There’s a growing uneasiness across Europe right now, and it’s hard to shake the feeling that we’re being pulled into a darker, colder season. Putin’s behaviour makes it painfully clear that he has no real interest in peace with Ukraine; his actions speak of expansion, intimidation, and a calculated willingness to let suffering drag on. That alone casts an unsettling shadow over the whole region, reminding us that the peace we often take for granted is far more fragile than we’d like to believe.

Adding to that tension is Trump’s strange admiration for Putin, which seems to outshine his regard for Zelensky. It’s bewildering to watch a democratic figure praise an autocrat more readily than a leader defending his people from invasion. It deepens the instability, almost as if the moral compass of global leadership is spinning in odd and unpredictable ways.

What troubles me even more is the sense that the United States is drifting from its long-held partnership with Europe. For decades, that bond has been a pillar of democratic security, a reassuring constant in turbulent times. To see cracks widening now, when unity matters more than ever, feels like watching a bridge we depend on start to sway in the wind.

Altogether it paints a bleak, uneasy outlook, one filled with shifting loyalties and fading certainties. Yet even in this confusion, there’s still a stubborn hope that democracies can hold firm if we choose solidarity over cynicism, and courage over complacency.

Sir Keir Starmer’s signal that the government will step up its criticism of Brexit feels like the beginning of a gentle but necessary reckoning; a moment when the country is finally invited to name the truth that’s been sitting heavily on us for years. So many promises were made in 2016, and so many of them were built on sand: claims about billions for the NHS, effortless trade deals, frictionless borders, and a world queueing up to prioritise Britain. Those lies shaped expectations, stirred emotions, and pushed people towards a path that hasn’t delivered the renewal or control they were told to expect. Now, with a quieter honesty, the government seems ready to acknowledge that Brexit hasn’t offered the stability or prosperity once promised.

By placing renewed emphasis on repairing relations with Brussels, Labour isn’t trying to reopen old divisions; it’s acting out of pragmatic realism. Closer cooperation with our nearest neighbours offers smoother trade, stronger supply chains, and a steadier economic climate. It also draws a clear contrast with Reform UK’s politics of resentment and retreat.

Hopefully, Labour can offer something steadier: the belief that partnership, shared standards, and respectful dialogue are acts of responsibility, not surrender. Many people who voted Leave weren’t gullible or unthinking; they were hopeful. They wanted a fairer deal, more security, and a sense that life might open up rather than narrow down. When those hopes haven’t been met, people are willing to listen again, as long as they’re met with honesty.

There’s something restorative in this shift, because it gently invites us to stop pretending. We can admit that we’re tired, that isolation hasn’t served us well, and that healing begins with truth. If the government speaks plainly, avoids the lure of easy slogans, and offers a hopeful, cooperative path forward, it may help the country breathe again.

The negative portrayal of socialism has deep roots, and it isn’t really about the ideas themselves so much as the stories that have been told about them.

For more than a century, powerful interests have framed socialism as something to be feared, often because it challenges the concentration of wealth and asks hard questions about fairness, community, and economic justice. During the Cold War those fears hardened; western governments, media, and cultural institutions painted anything associated with collective provision as a slippery slope towards authoritarianism. That legacy still lingers, long after the geopolitical context has changed.

There’s also a tendency in public debate to flatten socialism into its worst historical examples. Instead of seeing it as a broad tradition with democratic, ethical, and community-centred strands, people often hear the word and think immediately of failed states or heavy-handed regimes. It’s easier to caricature than to explore nuance, and outrage always travels further than careful explanation.

At the same time modern politics rewards simple binaries. Calls for stronger public services, fair wages, or shared responsibility get bundled together as “socialism”, then dismissed as unrealistic or dangerous, even though many of these ideas already sit quietly at the heart of everyday life: the NHS, public libraries, state education, and the principle that no one should be left behind.

In truth socialism is portrayed pejoratively because it threatens comfortable assumptions. It asks us to look again at how we live together, who benefits, and who’s forgotten, inviting a conversation about compassion, community, and the common good.

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.