BBC Sounds, Music, Radio, Podcasts.

Good evening. You didn't have to be thirsty to work at number 10, but it probably helped.

A hangover in every sense from the drinking culture that infused most high-pressure organisations,

though not the BBC, of course, my word no, in past decades.

That conviviality seems to have survived in Downing Street, long after its occupants

struggling to contain the COVID pandemic had banned it for the rest of us. The Prime Minister

stands accused of breaking his own rules. If proved, Winegate may not stand as high on the

index of political wrongdoing as, say, Watergate, but many think it could be curtains just the same.

The argument for the seriousness of rule-breaking is that rules reflect a moral consensus, and basic

rules are universal. So breaking them means crossing a moral as well as a legal boundary,

the more so for a leader who sets rules which entails suffering for those who do obey.

Sociologists will say, though, that how we're expected to behave and the rules shaped by those

expectations are essentially a cultural matter. In a culturally diverse society, there's less

likely to be general agreement about them, and it's less serious to break rules that reflect

a culture we don't share. And what should

happen to rule breakers? Is it enough to acknowledge, apologise, move on? Most people who broke

these rules got away with it after all. But should it be existential for somebody in politics,

which often seems to require a compromise between pragmatism and integrity.

For a Prime Minister, so many voted for, knowing he was hardly a stickler for rules of any kind.

Rules and morality, the moral maze tonight, our panel, Melanie Phillips, social commentator at the Times,

Mona Siddiqui, Professor of Islamic and Interreligious Studies at Edinburgh University,

Anne McElvoy, senior editor at The Economist, and the Chief Executive of the NHS Confederation, Matthew Taylor.

...