the eyes of God - rests on a single distinction. We don't just think. We know that we're thinking. We have moral agency. Our religions tell us we have souls. That distinction is now under threat from two directions simultaneously. Firstly, we have discovered that the creatures we share this planet with are vastly more capable than we thought. Animals we considered simple-minded - octopuses, bees, parrots, elephants - can plan, learn, teach and use tools. Some display altruism, grief, loyalty and shame. Secondly, artificial intelligence and biotechnology are acquiring the characteristics we thought were uniquely ours. AI is developing personality, intentionality and self-awareness at a speed that has no historical precedent. The quantum computer, which Richard Feynman imagined less than half a century ago, is now being built. And in our laboratories, researchers are growing neuron networks and may soon create hybrid creatures combining animal instinct with human-like reasoning. Only our ethics stand in the way. If the boundaries between human, animal and machine are dissolving from both directions, the question is no longer academic. What - if anything - makes us morally exceptional? Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Ash Sarkar, James Orr, Mona Siddiqui and Tim Stanley Witnesses: Steve Cooke, John Milbank, Nick Bostrom and Carmody Grey Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producers: Peter Everett and Liberty Phelan Editor: Tim Pemberton.

The 2026 World Cup is the biggest in the tournament's history, with 48 teams playing 104 matches across three countries: The United States, Mexico and Canada. For many, this summer's competition reveals that the game has drifted irreversibly from its working-class roots. Ticket prices are prohibitive for ordinary fans. FIFA's governance has been dogged by corruption scandals. Money and power have thoroughly colonised its institutions. And human rights groups warn this tournament will be a “bonanza of sportswashing”, consciously deployed by a US administration conducting mass deportations of migrants, many of them Latin American, as soft-power cover. But others argue that markets set prices and fans made their choice. Commercialisation is the price of the game's global reach and football's globalisation has been a democratic force. Free-to-air coverage means the World Cup remains genuinely universal. For supporters of nations qualifying for the first time in decades, this is pure, uncomplicated joy. Some contend that those who weaponise sport for political protest are doing exactly what they accuse Trump of: subordinating the game to an agenda. And if moral purity were the admission criterion, no tournament would ever be staged anywhere. Is the World Cup morally compromised? Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Ash Sarkar, Giles Fraser, Matthew Taylor and Jonathan Sumption Witnesses: Minky Worden, Mark Littlewood, Kieran Maguire and Graham Spiers Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant Producer: Peter Everett Editor: Chloe Walker

A Labour leadership challenge would mean Britain could have a seventh prime minister in a decade. Each change of leadership promises renewal, but each delivers fresh disappointment. Meanwhile the problems compound: crumbling infrastructure, polluted waterways, a cost-of-living crisis, a planet warming faster than our policy responses. Why can't a mature democracy fix things it can clearly see are broken? In the late 1960s, Stanford psychologist Walter Mischel devised a deceptively simple test of human nature. A child is left alone with a single marshmallow and a choice: eat it now, or wait fifteen minutes and receive two. It measures willpower, impulse control, and the capacity to sacrifice immediate satisfaction for a better long-term outcome. Mischel's follow-up studies found that children who waited tended to grow into healthier, better-educated, more emotionally stable adults. But subsequent researchers identified a crucial caveat: children from unstable backgrounds, used to broken promises, were entirely rational to eat immediately, since they didn't trust that the second marshmallow would ever arrive. Britain, it could be argued, is living through its own national marshmallow test, and the results are troubling. Critics of the current political settlement point out that politicians face structural incentives to fix today's headlines rather than next decade's crises. The five-year electoral horizon means anything beyond it risks being kicked down the road: HS2, the infected blood scandal, Net Zero. Voters, burned by serial betrayal, rationally demand immediate relief on bills, welfare and petrol prices, even when the long-term cost is severe. And hovering over the whole system is the media. Twenty-four hour news demands a fresh scoop every hour, and social media algorithms reward outrage over reflection. If politicians are punished for nuance and rewarded for noise, and voters are algorithmically nudged towards the most inflammatory version of every story, is the entire information environment now rigged against long-term thinking? If voters rationally distrust politicians, and politicians rationally pander to voters, who bears the moral responsibility for our collective short-termism? And crucially, who bears the responsibility for breaking the cycle? Is it about radical institutional or electoral reform? Does it require a more uncomfortable kind of leadership: politicians willing to tell hard truths, and voters willing to reward them? Who should bear the brunt of any short-term pain? Can we demand courage from leaders we've trained to be cowards? And if so, how do we first rebuild the trust – and the information environment – that makes waiting for the second marshmallow feel rational again? Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Mona Siddiqui, Tim Stanley, Ash Sarkar and James Orr Witnesses: Paul Dolan, James Williams, Sonia Purnell and Karl Pike Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Peter Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton

Universities across the country are cutting back on humanities courses – philosophy, history, modern languages – subjects long seen as central to a well-rounded education. The reason is familiar: falling student numbers, financial pressure, and a growing insistence that degrees must demonstrate clear economic value. If a course doesn’t lead to a well-paid job, why should anyone fund it? That points to a deeper divide about what education is for. Is it an intrinsic good: valuable in itself, shaping critical thinking, moral judgment, and an understanding of the world? Or is it an extrinsic one: a means to an end, justified by the jobs it produces and the growth it delivers? For centuries, from Socrates onwards, education has been tied to human flourishing – to forming citizens, not just workers. But today, the language has shifted. Students are consumers. Universities compete. Courses are judged by salary. And the tensions don’t stop there. If education is a public good, why does access remain so uneven, divided between state and private schools, with women significantly underrepresented in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) – opportunity shaped as much by background as by ability? And as our understanding of neurodiversity deepens, a further challenge emerges. What if the system itself – built around standardisation, testing, and conformity – has actively hindered the prospects of many it was meant to serve? So what, ultimately, is education for? Is it possible to maximise economic potential and enable every individual to flourish? And if our system does the former at the expense of the latter, can it still claim to be a moral one? Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Mona Siddiqui, Tim Stanley, Carmody Grey and Giles Fraser. Witnesses: Maxwell Marlow, Julian Baggini and Jess Wade and Chris Bonnello. Producer: Dan Tierney Editor: Tim Pemberton.

Today, humanity reaches towards the Moon once more. The first crewed lunar mission in more than 50 years. But as NASA’s Artemis 2 lifts off, some troubling moral questions follow in its wake. Are the billions of pounds being spent a visionary investment in our future, or a luxury we can't afford while poverty, disease, and a climate crisis demand urgent action here on Earth? Who benefits from space exploration? The wealthy nations that lead it or all of humanity? Is there really a moral imperative to explore the possibility of how to live on other planets? And ... as we venture outwards, do we risk repeating the mistakes of colonial expansion? That's our Moral Maze tonight ... the ethics of human space flight WITNESSES: Dr Simeon Barber, Lunar Scientist at Open University; Dr Stuart Parkinson, Executive Director of Scientists for Global Responsibility; Dr Tony Milligan, Philosopher in Space Ethics; Mary-Jane Rubenstein, Professor of Religion and Science in Society at Wesleyan University PANELLISTS: Carmody Grey, Anne McElvoy, James Orr and Sonia Sodha PRESENTER: William Crawley

The Church of England marks a historic moment: the installation of its first female Archbishop of Canterbury. A symbol, many would say, of progress in an institution often accused of resisting it. And yet, even as she takes office, around 600 churches reportedly refuse to recognise the authority of ordained women. For them, this is not prejudice but principle. An adherence to theological conviction. It comes amid fresh scrutiny about the Church’s place in national life - from Prince William signalling a more modern, personal relationship with it, to the Green Party reopening the question of disestablishment. The Church of England is not just a religious body. As the established church, it is entwined with the state. Its bishops sit in Parliament. Its role extends, at least in theory, to the whole nation. It claims to be “a church for everyone.” And yet it operates with exemptions from equality law, particularly in its approach to women’s leadership and same-sex relationships. Defenders argue that religious freedom must include the freedom to dissent from prevailing social norms. Critics counter that an institution with constitutional privilege cannot also claim the right to discriminate. But there is a further tension. The Church speaks as a national institution at a time when fewer people identify with it at all. Attendance has declined steadily. Belief itself is becoming more marginal in a society that is increasingly secular. For many citizens, religion is not just optional but irrelevant. So what does establishment mean in such a society? Should the Church be brought into line with equality law or separated from the state altogether? And more fundamentally: can an established church still claim moral authority in a nation that is steadily moving away from it? Chair: William Crawley. Panel: Carmody Grey, Tim Stanley, Mona Siddiqui and Anne McElvoy. Witnesses: Andrew Copson, Bishop David Walker, Jonathan Chaplin and Rev Charlie Bączyk-Bell. Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Jay Unger Editor: Tim Pemberton.

Rising oil prices triggered by war have renewed fears of an economic shock. Governments are already under pressure to step in: to cap prices, cushion bills and shield households from the consequences. Yet crises were once understood differently. During earlier shocks, citizens were often told to tighten their belts, to accept rationing, higher prices and shared sacrifice. But memories of past hardship can also be misleading. There is sometimes a tendency to romanticise earlier generations’ stoicism. Today the assumption seems different: if living standards fall, the government must intervene. The idea of sacrifice raises difficult questions. Who exactly is the “we” being asked to shoulder the burden? A rise in energy costs may be uncomfortable for some but devastating for those already living precariously. Hardship is rarely shared equally. If sacrifice is demanded, how should it be distributed? There is also a deeper question about what we mean by sacrifice at all. The word is often used simply to mean going without. Yet traditionally it carried a stronger philosophical meaning: the willingness to give something up for a higher purpose or the common good. Some argue that modern democracies have become reluctant to ask citizens for such things, fearing the political cost. Governments promise protection instead, even when the resources to deliver it are limited. And yet the challenges ahead may demand difficult choices. From energy shocks to climate change, societies may have to decide whether they are prepared to accept lower living standards in pursuit of wider goals. So in a democracy, should citizens expect protection from every crisis? Does the government have a duty to be open and honest with us about the hard choices we face? Or do we have a duty to accept sacrifice when circumstances demand it? Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Matthew Taylor, Ash Sarkar, James Orr and Ella Whelan. Witnesses: James Bartholomew, Grace Blakeley, Rupert Read and Adrian Pabst Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: JayUnger Editor: Tim Pemberton

Relations between Britain and the United States have rarely been described as simple, but they have long been called special. Yet in recent days that relationship has come under strain, after a sharp exchange between Donald Trump and Keir Starmer over the latest international crisis and Britain’s response to it. For more than eighty years the United Kingdom has defined its place in the world partly through its alliance with the United States. But moments like this raise uncomfortable questions about how Britain should act amid a shifting global order. Some argue that foreign policy must ultimately be guided by national interest. In an uncertain world, they say, Britain cannot afford to jeopardise its most important alliance. Presidents come and go, but the strategic relationship between the two countries endures. In that view, the moral case is one of engagement, diplomacy, influence and the long-term security and prosperity of British citizens. Others believe that alliances cannot come at the expense of values. The Canadian prime minister Mark Carney recently warned that the world has entered an “age of rupture”, where the rules and norms that once governed international relations are beginning to fray. When Britain disagrees with its closest ally – particularly on questions of war and peace – it has a responsibility to defend those principles, even at the risk of friction or isolation. So in these extraordinary times, should foreign policy be guided primarily by principle or by pragmatic self-interest? What should the balance be between ethical idealism and strategic reality? Can interests and values truly align? And ultimately, what is the role of morality in foreign policy? Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Matthew Taylor, Giles Fraser, Ash Sarkar and Tim Stanley Witnesses: Jan Halper-Hayes, Peter Oborne, Christopher Hill, Jamie Gaskarth Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant Producer: Jay Unger Editor: Chloe Walker.

Conflict has deepened in the Middle East since the United States and Israel launched a coordinated wave of air and missile strikes across Iran, targeting military facilities, nuclear sites and the country’s leadership. Supporters argue the attacks were necessary. Iran’s missile programme, its support for armed proxies across the region and its long-running nuclear ambitions have convinced some Western leaders that waiting would only make a future conflict far more dangerous. In that view, striking first may be grim, but it is sometimes the least bad option. Others frame the issue in terms of human rights. Iran’s government has long been accused of brutal repression at home, imprisoning dissidents, violently suppressing protests and enforcing strict controls over women’s lives. To some, confronting such a regime is not simply a matter of strategic calculation but of moral responsibility. But critics see something more troubling: the deliberate bombing of a sovereign state without international authorisation and with potentially catastrophic consequences. Iran has already retaliated with missiles and drones across the region, targeting U.S. bases and cities in Gulf states, while Iran-backed militias have joined the fight. And the human cost is becoming clearer. A missile strike on a girls’ school in southern Iran reportedly killed at least 150 people, many of them children, though the circumstances remain disputed. While many Iranians are celebrating the death of their Supreme Leader, others are sceptical about the human rights motives of the strikes. Is it moral to attack Iran? Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Matthew Taylor, Anne McElvoy, Mona Siddiqui and James Orr. Witnesses: Barak Seener, Simon Mabon, Shiva Mahbobi, Jeff McMahan. Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant Producer: Jay Unger Editor: Tim Pemberton.

What is truth? In a special edition of The Moral Maze, we discuss perhaps the most significant question in all of human thought. It sits at the foundation of how we understand reality, and how we communicate and behave towards one another. The obvious answer is that the strongest possible way to arrive at the truth in a shifting world of AI and authoritarian control is through a commitment to empirical data and provable facts. However, this can only ever get us so far because truth is always told from somewhere. Even objective facts can be curated from one perspective. Stories about ourselves and the world have been necessary, alongside partial data, to keep the social order and to prevent us from being overwhelmed. The historian uses limited sources to tell a story about our past. Language constrains how we articulate who we are, what we do and how we think and feel. Where science falters in expanding the horizons of truth, artists and theologians step in with their own insights that truth can be discovered through poetry and mysticism. That’s before the postmodernists come along and state that what we think of as truth is constructed rather than discovered; that the ‘truth’ we seek doesn’t really exist; that it’s all a fiction to give our lives meaning and purpose. Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Mona Siddiqui, Giles Fraser, Anne McElvoy and Ash Sarkar Witnesses: Charlie Beckett, Fay Bound-Alberti, Mark Vernon and Hilary Lawson Producer: Dan Tierney.

Tommy Robinson's carol concert claimed to be "putting Christ back into Christmas". Church of England Bishops quickly pointed out that Christ never went away and warned about Christmas becoming another proxy in the culture wars. Many of Robinson's supporters are turning to Christianity. Some have openly stated that the Christian faith is a cultural ballast, representing British freedoms and values, and a defence against a perceived threat posed by Islam and immigrants. For others, Christianity and Christmas is being appropriated in the most un-Christian way, the Holy Family were persecuted refugees, and a central message of Jesus was one of radical hospitality for the stranger. This year, Christmas comes at the time of a wider debate about so-called "civilizational erasure" in Europe, following the publication of America's National Security Strategy. It boldly states that, within a few decades, NATO members will be "majority non-European", encourages the resistance - and praises the influence - of "patriotic" European parties, including Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD) in Germany, a far-right anti-immigration party. Is a full-throated defence of Christmas a sign of strength or weakness? What's the bigger threat to Europe: "cultural erasure", or far-right populism? Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Giles Fraser, Inaya Folarin-Iman, Anne McElvoy and Matthew Taylor Witnesses: Chris Wickland, Krish Kandiah, Eric Kaufmann and Adrian Pabst Producer: Dan Tierney.

As Australia begins its pioneering social media ban for under-16s, governments around the world will be watching closely. The move, which represents a significant challenge to Big Tech's dominance, aims to protect children from online harms like cyberbullying, grooming, exposure to violent/misogynistic content, as well as anxiety and depression linked to excessive screen time and addictive platform designs. Should other countries, including the UK, follow suit? Evidence suggests social media ‘doom scrolling’ changes our brainwave activity, affecting attention spans (children are reading less than in the past), altering reward pathways with dopamine ‘hits’, and influencing emotional regulation and social processing (combined with a decline in outdoor play). Critics argue a blanket social media ban treats all under-16s as a homogeneous risk group, denying them moral agency, rather than distinguishing between responsible and problematic use. Others fear a loss of mainstream online community spaces could lead to further isolation and push some teenagers toward more dangerous platforms or behaviours. Should children be banned from social media? Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Carmody Grey, Mona Siddiqui, Giles Fraser and Anne McElvoy Witnesses: Jennifer Powers, Timandra Harkness, James Williams and Tony D Sampson. Producer: Dan Tierney