If We Are Serious About Cohesion, We Must Invest in Relationships

Intergenerational England’s response to Protecting What Matters

The Government’s paper Protecting What Matters: Towards a more confident, cohesive and resilient United Kingdom arrives at a moment when cohesion has moved from aspiration to necessity. It reflects a growing recognition that the strength of our society rests not only on economic stability or institutional capacity, but on the quality of relationships between people. Across the country, those relationships are under strain. Loneliness is rising across all age groups. Trust, both in institutions and between individuals is weakening. Everyday opportunities for connection are diminishing.

Recent polling from Intergenerational England brings this into sharp focus. While 84% of people say they are open to building relationships with those from other generations, nearly three-quarters (74%) report that their friendships are largely confined to people within ten years of their own age . This is the reality of modern Britain: openness without opportunity. The Government’s strategy rightly identifies the symptoms of this shift. But it does not yet fully grapple with one of its most significant underlying causes the growing structural separation between generations. This is not a marginal issue, it is a defining feature of contemporary Britain. It is also one that policy has, to date, largely overlooked.

A Divided Kingdom

Intergenerational England’s research, set out in A Divided Kingdom, points to a profound paradox at the heart of our society. We are living longer, more generationally diverse lives than ever before. In many communities, up to six generations now live alongside one another and yet, the spaces in which those generations meaningfully connect have steadily diminished. This is not incidental, it is structural.

Only 17% of UK adults regularly engage with people from a different generation in community spaces, falling further among older age groups . In housing, just 5.5% of children live near someone aged over 65, reflecting widespread age segregation in how we live . In care settings, only 7% of residents report regular interaction with anyone under 30, despite clear evidence of the benefits . These are not isolated statistics, they describe a pattern: a society increasingly organised around parallel lives. The consequences are far-reaching. Where generations do not meet, understanding diminishes. Where understanding diminishes, trust weakens and where trust weakens, cohesion becomes harder to sustain.

Many of the pressures identified in the Government’s strategy can be understood through this lens. Loneliness, for example, is no longer concentrated in later life; it is now widespread, with younger adults often reporting the highest levels. 45% of adults report feeling lonely at least some of the time, with the greatest impact among younger people . At the same time, social isolation is associated with a 26% increased risk of premature death, comparable to major public health risks . These are not separate issues, they are interconnected symptoms of a weakening relational fabric.

From openness to opportunity

There is, however, a striking contrast within the data. While structural separation is increasing, public appetite for connection remains strong. Intergenerational England’s polling shows that 79% of people believe stronger connections between generations could reduce loneliness and improve mental health, while 76% believe they improve overall health and wellbeing. It tells us that cohesion is not being resisted it is being constrained. People are not unwilling to connect, the systems around them are not enabling it.

Too often, current approaches to cohesion focus on place, identity, or individual groups in isolation. Programmes are commissioned, pilots are delivered, and short-term outcomes are measured. Valuable work is undertaken, but it rarely shifts the underlying conditions that shape how people encounter or fail to encounter one another across generations.

The infrastructure we cannot see

Cohesion cannot be secured through statements of shared values alone. It depends on the conditions in which those values are lived and experienced in everyday life. That requires sustained investment in relationships. Intergenerational connection should be understood as core social infrastructure as fundamental to long-term resilience as housing, health systems or transport networks. Where it is present, the benefits are cumulative, health improves, demand on services reduces, communities become more resilient and opportunity expands. Where it is absent, the consequences surface elsewhere, in rising pressure on the NHS, widening inequalities and a diminished sense of shared national life. This is not theoretical but is borne out across health, care, education and workforce systems.

Intergenerational approaches are improving clinical outcomes, strengthening community networks, and creating pathways into employment. They are supporting both prevention and participation often simultaneously. Intergenerational England was established in response to this gap: to bring together evidence, practice and policy into a coherent national approach, and to ensure that connection is not left to chance.

A system not yet designed for connection

Despite the strength of the evidence, intergenerational approaches remain unevenly embedded. Funding is often short-term and fragmented. Policy continues to be largely organised around age-defined groups. Opportunities for connection are frequently incidental rather than intentional. In effect, we have built systems that manage need but do not consistently build relationships. Without a shift in approach, there is a risk that efforts to strengthen cohesion will continue to respond to the symptoms of division, rather than its underlying causes.

What now

If the ambition set out in Protecting What Matters is to be realised, it requires a deeper structural response. One that recognises that people do not live their lives in silos and that outcomes are shaped across generations. One that invests in the spaces and conditions where connection becomes part of everyday life: in communities, in health systems, in housing, in education, and in work and one that moves beyond pilots towards sustained, system-level change. Cohesion itself is relational and that without deliberate attention to how relationships are formed and sustained, it will remain out of reach.

Conclusion

The Government is right to place cohesion at the centre of national life but cohesion cannot be mandated and it cannot be delivered through policy alone. It is built over time through relationships. If we fail to invest in those relationships, we should not be surprised when cohesion remains elusive but if we do, we have an opportunity not only to strengthen communities, but to renew the foundations of our shared national life.