It’s easy to imagine the ancient world as hard, unforgiving, and uninterested in the wellbeing of ordinary people, yet the Romans quietly remind us that societies have always wrestled with how to care for those who’re vulnerable. They didn’t have anything like a modern welfare state, but they did understand that a city, and an empire, couldn’t hold together unless people had enough to live on. That sense of shared responsibility feels surprisingly familiar.

In Rome, the annona – the state grain supply – became a lifeline. Huge quantities of grain were shipped in from across the empire and distributed free or at subsidised prices to the city’s poorer citizens. Taxes, rents, and provincial revenues made it possible. It wasn’t simply largesse; it was a recognition that a hungry population breeds unrest, while a fed population can breathe, hope, and build.

Later, under Trajan, the alimenta scheme offered support for orphaned and poor children in Italy. Money from taxes and state-managed loans funded regular payments to help them grow, learn, and thrive. It wasn’t universal, and it certainly wasn’t perfect, but there was a quiet moral thread running through it: children matter, and society can’t flourish if they’re left behind.

Even the emperors’ occasional cash gifts, debt relief, or employment through public works carried the same message. However self-interested those acts were, they revealed an understanding that prosperity isn’t just an individual pursuit; it’s something held in common, something tended and shared.

When you look at it this way, the Romans weren’t just building roads and aqueducts. They were experimenting with the idea that a community should look after its people – an idea that still shapes the choices we make today.

Brexit hasn’t just nudged the UK off course, it’s pulled us steadily into a poorer, smaller, and more divided version of ourselves. The promises that once shimmered with confidence have evaporated, leaving us with slower growth, weaker trade, and a constant sense that the country is working harder for less. Businesses have been saddled with paperwork that no one asked for, investment has drifted to Europe, and young people have lost freedoms that older generations took for granted. Prices are higher, opportunities are thinner, and the dream of a nimble, global Britain has shrunk into something far more fragile.

Politically, we were told we’d take back control, yet control is exactly what we’ve lost: influence in Europe, trust in government, and even harmony within our own Union. Scotland feels further away than ever, Northern Ireland remains caught in a web of compromises, and the country as a whole seems stuck in a permanent argument about who we are and where we’re going.

Brexit has left a mark on our national spirit too. It sharpened old divides and opened wounds that still haven’t healed. Most people now see leaving the EU as a mistake, and that quiet shift in mood says everything. This isn’t the confident leap into the world we were promised; it’s a slow unravelling, a sense of potential slipping through our fingers. Britain deserved better than this, and deep down, we know it.

It’s hard to ignore the chill that runs through moments like this. A respected historian, Rutger Bregman, delivered a thoughtful lecture for BBC Radio 4, only to discover that a key line had been removed from the broadcast. The line wasn’t inflammatory, nor was it reckless; it was simply his assessment that Donald Trump was “the most openly corrupt president in American history.” When he learnt it had vanished, he said the decision came “from the highest levels within the BBC” and that he was “genuinely dismayed” by the quiet edit.

And honestly, it’s difficult not to share his dismay. Free speech isn’t just threatened by governments or dramatic acts of censorship; sometimes it’s chipped away by small, silent decisions that trim the edges of honest conversation. Public broadcasters should be places where we can hear carefully argued perspectives, especially when they touch on uncomfortable truths. If historians can’t speak plainly about the subjects they study, even when those subjects are controversial, then our collective understanding grows narrower, not richer.

There’s something troubling about the BBC shielding listeners from a historically grounded criticism simply because it mentions a polarising figure. It risks creating a culture in which anything remotely sensitive gets softened, diluted, or cut altogether. And once that happens, we lose more than a sentence about Trump; we lose confidence that open debate is still welcome.

Moments like this remind us how precious free speech is, and how easily it can be lost.