The Academy of Ideas team got together in the wake of Keir Starmer’s ‘speech of a lifetime’ to share their post-election thoughts in a wide-ranging discussion.

They also look ahead to two events:

The Academy 2026, the Ideas Matter annual residential weekend of lectures and discussions, which this year is titled ‘Hollow Leviathan: the state against the demos’, on 22 & 23 August.

The Academy 2026

The Battle of Ideas festival, the UK’s premier festival of discussion and debate, in London on 17 & 18 October.

Battle of Ideas festival

• Thoughts on what will happen in the election, including the fall and rise of the SNP, the Reform UK insurgency, the decline of Labour and Conservatives
• The much-forgotten 'double out' voters who want to leave the UK and voted to leave the EU
• How devolution came about and how the SNP went from opponents to claiming it as their own
• The rise of the 'lanyard class' in Scotland
• The prospects for the future - do we need a more federal UK?

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION The government suffered serious embarrassment earlier this year when its attempts to rein in Personal Independence Payments (PIP) had to be hurriedly scaled back in the face of a backbench revolt. But the scale of welfare payments today remains a huge worry – and there seems little appetite to bring this spending under control. Earlier this year, there was a furore about the scale and availability of cars through the Motability scheme, which runs a fleet of cars said to be worth £14 billion.

According to the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP): ‘In 2025 to 2026 the government is forecast to spend £316.1 billion on the social security system in Great Britain. Total GB welfare spending is forecast to be 10.6% of GDP and 23.5% of the total amount the government spends in 2025 to 2026.’ Of this spending, £174.9 billion goes to pensioners and £141.2 billion to children and working age adults. Going forward, an ageing population means these costs will continue to rise – and that’s without the huge liabilities for public-sector pensions.

Moreover, does the emphasis on state-funded welfare make sense? With millions on working-age benefits for sickness and disability, many worry that too many people are being incentivised to remain out of work. A new report by Policy Exchange, Out of Control, identifies how poor incentives and ‘concept creep’ have stretched societal definitions of mental ill-health and neurodivergence so far that public services are stretched to breaking point, with costs of support spiraling to tens of billions each year.Getting people into work would make them better off, reduce the welfare bill and potentially improve the economic outlook, too.

What is to be done? Are politicians prepared to have the difficult conversations, from reducing working-age entitlements to increasing the retirement age? Is the debate unnecessarily gloomy about the UK’s ability to afford welfare in the future? Or will we face an abrupt financial reckoning if nothing is done?

SPEAKERS Dave Clements writer and policy advisor; contributing co-editor The Future of Community

Lisa McKenzie working-class academic; author, Lockdown Diaries of the Working Class

Jean-André Prager senior fellow, Policy Exchange

Gawain Towler former head of press, Reform UK

CHAIR Rob Lyons science and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate

ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION

Heating or eating? That has become a burning question for many people. From struggling households to steel works and factories, energy prices remain a hot topic. Ed Miliband’s assurance that bills would fall by £300 per year looks wildly optimistic.

The cost of energy bills became a major political issue when a combination of a post-pandemic resurgence of the world economy and war in Ukraine sent the price of energy in general, and natural gas in particular, shooting up. Prices have come down a lot since then, but remain higher than before. The Ofgem energy price cap for a ‘typical household’ increased from £1,137 per year in January 2019 to £1,720 in July 2025 – a rise of over 50 per cent.

Supporters of renewable energy argue that the UK is still at the mercy of global prices for gas because ‘gas sets the price’ in the energy market, thanks to the way the ‘merit order’ works for wholesale energy prices: the most expensive form of energy that is used sets the price for everything. Generally, that is gas. Get rid of fossil fuels, we are told, and we would have lower prices and less exposure to world markets.

However, critics point out that the wholesale price is only part of the story. The retail price of energy includes a variety of subsidies for renewable energy that mean the actual price renewable producers receive is much higher. If renewables are really as cheap as their proponents claim, why do they need to be subsidised and why do countries that use a lot of renewables also have the highest energy bills? Will prices rise further as we use even more renewables? And if energy security is so important, why would we want to rely on intermittent energy sources like wind and solar?

In this session, energy experts will explain how our energy bills remain so high and what the consequences are for household finances and the wider economy.

SPEAKERS Lord Mackinlay director, The Global Warming Policy Foundation

Kathryn Porter consultant, Watt-Logic

David Turver energy policy analyst, Eigen Values

CHAIR Rob Lyons science and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court judgement in April 2025, in the case of For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers, was seen as a ‘landmark ruling’ in clarifying the definition of a woman as based on biological sex at birth. The hope was that by clarifying the law, women’s rights, including single-sex spaces, would be protected and, more broadly, gender ideology would wither on the vine.  Yet, almost a year on, many institutions have failed to stand by the definition of ‘woman’ set out in the ruling, instead promoting ‘trans-inclusive culture’. They have ignored the need to provide single-sex spaces for women, and retain policies that fuel discrimination against gender-critical staff, volunteers and visitors.

Is this surprising when the UK government itself seems reluctant to fully pursue implementation of the ruling? Having been in possession for months of clear recommendations from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Bridget Phillipson, the women and equalities secretary, has still to publish guidance on single-sex spaces. Similarly, the culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, has been criticised for her weak protection of women’s sport. Her stance focuses on ‘including everybody’ and continues to suggest that the issue of trans athletes competing alongside biological women is not clear cut. The Scottish government has been similarly tardy in implementing the ruling, even though the judgement was specifically against it.

What’s more, public-sector institutions, along with charities, NGOs and trade unions, seem reluctant to accept biological sex as real, and insist on an ideological commitment to trans-inclusive policies, at the expense of women. Many schools and teachers openly defy the ruling in order to support trans ideology, often acting behind parents’ backs.

Recently, trade unions and organisations such as the Royal College of Nursing and Unison have either openly supported action against gender-critical feminists and single-sex spaces or retreated into bureaucratic cowardice, saying action is not possible until guidance is issued. The recent victory at an employment tribunal of eight nurses from Darlington against their NHS trust bosses, who penalised them for challenging the use of the single-sex changing rooms by a trans-identifying male, is a positive. But why do workers need to resort to the courts and tribunals to ensure institutions and workplaces enforce the law?

Why are governments and institutions so willing to drag their feet on implementing a ruling given by the highest court in the land? What are the consequences of this for the rule of law, even democracy? How can we rescue institutions from the capture of trans and other ideologies? What is the balance between lawfare and building a wider political movement capable of pushing through change?

SPEAKERS Emma Hilton academic scientist, University of Manchester; interim chair, Sex Matters

Bethany Hutchison NHS nurse

Barry Wall creator, the winning mindset seminars; youtuber, Court of the EDIJester

Ella Whelan co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

CHAIR Claire Fox director, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION

Since 2020, the Academy of Ideas has published Letters on Liberty – a radical pamphlet series aimed at reimagining arguments for freedom today and inspiring rowdy, good-natured disagreement.

In her Letter – Abortion and the Freedom to Forge Our Own Fate – Ann Furedi, an author and former chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, argues that debates about abortion often focus on when human life begins in the womb. Instead, she argues that it is important to consider a different human life – that of the woman.

Furedi argues that the future of a woman’s pregnancy should be for her alone to decide, and this decision ought to be regarded as personal and private. There is no clearer illustration of the way choice, agency and responsibility matters than the consequences of a woman’s decision about her pregnancy, she says. To prevent someone from exercising their own choice, in a personal and private matter, is to strip them of their dignity and their humanity. Most importantly, she argues, we cannot respect the principles of freedom without acknowledging the freedom of reproductive choice.

However, abortion is still regulated by law and legal limits, which can lead to a clash between an individual woman’s rights and policy priorities. This was vividly illustrated by the recent backlash after MPs voted to change abortion legislation to stop women in England and Wales being prosecuted for ending their pregnancy after 24 weeks. The landslide vote to decriminalise the procedure – considered the biggest change to abortion laws in England and Wales for nearly 60 years – was met with horror in some quarters and not confined to traditional anti-abortion circles. For example, even some feminists argued foetal viability creates a clash of rights. So, is abortion such a clear cut issue for women’s freedom?

How does a decision to continue or end a pregnancy relate to a woman’s freedom to shape her own life? With abortion regulation in many US states as well as other countries becoming more restrictive, does this reflect public sentiment? If not, how should we make the case for bodily autonomy in the twenty-first century?

SPEAKERS Dr Piers Benn philosopher, author and lecturer

Ann Furedi author, The Moral Case for Abortion; former chief executive, BPAS

Margo Martin PhD student, Aberystwth University

Jacob Phillips professor of systematic theology, St Mary’s University, Twickenham; author, Obedience is Freedom

CHAIR Ella Whelan co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

This debate from the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 is, therefore, highly topical. Where should future energy policy go?

ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION

In June 2019, the Conservative government amended the Climate Change Act to insert a target of ‘net zero’ emissions by 2050. At the 2024 General Election, all the major political parties, with the exception of Reform, promised to back the goal, with any differences being about when to implement various policies, such as gas-boiler and petrol-car bans. Reform is well ahead in the opinion polls, and calling for the end of Net Zero and the resumption of fracking. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has said: ‘We’ve got to stop pretending to the next generation… Net Zero by 2050 is impossible.’ Is Net Zero gradually being ditched?

For proponents of the policy, climate change remains a clear and present danger. The energy and climate change secretary, Ed Miliband declared in May that Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are still backing Net Zero: ‘It’s absolutely central to their economic growth and energy security, as well as climate agenda … So as far as I’m concerned, they are 100% committed to this agenda.’ Labour has stopped new licences for gas and oil production in the North Sea and is committed to expanding renewable energy, with Miliband claiming: ‘People recognise that cheap, clean renewables beat expensive, insecure fossil fuels.’

But fuel bills haven’t fallen as the gas-price crisis of 2022 has faded. UK energy prices remain high by international standards, despite (or because of) the expansion of renewables, something highlighted by the need to rescue Scunthorpe steelworks. In June, it was reported that the government was planning to subsidise energy costs for energy-intensive industries. Sky News reported that in 2023, British businesses paid £258 per megawatt-hour for electricity compared to £178 in France and £177 in Germany, according to International Energy Agency data.

Will the Net Zero consensus break down further – and should it? At a time when China’s greenhouse gas emissions dwarf those of the UK and are still rising, does it make economic or environmental sense to decarbonise? Or does the threat of climate change demand that the UK takes a lead and we accept lower living standards to save the planet?

SPEAKERS Jonny Ball contributing editor, UnHerd

Dr Caspar Hewett lecturer, School of Engineering, Newcastle University; co-director, NERC FLOOD-CDT; director, The Great Debate

Ruari McCallion freelance writer

Ali Miraj broadcaster; founder, the Contrarian Prize; infrastructure financier; DJ

Kathryn Porter consultant, Watt-Logic

CHAIR Austin Williams director, Future Cities Project; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution

ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION

From immigration to an aging population, the UK has been experiencing rapid demographic change just as many mainstays of community life – such as pubs, churches, community centres and trade unions – are in rapid decline. Consequently, while individuals share a common geographic space they seem to live parallel lives, lacking any shared outlook, values and, in some cases, shared language. As Keir Starmer stated (but later disowned), ‘in a diverse nation like ours… we risk becoming an island of strangers’.

One consequence is that communities often seem about to implode. Many bemoan how once-feted towns have been replaced by low-grade sprawl. High streets now display the so-called ‘Yookay’ aesthetics of globally disparate food outlets, proliferating vape shops and barber shops of dubious legality. Young women fear for their safety amidst a series of random – and in the case of grooming gangs, organised – sexually motivated attacks.

Housing illegal migrants within local communities has fuelled protests and counter-protests outside asylum hotels. British Muslim communities feel they are under threat from the backlash, especially after the 2024 Southport riots. What are the prospects then for uniting communities? Or is this fragmentation one key component of why so many feel Britain is broken?

Failing communities once looked to political leadership or the state to help overcome problems. Yet as local elections approach, many worry that elected leaders will reflect and reinforce political and religious sectarian divides rather than overcome them. The police’s reputation is also tarnished. For example, the police failed to investigate grooming gangs for fear of being accused of racism. More recently, West Midlands Police were caught favouring vocal sectarian minorities over the wider interests of local communities when excluding Jewish Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from a football match in Birmingham.

Meanwhile, local councils seem to entrench divides. When locals hung British and St George’s flags in local streets, rather than recognise the prospects for uniting communities around patriotic pride, officials tore down flags while labelling flaggers as ‘racist’ and ‘far-right’ for wanting to celebrate their towns and traditions.

Who and what should shoulder the blame for the many recent failures? How do we create the places and communities that work for all that live there and which commit to common norms? Given cultural sensitivities and institutional failure to investigate the likes of grooming gangs, what are the prospects of the state finally getting a grip? And given the seeming drift to sectarian political divides, where pride in our communities and the nation is frowned upon rather than celebrated, how can we replace the ‘island of strangers’ and instead strengthen community and belonging?

SPEAKERS Dr Remi Adekoya lecturer of politics, University of York; author It’s Not About Whiteness, It’s About Wealth and Biracial Britain

Ada Akpala writer and commentator

Lisa McKenzie working-class academic; author, Lockdown Diaries of the Working Class

Graham Stringer MP member of parliament, Blackley and Middleton South

CHAIR Ella Whelan co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

First, economist and author Phil Mullan offers his analysis of what the Greenland affair tells us about the present and future of international politics. Then James Woudhuysen explores the changing nature of warfare today.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

President Trump’s insistence that the US must take control of Greenland has caused a furore, particularly among America’s NATO allies. Many are scratching their heads about why Trump went in so hard – including threatening new tariffs and even military action against America’s supposed friends on the world stage. After all, the US already has the power to station troops and weapons systems in Greenland thanks to a decades-old treaty.

Just weeks after the capture of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, the Greenland controversy was widely seen as the assertion of a ‘Don-roe doctrine’, with America asserting itself in its own ‘backyard’. One thing for sure is that the notion of a ‘rules-based international order’ – more convention than reality – has not been called into question as much in decades.

Trump’s over-riding concern seems to be China as an international rival. The Chinese government continues to demand control over Taiwan and has been marking out a zone of influence in the South China Sea and elsewhere. Meanwhile, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was viewed by many as the return of Great Power politics. Signs that Trump is more interested in settling the conflict than in supporting Ukrainian sovereignty only strengthen that belief.

How can we understand these new developments? Is this a sign of American strength or weakness? Is the world going to be divided into rival regional power blocs? With Europe now unable to assert itself, will it be marginalised now? Is there any chance of a new, stable international settlement?

SPEAKERS Phil Mullan writer, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

James Woudhuysen visiting professor, forecasting and innovation, London South Bank University

Victory for the Greens in the Gorton & Denton by-election is the latest sign that old political loyalties have broken down. In what was, even as recently as the 2024 General Election, a very safe Labour seat, Hannah Spencer was elected with a majority of over 4,000. Reform came second, pushing Labour into an embarrassing third place while the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats both lost their deposits. Indeed, the three mainstream parties that have governed the UK for over 100 years managed less than 30 per cent of the vote between them. 

What does all this mean for the future of British politics?

ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION

Are the mainstream parties facing extinction or can they bounce back by the time of the next General Election in 2029? Can the Tories recover from 14 years of misrule? Will the Labour Party survive from its current economic woes? Will the political vacuum be filled by Ed Davey’s Liberal Democrats or the ‘challenger’ parties like Reform or the Greens?

Take the Conservative Party: the oldest party in the world currently looks as if it is facing electoral wipeout. In a recent survey, 42 per cent of Conservative voters in the 2024 General Election said that even they wouldn’t vote for them. The party that squandered Brexit is desperately looking around for a purpose. Some Tories believe that Robert Jenrick poses a more credible alternative than the current leader, Kemi Badenoch.

But are they both fighting for a hopeless cause? Jenrick’s crime-fighting TikTok videos and Badenoch’s recent support of oil exploration got lots of media coverage, but Net Zero and the current failed model of policing were both introduced on their watch. Are they going back to their roots – if they can remember what those roots are – or are they simply mimicking Trump and Farage’s agendas from the sidelines?

Meanwhile, Labour seems to be imploding. A recent Ipsos poll ranked the current UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, as the most unpopular leader in modern times. In July 2024, his government won almost two-thirds of all seats, with a 174 majority in the Commons, yet a year later it is collapsing in the polls. The government has presided over cuts and tax rises, strikes and bailouts, two-tier justice and a zero-growth economy. The idea that if you pinned a red rosette on a donkey in Wales, it’d get elected no longer holds true.

Far from ‘smashing the gangs’, the immigration scandal that Labour inherited from the Tories means it is haemorrhaging support in Red Wall seats. Preferring Davos over Westminster, Starmer seems to prefer hob-nobbing with world leaders while taking British democracy for granted.

Yet the death of both Labour and the Conservatives has been declared numerous times before, only for them to revive. Is it too soon to count them out? Is Britain’s political map being redrawn, or torn up? Might proportional representation reinvigorate the mainstream parties? Must we wait for four more years? We’ll take a vote on it.

SPEAKERS Rosie Duffield MP member of parliament for Canterbury

Dr Richard Johnson writer; senior lecturer in politics, Queen Mary University of London; co-author, Keeping the Red Flag Flying: The Labour Party in Opposition since 1922

Mark Littlewood director, Popular Conservatism; broadcaster, columnist, the Telegraph and the Mail

Tim Montgomerie conservative journalist; founder, ConservativeHome, UnHerd and Centre for Social Justice

Graham Stringer MP member of parliament, Blackley and Middleton South

CHAIR Bruno Waterfield Brussels correspondent, The Times

This week, Reform's Suella Braverman declared that if the party were elected to government it would 'repeal the Equality Act, because we are going to work to build a country defined by meritocracy not tokenism, personal responsibility not victimhood, excellence not mediocrity, and unity not division'.

In response, Prime Minister Keir Starmer told the BBC that the Act represented 'basic values, one of which is should women be treated equally with men... I think it actually rips up something that goes to who we are as a country because I believe passionately that to be tolerant, compassionate and diverse is what it is to be British'.

What has been the impact of the Equality Act on British workplaces?

ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION

The British workplace is now too often a toxic environment, a hotbed of grievance culture, lawfare and an ever-expanding number of disciplinary codes unrelated to the nature of specific jobs. Over the past year, there’s been a 23 per cent rise in cases at employment tribunals and a two-year waiting list, due to a growing backlog, with workplace conflicts estimated to now cost businesses £28.5 billion annually.

How did this come about?

The UK is a world leader in human relations (HR). With over half a million HR workers – almost double the number of 15 years ago – Britain stands second in the global league table for size of HR sector as a share of all occupations. Over seven in 10 FTSE 100 companies now boast a ‘chief HR officer’ on their executive committee, reflecting the elevated status of this newfound ‘profession’.

We might expect this might lead to happier more productive workers, fewer grievances and higher job retention. Yet the growth of the HR industrial complex doesn’t appear to have led to better workplace outcomes or harmony.

Arguably, HR is as much the problem as the solution. HR departments – until recently humdrum administrative hubs managing payrolls, processing sick notes and checking firms complied with employment law – have now morphed into real centres of power. They are the enforcers of workplace orthodoxies, controlling what workers can say or do, who keeps their job, and even shaping corporate missions. For example, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) is charged with versing workers in new values, from DEI literacy to managing emotional security.

What’s more, the traditional defenders of workers’ rights – trade unions – are increasingly acting in lockstep with HR managers’ priorities. A recent paper by the Free Speech Union, Shopped Stewards, revealed the divisive nature of union bureaucrats’ adherence to identity politics, which means they often side with the DEI initiatives of their employers, as opposed to defending their members’ rights. For example, teacher Simon Pearson was fired by Preston College after a complaint from a Muslim representative of the National Education Union (NEU). Pearson was accused of being ‘Islamophobic’ and ‘racially discriminatory’ for social-media posts, such as saying Lucy Connolly ‘should not have been jailed’.

Another report suggests that specific legislation has led to a deterioration in workplace relations. The Don’t Divide Us report, The Equality Act Isn’t Working, reveals the ‘expansionary logic’ of the Equality Act 2010 has provided the legal scaffolding that supports a surge in (largely unsuccessful) workplace race–discrimination claims. This, DDU argues, contributes to a grievance culture where people resort to ‘lawfare’ to resolve ‘petty disputes and imagined slights’, while empowering thin-skinned employees to wilfully misinterpret perfectly innocent comments or interactions.

Can the workplace be detoxified? How can we tame the HR monster? Can trade unions return to a ‘one for all, all for one’ role of protecting workers’ rights? Can laws that are divisive in workplaces be reined in?

SPEAKERS Pamela Dow chief operating officer, Civic Future

Paul Embery firefighter; trade unionist; author, Despised: why the modern Left loathes the working class; broadcaster

Maya Forstater chief executive, Sex Matters

Dr Anna Loutfi employment and human rights barrister; advisory council member, Don’t Divide Us

CHAIR Para Mullan former operations director, EY-Seren; fellow, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development

ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION

In recent years, Britain has been rocked by several scandals where the public has been kept in the dark. Politicians and the authorities have indulged in obfuscation, denial, cover-ups and even possible collusion – all to avoid accountability or admit responsibility.  As with previous scandals, it’s often been grassroots campaigners, victims’ groups and courageous journalists who have brought these issues to public attention.

What was it like being a key player on the frontline of history in three of these recent scandals: rape gangs, the Post Office miscarriages of justice and gender self-ID in Scotland?  Journalists Charlie Peters and Nick Wallis, and Susan Smith from campaign group For Women Scotland, tell their stories of activism, investigation and holding truth to power.

GB News reporter Charlie Peters, presenter of the 2023 documentary, Grooming Gangs: Britain’s Shame, has called it ‘the worst race-hate scandal and abuse scandal since the Second World War’.  Meanwhile, Conservative MP Nick Timothy, writing in response to Sir Keir Starmer’s announcement that he would – at last – commission a national inquiry on the back of recommendations in Baroness Casey’s National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (2025), stated: ‘Rape gangs are the biggest scandal of our generation.’

The Post Office Horizon IT scandal stands out as another one of the UK’s most significant miscarriages of justice. Faulty accounting software developed by Fujitsu led to the Post Office prosecuting over 900 subpostmasters for theft, fraud or false accounting, resulting in wrongful convictions, bankruptcies, imprisonments and even suicides. Nick Wallis, a freelance journalist, broadcaster and author, has been one of the leading figures in exposing and chronicling the scandal.

For Women Scotland (FWS) is a women’s rights advocacy group that was set up in 2018 to oppose the SNP’s attempts to force gender self-identification through Holyrood. Even when the Gender Recognition Reform Bill was blocked by the Tory UK government, the then first minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, continued to defend the policy.  In a car-crash press conference, she famously refused to say whether double-rapist Adam Graham/Isla Bryson, who was initially sent to a female jail, was a man or a woman. The scandal caused a huge public outcry and has been partially blamed for Sturgeon’s sudden resignation a few months later. The furore also forged For Women Scotland into a formidable campaign group that eventually won a famous victory in clarifying equality law at the Supreme Court.

These scandals are only three of the many that have shocked our nation, alongside the Grenfell Tower fire, the Hillsborough tragedy, the infected-blood scandal and more.  Are such scandals simply a feature of modern Britain? Do they, as many argue, implicate the state itself as negligent, incompetent and mired in the tendency to cover-up and collude? What can we learn from these brave journalists and campaigners who have stood at the frontline, challenged politicians and the authorities, and held them to account?

SPEAKERS

Charlie Peters GB News national reporter

Susan Smith co-director, For Women Scotland; director, Beira’s Place; contributor, The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht

Nick Wallis journalist, presenter, BBC Radio 4 series The Great Post Office Trial

CHAIR

Claire Fox director, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION One consequence of Donald Trump’s trade war with China has been increasing attention to a group of minerals called ‘rare earths’. Rare earths are vital to the production of everything from smartphones and electric vehicles to wind turbines and advanced weapons.

Despite the name, rare earths are not particularly rare. For example, cerium is more abundant in the earth’s crust than copper. But they are spread thinly as trace impurities, so to obtain usable rare earths requires processing enormous amounts of raw ore at great expense – and with considerable environmental impacts. China has been willing to massively subsidise this process to support its own industries while keeping the price low, making the processing of ore uneconomic elsewhere in the world.

The potential geopolitical consequences are obvious: China’s rivals are currently utterly dependent on it. Years ago, China secured a significant proportion – almost a monopoly – of excavated rare earths in Venezuela, Brazil and other parts of South America and has now imposed export controls on many rare earth elements in response to Trump’s tariffs. China is responsible for 60 per cent of all rare earths mined but, more importantly, it controls the processing of 90 per cent of all global refined rare earth output.

Given that US is reliant on production plants in in China/Taiwan for its computer chips, it was slow to respond to the geopolitical power shift. China has already flexed its muscles in this regard, having banned exports of rare earths to Japan in 2010 over a fishing dispute (subsequently overturned by the World Trade Organisation) and has imposed export restrictions on the US since 2023. In May, Ford had to stop production at a car plant in Chicago because of the shortage of magnets made with rare earths. China has also placed an export ban on the technologies used to extract and separate rare earths.

A desire to open up access to these metals was said to be a major feature of Trump’s negotiations around Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. After Zelensky’s painful ambush in the White House, Trump quickly concluded a deal allowing the US access to Ukraine’s natural resources, especially the coveted rare earths. Some have also suggested that claiming these metals is one of the aims of Russia’s war.

What should the rest of the world do about China’s monopoly? Is it feasible to create alternative sources of supply – and what would it cost? Can innovation reduce the need for rare earths – or can recycling save the day? What does it all mean for the direction of geopolitics?

SPEAKERS Robert Fig partner, the metals risk team

Animesh Jha professor, applied material science

Henry Sanderson journalist; author, Volt Rush, the Winners and Losers in the Race to Go Green

CHAIR Austin Williams director, Future Cities Project; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution

Why did Trump act? Is it about narcotics, oil, democracy or his desire to create a 'Don-roe doctrine' of US dominance in the Americas?

What has been the role of domestic politics – is this the culture wars by other means?

For those who believe in that sovereignty is a vital right for nation states, should we make an exception here given the appalling nature of Maduro's regime or must sovereignty be defended at all times?

What's left of the 'rules-based international order' when Trump is not only intervening in Venezuela but threatening Denmark's control of Greenland, too?

Will the reaction against Trump's actions weaken the hand of populist forces elsewhere?

Andrew notes that while some things have shifted in recent months – from the Cass Review and the UK Supreme Court judgement on the meaning of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act to the start of Donald Trump’s second presidential term – it doesn’t mean that our problems are over. The ‘new puritans’ he identified in his previous book are still very much there and clinging on to their power and influence.

It's now five years since the death of George Floyd and the hysteria around Black Lives Matter. Claire and Andrew reflect on what the hell happened and the dangers that arise from a re-racialisation of society. They also look at how identity politics and racial thinking has led to a white grievance culture and a tit-for-tat outlook, which Andrew argues has more to do with revenge than with promoting a liberal society. 

Above all, the conversation focuses on the continued importance of the fight for free speech, even for 'cosplay' rebels like Irish rappers Kneecap. And they tackle the way in which woke has undermined the search for truth: when even something as common sense as biological sex is called into question, then anything goes – and society suffers.

The book is less about providing answers than posing uncomfortable questions. Are we in danger of making identities out of disorders? Why do some parents appear oddly eager that their children be labelled neurodiverse? Has SEN become a hold-all category for too many different kinds of issues and conditions, and thus an unhelpful term? At a time when schools struggle to fund SEN provision, is a growing ‘awareness’ of neurodiverse, and other similar conditions, part of the problem or the solution? Are there other reasons for the increasing rates of referral and diagnosis, and for rising numbers of children needing support in class?

As the SEN agenda becomes a greater part of the school experience, is teacher autonomy being undermined by the expectation that they follow scripts produced by SENCOs and SEN departments for some pupils and lessons? How are mainstream schools expected to cope with students who are unable to regulate themselves against sudden, intense, and uncontrolled expressions of emotion or aggression? Instead of experts being brought in to teach teachers how to teach pupils with neurodiverse conditions or other special educational needs – wouldn’t it be better if experts taught these kids in specialist schools? Or is the problem of inclusion, and the variety and nature of the needs children bring to the classroom, more complicated than that?

SPEAKER Dave Clements writer and policy adviser; contributing co-editor, The Future of Community

The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill does not sound like the kind of legislation that will set your pulse racing. But one part of it in particular should be more widely known and the cause of great concern: the new eligibility verification powers for welfare recipients.

Essentially, if the Bill passes, the government will be able to demand that banks trawl through the accounts of anyone receiving welfare benefits and use algorithms to flag up any possible fraud or erroneous payments. The government already has the power to see bank statements from those who are suspected of welfare fraud, but these new powers go much further, automating these checks on any account receiving welfare payments AND any linked accounts, too. This is guilty-until-proven-innocent stuff.

The civil liberties implications are very serious.

Ever since the great financial crisis of 2008, growth in Britain – both in terms of GDP and living standards – has stagnated. While the Covid pandemic and lockdowns didn’t help, the problems of the UK economy (indeed, most Western developed economies) are longstanding. What has gone wrong?

Labour has promised a return to growth, yet the new government has already announced big hikes in taxes like employers’ National Insurance, while promising billions in investment into decarbonising the electricity grid and imposing regulations on everyone from car manufacturers to house builders. Unsurprisingly, the economy only just avoided a technical recession in the second half of last year and GDP per capita has fallen.

For Lord Jon Moynihan, author of the recent two-volume Return to Growth: How to Fix the Economy, the blame lies with high levels of taxation and government spending – particularly spending on growth-stifling projects and programmes. In advance of the latest forecasts from the Office for Budgetary Responsibility and Rachel Reeves’s spring statement, what should we do to revive the economy?

So, to help you to see what all the fuss is about, Liverpool fan Alastair Donald brought together our own Geoff Kidder and QPR season-ticket holder Simon McKeon alongside – hot from the Lords front line debating the legislation – Claire Fox, and two of the most vocal speakers on the topic: Baroness (Natalie) Evans of Bowes Park and Lord (Nick) Markham.

Sall Grover is the founder of the female-only app, Giggle for Girls and Katherine Deves is one of her legal team. Both have been visiting the UK from Australia to get support for their appeal of an important test-case decision on the definition of ‘woman’, which Sall lost last year.

It all began when then 54-year-old biological male Roxanne Tickle from New South Wales, who identifies as a woman, complained to the Australian Human Rights Commission when moderators withdrew his access to Giggle for Girls, because - well, to state the obvious - the app is exclusively for women. However, when the subsequent case (known as Tickle v Giggle) was tried at the Federal Court, Justice Robert Bromwich concluded that, according to Australian law, sex is ‘changeable and not necessarily binary’. The ruling effectively eradicated the category of sex in law. The decision set a dangerous legal precedent with international implications, summed up by Jo Bartosch’s headline at the time: ‘Australia has abolished womanhood’. 

They talk about the case, the pros and cons of facial recognition (which the app used to determine who was a woman and who wasn’t), lawfare, the #MeToo movement and how human rights NGOs have become enmeshed in trans ideology. They also discuss the real-world impact of this trend for the likes of Scottish nurse Sandie Peggie, who was suspended from Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy, Fife, in January 2024 after she objected to Dr ‘Beth’ Upton (Theodore Upton) - who identifies as a woman but is a biological male - using the female staff changing facilities.

• Why farmers are so angry about the Labour government's inheritance tax changes
• The existing difficulties with making a good living from farming, particularly the power of supermarkets
• Why it is unfair to blame sheep and cattle farmers for climate change
• The failure of many politicians to understand why a farm is more than just a business
• Why, despite all the difficulties, they continue to want to farm - if the government will let them.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

In many areas of life, an explosion of diagnostic labels seem to have expanded far beyond straightforward medical prognosis. Medicine seems to have become tangled up with fashionable identities, and a zeitgeist that stresses vulnerability and victimhood. How do such trends affect medical ethics, let alone reliable medical interventions?

One such example is the jokey aphorism ‘we’re all neurodiverse now’ – from the lawyer of the QAnon Shaman blaming his client’s behaviour on his autism to rising diagnoses among students. In workplaces and university campuses, neurodiversity awareness is ubiquitous, with more and more people identifying as ‘on the spectrum’. According to some estimates, as many as 20 per cent of the global population are neurodivergent, spanning everything from severe autism to dyslexia and ADHD. Particularly among women, there has been a sharp increase in ADHD diagnoses in the last year, with record numbers of prescriptions for ADHD medicine in 2024 – the UK is in fact suffering from an ADHD medicine shortage because of increased demand.

Elsewhere, there is contention over the explosion of young people who self-identity as gender dysphoric. A readiness to accept social transitioning in what has been described as social contagion amongst teenage girls has led to the conclusion that anyone declaring themselves gender-confused is in need of medical intervention, whether psychotherapeutic, biomedical or surgical. Advocates of transgender medicine argue against medical ‘gatekeeping’, demanding access to hormones and surgery as part of a patient’s bodily autonomy. However, some mental-health practitioners in the UK and US have testified that they face ideological pressure to put dysphoric patients on a medical pathway. In a 2021 study, 55 detransitioners of a group of 100 stated that they were not given an adequate professional evaluation before receiving clearance for medical transition. What’s more, some gender-critical commentators suggest that there is pressure to misdiagnose the confusions of puberty, same-sex attraction and broader mental-health issues as simply gender dysphoria.

Central to the debate is the premise that doctors, nurses and therapists are obliged to act in a patient’s best interests. But is it always clear what these interests are? Should individuals and their families get the final say? Is the rise in diagnoses due to an actual rise in numbers, expanding definitions, or clinicians and therapists getting better at identifying symptoms? Or are we over-diagnosing the likes of neurodiversity and gender-dysphoria, even pathologising behaviour which in the past may have been described as shy, socially awkward or perhaps a bit quirky? Do medical diagnoses help people understand their difficulties in interacting with the world by giving them a vocabulary and practical accommodations that help manage and alleviate debilitating discomforts? And what are the implications for medical ethics and health policy, when diagnoses have become so closely linked to understanding our identities?

SPEAKERS Dave Clements writer and policy advisor; contributing co-editor The Future of Community

Dr Jennifer Cunningham retired community paediatrician; board member, Scottish Union for Education (SUE)

Dr Az Hakeem consulting psychiatrist; author, Trans and Detrans

Sophie Spital speaker; writer; former editor, Triggernometry

CHAIR Sally Millard director of finance; co-founder, AoI Parents Forum

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

In July, on the eve of the General Election, Keir Starmer was asked if he could foresee ‘any circumstances’ in which the UK would rejoin the EU’s single market ‘in his life’. His response was an emphatic ‘no’. Yet it is clear that Labour wants to ‘reset’ the UK’s relations with Europe. Reports in July suggested the German government wants to expand Starmer’s offer of security cooperation into a ‘mega-deal’ that encompasses everything from agricultural rules to the Erasmus student exchange programme.

In the period after the UK left the EU, there were considerable difficulties for many businesses in working out how to trade with the EU, despite a deal that largely dispensed with tariffs on goods. Many difficulties remain – particularly with Northern Ireland’s status, having a foot in both the EU and the UK markets. Many commentators believe leaving the single market was a mistake that is hitting the UK’s economic growth.

But others believe that Brexit has had little impact on the economy. The UK’s economic problems are longstanding, they argue, and have much more to do with a lack of investment and slow productivity growth than with our trading relations with the EU. The pandemic lockdowns and the energy-price crisis were much more important ‘headwinds’ than Brexit. Others believe recent UK administrations have failed to take full advantage of the post-Brexit freedoms to deregulate and pursue other national economic policy opportunities.

Moreover, recent UK GDP figures compare favourably with similar countries – Germany, France and Italy – in the EU. Indeed, former European Central Bank boss Mario Draghi has admitted to having ‘nightmares’ over Europe’s lack of competitiveness and future economic prospects. And there are persistent concerns about being in the single market without being in the EU – that the UK would end up being a ‘rule taker’ rather than a ‘rule maker’ – while being obliged to accept free movement.

How far can Starmer go in forging closer ties with the EU when there is little appetite for reviving the debate about Brexit? Has leaving the single market been an economic disaster as some claim? Or is this yesterday’s news, distracting us from the policies we need at home to revive the economy?

SPEAKERS Catherine McBride economist; fellow, Centre for Brexit Policy

Ali Miraj broadcaster; founder, the Contrarian Prize; infrastructure financier; DJ

Dr Thomas Sampson associate professor, LSE; associate in Trade programme, Centre for Economic Performance

Gawain Towler former head of press, Reform UK

CHAIR Phil Mullan writer, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

Smartphones have become almost ubiquitous in modern society. The rise of social-media services, which have billions of users worldwide, has gone hand in hand with the use of smartphones. Few technologies have seen such rapid adoption. With concerns about several social problems coming to the fore in recent years, a variety of commentators have pointed to this new technology as an important cause. But in this case, does correlation really equal causation?

One problem is how we discuss social and political issues. Social media has democratised political debate. But that debate seems increasingly polarised and toxic, with social media being blamed by many for the summer riots in the UK and Elon Musk being the target of hatred from some for his relatively liberal approach to posts on X/Twitter. The rise of AI, particularly the ease of making ‘deep fakes’, has complicated matters further, making it harder for voters to figure out what candidates really believe or potentially stirring up conflict – as illustrated by fake audio of London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, earlier this year.

There are also worries – most prominently expressed by Professor Jonathan Haidt – that spending so much time looking at devices has damaged children’s mental health, sense of independence and concentration spans. High-profile head teacher Katherine Birbalsingh has caused controversy by banning smartphones from the classrooms at Michaela School in London, a trend now mirrored in state-wide bans on smartphones in schools in some parts of America.

But do such concerns over-inflate the importance of technology? For example, one worry is the decline of children’s independent play and travel – but this has been a trend for decades in much of the West, leading to debates about ‘cotton wool’ kids. Haidt himself has pointed to this as part of the problem. Declining mental health, for children and adults, has also been a concern for many years, but how much of it is new and how much is a result of expanding definitions of mental illness is unclear.

Is new technology really responsible for these social trends – or is it mere coincidence? What else might explain these changes – and what should we do about to tackle such problems?

SPEAKERS Lord James Bethell former health minister; member, House of Lords

Andrew Doyle presenter, Free Speech Nation, GB News; writer and comedian; author, The New Puritans and Free Speech and Why It Matters

Timandra Harkness journalist, writer and broadcaster; author, Technology is Not the Problem and Big Data: does size matter?; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree

Sandy Starr deputy director, Progress Educational Trust; author, AI: Separating Man from Machine

CHAIR Rob Lyons science and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION With concerns growing about potential blackouts on cold winter evenings with little wind, listen to this debate on what is happening to UK energy, particularly with the arrival of the new Labour government.

The Labour government has set out an ambitious goal to decarbonise the UK’s electricity supply by 2030. Labour’s plan includes prioritising renewable energy sources like wind and solar power while reducing the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels. In line with this, the government has indicated it may halt new licences for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. The government also announced the creation of Great British Energy, a publicly funded body to invest in renewable energy. The energy secretary, Ed Miliband, claims these measures will make the UK’s electricity supply greener, more secure and cheaper.

However, there are plenty of commentators warning about the feasibility and impact of this strategy. Renewable energy, while crucial to achieving decarbonisation, is notoriously unpredictable. The sun doesn’t always shine, and the wind doesn’t always blow, leading to concerns about the reliability of the energy supply – unless renewables are backed up in some way, whether by gas-powered plants, rising imports or expensive storage. Far from being cheaper than fossil fuels, critics note, renewable energy continues to need substantial subsidies, which are even more glaring as the price of gas has returned to more normal levels following the energy-price crisis of recent years.

Moreover, most of the UK’s nuclear power stations, which have long provided a steady and reliable source of low-carbon electricity, are set to close between 2026 and 2030. Replacements for them are still a long way off, with Hinkley Point C years behind target and Sizewell C still tied up in paperwork and court cases. The previous government’s plan to produce 24 gigawatts (GW) of power from nuclear sources by 2050 – up from 6 GW now – seems increasingly over-optimistic. Indeed, Labour already seems to be getting cold feet on a proposed nuclear-power plant in north Wales.

Will Labour’s energy strategy lead to a cheaper, more secure electricity supply, as it claims? Or are we on the brink of an energy crisis, with higher costs and increased vulnerability to blackouts? Are higher bills a price worth paying to tackle climate change or, when global emissions are still climbing, a pointless sacrifice of British jobs and living standards?

SPEAKERS Dr Shahrar Ali former deputy leader, Green Party

Lord David Frost member of the House of Lords

Prof Dr Michaela Kendall CEO, Adelan; UK Hydrogen Champion for Mission Innovation, UK Government

James Woudhuysen visiting professor, forecasting and innovation, London South Bank University

CHAIR Rob Lyons science and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

With Parliament about to vote on the issue for the first time since 2015, join us for a discussion on the rights and wrongs of legalisation.

The House of Commons will vote on Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on 29 November. The Bill claims to ‘allow adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life’, although there have been complaints publishing the full text of the Bill.

While assisted suicide is currently illegal in the UK, the proposed legislation would make an exception on request for patients with six months left to live, with permission from medical professionals. Leadbeater presents assisted suicide as a matter of free choice and dignity, and argues that those without the option will take the situation into their own hands, causing unnecessary distress for those around them.

However, there are doubts – including from the health secretary, Wes Streeting – that the bill will guard effectively against situations in which people are coerced to die, either by family members or by a state that is too often incapable of providing adequate palliative care. In the US state of Oregon, whose Death With Dignity Act bears resemblance to the UK’s Terminally Ill Adults Bill, a majority of people who choose to die cite fears about becoming a burden for their loved ones.

Is the current law a ‘cruel mess,’ to quote campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen – or is it necessary to prevent slippery slopes? Could the interests of our welfare state undermine the Bill’s protections? And how should we square a patient’s freedom of choice with existing frameworks of medical ethics?

SPEAKERS

James Esses barrister; writer, commentator and advocate, specialising in the impact of ideology on society; co-founder, Thoughtful Therapists

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain MBE chair, Dignity in Dying, the UK’s leading campaign for a change in the law on assisted dying; head of the Rabbinic Court of Great Britain; author of several books with the central theme of reforming Judaism, including The Naked Rabbi: His Colourful Life, Campaigns and Controversies and Confessions of a Rabbi.

Sonia Sodha chief leader writer at the Observer and a Guardian/Observer columnist. She also makes documentaries on economic and social issues for Radio 4 and appears regularly on the BBC, Sky News and Channel 4 as a political commentator.

Professor Kevin Yuill emeritus professor of history, University of Sunderland; author, Assisted Suicide: the liberal, humanist case against legalization.

CHAIR Claire Fox director, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

The case of Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson has drawn attention to the scale of policing (quite literally) of speech in the UK today. Pearson’s lawyer in the case is Luke Gittos - a partner at Murray Hughman solicitors in London and director of Freedom Law Clinic, as well as a regular Battle of Ideas festival speaker.  

In this exclusive video, Luke reflects on the Pearson case before discussing the role of hate crime, how non-crime hate incidents became so ubiquitous, his views on the policing of speech, and how public pressure is vital in pushing back against these iniquitous and censorious measures.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION In 2018, the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) was introduced at the World Cup in Russia – and the arguments about it haven’t stopped since, with complaints that decisions are still often wrong while lengthy reviews cause confusion and frustration.

Using technology to help referees get important decisions right seemed like such a good idea. For example, in 2010, England midfielder Frank Lampard famously had a goal against Germany in the World Cup disallowed, despite the ball clearly crossing the goal line. One result was the introduction of technology that can tell the referee instantly if the ball has crossed the goal-line. However, goal-line technology can only assist with one source of refereeing error. VAR enables a wider range of decisions to be reviewed.

One criticism is that VAR is still subject to human subjectivity and fallibility, as it depends on how referees view and apply the rules, with incorrect decisions still being made and with inconsistency between matches. The most high-profile VAR error occurred last autumn, when confused communication between the on-pitch referee and the VAR meant a goal by Liverpool against Tottenham Hotspur was erroneously disallowed – despite the VAR making the correct decision. Representatives of one Premier League club, Wolves, were so incensed by a string of bad decisions that they put forward a motion to scrap VAR altogether.

Secondly, VAR slows down the game as goals or penalty decisions are subject to laborious reviews, playing havoc with the emotions of players and spectators. One former England player, Paul Scholes, has complained that the ‘VAR experience is poor, the in-stadium experience for the supporter. It’s nowhere near good enough.’

However, the football authorities believe that VAR has made the game fairer by improving both decision accuracy and transparency as fans can see the video replays. Responding to the Wolves motion, the Premier League pointed out that VAR has substantially improved decision making overall, while acknowledging that decisions currently take too long.

Has VAR ruined football? Why has video technology been so controversial in football when it has been much more successful in other sports, like cricket and tennis? How can we remove human error, or is human error an inevitable part of the game? Can VAR be fixed, or should it be given the red card?

SPEAKERS Duleep Allirajah football writer; longterm spiked contributor; co-founder, Libero! network; season-ticket holder, Crystal Palace

Jonny Gould TV and radio presenter; journalist; host, Jonny Gould's Jewish State

Omar Mohamed student, Royal Holloway University

Sally Taplin business consultant, Businessfourzero; visiting MBA lecturer, Bayes Business School; former board member, Lewes FC

CHAIR Geoff Kidder director, membership and events, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Book Club

Within days of being announced as the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris went from the most unpopular vice president in 50 years – a figure whose unpopularity reportedly led to the former president, Barack Obama, scrambling to find an alternative – to a viable presidential candidate. After slumping under Biden, polling now indicates that the Democrats have a real chance of retaining the White House.

Kamala has been rebranded – the ‘brat’ candidate memifying what had previously been seen as gaffs as the imperfections of millennial women. Kamala is posed as a cross between Obama and Bridget Jones. Kamala, it seems, has been embraced as a figure of fun.

Harris has made no unscripted appearances since taking up the candidacy. The Harris strategy seems to be is entirely based on Kamala the person – with the least amount of policy focus in her campaign material of any presidential candidate in history by far. It seems the Democrats hope Kamala can be entertaining enough to distract the American public for a hundred days, avoiding any real scrutiny.

Has the election then turned purely into a competition of ‘vibes’? Or are there still substantive differences between the main candidates? What does the memification of politics mean for democracy? Is Kamalamania a sincere phenomenon, an exercise in how people can change their mind out of convenience, or a complete fiction produced by the Democratic Party machine? Has Trump lost his populist touch? What does the election hold for America?

SPEAKERS:

• Nick Dixon, comedian; presenter, GB News; host, The Current Thing

• Dr Cheryl Hudson, lecturer in US political history, University of Liverpool; author, Citizenship in Chicago: race, culture and the remaking of American identity

• Dr Richard Johnson, writer; senior lecturer in politics, Queen Mary, University of London; co-author, Keeping the Red Flag Flying: The Labour Party in Opposition since 1922

• Stan Swim, chief program officer, Bill of Rights Institute

• Chair: Jacob Reynolds, head of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

The Online Safety Bill is causing huge concern for those who believe in free speech. But how can we protect free expression and still deal with the many problems that arise online?

The Bill has passed through the House of Commons and will now be debated in the House of Lords. There are hopes that Liz Truss’s government may amend the Bill to remove the most egregious problem with it: the attempt to force tech platforms and service providers – such as Twitter, Facebook, Google and many more – to remove content and ban users from expressing ideas or views that the government deems to be ‘legal but harmful’. However, the very idea that legislation was drafted to ban legal speech as it appears in the virtual public square – including references to sex and gender, race, eating disorders or the diverse category of ‘mental health challenges’ – says much about the current attitude among politicians and regulators.

Concerns remain at the wide scope of proposals in the legislation. It recommends new rules to control online services, including search engines and user-generated content. It will also affect privacy by constraining end-to-end encryption. The law will compel tech firms, who already regulate and remove content they have decided is ‘problematic’, to comply through fines and suspension, and requires they provide user tracking data on individuals who are considered to be breaking these laws. If and when the law is passed, it is now proposed that the lead time for compliance is reduced from 22 months to just two. Companies will have just over eight weeks from the royal assent of the law to make sure that they’re in full compliance to avoid penalties.

Despite these potentially draconian measures, there are undoubtedly new harms created by the online world. Are free-speech advocates being insensitive to what is novel about the internet as a threat? Trolling can go beyond unpleasant abuse to threats of violence. Children are far more likely to suffer at the hands of malicious bullying online than in the playground. Worse, such abuse can go viral. What do we do about child-safety concerns, viral sexting, online anonymous grooming, bad faith con-merchants and conspiracy-mongers passing off misinformation as fact? What of the potential psychological damage, particularly for those considered more socially and psychologically ‘at-risk’? Is it good enough to argue that these ‘crimes’ are already protected by existing laws?

In any event, safety issues and legislation may not even be the biggest free-speech issues online. In fact, perhaps it is Big Tech companies that have the real power. For example, Spotify has removed podcasts it deems politically unacceptable while PayPal has removed support for organisations critical of Covid policies and gender ideology.

Does the online world, warts and all, present free-speech supporters with insurmountable problems? Or is free speech a fundamental societal value that must be fought for, whatever the consequences or regardless of the challenges of any new technology?

SPEAKERS

Lord Charles Colville Crossbench peer, House of Lords; former member, Communications and Digital Select Committee; freelance TV producer

Paddy Hannam researcher, House of Commons; writer and commentator

Molly Kingsley co-founder, UsForThem; co-author, The Children’s Inquiry

Graham Smith tech and internet lawyer; of counsel, Bird & Bird LLP; author, Internet Law and Regulation; blogger, Cyberleagle

Toby Young general secretary, Free Speech Union; author, How to Lose Friends & Alienate People; associate editor, Spectator

CHAIR Dr Jan Macvarish education and events director, Free Speech Union; author, Neuroparenting: the expert invasion of family life

Meanwhile, both Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer have been battling it out for who had the most hard-done-by childhood, with rows about Sky TV and toolmakers providing some comedic relief for the electorate in what has otherwise been a rather depressing three weeks of campaigning.

From Tory implosions to Labour infighting, Emmanuel Macron’s shock election announcement to the rumblings of a Reform challenge, we cover it all in this latest podcast.

Listen, subscribe to our Substack and don’t forget to get your tickets for this year’s Battle of Ideas festival…

Just when you think things couldn’t get any worse for the Conservative Party, its leader - Rishi Sunak - managed to mess up on an international scale. The prime minister’s decision to leave D-Day commemorations early - allegedly returning home for a TV interview - has upset many people, including his own colleagues. While Sunak immediately apologised for what he described as a scheduling issue, it doesn’t seem to have quelled disquiet within the party - or consternation among voters.

Meanwhile, both Labour and the Tories have been scrambling to select seats. The deselection of Labour’s Faiza Shaheen and the parachuting in of the Tories’ Richard Holden both caused problems among local party supporters. And who could forget Nigel Farage who, like a twist in an Agatha Christie novel, announced that he will stand in Clacton to the sound of Conservative sighs nationwide. But does this mean that Reform poses a serious threat to the Tories? And, while much of the European media is reporting a rightward shift in this week’s European elections, will that prophecy come true? Or will the trend of fickle voters prove yet again that trying to predict elections is a mug’s game?

Listen to all of this and more on our latest episode in our General Election Podcast of Ideas specials, and subscribe to our Substack: clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

Last week, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak took the nation - and many of his own MPs - by surprise by calling the next General Election. On Thursday 4 July, UK citizens will join the billions around the world going to the polls this year to pick their next political leaders. While Sunak might have been able to blame his wet start on the weather, the early stages of the campaign haven’t been bright and breezy. Faced with anger and confusion from his fellow party members - including threats of a no-confidence vote - Sunak’s charm offensive across the country is marred by the fact that most people believe this election has already been won.

And yet, the bookies’ favourites - the Labour Party - have their own problems. From a lacklustre speech to concerns about splitting voters over issues like women-only spaces or support for a ceasefire in Gaza, Labour leader Keir Starmer hasn’t yet made hay while the sun refuses to shine on his rivals.

The announcement of the General Election also took the outliers in the competition by surprise. Reform UK’s tough talk about taking on the Tories was somewhat marred by Nigel Farage finally admitting that he wouldn’t stand for election. And yet, Mr Brexit remains the most discussed man of this election campaign so far, thanks to his comments both about the higher status of the US and questioning whether young people - and Muslims - ‘loathed’ British culture beyond persuasion.

But it’s still early days for challengers, with new political hopefuls standing as independents and as members of parties like the SDP, Greens and the Lib Dems hoping to break the monopoly of the two big parties.

To discuss all of this - the big announcements of the first few days of campaigning, from National Service to votes for 16-year-olds - the Academy of Ideas team got together in the first of our regular Podcast of Ideas specials. 

Climate change has become the great overarching mission of our times for politicians and business leaders. With the UN secretary general declaring that we are now in an era of ‘global boiling’, every leading politician talks about reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to ‘net zero’ – with the few emissions the economy does produce balanced by some method to soak them up, from planting trees to carbon capture and storage. As a result, a timetable has been created to eliminate emissions, step by step, between now and 2050.

Proponents of Net Zero argue that the process could be a creative one, leading to the development of new technologies and millions of well-paid ‘green’ jobs. Moreover, they point to opinion polls which suggest that the idea is popular with the public.

But the price to be paid for Net Zero is becoming ever clearer and is no longer a distant prospect. As soon as 2026, new oil-powered boilers will be banned and all new housing must have heat pumps installed. Gas boilers, petrol and diesel cars and cheap flights are all in the firing line.

But the impact of Net Zero goes way beyond these measures, with major impacts on jobs and livelihoods. For example, farmers in the Netherlands and Ireland have been angered by EU emissions targets that mean the number of animals that can be reared must be drastically reduced. Energy for industry is becoming more expensive, too, with many high energy users already looking at much lower costs in the US, where the exploitation of shale gas through fracking has kept prices low.

Opinion polls suggest that while Net Zero is popular in the abstract, the policies designed to make it happen are much less so. Moreover, with unanimity among the major parties in the UK that Net Zero is an inviolable policy, there is no electoral route to push back against such policies, except to vote for smaller parties with little hope of winning seats in the near future. Indeed, for some environmentalists, there can be no choice in the matter: if necessary, democracy must be sacrificed to the need to cut emissions.

That said, the Uxbridge by-election – which became something of a referendum on Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ policy – seems to have caused consternation among the major parties. Even though Net Zero itself wasn’t in question, a major environmental initiative seemed to be resoundingly rejected at the ballot box.

Is Net Zero an unpleasant necessity or, more positively, the start of a new industrial revolution? Or is it a policy that is being pursued without the technical means of achieving it in an affordable fashion? Will the backlash against Net Zero increase – and will it matter if governments are determined to pursue it, whether we like it or not?

SPEAKERS Lord David Frost member of the House of Lords

Rob Lyons science and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum

Scarlett Maguire director, J.L. Partners; former producer in media

John McTernan political strategist, BCW; former director of political operations, Blair government; writer, Financial Times and UnHerd

CHAIR Phil Mullan writer, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

In August, India made world news by being the first nation to land near the Moon’s South Pole. Prime Minister Narendra Modi described it as a historic moment for humanity and ‘the dawn of the new India’. Meanwhile, India’s digital transformation of its financial system is reported by payments systems company ACI Worldwide to be operating on a larger scale than even in the US and China. Earlier this year, UN population estimates suggested India has overtaken China as the world’s most populous country, with over 1.4 billion people.

As America’s rivalry with China heats up, the western world has warmed to India. A month before the Moon landing, President Joe Biden had rolled out the red carpet for Modi’s state visit to America. The US wants a more meaningful, closer and stronger relationship with India. The German government is discussing a possible submarine deal. French President Emmanuel Macron invited Modi to celebrate Bastille Day, calling India a strategic partner and friend. But there have also been tensions over India’s neutral stance over the war in Ukraine. Are these signs of India’s arrival on the international top table? Can India rise to this challenge?

India has a huge population, but the vast majority are still poor – the country is ranked 139th in the world for nominal GDP per capita – and faces massive inequalities. While India receives much adulation from the Western elites, its undermining of the freedom of the press and its clampdown on the judiciary have been heavily criticised. The Economist Intelligence Unit‘s Democracy Index showed India falling from 27th position in 2014 to 46th in 2022. But the White House is calling India a ‘vibrant democracy’. Which is it: a faltering democracy or a vibrant one?

India is also facing much internal disquiet within its population. Most recently, ethnic tensions have flared up between the majority Hindus and the Muslim minority just 20 miles outside of New Delhi. Ethnic strife between Hindus and Christians also continues especially in the North-east state of Manipur.

With this backdrop of domestic instability, can Modi and his BJP party retain control in the 2024 elections? What will India’s future role be on the world stage – both politically and economically?

SPEAKERS Lord Meghnad Desai crossbench peer; chair, Gandhi Statue Memorial Trust; emeritus professor of Economics, LSE

Dr Zareer Masani historian, author, journalist, broadcaster

Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbert director, Don’t Divide Us; author, What Should Schools Teach? Disciplines, subjects and the pursuit of truth

CHAIR Para Mullan former operations director, EY-Seren; fellow, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

A High Court judgement hangs over Michaela Community School for banning ritual prayer. A Wakefield school suspended pupils for damaging a copy of the Quran. Two recent studies claim that faith schools select against poor and SEN children. Two thirds of the liberal Alliance Party in Northern Ireland want Catholic schools banned. Three years after showing pupils images of the Prophet Muhammad, a teacher in the north of England remains in hiding.

It seems undeniable that schools are a new crucible for religious and social conflict. How do we navigate between tolerance and intolerance in these disputations?

How does the right of faith communities to exercise their beliefs reconcile with established wider freedoms? Should the right to pray be available to all –  even in non-religious schools? Should we defend a parent’s right to send their child to a faith school? Or is that tantamount to a defence of privilege? Have we lost sight of whether faith-based liberties impinge on secular freedoms or vice versa? Who are the liberals and illiberals here?

‘What kind of school environment could so easily be destroyed by one group of students publicly expressing their religion for a mere few minutes a day?’, asks author and teacher Nadeine Asbali. She describes the ban on Muslims praying in school as ‘a dystopian, sinister vision of multiculturalism’. Yet commentator Tim Black thinks, ‘we are witnessing not quiet displays of faith, but loud all-too-visible assertions of Muslim identitarianism … with little to do with Islam’.

Has tolerance become too abstract and impoverished to deal with concrete forms of cultural and religious difference?  What do you think: are our schools fighting an age-old battle between sacred and secular visions of society, or are they on the front line of a new culture war? 

SPEAKERS Khadija Khan journalist and commentator

Adam Eljadi Media Studies teacher, NEU workplace representative and British Muslim. He speaks here in a personal capacity.

Gareth Sturdy former teacher and religious affairs journalist

CHAIR

Kevin Rooney teacher and Education Forum convenor

SQUARE-EYED SCREENAGERS: ARE PHONES CORRUPTING OUR KIDS? Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.

Digital devices are so omnipresent that sociologists call today’s children ‘Generation Glass’. Our pre-teens have never known a world without tablets and apps. The ubiquity of technology during their formative years risks turning them into ‘screenagers’ with high digital literacy but low socialisation and focus.

In education, devices are routinely distributed to pupils and the gamification of learning is well-established. Yet pushback is mounting. The controversial Online Safety Bill proposes reams of radical measures drafted specifically to quell fears over children’s internet safety. Meanwhile increasing numbers of schools are adopting mobile-phone bans, claiming they improve concentration and mental health while reducing cheating and cyberbullying.

Parents’ lobby group UsForThem is even pressing for a total ban on phones for all under-16s and grim tobacco-style health warnings on devices. The campaign is endorsed by Katharine Birbalsingh, headteacher and former social mobility tsar, who has equated the threat to youth of mobile phones to that of heroin addiction.

But is this all merely a re-heat of the ‘square eyes’ moral panic which once beset television? The BBC thinks so: its high-profile Square-Eyed Boy campaign seeks to reassure parents that screens can be a force for good for children. After all, isn’t greater literacy, be it via screens or paper pages, something to be encouraged? Some teachers argue that phones can enhance schoolwork while others insist banning them is draconian, impractical and futile.

Should we take phones away from kids for their own good, or should the very idea be dismissed as screen-shaming?

SPEAKERS Elliot Bewick producer, TRIGGERnometry

Josephine Hussey school teacher, AoI Education Forum

Molly Kingsley co-founder, UsForThem; co-author, The Children’s Inquiry

Joe Nutt international educational consultant; author, The Point of Poetry, An Introduction to Shakespeare’s Late Plays and A Guidebook to Paradise Lost

Professor Sir Simon Wessely interim dean, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neurosciences; regius professor of psychiatry, King’s College London

CHAIR Gareth Sturdy physics adviser, Up Learn; education and science writer

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

According to many political commentators, the break-up of the UK is becoming inevitable. When devolution was implemented in the 1990s, one of the aims of its supporters was to head off rising support for separation. But the opposite has happened, with support for Scottish independence and greater Welsh autonomy growing even stronger. In Scotland, for example, the pro-independence SNP has now won four elections on the trot and has renewed calls for another referendum. Some commentators now believe that a politicised sense of Englishness is on the rise, too.

One factor is the differential impact of the Brexit referendum. People in England and Wales voted to leave the EU while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain. The situation is full of contradictions and complications. For example, people emphasising a British national identity were more likely to vote Leave in Scotland and Wales but Remain in England. Those supporting the cause of ‘independence’ in Scotland and Wales want to remain within the EU, proclaiming the importance of free movement, yet their borders were imposed during the Covid crisis. The devolved government in Scotland favours rejoining the EU, yet others wonder how that fits with the desire for self-government.

On all sides, there has been a problem of legitimacy. Those who favour keeping the Union have struggled to espouse a convincing sense of what it means to be British. The result has often been a crude attempt to manufacture a sense of Britishness. For example, the Westminster government recently announced plans are being drawn up to protect ‘distinctively British’ television programming and asked Ofcom to provide a definition of Britishness for public-service broadcasters.

Meanwhile, contrary to the tradition that the push for statehood means demanding more democracy and freedom, the devolved assemblies appear to have amplified the illiberal impulses of twenty-first-century politics. In Scotland, for example, the government has devoted much of its energy to devising new ways to monitor, control and restrict people’s day-to-day lives: criminalising football supporters, attempting to impose a ‘named person’ to monitor children’s upbringing and passing a Hate Crime Bill that opponents regard as an attack on free speech.

Forty years ago, writer Tom Nairn said that the break-up of Britain would come, not because of the strength of the independence cause in any particular part of Britain, but because of a more general fading of support for the Union. Has Nairn been proved correct? Is the real issue not a democratic surge to independence but gradual separation by attrition? That said, there are signs that perhaps the break-up of the Union is not a foregone conclusion. In recent months, for example, opinion polls have suggested that support for Scottish independence has weakened.

Perhaps the real nail in the coffin is if the English lose interest in the Union. In his book How Britain Ends, journalist Gavin Esler argues that the UK could survive Scottish and Welsh nationalism, but English nationalism is the force that will break up the Union. Is he right?

With Brexit divisions and the impact of Covid, are we witnessing the fragmentation of the Union and a new sovereignty by stealth? How substantial are the differences between the UK and devolved governments’ approaches? Do those arguing for independence or more devolution offer the genuine possibility of a democratic future? Or does this trajectory risk creating a Union based on anomalies and a patchwork of competencies, in the process undermining the viability of UK democracy?

SPEAKERS Dr Richard Johnson writer; lecturer in US politics, Queen Mary, University of London; author, The End of the Second Reconstruction: Obama, Trump, and the crisis of civil rights

Penny Lewis lecturer, University of Dundee; author, Architecture and Collective Life

Alex Salmond leader, ALBA Party; former leader, Scottish National Party; author, The Dream Shall Never Die

Christopher Snowdon head of lifestyle economics, Institute of Economic Affairs; editor, Nanny State Index; author, Selfishness, Greed and Capitalism

Max Wind-Cowie co-author, A Place for Pride; former head, Progressive Conservatism Project, Demos; commentator

CHAIR Alastair Donald co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

The worlds of art and entertainment are wrestling with, and reeling from, the opportunities and challenges posed by ‘generative’ AI – tools that can generate seemingly unique, bespoke creations in response to ‘prompts’ submitted in plain language. Such technology is now having a dramatic impact on almost every profession or art form that involves static or moving images, written or spoken words, sound, music or programming code.

Everything from the fantastical to the photorealistic is affected. AI can generate convincing ‘photos’ of people who have never actually existed, and can create ‘deepfakes’ so good that public figures – whether living or long deceased – can now be ‘filmed’ saying and doing completely invented things. Indeed, a key concern behind this year’s high-profile Hollywood strikes is actors fearing that they will be imitated and replaced by AI creations – losing control of their likenesses not just during their lifetimes, but also after their deaths.

Otherworldly images are no less affected by AI. Polish illustrator Greg Rutkowski – who has made a career out of depicting dragons and fantastical battles – recently found himself demoted (or promoted, depending on one’s perspective) from popular artist to one of the world’s most popular AI prompts, beating Michelangelo and Picasso. The internet is now swamped with AI recreations of Rutkowski’s once distinctive style, while the artist’s own livelihood – and recognition for work that is genuinely his – are in jeopardy.

There are many such examples, spanning different forms of creativity. Some are trying to take a stand against these trends, but solidarity between professions is wanting. Major publishers, including Bloomsbury Books, have recently issued apologies, when it was discovered that they were using AI-generated art on their book covers. Some soundtrack composers – who were already complaining about being reduced to poorly paid, interchangeable and uncredited ‘ghost composers’ in the content-hungry age of streaming – now fear being replaced by machines altogether.

Some creators insist that their consent should have been sought before their work was included in the vast datasets on which AI has been trained. Some are seeking the removal of their work from such datasets even now, although the path from machine learning to AI creations is so intricate that this may be the practical equivalent of trying to unbake a cake. Others, by contrast, revel in the new creative possibilities arising from AI, and approach the technology as an enormous and exciting artistic toolkit.

Who will prevail? And what will be the consequences?

SPEAKERS Dr JJ Charlesworth art critic; editor, ArtReview

Vivek Haria composer, London Symphony Orchestra, Birmingham Contemporary Music Group and Piatti Quartet; writer on art, technology and culture

Rosie Kay dancer; choreographer; CEO and artistic director, K2CO LTD; founder, Freedom in the Arts

Dr Hamish Todd mathematician; videogame programmer; creator, Virus, the Beauty of the Beast

CHAIR Sandy Starr deputy director, Progress Educational Trust; author, AI: Separating Man from Machine

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

The self-image of Western societies as cosmopolitan, liberal and tolerant has collapsed of late, with a darker view taking hold of people as extreme, hate-filled and hurtful. For example, in the wake of the Hamas attacks on Israel, anti-Semitism – ‘the oldest hatred’ – has come forcefully into public view. Accordingly, controlling ‘hate speech’ has become a major focus for critics and campaigners, as well as legislators and regulators. They proceed in the belief that, as one Guardian commentator put it: ‘Words of hate create an ethos of hate, an atmosphere of hate, a political, social Petri dish of hate. Eventually, spoken words become deeds.’

Campaigners say escalating incidences of hate justify interventions. The most recent published date show 155,841 offences recorded in the year to March – up 26 per cent from the previous year – with hate crimes against transgender people seeing the biggest increase, jumping by 56 per cent since last year. Meanwhile, in the past five years, the number of recorded non-crime hate incidents (NCHI) has grown to 120,000.

Critics say the nebulous definition and subjective interpretation of hate, which is largely in the eye of the victim or reporter, is trivialising such ‘crimes’. But is there more to this issue than definitional disarray? Some say the problem is being inflated by ‘fishing’ exercises. The Citizen’s Advice Bureau, for example, says ‘it is always best’ to ‘act early’ and report incidents even if ‘unsure whether the incident is a criminal offence… or serious enough to be reported’. Meanwhile, Police Scotland has promised to set up a new unit to tackle ‘hate crimes’ such as misgendering and denying men access to ladies’ toilets.

Some say that what is labelled ‘hate speech’ is increasingly being weaponised to silence opponents and narrow viewpoint diversity. Groups such as Stop Funding Hate aim to persuade advertisers to pull support from broadcasters and publications on the grounds that views aired spread hate and division. More broadly, fuelled by identity politics, competing groups too often accuse other identities of hate and bigotry – demonising those we disagree with is a tactic used across the political spectrum. On one side, people are labeled hateful TERFs, gammon, alt-right or xenophobic, while the other side are hate-driven snowflakes, misogynists, Remoaners, pinko commies and cry-bullies.

What are the prospects of making political exchange less toxic and productive, if labelling those we disagree with as hate-mongers continues to escalate? How should defenders of freedom best make the case for free speech over hate speech? How should we understand what counts as hate speech, and how do we account for its rise to become central to how Western societies are organising their legal systems and public life?

SPEAKERS Kate Harris co-founder and trustee, LGB Alliance; formerly Brighton Women’s Centre and Brighton Women’s Aid

Eve Kay executive producer unscripted; International Emmy winner; Realscreen and Critics Choice Award winner; Creative Arts Emmy winner

Winston Marshall musician; writer; podcast host, Marshall Matters; founding member, Mumford & Sons

Faisal Saeed Al Mutar founder and president, Ideas Beyond Borders

Martin Wright director, Positive News; formerly editor-in-chief, Green Futures; former director, Forum for the Future

CHAIR Alastair Donald co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

Most people acknowledge that there is an issue with Britain’s borders. The question is: who or what is to blame? For many, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and its courts in Strasbourg, has become the focus – either as the bulwark against anti-refugee sentiment, or the block on democratic process. With deportations being halted on the grounds of ‘human rights’, one’s view on membership of the ECHR has become shorthand for where you stand on the issue of refugees, asylum seekers and illegal migrants.

Rows over the ECHR have been brewing for some time. In 2000, the Human Rights Act made the Convention an integral part of domestic law, that individuals could enforce in British courts. Since then, many, particularly on the Right, have questioned the wisdom of what they increasingly refer to as Labour’s Human Rights Act. In recent years, the Conservative Party has been committed to reforming human rights by replacing the HRA with a British Bill of Rights. But no such legislation is forthcoming – and many have pointed out that, as long as Britain remains signed-up to the ECHR, a British Bill of Rights would be superfluous. Much like the European Union, the ECHR seems to have split the Tories. Some MPs hope to cut ties completely – nearly 70 Tory MPs, many from Red Wall seats, backed quitting the ECHR in a vote on a Private Member’s Bill last year. Others – like Tom Tugendhat’s Tory Reform Group – remain concerned about what a Brexit-style exit might do to the UK’s international reputation.

In the aftermath of the Second World War the European Convention on Human Rights was seen as a protection against the tyranny and oppression that some European nations had recently endured. Nowadays, those who support it stress the importance of human rights as setting a minimum standard which democracies should guarantee. Is the problem therefore simply one of European judicial overreach, or is it essentially about the very notion of ‘human rights’ themselves? Are human rights and democratic, collective action doomed to forever be at loggerheads? With courts in Strasbourg and London ruling to impede government plans to stop small boats crossing the Channel, are human rights making popular government impossible? Or is the ECHR being scapegoated for inadequacies in our own backyard?

SPEAKERS Steven Barrett barrister, Radcliffe Chambers; writer on law, Spectator

Jamie Burton founder and chair, Just Fair; barrister (KC), Doughty Street Chambers; author Three Times Failed: why we need enforceable socio-economic rights

Luke Gittos criminal lawyer; author, Human Rights – Illusory Freedom; director, Freedom Law Clinic

John Oxley writer, New Statesman, Spectator,and UnHerd; consultant; barrister

Angelica Walker-Werth writer, editor and programmes manager, Objective Standard Institute

CHAIR Jon Holbrook barrister; writer, spiked, Critic, Conservative Woman

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

‘Take back control’, the central demand from the Leave campaign’s case for Brexit, posed the question: who should rule? However, today, when frontpage headlines frequently ask why nothing works in ‘Broken Britain’ and politicians blame myriad forces for thwarting democratically decided policies, one increasingly debated issue is: who is really in charge of society?

In his recent book, Values, Voice and Virtue, British political scientist Matthew Goodwin argues that the ‘people who really run Britain’ are ‘a new dominant class’, that imposes its ‘radically progressive cultural values’ on the rest of the nation. The Spectator magazine recently devoted its cover to this ‘new elite’ and how ‘the woke aristocracy’ is on a ‘march through the institutions’. Former government equality tsar Trevor Phillips has written that ‘the political and media elite’ have achieved ‘institutional capture’ across swathes of the UK’s governing apparatus.

But is it as simple as a changing of the guard, a new elite grabbing the reins of power? One confusion is a disavowal of responsibility. Goodwin’s thesis has caused international controversy, with many labelled as the ‘new elite’ denying they have any power.

Once upon a time, it would have been easy to see who was in charge: from the Industrial Revolution onwards, barons of the old aristocracy were gradually replaced by ‘business barons’ owning big companies, aided and abetted by the clergy, among others. During the years of the postwar consensus, the ‘trade union barons’ played a major role, too. And, at its core, was a state apparatus presided over by an elite of politicians.

Yet today’s governing classes have increasingly dispersed and outsourced their authority to third parties – such as consultants, the judiciary, international bodies, public inquiries, stakeholder bodies, diversity specialists, scientific experts, NGOs, charities, political advisers and the ‘Whitehall Blob’. When things go wrong, the blame game sees fingers pointed in all directions.

In this context, some voters are increasingly disillusioned with democracy and conspiratorial thinking thrives. Who is pulling the ideological strings of this new generation of impotent, technocratic politicians? When the Labour leader, Keir Starmer, was asked whether he’d prefer to be in Davos or Westminster, he responded, without missing a beat: ‘Davos’. In other words, the likely next prime minister of the UK prefers the networking opportunities of the World Economy Forum to the mother of parliaments. Is it any wonder so many blame globalist forces for seemingly imposing unpopular policies on nation states with no democratic mandate, whether related to ‘net zero’ or gender identity?

So, who is directing society in 2023, and what binds them together? Why do our elected politicians lack authority today, or are they simply unwilling to exercise their authority? Are the ‘new elite’ as powerful as many would argue or are they simply the public face of the changing interests of the wealthy? Is the intellectual conformity at the helm of society proof of coherence or a lack of ideas and vision? Is it possible to reclaim power for The People?

SPEAKERS Pamela Dow chief operating officer, Civic Future

Professor Frank Furedi sociologist and social commentator; executive director, MCC Brussels; author, 100 Years of Identity Crisis: culture war over socialisation

Matthew Goodwin professor of politics, University of Kent; author, Values Voice and Virtue: The New British Politics , National Populism: the revolt against liberal democracy and Revolt on the Right

Harry Lambert staff writer, New Statesman; editor, New Statesman Saturday Read

Professor Anand Menon director, UK in a Changing Europe

CHAIR Claire Fox director, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

INTRODUCTION At the 2023 Edinburgh Festival Fringe, Comedy Unleashed’s show, featuring Graham Linehan, was cancelled because the venue did not ‘support his views’ and his presence would ‘violate their space’. The edgy spirit that used to characterise the Edinburgh Festival Fringe specifically, and stand-up comedy more generally, seems to have evaporated. There was no outcry from comedians attending the festival and very few publicly expressed even the mildest of support for free expression in the arts.

Earlier that year, Nigel Farage was debanked by Coutts, for expressing views that go against the bank’s ‘values’. Despite the bankers themselves having admitted fault, comedian Omid Djalili publicly sided with the elite bank. When comedians see no problem with using the denial of banking services as a form of punishment for holding certain views, how can they claim that they are ‘punching up’?

Why do comedians increasingly side with the Establishment? How can comics say that they are ‘punching up’ when they support the people being ‘cancelled’ by corporations? As society becomes more authoritarian, where is the satirical response and creative backlash?

SPEAKERS

Miriam Elia satirical conceptual artist; author, We See the Sights, We Go To The Gallery and We Do Lockdown; creator, A Series Of Psychotic Episodes

Dominic Frisby writer; comedian; author, Bitcoin: the future of money?

Graham Linehan creator and co-creator, Father Ted, Black Books and The IT Crowd; comedy writer, Count Arthur Strong, Brass Eye and The Fast Show; author, Tough Crowd: How I Made and Lost a Career in Comedy

Chair: Andy Shaw co-founder, Comedy Unleashed

They also take a step back to look at the wider picture. What is to be done to counter the rise of anti-Semitism? What are the implications for democracy if parliamentary procedures are subverted in the name of protecting MPs? What might happen next in the war itself? Can Israel rely on support in the West for much longer?

To keep up with our podcasts, events, analysis and publications, subscribe to this Substack here. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Not only will you be supporting our work but you will receive discounts on tickets for our events, including the Battle of Ideas festival on 19 & 20 October in London.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

With the Conservatives doing badly in the polls and Labour riding high, the UK could have a new party in government in the next year or so. How will this change the relationship between the state and the private sector – and will it boost economic performance and living standards?

During the Corbyn years and even beyond, Labour has talked up the possibility of nationalising important parts of the UK economy – such as water and energy supplies and the railways. But more recently, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves appear to have rowed back on such pledges, with Starmer saying he would not be ‘ideological’ about state control.

Many commentators have pointed out that houses are not being built fast enough. While unemployment is relatively low, the quality of jobs is too often poor. Many argue that what it is needed is more state intervention, greater funding for healthcare, a return to state-provided housing and a proper industrial strategy to boost sectors that can be world-leading, especially in supporting the drive to Net Zero.

Others argue that for all the talk of free markets, we actually have too much state intervention and control. Businesses are bound up in regulation. Government expenditure is getting close to the equivalent of 50% of GDP. Planning rules make building anything almost impossible. Far from a free market, we have everyone from civil servants to central bankers determining how the economy develops, with little room for private initiative or democratic control.

But is the state vs market debate moot – because the ability of the state to change things is becoming exhausted? Increasing state spending even further would have relatively little impact, but government debt is already enormous in any event. ‘Cheap money’ policies of low interest rates and quantitative easing have had to be reversed to tackle inflation.

Whoever wins the next election, what is the best way forward for the UK economy?

SPEAKERS Paul Embery firefighter; trade unionist; columnist; author, Despised: why the modern Left loathes the working class; broadcaster

Matthew Lesh director of public policy and communications, Institute of Economic Affairs

Ali Miraj broadcaster; founder, the Contrarian Prize; infrastructure financier; DJ

Hilary Salt FIA, FPMI, FRSA actuary; founder, First Actuarial

CHAIR

Phil Mullan writer, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

Being ‘diverse’ is no longer simply about shaking things up. Today, diversity is considered a core value of any civilised society and its institutions. Diversity strategies are a must for businesses, small or big – diversity is good for the planet, good for politics, good for social mobility and good for our sense of self. Diversity is no longer a means to a better future, but an end in and of itself.

For many, this is a no brainer – having different people from different backgrounds in your work or social environment can only be a good thing. They argue that cultural melting pots provide border horizons on everything from what food we enjoy to our appreciation of different beliefs and world views. In contrast, homogeneity is a sign of a moribund system. The idea that similar groups of people might apply for the same job – from nursing to plumbing – is a sign of discrimination or closed mindedness, and must be challenged.

But not everyone is so keen on the prioritisation of diversity over all else. The home secretary, Suella Braverman, caused uproar with a speech in Washington in which she described multiculturalism as a failed ‘misguided dogma’, adding that ‘the consequences of that failure are evident on the streets of cities all over Europe’. Some say the scenes of celebrations in Western cities at Hamas’s actions in Israel seem to prove her point. Critics point to the way in which it has been institutionalised via policies in the workplace or education, with contentious political topics on everything from the climate to transgender ideology being repackaged as mandatory ‘diversity training’. They argue that a ‘fetishisation’ of diversity has led to its opposite – atomisation and tribalism. Many argue that the push for multiculturalism as a political policy objective has led to a confusion of social norms. Instead of a utopia of rich cultural fusion, neighbourhoods are often defined by national identities, with hostility between groups commonplace. If we don’t ask for shared values in some key areas of life, critics ask, how will we ever hope to get along?

For some, diversity is a necessary strategy to help break open closed areas of public life for groups previously discriminated against. For others, it is too focused on the things we can’t control – like race or sex – and too disregarding of diversity of thought and feeling. Has the d-word taken over as our new deity? Variety is certainly the spice of life, but is our love of diversity at risk of creating its opposite? And how do we talk about shared social values in a world where difference is king?

SPEAKERS Simon Fanshawe OBE consultant and writer; author The Power of Difference ; co-founder, Diversity by Design

Maya Forstater executive director, Sex Matters

Mercy Muroki policy fellow to minister for women and equalities and business and trade secretary

Tomiwa Owolade writer and critic; contributing writer, New Statesman; author, This is Not America: Why Black Lives in Britain Matter

Dr Joanna Williams founder and director, Cieo; author, How Woke Won and Women vs Feminism

CHAIR

Alastair Donald co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

WHAT WOULD A LABOUR GOVERNMENT LOOK LIKE? Recording of the debate at Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION After Labour’s catastrophic haemorrhaging of Red Wall voters in 2019, and widespread disillusion among working-class Brexit voters, Labour seems to be back in contention. For some time, Labour has been way ahead of the Conservatives in the opinion polls. But the gap between the parties became a chasm after the resignation of Boris Johnson and the debacle of Liz Truss’s short-lived premiership. Now, with Labour running roughly 20 points ahead in the polls, a substantial majority at the next election – which must happen no later than January 2025 – seems highly likely. But assuming Labour does win power, what would Keir Starmer actually do?

The answer is, perhaps: who knows? Yes, there has been some headline-grabbing radical proposals such as abolishing the House of Lords and replacing it with an elected chamber of regions and nations. When he won the leadership vote in April 2020, Starmer had stood on a platform of 10 pledges – from increasing income tax for the rich and abolishing universal credit to ‘support’ for ‘common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water’ and a ‘green new deal’.

Since then, Starmer and his shadow ministers have moved away from many of these pledges. For example, plans to abolish university tuition fees have been scrapped, and universal credit looks like it will be ‘reformed’ – but with the two-child limit for benefits left in place. Nationalisation plans have been replaced with the idea of greater regulation. Plans to introduce self-ID for transgender people have been shelved (despite having voted for the SNP’s infamous Gender Recognition Reform Bill, and with no apology forthcoming to its much maligned gender-critical MP Rosie Duffield) as has the idea of reintroducing free movement for EU nationals. Inevitably, the Corbynista wing of the party shout betrayal. With Blair and Mandelson back in the mix, some on the Left dread New Labour Mark 2, without the charisma or vision.

Despite its uber-technocratic pragmatism, many fear Labour has fundamentally changed – emptied of its working-class credentials, instead assuming the garb of identitarian social justice. It seems most comfortable arguing for laws against misogyny, condemning institutional racism or celebrating Pride than either full-throttled support for picket-line strikers or taking up the cause of free speech when under assault from progressive ideologues. It’s true that Labour’s centrepiece policy of a ‘green prosperity plan’ has been watered down from £28 billion per year to an aspiration to be achieved at some point in a Labour administration. But its championing of eco policies – such as heat-pump boilers, anti-driver measures such as ULEZ and LTNs or its financial entanglement with the funder of Just Stop Oil – means that many fear Labour is tin-eared when voters are sceptical of its right-on, illiberal and expensive zealous approach to net-zero targets.

SPEAKERS Dr Tim Black books and essays editor, spiked

Dr Richard Johnson writer; senior lecturer in US politics, Queen Mary, University of London; co-author, Keeping the Red Flag Flying: The Labour Party in Opposition since 1922 (forthcoming)

Mark Seddon director, Centre for UN Studies, University of Buckingham; board member, Foreign Correspondents Association, New York; co-author, Jeremy Corbyn and the Strange Rebirth of Labour England

James Smith host, The Popular Show podcast; writer; academic

Joan Smith author & columnist

CHAIR Paddy Hannam researcher, House of Commons; writer and commentator

Featuring the AOI team: Claire Fox, Rob Lyons, Geoff Kidder, Jacob Reynolds and Ella Whelan.

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack here: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

From intimate selfies to leaking of personal messages, the digital age seems to relentlessly blur the boundaries between private and public. Not only are we encouraged to bare it all for social media, but the idea of private or secret communication is increasingly seen as a cover for all kinds of ‘online harms’. While the UK has backed off (for now) from enforcing Online Safety Bill provisions to remove end-to-end encryption, the widespread suspicion by government of encrypted services remains. What goes on in private group chats or messengers is said to be the site of danger, exploitation and threats to health and security.

But it is not just social media or new laws that seem to threaten privacy. Indeed, official bodies are subject to endless leaks, baring the details of this or that supposedly private meeting or conversation. But perhaps this is no bad thing: debate about crucial issues has been widely informed by the leak of previously private correspondence, such as the over 100,000 messages between former health secretary Matt Hancock and others at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. The leak revealed important information about the decisions surrounding lockdowns.

But even if much valuable information was gleaned from the leak, should we be worried about the wider implications of removing the assumption of privacy? For example, many worry that recent charges against former police officers for sharing racist messages in a private WhatsApp group chat upend the principle that what we say ‘behind closed doors’ is a private matter. In a similar vein, the Scottish Government’s recent removal of a ‘dwelling defence’ to a landmark hate-crime bill explicitly invites the courts to police what is said in private. Likewise, many campaigners point to the fact that Britain is one of the most surveilled countries in the world, with the previous privacy of walking the street or meeting friends in a pub now subject to the glare of Big Brother.

But what is so valuable about privacy – and what is at risk if we lose too much of it? Should we welcome the tendency to make everything public, especially if it roots out backward attitudes or exposes those who misuse power? What’s the relationship between the public and private, and where does the balance lie?

SPEAKERS

Josie Appleton director, civil liberties group, Manifesto Club; author, Officious: Rise of the Busybody State; writer, Notes on Freedom

David Davis member of parliament, Conservative Party

Dr Tiffany Jenkins writer and broadcaster; author, Strangers and Intimates (forthcoming) and Keeping Their Marbles

Tim Stanley columnist and leader writer, Daily Telegraph; author, Whatever Happened to Tradition? History, Belonging and the Future of the West

CHAIR

Ella Whelan co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION Too often, talking about race feels fraught with difficulty, leaving us walking on eggshells to avoid offence. However, this can mean that important questions and queries go unanswered, and grievances can fester. Luckily, more and more authors are taking up the challenge – and this session features three of them in conversation.

Rakib Ehsan’s Beyond Grievance: What the Left Gets Wrong About Ethnic Minorities argues that the left too often buys into toxic, imported ideologies around identity politics. Left-wingers are also complacent, he argues, assuming they can depend upon a traditional support base among ethnic minorities. As a result, they fail to engage with the small-c conservative values around family, faith and flag that many of these communities support. Yet these values could create a fairer multi-ethnic society based upon equal opportunity, social cohesion and a national sense of belonging.

Remi Adekoya’s book It’s Not About Whiteness, It’s About Wealth notes that Western conversations on race and racism often revolve around the holy trinity of the race debate: colonialism, the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the ideology of white supremacism. However, Adekoya argues that it is socioeconomic realities which play the leading role in sustaining racial hierarchies in everyday life. He looks at the global big picture, regularly overlooked in the current debate.

Finally, in Against Decolonisation: Campus Culture Wars and the Decline of the West, Doug Stokes challenges the theories and arguments deployed by ‘decolonisers’ in a university system now characterised by garbled leadership and illiberal groupthink. More broadly, Stokes examines the threat posed by Critical Theory to wider society and critiques the desire to question the West’s sense of itself, deconstruct its narratives and overthrow its institutional order.

SPEAKERS

Dr Remi Adekoya lecturer of politics, University of York; author It’s Not About Whiteness, It’s About Wealth and Biracial Britain

Dr Rakib Ehsan author, Beyond Grievance: what the Left gets wrong about ethnic minorities

Professor Doug Stokes professor in international security and director of the Strategy and Security Institute, University of Exeter; senior adviser, Legatum Institute; author, The Geopolitics of the Culture Wars

CHAIR Dr Jim Butcher lecturer; researcher; co-author, Volunteer Tourism: the lifestyle politics of international development

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION Trump is perhaps the most widely vilified political leader of modern times – yet he retains a huge measure of support. So seemingly assured of securing the Republican nomination that he can forgo the candidates’ televised debates, he also transformed his arrest for interfering with the 2020 election into a world-shaking media opportunity, with his mugshot reverberating across the globe. But what underpins his appeal?

For some, it is precisely the relentless demonisation of Trump that generates the appeal – whatever Trumpists think of some of his policies or personal conduct, they identify with his vilification by the same liberal, coastal elites who denounce them as ‘deplorables’. Others insist that Trump invents and exploits animosities against immigrants and evokes a ‘paranoid’ vein in American politics. Or perhaps Trump simply appeals to voters fed up the stale consensus that has dominated American politics – or maybe he just livens things up.

What explains Trumps’ enduring appeal, and how should liberals, conservatives and populists alike respond?

SPEAKERS Mary Dejevsky former foreign correspondent in Moscow, Paris and Washington; special correspondent in China; writer and broadcaster

Matthew Feeney writer; head of technology and innovation, Centre for Policy Studies; former director, Cato Institute’s Project on Emerging Technologies

Michael Goldfarb journalist and historian, creator, FRDH Podcast; documentary maker, Evangelical or Political Christianity?; author, The Martyrdom of Ahmad Shawkat

Dr Cheryl Hudson lecturer in US political history, University of Liverpool; author, Citizenship in Chicago: race, culture and the remaking of American identity

CHAIR Jacob Reynolds head of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

The wildfire in Hawaii in August is just one example of extreme weather and natural disasters in recent months. Southern Europe has baked in record temperatures. Indeed, July was reportedly the hottest month globally since records began. Earlier this year, wildfires in Canada covered much of the north-eastern US with smoke. There have also been major floods and landslides this year in Sweden, Slovenia and the Czech Republic. Last year, devastating floods affected Pakistan, leaving over 1,700 people dead.

Environmental campaigners, experts and many politicians argue that climate change is already making such events more likely. Disasters aside, extreme weather events make life much more unpleasant and costly. Extreme weather will continue to become more common unless we phase out fossil fuels and cut emissions.

But others note that the data on extreme weather does not, in the main, support the idea that these events are becoming more common. Moreover, they argue that economic development allows societies to be better prepared and more resilient when disaster strikes. Diverting vast resources to reducing emissions could actually lead to more deaths in the future, particularly in poorer countries.

Should we spend trillions on reducing our greenhouse-gas emissions? Given that economic losses from such events can be enormous, even if lives are saved, isn’t prevention better than cure? Or would that money be better spent on making societies more resilient to extreme weather? Does the narrative of climate-change catastrophe get in the way of less dramatic measures that can protect people and property?

SPEAKERS Timandra Harkness journalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree; author, Big Data: does size matter?

Laurie Laybourn researcher; writer; associate fellow, Institute for Public Policy Research; co-author, Planet on Fire: A manifesto for the age of environmental breakdown

Harry Wilkinson head of policy, Global Warming Policy Foundation

Martin Wright director, Positive News; formerly editor-in-chief, Green Futures; former director, Forum for the Future

CHAIR Jacob Reynolds head of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

Trump is perhaps the most widely vilified political leader of modern times – yet he retains a huge measure of support. So seemingly assured of securing the Republican nomination that he can forgo the candidates’ televised debates, he also transformed his arrest for interfering with the 2020 election into a world-shaking media opportunity, with his mugshot reverberating across the globe. But what underpins his appeal?

For some, it is precisely the relentless demonisation of Trump that generates the appeal – whatever Trumpists think of some of his policies or personal conduct, they identify with his vilification by the same liberal, coastal elites who denounce them as ‘deplorables’. Others insist that Trump invents and exploits animosities against immigrants and evokes a ‘paranoid’ vein in American politics. Or perhaps Trump simply appeals to voters fed up the stale consensus that has dominated American politics – or maybe he just livens things up.

What explains Trumps’ enduring appeal, and how should liberals, conservatives and populists alike respond?

SPEAKERS

Mary Dejevsky former foreign correspondent in Moscow, Paris and Washington; special correspondent in China; writer and broadcaster Matthew Feeney writer; head of technology and innovation, Centre for Policy Studies; former director, Cato Institute’s Project on Emerging Technologies

Michael Goldfarb journalist and historian, creator, FRDH Podcast; documentary maker, Evangelical or Political Christianity?; author, The Martyrdom of Ahmad Shawkat

Dr Cheryl Hudson lecturer in US political history, University of Liverpool; author, Citizenship in Chicago: race, culture and the remaking of American identity

CHAIR

Jacob Reynolds head of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION In the wake of the pandemic, many people have expressed frustration about waiting times and the lack of face-to-face appointments with GPs. At the same time, doctors have threatened strike action over new contracts stipulating longer opening times to catch up with the backlog. In some areas of the country, there is just one GP for every 2,500 patients, yet in other places, doctors have demanded legal limits on the number of patients they see.

The suspicion in some quarters is that GPs are being lazy, or have lost their sense of vocation. Anecdotes about patients waiting hours to be fobbed off with a hurried telephone call from a GP are commonplace. But the Royal College of General Practitioners has pushed back, claiming that this suggestion is false and is undermining GP morale, which was already low. Several surveys indicate the NHS faces an exodus of experienced GPs, with many taking early retirement or reducing their hours due to workload pressure. Even increases in trainee doctors will not relieve the strain.

It seems that GPs are working harder than ever and yet people still can’t get the appointments they need. Is this predominantly due to the increased pressures caused by the pandemic, or are government critics right to suggest that the NHS has been underfunded for decades? Do we need to do more to incentivise more doctors to become GPs or is the GP as the first port of call for healthcare now outmoded? And is the solution to this perhaps bigger than intermittent injections of cash? Has the pandemic caused a crisis in GP provision or led to patient anxieties being exacerbated – or both? What is causing this crisis in trust for our once-beloved family doctors?

SPEAKERS Professor Dame Clare Gerada London-based GP; president, Royal College of General Practitioners

Sheila Lewis retired management consultant; patient member, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust

Allison Pearson columnist and chief interviewer, Daily Telegraph; co-presenter, Planet Normal podcast

Jo Phillips journalist; co-author, Why Vote? and Why Join a Trade Union?; former political advisor; fellow, Radix

Charlotte Pickles director, Reform; former managing editor, UnHerd; member, Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) and the NHS Assembly

CHAIR Tony Gilland teacher of maths and economics; Associate Fellow, Academy of Ideas

English singer-songwriter Jack Hues discusses his varied musical career, key influences, inspirations and motivations – and shares his insights on how music is faring in our fast changing world and the culture war.

Hues’ musical career and influences straddle popular and classical genres, from the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix to Stravinsky, Beethoven and beyond. Having studied music at Goldsmiths and the Royal Academy of Music, and then launching his career in the late 1970s, as frontman of New Wave band Wang Chung, Hues enjoyed chart success in Britain, Europe and especially the US. He has never stopped creating music.

After several years of touring Wang Chung during the 1980s, Hues moved onto creating solo pieces including a number of film scores in the 1990s. In the early 2000s, he co-founded the jazz-influenced The Quartet, which released two albums, both to critical acclaim.

Between 2020 – 2022, he released two solo albums, Primitif and Electro-Acoustic Works 20:20 and most recently a double live album with members of The Quartet, rock band Syd Artrhur and free jazz exponents Led Bib entitled “Epigonal Quark”, all receiving warm critical acclaim. He has also taught songwriting at Christ Church University in Canterbury.

Music fan and democracy campaigner, Niall Crowley, explores a wide range of issues with Jack Hues, including how the music industry is evolving under changing political and social pressures; innovation, radicalism and conservatism in music; whether now is a good or bad time for music and budding musicians; and what is happening to music education.

Read More:  https://clairefox.substack.com/p/cancel-culture-comes-for-claire-fox#details

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/22/chilling-truth-cancellation/

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/claire-fox-trans-joke-ricky-gervais-royal-holloway-university-2023-knj5xwzh6

Miriam is a conceptual artist, whose diverse work includes short films, animations, illustrated books, prints, drawings and surreal radio writing. She is best known for her art books – including We Go To The Gallery, in which the classic Peter and Jane Ladybird book characters grapple with conceptual art, and We Do Lockdown, where children are forcibly adapted to the ‘new normal’, where a joyless existence is heroically embraced to save humanity.

Manick Govinda is co-curator of Culture Tensions debates at Ujazdowski Castle Centre for Contemporary Art in Warsaw, Poland. In a long and successful career as an arts consultant, mentor and curator, he has been an outspoken defender of freedom of expression and critic in the culture war. Manick is curating Miriam’s solo exhibition at Ujazdowski Castle, launching on 24 March.

While Lineker may have made up with BBC management for now, the affair has thrown up lots of questions. Should we take Lineker’s comparison seriously? What does the affair say about the current state of free speech in the UK? Are his defenders being opportunistic in defending his right to express his opinions? Is calling for someone you disagree to be ‘cancelled’ ever a legitimate tactic? Is impartiality something worth striving for – and is it even possible? And what have we learned about the way political debate is conducted today?

Alastair Donald, Claire Fox, Ella Whelan and Rob Lyons kick some ideas around.

SPEAKERS

Nick Busvine OBE consultant; founding partner, Herminius Holdings Ltd; advisory board member, Briefings for Britain; Town Councillor, Sevenoaks; former diplomat, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Caroline Ffiske co-founder and spokesperson, Conservatives for Women

Eric Kaufmann professor of politics, Birkbeck College, University of London; Advisory Council member, Free Speech Union; author, The Political Culture of Young Britain and The Politics of the Culture Wars in Contemporary Britain

Max Wind-Cowie co-author, A Place for Pride; former head, Progressive Conservatism Project, Demos; commentator

INTRODUCTION Following the recent announcement of industrial action by teachers, a Spectator column asked ‘Should teachers really go on strike?’. It argued that teachers are not nearly as enthusiastic about strike action as union leaders claim. While 53% of NEU members in England voted in the ballot, less than 50% of NASUWT members did, meaning the NASUWT ballot failed to meet the legal threshold to strike.

So how widespread is support for the strikes among educators and public, and does public support matter? Some who have traditionally supported the right to strike argue that now is not the time, and that closing schools so soon after the Covid lockdowns, which disrupted education for months and continue to have knock-on effects, is irresponsible.

How do we balance the idea of vocation and public service with the right of teachers to a decent wage and conditions? Would striking during GCSE and A-Level exams, for example, be unacceptable disruption or is causing disruption necessary if workers want to stand up for their rights?

Is a 12% pay claim “fantastical” as government claim or, in a context of more than a decade of longer hours, high inflation and real terms pay cuts, utterly deserved and necessary? With the government’s anti-strike bill moving closer to law, are restrictions on the right of teachers to withdraw their labour justified by the circumstances or do they represent an opportunistic attack on civil liberties?

Join us for this roundtable discussion as we bring together teachers for and against the strike and those undecided, as we explore what it means to be a teacher today.

SPEAKERS Conor McCrory secondary school science teacher, union rep and examiner

Gareth Sturdy former teacher and union organiser, including a stint as branch president, now writing on the intersection of schools and politics

Gregor Claude art teacher and former lecturer in cultural theory

CHAIR Kevin Rooney teacher and convenor of Academy of Ideas Education Forum

INTRODUCTION The Covid pandemic created huge disruption to the UK labour market. Millions of people were forced to stop working, with most receiving furlough payments. Millions more had to work from home. With lockdowns and pandemic-related business closures in the past, what has been the lasting impact of this disruption?

Statistics for employment and earnings published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) for September to November 2022 show that unemployment remains low (3.7 per cent) while the proportion of people aged 16 to 64 in employment continues to hover around 75 per cent. But the number of people defined as ‘economically inactive’ – not working or seeking work – in this age group grew markedly over the course of the Covid pandemic and in its aftermath. Meanwhile, job vacancies for October to December 2022 remained well over one million, although the vacancy rate has started to decline.

As the Spectator noted in November 2022, ‘more than 20 per cent of working-age Brits are economically inactive, meaning they are neither in work nor looking for it. More than five million are claiming out-of-work benefits.’ Yet this exists alongside widespread staff shortages.

Meanwhile, unprecedented numbers of doctors, nurses and teachers are threatening to leave their jobs due to burnout. Although the unions lay the blame for this on low pay and poor working conditions, it co-exists with an oft-remarked decline in the quality of public service.

Is this a temporary phenomenon that will subside as the impact of the pandemic fades or an acceleration of existing trends? Have many people used the lockdowns as a moment to reflect about their attitude to work – and decided that if they can afford not to work, they won’t? What impact will rising living costs have on these trends? What is the impact on the UK economy of having so many working-age people not working?

SPEAKER Linda Murdoch is a researcher on well-being and the work ethic. She is also former director of careers at the University of Glasgow.

Arts institutions shape themselves and their policies around promoting social good, and have accepted a political agenda around climate change and identity politics. They want to be seen to be on the ‘right side’ of progress, but have they become overly instrumentalist and constraining in their approach? What harm are they doing to the development of the arts and artists?

Now it appears that the arts are responding not just to the equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) agenda, but also to the government’s levelling up policy. Under pressure to take funding outside London, controversial recent Arts Council plans threaten English National Opera with closure unless it relocates to the north.

Yet it seems that progressive arts polices have largely failed. Recent research shows that while a few women and BAME people are now more likely to achieve higher status professional roles than in the past, there are fewer people from working class backgrounds involved in the arts than in the 1970s.

How can we argue for a renewed discussion about artistic merit? What remains of the idea of art as a source and expression of beauty? Contemporary arts now often seem to be judged primarily on the basis of who they represent and their political message, on what ‘good’ they might do in society. In theatre, music and visual arts, artists and artistic projects run the risk of crossing a line if they are not politically and socially ‘on message’. And is instrumentalism (political and social) now embedded in the way most people, perhaps particularly younger generations, think about the arts? What kind of arts institutions do we need?

SPEAKERS Alexander Adams artist, critic and author. His publications include Abolish the Arts Council (co-authored with David Lee) and Culture War (Alexander’s latest publications will be avilable to buy at the event)

Dr Mo Lovatt national coordinator of Debating Matters; programme coordinator, Academy of Ideas

Jack Hues singer, Wang Chung; composer; musician; songwriter

Whilst this certainly has ramifications for UK-Scotland political relations, it also has set off a series of debates about gender identity, the rights of women, and even what the bill actually would mean in practice.

Without a doubt, these debates are some of the most difficult to navigate in contemporary politics - and also some of the most heated. So we sat down to try and make sense of it all.

On this episode of the Podcast of Ideas, Alastair Donald speaks to Susan Smith of For Women Scotland - the heroic campaigning organisation who have been defending the rights of women which are often undercut by legislation aiming to protect trans people. Claire Fox, Ella Whelan and Rob Lyons then join Alastair to mull over some of the implications in a bit more detail.

Initiated in 2015, Debating Matters Beyond Bars is a project which takes DM's schools-debating format inside prisons. Using our acclaimed substance-over-style format, teams of prisoners engage in debate with one another on a whole range of contemporary social, political and cultural topics. The programme aims to inspire them to think about issues beyond their current situation and to look forward to their life ahead – in other words, beyond bars!

In this podcast, Mo Lovatt - DM's national coordinator - and Geoff Kidder sat down with former Beyond Bars competitor Jon Floyd to discuss the impact the programme had on him when he took part in 2015 while he was serving his sentence. We were also joined by Heather Phillips, the chief executive of Beating Time, which runs, amongst other things, Inside Job – an employment programme she set up with Jon in 2020. 

For Jon, taking part in Beyond Bars was the catalyst for starting that programme with Heather as well as a whole range of initiatives he’s been involved with since 2015. As he says in the podcast, Beyond Bars gave him a purposeful activity, helped him change direction and kickstarted his journey of rehabilitation.

Subscribe to our Substack to keep up-to-date with all of our work at the Academy of Ideas: clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

Subscribe to our Substack to keep up-to-date with all of our work at the Academy of Ideas: clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

Subscribe to our Substack to keep up-to-date with all of our work at the Academy of Ideas: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

Subscribe to our Substack to get podcasts, updates and more: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

Today – at a time of enormous upheavals and significant political challenges – do we need to bring courage back into politics? There are certainly encouraging signs – do recent successes of gender-critical activists, the push back against diversity policies, or support for those threatened with being cancelled indicate new forms of solidarity? Can fighting back against the cost-of-living crisis, under the banner of Enough is Enough, forge a new movement? And as millions of UK citizens courageously refused to back down – and succeeded in forcing the establishment to ensure their democratic vote was not overturned – is the democratic Brexit spirit of taking back control ready to be rekindled?

SPEAKERS: Julie Bindel  journalist; author, Feminism for Women: the real route to liberation

Professor Sunetra Gupta professor of theoretical epidemiology, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford; award-winning novelist

Ali Miraj columnist, TheArticle; founder, the Contrarian Prize; infrastructure financier; DJ

Tim Stanley columnist and leader writer, Daily Telegraph; author, Whatever Happened to Tradition? History, Belonging and the Future of the West

Bruno Waterfield Brussels correspondent, The Times

CHAIR: Claire Fox director, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Claire sat down with Academy of Ideas colleague Jacob Reynolds to do just that. At this moment, the key thing is to listen, read, think and argue. Please share our conversation with everyone you know who is angry, confused and demanding something better.

For more about the festival, visit the Battle of Ideas festival website.

INTRODUCTION Around the world, prices of a wide range of goods and commodities have been rising sharply for the past few months. In particular, the wholesale cost of energy has been rising fast as the world economy recovered from the pandemic restrictions. Petrol prices have risen by almost a third in the past 12 months. The UK domestic energy ‘price cap’, which hit a low of £1,042 in 2020, is expected to rise to £2,800 in October. Consumer price inflation has hit 9% and is likely to reach 10% by the end of the year. For those on lower incomes, who spend more of their income on food and energy, the impact is even greater.

There are multiple explanations for the rises: the post-pandemic recovery and problems with shipping have been widely cited. The war in Ukraine and sanctions against Russia are hitting energy and food prices. Many economists also point to the rise in the money supply – thanks to ultra-low interest rates, quantitative easing and huge government spending programmes. Rises in production have not kept pace with rising demand, so prices have risen.

But the other side of the story is that wages are not keeping up with rising prices. As a result, most people are seeing real-terms cuts in their living standards. Governments and central bankers seem desperate to keep a lid on wage rises, desperate to avoid a ‘wage-price spiral’, but the effect is to make most people significantly poorer. Those on fixed incomes may be hardest hit of all.

What are the main reasons for the rise in living costs? What can be done to help reduce the impact? Should we be looking beyond short-term and temporary factors? Is this a crisis that has been coming for some time?

SPEAKERS Robert Fig  principal, Metals Risk Team, a commodity risk-management consultancy; previously worked at ArcelorMittal and London Metals Exchange

Phil Mullan writer, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

Hilary Salt actuary; founder, First Actuarial

At first glance, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine seems to have led to an unexpected moment of unity among Western nations. After years of disagreements and talk of decline, Western countries responded to the invasion with tough sanctions and a unified front. Germany has announced a dramatic increase in military spending, Finland and Sweden are seriously exploring NATO membership, and even the Brexit tensions between the EU and UK have faded into the background.  In the words of Andrew Neil: ‘Now Britain stands tall, America is a reliable ally once more, the EU has found new purpose, NATO is more united than ever, and Germany has rediscovered its backbone.’ Commentators everywhere seem eager to christen this a triumph of ‘Western values’ – such as democracy or freedom – over backward, authoritarian values said to define Russia or China.

But beneath the surface, many note tensions and contradictions. Germany resists the toughest sanctions and many disagree on the possibility of an oil and gas embargo on Russia. Emmanuel Macron seems eager to maintain diplomatic ties with Putin. Poland and Hungary, despite welcoming millions of refugees, have been hit with tough EU penalties related to rule of law disputes. Spats have broken out in NATO, too, with the US scuppering Polish plans to send fighter jets to Ukraine. The US and EU remain split on how to deal with China. What’s more, the ‘united front’ seems dangerously unstable, with key leaders like Joe Biden making remarks such as ‘that man must go’ only to row back shortly after. On top of this, many question whether there is even such a thing as ‘Western values’, what they are, and who shares them.

Has Russia’s invasion led to a new moment of Western unity? Will it last? Are deeper geopolitical tensions likely to return, or are they perhaps already shaping the West’s response to Russia’s invasion? Does the West have the leadership, capability and agreement to tackle a serious escalation in the current war? What would a revived Western unity mean for the world, and does it herald the return of aspirations to be ‘the world’s policeman’? Has the invasion demonstrated that reports of the decline of the West were exaggerated, or will declinists be proved right in the end?

SPEAKERS:

Nick Busvine OBE partner, Herminius Holdings Ltd; advisory board member and writer, Briefings for Britain; Sevenoaks town councillor; former diplomat, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Professor Bill Durodié chair of risk and security in international relations, University of Bath

Claire Fox director, Academy of Ideas; member of the House of Lords

Professor Frank Furedi sociologist and social commentator; author, First World War: Still No End in Sight

Humphrey Hawksley journalist; former foreign correspondent, BBC; author, Man on Ice, Asian Waters and The Third World War; Asia specialist

Scotland’s public debate on the war in Ukraine has been very low key. We have set up charity hubs for refugees, but we haven’t really engaged in a public discussion about the causes of the war or the right to national self-determination.

The possibility of nuclear war, Putin’s recklessness and the energy crisis have tended to dominate the way we discuss the issue. There has been very little time and space to discuss the national rights of the Ukrainians. This is surprising given that many Scots are interested in the question of national self-government and would vote – perhaps even fight – for Scottish independence. Scottish politicians have been chastised for making crass connections between the war and Scottish independence. While it’s clear that the two situations are not directly comparable, this seems like a very good time to discuss what we mean by freedom and democracy.

Whether you are for or against independence, surely it’s time we started to have serious discussions about the emerging world order. It has suddenly become painfully clear that the end of the Cold War did not mark the beginning of an era of permanent peace after all.

Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, says the war demonstrates the need to end Scotland’s dependency on fossil fuels and it shows the importance of supranational institutions such as the EU and NATO. Is she right? How did we get here? In all the confusion, the ‘Vladimir Putin is a mad dictator’ explanation really isn’t a good enough answer.

This Scotland Salon event will provide an opportunity to discuss the causes of the war and solidarity. One thing is clear: international solidarity is not a devolved issue and we should develop a better understanding of the history that led to this war and the global tensions that are being fuelled by Russian expansion.

SPEAKERS

Eddie Barnes campaign director. Our Scottish Future think-tank; former political editor, Scotsman; former political adviser to Ruth Davidson

James Heartfield writer and lecturer on British history and politics; author of several books, including The Equal Opportunities Revolution and The British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society

Jacob Reynolds partnerships manager, Academy of Ideas; convenor, The Academy 2022: Old Roots of the New Disorder; writer, Spiked

INTRODUCTION There have been many obituaries to globalisation since the big financial crisis of 2008. The dislocations caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the tough sanctions imposed upon Moscow have spawned another batch of them. Beneath this formulaic contemplation of “globalisation” versus “deglobalisation”, what sort of developments might unfold on the international economic front as a result of this conflict?

For the immediate future, it seems clear that the economic damage from the military and economic warfare will go way beyond Ukraine and Russia. The repercussions are already aggravating the existing prospects for a sluggish 2020s in many advanced economies. But what about the possible longer-term economic consequences for the world? What might it mean for international economic relations?

Could the war be a wake-up call for the Western nations to shake themselves from their economic torpor? If it ensues, would a new cold war rekindle the previous Western unity and cooperation that was so absent during the pandemic? Or have we entered a new age of autarky? Might we see further fragmentation into rival economic blocs? What could be the ramifications for the dollar-based financial system?

SPEAKER Phil Mullan writer, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

Misinformation: Ukraine, Big Tech and online censorship

As war rages in Ukraine, the limits of what we can say about such a major, epoch-defining event appear to be determined by a handful of Californian social-media giants. Facebook’s parent company, Meta has already announced the banning of Russian outlets Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik from its platforms. Twitter has declared it will ‘label all posts containing links to Russian state-affiliated media outlets’. It’s not just Silicon Valley getting in on the act. Telegram, a Dubai-based messaging app created by two brothers who left Russia under pressure from President Putin, has threatened ‘to shut down channels related to the war because of rampant misinformation’.

Meanwhile, the UK government has promised a ‘crackdown’ on university lecturers accused of spreading pro-Putin propaganda on social media. More broadly, press freedom has taken a bashing recently: during the pandemic, YouTube and other sites censored TalkRadio for alleged Covid ‘misinformation’, while a recent BBC Stephen Nolan podcast revealed the extent to which Ofcom, the official broadcast regulator, was willing to silence gender-critical views labelled ‘hate speech’.

With the government’s new Online Safety Bill empowering Ofcom to further regulate online companies such as Facebook and Instagram, how worried should we be about new restrictions on free speech? In the face of fears over the online world as a space of anonymity, falsehoods, harms and excess, is it time to accept that some controls are necessary? Or should we defend the web as a space for the free flow of information and views as it was once envisaged?

SPEAKERS: - James Harkin, Director, Centre for Investigative Journalism; former Director, Institute for Contemporary Arts (ICA); author, Cyburbia - Jenny Holland, Irish-American freelance writer; formerly at New York Times and Conde Nast; substack newsletter, Saving Culture (from itself) - Ryan Christopher, Director, Alliance Defending Freedom; co-founder, Humanum Institute

CHAIR: Alastair Donald, co-convenor Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom school

Snowflakes Or Revolutionaries? Free Speech On Campus

From decolonising the curriculum to gender-identity codes of conduct, free-speech controversies are a frequent feature of campus life. But while students are often lampooned as ‘over-sensitive’ or ‘snowflakes’, many believe that these students should be viewed as a radical generation of changemakers, whether championing LGBT rights or promoting racial equality. With the UK government’s new Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill aiming to ensure that universities are ‘bastions of free thought and intellectual debate’, some say student concerns are being ignored and their social-justice priorities undermined. How should students view free speech? Is there a risk of creating an ‘anything goes’ campus culture that prolongs the toxic culture wars? Do such state diktats on free speech offend against the very spirit of freedom they seek to protect? How can students and universities create an atmosphere of open, critical enquiry that benefits all?

SPEAKERS: - Suzanne Whitten, lecturer, Queen’s University Belfast; author, A Republican Theory of Free Speech: Critical Civility - Ryan Hoey, politics graduate; former events officer, The Literific, Queen’s University Belfast - Inaya Folarin Iman, GB News journalist; founder, The Equiano Project

CHAIR: Ella Whelan, co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

Can Culture Survive The Culture Wars?

Culture-wars divisions increasingly frame how we judge artistic works. Statues of slave traders have been ripped from pedestals, accusations of ‘transphobia’ result in the work of artists such as Jess de Wahls being removed from galleries, while books by controversial figures such as Norman Mailer and Woody Allen are pulled from the schedules by the new cultural arbiters in publishing. Musician Nick Cave has spoken for many when he said that cancel culture has an ‘asphyxiating effect on the creative soul of a society’. But others ask what is wrong with assessing works in line with contemporary moral or cultural mores. Given art seeks subjective emotional responses as well as objective judgement, should we really have to contend with abusers such as R Kelly or Marilyn Manson on our airwaves, Jimmy Carr’s Holocaust joke on streaming platforms or statues of colonial supremacists in our cities – especially when, for many, they are an emotionally harmful reminder of past oppression? Are culture-war rebels right to believe that banishing controversial works will help put us on the right side of history? Or, in the name of artistic freedom, should we resist the policing of art and artists?

SPEAKERS: - Rosemary Jenkinson, short story writer, playwright and ACNI Major Artist - Phil Harrison, writer; author, The First Day; filmmaker, Even Gods - Olivia Hartley, publisher, The Critic

CHAIR: Ella Whelan, co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

Free speech is often hailed as the ‘first freedom’ and the bedrock of democracy. Free exchange of ideas underlies all intellectual achievement and has enabled the advancement of both freedom and equality worldwide. But free speech is also a challenging and even contentious principle that today is often considered to be under threat.

In his new book, Free Speech: A Global History from Socrates to Social Media, Jacob Mchangama traces the fluctuating history of this idea, arguing that it is not enough to have free speech legally enshrined – it has to be culturally accepted too. While the desire to restrict speech has been a constant, what are the threats from free-speech sceptics that we should worry about most today and how have they come to be? At a time when ideas, language and even history itself are the target of contentious interventions to restrict the free exchange of ideas, what can a wide-ranging historical perspective on free speech offer us in the contemporary battle to speak freely and challenge orthodoxies?

LECTURER: Jacob Mchangama lawyer, human rights advocate and former external lecturer in human rights at the University of Copenhagen. He is the founder and director of Justitia, a Copenhagen-based think tank focusing on human rights, freedom of speech, and the rule of law. His writings have appeared in a wide range of international outlets including The Economist, The Washington Post, Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, Politico, The Wall Street Journal Europe, El Pais, France24, Deutsche Welle, and Al Jazeera. This book builds on his podcast ‘Clear and Present Danger: A History of Free Speech’, which has reached an audience of over 220,000 unique listeners in more than 120 countries across the world.

PANELISTS:

Dr Joanna Williams director of Cieo; author, Academic Freedom in an Age of Conformity

Toby Young general secretary, Free Speech Union

CHAIR: Claire Fox director, Academy of Ideas. The discussion will be followed by a wine reception, hosted by Basic Books.

A famous old Russian once said: ‘There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.’ The past week feels exactly like that since Russia’s appalling decision to invade Ukraine. Not only will there be enormous bloodshed, but a nation’s independence and sovereignty is under threat. It feels like an earthquake has taken place in international relations, with old certainties undermined and gathering trends suddenly coming to fruition. We need to ask how we got to this point, what we need to do now and what the wider ramifications are.

How did we get here? In all the confusion, the ‘Vladimir Putin is a mad dictator’ explanation really isn’t a good enough answer. We need a much better historical perspective than we’ve been getting so far, at the very least on events since the fall of the Soviet Union, but also how the current world order is, in many respects, an anomaly from the far longer experience of great-power politics. And we need to examine the chain of events in an open and honest way; it’s not ‘treason’, as some have claimed, to question NATO or the West’s approach to Russia in recent decades. Such questions, and a commitment to open inquiry, should not be demonised. Solidarity with Ukraine should not imply that we must suspend critical thinking.

SPEAKERS INCLUDE:

Professor Frank Furedi, sociologist and social commentator; author, First World War: Still No End in Sight

Joan Hoey, regional director for Europe, Economist Intelligence Unit (sister organisation of The Economist newspaper)

Tim Stanley, columnist and leader writer, Daily Telegraph; author, Whatever Happened to Tradition? History, Belonging and the Future of the West

CHAIR: Claire Fox, director, Academy of Ideas; member, House of Lords

Articles discussed in the podcast: Patrick Cockburn in the Independent / Tom McTague in the Atlantic / Brendan O'Neill in spiked

INTRODUCTION As the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) approaches its 30th birthday, many are increasingly concerned that Ofsted is becoming overly political and moralistic and insufficiently educational in its approach. The anniversary of Ofsted’s creation seems a good moment to take stock.

Ofsted employs more than a thousand people and has an annual budget of close to £130 million. For this, it takes responsibility for regularly inspecting all publicly funded schools and colleges in England. In addition to setting the agenda of her inspection teams, Ofsted’s head, Amanda Spielman, writes a widely read annual report on the state of state education. Spielman herself has strong educational, political and moral opinions, and intervenes regularly in public debates. Last year, for example, she rejected calls to decolonise the school curriculum.

Ofsted was established in 1992 in the final phase of the Thatcherite reform of English state education. The creation of a national inspectorate that reported in public followed the introduction of the National Curriculum in 1989, as well as a new national examination system that included the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE). Results from these national exams were from this point onwards reported in national league tables, in which the performance of all state schools was ranked.

At the time, many teachers opposed this power grab from central government, and these criticisms have continued to be voiced. For many, Ofsted represents an unwarranted extension of central state control over education, as well as a mechanism by which the autonomy and the professionalism of teachers has been undermined. It is certainly true that teachers in England experience extraordinary levels of central state control and that Ofsted is one of the mechanisms by which this control is exercised. However, sociologist Stephen Ball perhaps overstates the case when he describes the accountability pressures experienced by English state-school teachers as giving rise to the ‘terror of performativity’.

It was under the government of John Major that Ofsted was first introduced. As we might expect, his account of its purpose differs from that of its critics. Writing in his autobiography, he observes that when he came into office, producers – rather than consumers – controlled public services and that health and education in particular was ‘run carelessly, wastefully, arrogantly … more for the convenience of the providers than the users, whether they were parents, pupils or patients’.

More recently, however, Ofsted has faced criticism from conservatives. They argue that Ofsted has been captured by progressivist educators, who are using the inspection system to impose woke values on education. Ofsted, the conservatives allege, has become a cuckoo institution, a mechanism by which a progressivist elite lodged within the state are imposing their values on young people. This charge could not be more serious, as Ofsted ought to remain impartial on matters that divide the nation morally and politically. It is, after all, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate.

Is Ofsted now exceeding its official remit? Do we even need a national inspectorate when we have a national examination system? Can state-employed teachers be trusted to do the job for which they are paid and trained? Is it time that we inspected the inspectors?

SPEAKERS Neil Davenport writer and teacher

Rowenna Davis teacher; former journalist and Labour Party parliamentary candidate; new mum and community organiser

Alex Kenny secondary school teacher and NEU Executive member

Joseph Robertson director, Orthodox Conservatives think tank; education research fellow, The Bow Group

CHAIR Toby Marshall teacher and member of the AoI Education Forum

https://academyofideas.org.uk/event/boiling-point-russia-and-the-west/

INTRODUCTION:

Russian troops on the border of Ukraine, riots in Kazakhstan, brutal suppression of recent protests in Belarus, talk of a new Cold War, threats of catastrophic sanctions from America, and demands from Russia for new security guarantees. As negotiations begin between Russia and the West, how do we make sense of the confusing – and highly charged – state of East-West relations?

Why have tensions continued to rachet up in the first place? Is there some validity to Russian security concerns amidst the enlargement of NATO and the EU, or is Russia to blame for seeking to expand its sphere of influence? Is this a genuine opportunity for Biden and Putin to lower tensions, or even negotiate a new settlement for relations between the West and Russia, after the chaotic collapse of the Soviet Union? Or is this just a prelude to further hostilities? Why does the whole area of the former Soviet Union seem such a hotbed of geopolitical tensions today?

SPEAKERS:

Mary Dejevsky

international affairs correspondent, Independent

Professor Frank Furedi

sociologist and commentator; author, 100 Years of Identity Crisis: culture war over socialisation

CHAIR: Jacob Reynolds

partnerships manager, Academy of Ideas

What can we expect of the arts in 2022? On the one hand, the measures taken to protect us against COVID19 have imposed onerous restrictions on the arts, closing down theatres, museums, galleries and most other venues. But the arts seem to be returning to life with renewed (if somewhat cautious) energy.

On the other hand, controversy continues to dog the arts, whether it’s what to put on the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square, sponsors and patrons with unsavoury histories, artists who fall foul of new moral codes, or increasing calls for censorship and cancellation. These controversies might help to keep the arts in the public eye, but what impact do they have on artistic development and production? What can we expect in terms of new work of artistic merit?

As 2022 gets started, after two years of hiatus and disruption, can we expect things to get better or worse? Are there any potential events or developments that we can anticipate with excitement or dread? How will the arts respond to the challenges likely to face us in 2022? How will each of the arts fare in the coming year?

Listen to Niall Crowley, Jonathan Grant, Rachel Jordon, Michael Nath, Vicky Richardson and Wendy Earle discuss.

WHAT ARE WESTERN VALUES - AND SHOULD WE DEFEND THEM?

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021:
 https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/what-are-western-values-and-should-we-defend-them/

The recent abandonment of Afghanistan by the UK and the US is widely seen as a humiliating defeat for the West. Coinciding with the 20th anniversary of 9/11, the hurried exit and its consequences have led to a soul-searching discussion about what the West really means today. Are we prepared to fight for Western values, and do we even agree on what Western values are?

THE POST-PANDEMIC RECOVERY: HOW IS IT GOING?

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/the-post-pandemic-recovery-how-is-it-going/

Will the post-pandemic recovery continue? Why has the UK economy experienced such a long period of relative stagnation, with productivity barely growing for years? What, if anything, can be done to change this dynamic? How can living standards be boosted in more deprived areas? The Covid-related economic crisis is itself unlikely to ‘change everything’, but to what extent could it be the catalyst for accelerating economic changes already underway?

CAN SPORT SURVIVE THE CULTURE WARS?

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/can-sport-survive-the-culture-wars/

Is sport in danger of being consumed by these wider cultural issues or is it part of a healthy cleansing process? Is the praise heaped upon Biles and Osaka a sign that sport needs to change to put athletes wellbeing first?

CARE FOR THE ELDERLY: THE FORGOTTEN MINORITY?

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/care-for-the-elderly-the-forgotten-minority/

Negative attitudes to the elderly go far beyond financial support. Long before COVID, social policy has been ambivalent about increased longevity. Far from being treated as unalloyed good news, the trend has often been problematised as a demographic time bomb, a financial burden to be paid for by the young and a drain on the NHS. Are these problems solely down to governments? If politicians have out-sourced elderly care, have some families themselves done the same, with Covid only highlighting the underlying weaknesses in intergenerational family bonds? How should we view care of the elderly in the future? What lessons have we learnt from the pandemic?

FROM GB NEWS TO BEN & JERRY’S: BOYCOTTS OR CENSORSHIP?

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/from-gb-news-to-ben-jerrys-boycotts-or-censorship/

If boycotts are simply legitimate expressions of preference or political opinion, can we complain about them? Or, if they stray into the territory of suppressing political debate, do they then become more of a threat? Are boycotts an attack on free expression or a weapon for those fighting for accountability? How has the use of boycotts changed over the years, and why have they become so contentious?

THE FSU FILES: HOW TO FIGHT CANCEL CULTURE AND WIN

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/the-fsu-files-how-to-fight-cancel-culture-and-win/

What is it like to be publicly shamed for your views or beliefs, to have your words scrutinised by an employment tribunal or even by the police? More importantly, what inspires some to stand their ground and make their struggle public? Are new communities and movements beginning to flourish around freedom of speech? And how can we successfully defend individual speech rights, campaign for greater legislative protection and try to turn the tide on the wave of intolerance sweeping through our institutions?

GIRL, BOY, OTHER: HOW DO WE TALK TO KIDS ABOUT GENDER?

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/girl-boy-other-how-do-we-talk-to-kids-about-gender/

How should we talk to kids about gender – if at all? Is it small-minded to feel uncomfortable about a more open discussion of sex and identity, particularly with younger children at school? Or are we allowing political trends in the adult world interfere with what’s best for kids? Is it a sign of a problem or an expression of greater freedom that, in recent years, there has been a notable increase in young people feeling alienated from their given gender identity? Should children’s gender identity be given the space to be playful, and does the toxic debate in the adult world risk putting limitations on that space for childish exploration?

IS IT TIME TO RETHINK THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE?

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/is-it-time-to-rethink-the-precautionary-principle/

Can we treat decisions about something like a pandemic in the same way as those to do with the environment and new technologies, like artificial intelligence? Or has this pandemic shown us that we need to consider each new threat in a more holistic way, considering the economy, well-being and people’s freedoms as much as the direct threat to health? Is it time to finally depoliticise precaution and treat each case as unique? Or with political alignments becoming as important as the dispassionate assessment of risk, will the precautionary principle remain another victim of the all-encompassing ‘culture wars’?

IS LEVELLING UP REALLY LEVELLING DOWN? THE GREAT INEQUALITY DEBATE

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/is-levelling-up-really-levelling-down-the-great-inequality-debate/

This debate was run in partnership with the Ayn Rand Centre UK.

So equality of opportunity – or perhaps more radically, allowing everyone (more or less) to have the same income – is a no brainer. If the economic consequences of the pandemic are that the poor seem to have got poorer while the wealthy have done even better, tackling this disparity should be a priority for policy. But is equality really all it is cracked up to be? While everyone would agree that poverty is a bad thing, that doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone should get the same. Even those on minimum wage in the UK are much better off than people in poorer but more equal countries. People vary in how talented, skilful and hard-working they are, but would people take risks or slog to get qualifications if there were no material benefit to themselves?

RACISM AND HOW TO FIGHT IT

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/racism-and-how-to-fight-it/

What does racism in the UK look like today, and how can we fight it? Is the contemporary anti-racist route of exposing white privilege the right way to challenge discrimination? Or does accentuating racial difference risk defeating any prospect of solidarity? Is it right to claim that society remains structurally racist, or should we be more specific about the differences between individual racist prejudices and institutional racism? Is contemporary anti-racism helping or hindering freedom and equality for people of colour, and who should have a say in how to fight for their rights?

THE STATUS OF SCIENCE AFTER THE PANDEMIC

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/the-status-of-science-after-the-pandemic/

As we emerge from the impacts of Covid, what should we conclude about scientific authority and accountability? How should science and politics relate to one another? In what circumstances, and in what capacity, should scientists feel free to speak their mind publicly? Conversely, when is it reasonable for lay people to direct criticism at scientists? How should scientists use, and relate to, traditional media and social media? And how have the everyday challenges of a jobbing scientist – obtaining funding, pressure to publish, demonstrating impact, negotiating tensions with one’s seniors and colleagues – affected, and been affected by, the politics of the pandemic?

THE IRISH BORDER QUESTION: CAN THE UNION SURVIVE?

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021:

https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/the-irish-border-question-can-the-union-survive/

 Is it time for Unionists to accept a border poll as a democratic resolution and prepare their best arguments to save the Union? How should British citizens view the threat to the Union? If Lord Frost eventually tears up the Protocol, will that save the Union and resolve the border tensions? Or has the unravelling of the border become a fait accompli, based on the instability inherent in partition?

WILL GREEN JOBS SAVE US?

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/will-green-jobs-save-us/

Will a shift to a green economy revive the UK economy? Is the ‘green economy’ just the latest Big Idea to boost growth that will ultimately prove illusory? Is encouraging economic growth simply bad for the planet and should we accept that environmental problems mean we should strive for a zero-growth society?

CAN OUR DATA BE USED FOR GOOD? THE ETHICS OF RESEARCH

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/can-our-data-be-used-for-good-the-ethics-of-research/

This debate was run in partnership with ADRUK.

When there is such extensive scope to improve lives by making better use of data, what guiding ethical principles and data protections should be in place? Can governments be trusted to use this data for good, or do they deserve scrutiny? Are there useful differences between public bodies and companies, or between researchers and governments? Is ‘anonymous’ data ever truly safe from being re-identified, and if not, how can we balance risk with the benefits afforded by the digital revolution?

PROTECTION FOR ME BUT NOT FOR THEE? THE EQUALITY CONUNDRUM

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/protection-for-me-but-not-for-thee-the-equality-conundrum/

Do we need to be recognised in law to feel secure about ourselves? Is there a difference in the role of the law to protect against discrimination and protect certain beliefs? Has the fight for equality and liberation been replaced by the demand for affirmation? Do concerns about equality end up tongue-tying workers who should be free to debate political and moral issues, or are there some things that should be off limits? Is equality worth fighting for any longer, or does it now mean something very different?

HATE, HERESY AND THE FIGHT FOR FREE SPEECH

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/hate-heresy-and-the-fight-for-free-speech/

Would a public square that embraced free expression be a dangerous thing? Can words be as dangerous as physical violence? Are we in danger of creating a new form of heresy when so-called social-justice warriors complain about hate speech on Twitter and governments simultaneously ban protests? Or should we embrace moves to get tough on hate? Could an increasingly volatile debate about free speech mean that more people are likely to self-censor for fear of being called a bigot? And if we decide that we do value free speech as a fundamental tenet of a liberal society, how can we mount a modern case for it in the twenty-first century?

FEMINISM'S CIVIL WAR

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/feminisms-civil-war/

Does feminism know what it stands for anymore? Are the current divides reflective of a sea-change for feminism, or does the current infighting stem from its roots in identity politics? Can feminism survive its current civil war, or is it time for a new women’s liberation movement?

FROM PROFITS TO PROPHETS: WHY HAS BIG BUSINESS GONE WOKE?

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/from-profits-to-prophets-why-has-big-business-gone-woke/

This debate was run in partnership with the Academy of Ideas Economy Forum.

Is it a positive sign that big corporations are starting to care about something more than profits? Are woke campaigns and branding a distraction from the need to provide good products and services that consumers want? Is there any truth in the critical joke ‘Get woke, go broke’? What does it mean for democracy if corporations play an increasingly activist role in pursuing a liberal agenda?

IS THERE A CASE FOR FOSSIL FUELS?

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/is-there-a-case-for-fossil-fuels/

This debate was held in partnership with the Ayn Rand Centre UK

Governments have been striving to phase out fossil fuels in favour of renewables, particularly in the past decade, to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. But renewables are intermittent and unreliable. So how can we get secure supplies of energy that are reliable and affordable? Have we been too hasty in phasing out fossil fuels? Is there still a place for them until a new technology, like nuclear fusion, can easily supply all the energy we need? Or is climate change such an immediate danger that we need to learn to live without coal, oil and gas?

A ‘NUDGE’ TOO FAR? THE RISE OF BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOCRATIC RULE

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/a-nudge-too-far-the-rise-of-behavioural-psychology-and-technocracy/

All societies need expert advice, but what is the line between legitimate advice and sinister attempts to shift behaviour? Why has psychology especially become so prominent in how the government relates to the public? Does the rise of experts and ‘evidence-based policy’ capture a real shift in how people are seen, no longer as agents of their own destiny but as data-points to be managed to generate better policy outcomes? What is the line between a gentle nudge in the direction of better choices and an authoritarian shove? Who even decides what is the better choice? What happened to the traditional model of the self-directing citizen, or was it always a mirage?

20 YEARS IN AFGHANISTAN: WHAT HAPPENED?

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/20-years-in-afghanistan-what-happened/

With the withdrawal of Western forces now complete, will 20 years of Western-led occupation and the promotion of liberal-democratic values have an impact on the future of Afghanistan, or will conservative, religious values predominate? Has military intervention and nation-building had a small, but positive impact or was attempting to impose democracy from above simply a doomed act of Western hubris?

WHO ARE WE? IDENTITY IN CRISIS

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021:
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/who-are-we-identity-in-crisis/

Do we know who we are anymore? And does embracing our sense of identity hinder or help our ability to engage in collective ambitions, like figuring out what society stands for? How has the atomisation of modern life changed our identities – particularly when the online world offers opportunities to curate and manicure our own view of ourselves? Is identity important, or should we be telling young people that it’s what they do in the world, rather than who they are, that matters? And can today’s culture wars be seen as part of this identity crisis – or should we accept that all aspects of life are now up for grabs on the political stage?

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review.

INTRODUCTION How should we view the teaching of ‘white privilege’? Is it a helpful tool in combating racial inequality or a divisive idea that sows mistrust?

The concept originated in American academia in the 1980s, but entered British schools last year in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd.

White privilege asserts that white people are automatically advantaged by their skin colour, because they do not have to endure lives beset by racialised systemic discrimination. The fact that black people are more likely to be paid less, sectioned under mental-health rules, or stopped and searched by police is cited as evidence of white privilege at work by advocates of the theory.

Yet opponents of the concept say this reading of the data fans the flames of an unnecessary culture war. They counter-claim that those least likely to go to university, for example, are poor white teenagers in former industrial and coastal towns. White working-class children also trail their Indian, Chinese, Bangladeshi and Black African peers In GCSE attainment, they argue.

To what extent, then, does white privilege help or hinder us in understanding how pupils might make the best progress in education?

Teaching white privilege as an uncontested fact in schools is indoctrination and illegal under the 1996 Education Act, according to the women and equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch. Her pronouncement has prompted the Black Educators Alliance and the Coalition of Anti Racist Educators to accuse the government of censorship and chilling free speech in the classroom.

On the other side of the debate, the campaign group Don’t Divide Us claims it is inundated with concerns from teachers and parents. It says the former fear being publicly accused of racism if they speak out against teaching white privilege, while the latter describe having to list their privileges and unconscious bias in their children’s homework.

In the United States, opposition to the teaching of white privilege was seen as an important factor in Republican Glenn Youngkin taking the key governorship of Virginia from the Democrats recently. The result has been widely interpreted as a bellwether of wider public rejection of the kind of educational social-justice programme proposed by the Democrats, which favours schools adopting the principles of ‘critical race theory’, such as countering the effects of white privilege.

So how should we judge the focus on white privilege and unconscious racial bias in lessons, reading lists and school staff training? Will it make schools more anti-racist – or divided?

The Education Forum explores this important issue in a friendly, open and respectful panel discussion. Are the majority of parents and teachers unaware of the term ‘white privilege’ and not likely to give it a second thought? Or is white privilege in the curriculum about to become the next big issue in education?

SPEAKERS Alka Sehgal Cuthbert Education Forum member; co-ordinator, Don’t Divide Us (DDU); educational advisor and writer. Alka is critical of the term ‘white privilege’ and thinks it does more harm than good.

Andre Ediagbonya-Davies Andre went to school in Tottenham and is a second-year historian at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. He supports expanded discussion on race within education. He believes white privilege is a reality and talking about it is a useful way of helping combat racism.

Julie Dupont Julie is a North London parent of three school-age children. She is a committed anti-racist, but is concerned at the way white privilege is communicated in some of her children’s lessons and homework, and in school communications to parents. She thinks it is divisive and does more harm than good.

Among his most recent work is the award-winning Cyprus Avenue, performed at the Royal Court in 2016, with Stephen Rea in the lead role, focused on a unionist convinced his new born grandchild is Gerry Adams and has to be killed. Ulster American, performed at the Edinburgh Festival in 2018, focuses on the challenges of writing a play about Irish identity and had audiences laughing in horror. Sadie, due to be premiered in Belfast in early 2020 but cancelled due to lockdown, was recently screened on BBC4, is a disturbing dissection of a middle-aged working-class woman’s frustration and anger.

In this special Arts&Society Forum for the Battle of Ideas festival, Wendy Earle talks to David Ireland about truth and politics in theatre, artistic survival in a climate of intolerance and cancel culture, and the comedic possibilities of not holding back – and how he gets away with it!

David Ireland is a Northern Irish-born playwright and actor most known for his award-winning plays Cyprus Avenue and Ulster American. He won the Stewart Parker Award and the Meyer-Whitworth Award in 2012 and was shortlisted for the Evening Standard Award for Most Promising Playwright 2016. More recently, Sadie was screened on BBC4 and his play YES SO I SAID YES is due to be performed at the Finborough Theatre, Earl’s Court from 23 November to 18 December.

Wendy Earle is the convenor of the Academy of Ideas Arts&Society Forum, and writes on culture and the arts.

INTRODUCTION From the pandemic to the environment, housing to food supply, politicians and experts often tell us that our choices are limited. When Covid-19 took the world by surprise, governments around the world understandably took a blinkered view – opting to shut down society for fear of the worst. But even before the chaos of the last 19 months, the discussion about how to deal with challenges both political and viral have taken on a fatalistic tone.

The slogan There Is No Alternative might have been coined by Margaret Thatcher to defend the market economy, but a broader reliance on the TINA outlook has come to inform many aspects of modern politics. Politicians and commentators applauded climate activist Greta Thunberg when she accused them of robbing children of their futures. According to climate activists Extinction Rebellion: ‘We are facing an unprecedented global emergency. Life on Earth is in crisis: scientists agree we have entered a period of abrupt climate breakdown, and we are in the midst of a mass extinction of our own making.’ There are some climate activists who shun the idea of any progress at all – believing that it is too late to do anything to stop the damage humans have inflicted on the planet.

This defeatist feeling can be found elsewhere – the Brexit debate descended into banks, industries and politicians telling voters that a rejection of the EU would end in disaster (even world war). Campaigners for fighting racism or sexism argue that life for minorities has gotten worse, despite years of legal and social change. Cynicism among voting populations is common, with scepticism about how much governments do to change politics expressed at every election. Even debate about the end of the pandemic, and how to get back to normal life, has been routinely qualified with assertions that ‘normal’ can never really return. Some people express concerns about this but feel powerless to challenge it in what has become a fatalistic acceptance of the dominant narrative

But despite our penchant for doommongering, some point out that there is proof of what human beings can do when faced with adversity. While global temperatures are rising, this has occurred at a time of rising world population because people are living longer and incomes in most of the world are still expected to rise considerably in coming years. Some commentators point out that, far from a picture of gloom and despair, those of us alive today are the luckiest people in history when it comes to health, wealth, education, culture and more. The success of the vaccine rollout – or the ability for the government to get homeless people off the streets during the pandemic – shows that change can happen when a little bit of pressure is applied.

What happens to politics when we take a fatalistic outlook? Some argue that there is a difference between being doom-laden and telling it like it is – climate activists argue that those who won’t face how bad things have got are simply denying the problem. Where does agency fit into all of this – is action impossible with a modern TINA outlook? Is it right to believe that they are an existential threat to human beings or even life on Earth in general? If not, what explains the popularity of apocalyptic thinking today?

SPEAKERS Josie Appleton director, civil liberties group, Manifesto Club; author, Officious: Rise of the Busybody State; blogger, notesonfreedom.com

Alex Cameron graphic designer; design and cultural critic

Dr Roslyn Fuller managing director, Solonian Democracy Institute; author, In Defence of Democracy

Matthew Kruger advocate, Johannesburg Bar

CHAIR Jacob Reynolds partnerships manager, Academy of Ideas

IS THE NHS FIT FOR PURPOSE?

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021:
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/is-the-nhs-fit-for-purpose/

How can we solve the problems of the NHS? Is it simply a matter of providing extra resources, or is the way those resources are used a problem, too? Do we expect too much from the NHS? And with some observers likening the NHS to a national religion, are politicians brave enough to have a proper debate about reform?

Listen to Parth Patel, Professor Karol Sikora, Christopher Snowdon, Dolly Theis and Dave Clements discuss.

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review.

DISINFORMATION AND CONSPIRACY: TACKLING THE CRISIS OF TRUST

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021:

www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/disi…is-of-trust/

Why have disinformation and conspiracy theories become such mainstream preoccupations? What is a healthy distrust of officialdom, and when does it start to move away from reality? Have we become afraid of ourselves and our own ability to make judgements, and do we need a new series of official authorities to determine what’s real and what’s not? Or is the collapse in trust – and in each other – a matter for us all to take up?

Listen to Alastair Donald, Dr Sean Lang, Dr Tim Black, Konstantin Kisin and William Clouston discuss.

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review.

GOING GREEN: ECO-DOGMA OR SALVATION?

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/goin…r-salvation/

In partnership with the Freiblickinstitut.

How can we solve a problem like climate change? Should it be treated as an emergency that should subsume all other priorities? Do green policies even work or do they make matters worse? Is the problem that political and corporate rhetoric about taking action is just superficial ‘greenwash’, being seen to be green rather than making fundamental changes? Has the political consensus around climate change robbed voters of a chance to have our say?

Listen to Dr Shahrar Ali, Sabine Beppler-Spahl, Heydon Prowse, Austin Williams and Alastair Donald discuss.

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review.

A new, live, #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/assi…s-time-come/

After previous efforts failed, will this year be the year the UK grants a ‘right to die’? What are the moral issues at stake? What, politically, does a right to die mean in a society seemingly obsessed with good health? Should people be given the choice, and assistance, to end their lives, or is it a threshold which must not be crossed?

Listen to Joel Cohen, David Pearce, Dr Richard Scheffer, Professor Katherine Sleeman and Dr Kevin Yuill discuss.

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review.

Apart from a brief and ill-starred campaign early last autumn to get staff back to the office, for over a year workers have been told that they should work at home if they can. Yet with Covid cases, hospitalisations and deaths now back down to the level we saw at the end of last summer, it seems workers are not exactly rushing to get back to the office.

For some, there may still be the fear of commute or the fear of catching the virus whilst working in the office. For others, there may still be difficulties in getting childcare. But it is also becoming obvious that for some, the comforts of home working are much more attractive than office life. What does this say about the quality of work to date – perhaps just that it is not as great as it is made out to be and that many jobs are not ‘real’ jobs?

Employers like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs have summoned all US staff back to the office. Others, like HSBC, have adopted a hybrid form of working. Yet other big firms, like Twitter, are allowing their staff to work from home forever if they so wish. For employers, there are multiple different factors at play in encouraging staff to carry on working on the kitchen table or in the spare room: the risk of lawsuits if employees catch the virus; the potential savings on office rents; extracting longer working hours from those who no longer have to commute.

On the other hand, all that extra distance between workers may undermine the idea of pursuing collective goals, workers bouncing ideas off each other or simply picking up on office conservations – finding out things they didn’t know they needed to know. It may also be harder for managers to manage staff at a distance.

For employees, working at home may have its comforts and conveniences, but there is much to be said for a properly thought-out office environment. If the reluctance to get back to the office is driven by disenchantment with the kind of work on offer – something that seems particularly clear with the slow return of those on furlough – will employers use this as an opportunity to reassess the kind of jobs they offer?

Yet for many employees, working from home isn’t working. For all the new buzz about ‘hybrid working’ and a ‘flexible approach’, a survey conducted by the CIPD found that 47 per cent of respondents cited mental well-being as the main challenge of working from home.

In this digital era, can employers ensure that employees do not feel burnt out by work? Is it appropriate to expect employers to adopt a paternalistic approach towards their employees, taking more responsibility for people’s health and well-being? What do these new ways of working mean for the dividing line between work and home?

More broadly, does the focus on returning to work miss the real challenges for UK businesses evident before the pandemic, particularly when it comes to low productivity: a failure to automate processes or make the most of AI, the prevalence of ‘bullshit jobs’ and a stifling aversion to taking risk?

SPEAKERS

Para Mullan fellow, Chartered Institute of Personnel Development

Hilary Salt actuary; founder, First Actuarial

They chew the fat on Scotland's departure and wonder if England will ever play exciting football. They also look at UEFA's ban on lighting up the Allianz Arena for Pride, the row over Ronaldo and Pogba moving drinks bottles and the hypocrisy of allowing 2,500 UEFA hangers-on into the UK while we all struggle to travel abroad at all.

INTRODUCTION Love it or loathe it, the UK’s Special Relationship with the USA has been around since Churchill coined the phrase in 1946. And as the first nation to leave the European Union, the UK’s ongoing relationship with the EU is, at the very least, ‘special’ by definition.

In his presentation, Jonathan Grant will offer a perspective on these two unquestionably special relationships: one with the EU that has only recently been formed, and that with the USA, particularly how that might change under the new Biden-Harris administration.

SPEAKER Jonathan Grant is a London-based chartered accountant specialising in serving global clients with operations in the UK. He deals extensively with people and businesses across both the USA and the EU; away from the office, he is an independent arts critic.

The headlines claimed this has been the 'biggest fiasco in football history', the 'defeat of greed' and that elites sports has suffered its 'most astounding humiliation.

• Why did the European Super League has suddenly emerge now?  • What were the main problems with this initiative? • Why did pushing through the ESL run up against the buffers?  • Can we read anything deeper into this, culturally or even politically? • What are the ramifications of the ESL's collapse and what about the future – for fans, football, football governance and politics?

Joe Biden became the 46th president of the United States on 20 January 2021. But what does Biden stand for and what will his administration aim to achieve?

Most notably, his first major move was the American Rescue Plan Act, a package of stimulus, welfare and other measures that will cost $1.9 trillion. The act provides for a round of $1,400 stimulus checks for individuals making less than $75,000 a year and for married couples earning under $150,000, plus the extension of federal supplements to state unemployment benefits. There is extra provision for coronavirus measures, including vaccination programmes, improving ventilation in schools and more. There is also a boost to federal subsidies for health insurance.

But what does Biden stand for beyond this? What measures will be taken to move the economy out of its long-term lethargy, particularly in the face of competition from China?

SPEAKER

James Matthews New York-based management consultant; commentator on the US economy and business; former economic forecaster

INTRODUCTION

A large survey undertaken by the NHS in July 2020 found that a staggering one in six children now have a ‘probable mental health disorder’. Since that report we have had another school lockdown. Anne Longfield, the outgoing Children’s Commissioner for England, argued that ‘damage to children’s mental health caused by the Covid crisis could last for years without a large-scale increase for children’s mental health services’.

It is widely accepted that lockdown and school closures have had a detrimental effect on young people, but what does that really mean? Some argue that a year of severe disruption to schooling has limited children’s educational, social and intellectual development, with the likelihood of knock-on effects on the future university and career prospects of GCSE and A Level students.

But are the NHS, Children’s Commissioner and others unnecessarily catastrophising the state of children’s mental health? Have the kids really been messed up by lockdown? Or might they be more resilient than may adults give them credit for?

At what point does missing your school friends transform from disappointment, sadness and frustration to mental illness? Is there now a danger that we stretch the definition of mental health so far that it encompasses many of the normal travails and anxieties of normal teenage life and growing up?

On the other hand, kids missing out on seeing their peers and grown-up role models such as grandparents and teachers is no trivial matter. Is it not bound to limit their emotional and social cognition and lead to serious problems? As schools get set to reopen, this latest online Education Forum debate will explore the impact of lockdown on the mental health of young people.

SPEAKERS

Molly Kingsley co-founder, UsForThem

Dr Ken McLaughlin senior lecturer in Social Care and Social Work, Manchester Metropolitan University

Sarah Standish school counsellor at a Harrow school

The talent to pass exams and handle information efficiently, he argues, has become the gold standard of human esteem. Those with a generous helping of such aptitude have formed a new class – a ‘mass elite’ – which now shapes society in its own interests. For those employed in manual work or the caring professions it’s another matter.

“It is becoming harder to feel satisfaction and self-respect living an ordinary, decent life, especially in the bottom part of the income spectrum”, writes Goodhart.

Brexit and Trump have frequently been criticised because of the low intelligence or poor education of their working-class voters. Yet the recent wave of Covid-related school closures and exam cancellations suggests that academic values aren’t all-conquering either.

The pandemic has seen a re-evaluation of the importance of blue-collar workers and the caring professions, such as in the weekly ‘Clap for Carers’ during the height of the crisis. However, it has also seen those protesting against masks and lockdowns labelled as low-information ‘Covidiots’.

So to what extent is Goodhart’s distinction between Head, Hand and Heart helpful in understanding the contemporary tensions in education? Is he correct to claim that we have reached an era of ‘peak Head’ in which a meritocracy based on educational achievement is counter-productive? Or can one believe in high intellectual standards and the importance of exams without excluding those who have little aptitude for them?

Is a school system which embraces both the academic and non-academic possible – or are these distinctions meaningless anyway?

To consider these and other questions, this Academy of Ideas Education Forum event took the form of a book group on Head, Hand, Heart. Gareth Sturdy gives a short introduction to the book before opening up the meeting to round-table discussion.

How does one argue effectively for a schooling system which accords dignity and status to the non-academic, while upholding academic standards?

All Academy of Ideas online events are free - if you are in a position to be able to donate, we’d greatly appreciate your support: http://www.academyofideas.org.uk/donate

Alastair Donald, Geoff Kidder and Rob Lyons from the Academy of Ideas are joined by athlete, footballer and Battle of Ideas speaker Georgina Newcombe in this special SPORTScast of Ideas.

This week, in the latest of a new series of the Podcast of Ideas, Alastair Donald talks to friends and speakers from our annual festival: the Battle of Ideas. You'll hear Fraser Myers, spiked's staff writer in London; Anne-Élisabeth Moutet, Telegraph journalist in Paris; Sean O'Halloran, freelance journalist in Fabriano in Eastern Italy and Lamprini Thoma, writer and podcaster in Thessaloniki.

With this in mind, Claire Fox, Geoff Kidder, Jacob Reynolds, Rob Lyons, Mo Lovatt, Alastair Donald and Ella Whelan discuss everything from the government's new social-distancing measures to what this all means for the economy and social interaction.

As the old saying goes, ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’. While social-justice activists are generally decent people, many commentators argue they exhibit all the tendencies of a cult: unshakeable certainty, a desire to convert the fallen while rejecting the idea of redemption, and capable of horrendous acts even though they see themselves as ‘the good guys’. The authors of two recent books on the ‘woke’ phenomenon, Douglas Murray and Andrew Doyle, consider their different approaches to critiquing woke activism. Given that the social justice movement is seemingly impervious to reason, will either of these strategies have any impact?

HOSTED BY: ANDREW DOYLE writer and comedian; author, Titania McGrath’s Woke: a guide to social justice

GUEST: DOUGLAS MURRAY author, The Madness of Crowds: gender, race and identity; journalist; columnist; associate editor, Spectator

Debate is growing about the use of a genetic/genomic approach called ‘polygenic scores’ to understand health and assess health risks. These scores are different from traditional genetic tests and can be used in relation to a vastly greater number of diseases and conditions. Advocates claim this new approach could revolutionise healthcare and – in the UK context – help redefine the NHS. Critics retort that polygenic scores are of limited use, and are perilously easy to misconstrue. Do polygenic scores offer vital information for patients and clinicians or could they lead to unnecessary anxiety and pointless medical intervention?

DR TOBY ANDREW lecturer in human genetics, principal investigator in genetics, and programme organiser MSc in Human Molecular Genetics, Imperial College London

SIR PETER DONNELLY CEO and founder, Genomics plc; professor of statistical science, Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford

NICKY DRURY principal genetic counsellor, Nottingham Regional Clinical Genetics Service; former member, United Kingdom Human Genetics Commission

CHAIR: SANDY STARR deputy director, Progress Educational Trust

Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, is one of the thinkers associated with the concept of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, ‘blurring the lines between the physical, digital and biological spheres’. Do we need a new industrial revolution – and what are the barriers to creating one? Many commentators have noted a longstanding lack of investment and sluggish growth in productivity. Will new technologies really transform our society or is the hype around them a distraction from more fundamental issues? Given the moribund state of developed economies in recent decades, are we still capable of becoming a risk-taking, innovative society? Is talk of a new industrial revolution an unnecessary throwback to an older age of manufacturing?

LORD ANDREW ADONIS Labour peer; founding chairman, National Infrastructure Commission; author, Saving Britain: how we must change to prosper in Europe

GERARD GRECH chief executive, Tech Nation; board member, Barbican

KEVIN MCCULLAGH founder, Plan; innovation strategist and writer

HILARY SALT actuary; founder, First Actuarial

CHAIR: ROB KILLICK CEO, Clerkswell; author, The UK After The Recession

On both sides of the Atlantic, the idea of a Green New Deal has become a major policy focus. In the US, the idea has been put forward by left-leaning elements of the Democratic Party, while a cross-party group of MPs has called for a UK version. Proponents suggest that if the kind of money spent on wars, or on bailing out the financial system, were diverted to greening the economy, it would mitigate climate change while raising living standards and providing jobs. For critics, a Green New Deal would be a waste of resources. With the private sector reluctant to invest in such a long-term and high-risk enterprise, is it up to governments to step in and do what is necessary?

DANIEL BEN-AMI journalist; author, Ferraris for All: in defence of economic progress

ANGELA FRANCIS chief adviser of economics and economic development, WWF; former chief economist, Green Alliance

SIR ROGER GIFFORD senior banker, SEB; vice-chairman, Association of Foreign Banks; chairman, Green Finance Institute; former Lord Mayor of London

PROFESSOR VICKY PRYCE chief economic adviser and board member, Centre for Economics and Business Research; author, Women vs Capitalism

CHAIR: PHIL MULLAN economist and business manager; author, Creative Destruction: how to start an economic renaissance

The UK has relatively low rates of youth unemployment. But as critics point out, this statistic hides a multitude of issues. Starting salaries for graduates are amongst the lowest in the EU. Despite many initiatives to promote apprenticeships, many young people end up in low-paid, ‘gig economy’ or zero-hour jobs with few career prospects. For many years, the response has been the same: more ‘transferable’ or employment-related skills in education and encouraging young people to take up apprenticeships. But are employers and the government doing enough to train employees for the jobs of the future? Are apprenticeships the solution or an unimaginative return to old ideas?

Speakers include:

TOM BEWICK chief executive, Federation of Awarding Bodies; founder, Transatlantic Apprenticeship Exchange Forum

HARRIET BISHOP astrophysics student, University of Glasgow

DR RUTH MIESCHBUEHLER senior lecturer in education studies, Institute of Education, University of Derby; author, The Minoritisation of Higher Education Students

ROB NITSCH chief operating officer, Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education; former professional engineer, British Army; fellow, CIPD and IMechE

CHAIR: CLAIRE FOX director, Academy of Ideas; Brexit Party MEP; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

More people now attend university in the UK than ever, but there is much less clarity about what university is for. For many, it is simply a step on the career ladder between school and work. For others, higher learning is about pursuing knowledge for its own sake. Do universities even do a good job at preparing people for jobs, or should we make more use of on-the-job training for that purpose? Do vocational qualifications merit the same prestige as academic degrees? Does everyone deserve the opportunity to spend three years at university – or is it an evasion of the ‘real world’?

Speakers include:

KIRSTIE DONNELLY MBE group managing director, City & Guilds Group; commissioner, Labour Party Lifelong Learning Commission

DENNIS HAYES professor of education, University of Derby; founder and director, Academics For Academic Freedom (AFAF); co-author, The Dangerous Rise of Therapeutic Education

JHANELLE WHITE student, King’s College London; founder and chair, Political Sweep

PROFESSOR ALISON WOLF author, The XX Factor: how the rise of working women has created a far less equal world; cross-bench peer

CHAIR: DAVID BOWDEN associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

From the housing crisis to infrastructure projects, construction is more important than ever. Everyone seems to agree that innovation is crucial to the resurgence of the construction sector. And yet, for all the fine words and government initiatives, the construction industry continues to languish in the doldrums with very little innovation. While the UK has been slow to adopt the latest technologies, other countries have embraced new methods, such as modular construction. So why aren’t robots manufacturing housing in giant factories to be transported to site? Why is there so little investment in 3D printed construction? Where are the new materials and processes, and what needs to be done in order to create them?

DR THEO DOUNAS senior lecturer, Scott Sutherland School of Architecture and the Built Environment, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen

LISA FINLAY group leader and partner, Heatherwick Studio; founder, 7N architecture practice

SIMON RAWLINSON head of strategic research and insight, Arcadis; member, Construction Leadership Council; member, UK Government BIM Task Group

NEIL THOMPSON director, digital construction, SNC Lavalin Atkins; associate professor, University College London

CHAIR: AUSTIN WILLIAMS senior lecturer, Dept of Architecture, Kingston University, London; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution

Could artificial intelligence (AI) transform education? Schools are already tentatively exploring ‘adaptive learning’ applications, which identify gaps in a student’s knowledge and build personalised quizzes. Sir Anthony Seldon, author of The Fourth Education Revolution, argues that by taking care of the mechanical aspects of education, AI can free up teachers to focus on creativity and problem-solving. What might this mean in practice and what do teachers make of the idea that our schools are churning out ‘robot-like’ workers? What, if anything, is uniquely human about being a teacher and how important are the relationships between teacher, pupil and subject?

Speakers include:

CARLA AERTS director, Tmrw Institute; former director of futures, Institute of Education, UCL; global digital director, Cambridge University Press Education

DONALD CLARK EdTech entrepreneur; CEO, WildFire; board member, Cogbooks and LearningPool

JEN PERSSON director, defenddigitalme; campaigner for safe, fair and transparent use of children's data in the classroom

GARETH STURDY functional skills teacher, LHAA; education and science writer; former project coordinator, Physics Factory

CHAIR: HARLEY RICHARDSON organising committee, AoI Education Forum

From climate change to tax evasion, humanity’s biggest challenges are increasingly global. Many of those frustrated by our lack of progress on these issues argue for some form of world government. If the United Nations, or some similar body, had real power over national governments, global agreements could be made and enforced. But others argue that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for seven billion people to hold a world government to account. Indeed, many find the idea of a world government sinister. Nevertheless, can we really solve our global problems without global political institutions?

Speakers include:

ANDREAS BUMMEL

executive director, Democracy without Borders; co-author, A World Parliament: governance and democracy in the 21ST century

IAN CRAWFORD

professor of planetary science and astrobiology, Birkbeck College, University of London

MARY KALDOR

emeritus professor of global governance, LSE; director, Conflict and Civil Society Research Unit, LSE; author, Global Security Cultures, Global Civil Society

DR TARA MCCORMACK

lecturer, international politics, University of Leicester

CHAIR: ROB LYONS science and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum

Produced by Ian Crawford and Rob Lyons

Critics argue that relatively little has been done since the financial crisis to fix the underlying problems that precipitated it. Have we failed to take the old advice to ‘never waste a good crisis’? Extraordinary monetary measures are still mostly in place, but there are heated debates about whether the major developed economies are healthier or weaker than in 2008. Acclaimed Guardian economics editor Larry Elliott explores what can be done to pull the west out of its economic malaise. How can we challenge the ‘new normal’ of low growth, poor productivity and stagnating living standards?

PHIL MULLAN economist and business manager; author, Creative Destruction: how to start an economic renaissance

IN CONVERSATION WITH:

LARRY ELLIOTT economics editor, Guardian; co-author, Europe Isn’t Working and The Gods That Failed: how the financial elite have gambled away our futures

The result of the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 seemed to put paid for the foreseeable future to the most significant threat to the Union, but the result of the EU referendum in 2016 has put the cat amongst the pigeons once more. The future of Northern Ireland has also been a constant bone of contention since the Brexit vote. In September, a shock opinion poll suggested that a quarter of Welsh voters would vote for independence. Is the Union really in imminent danger? Is there a positive case for the UK today, whether economic, political or even emotional?

**SPEAKERS** MEV BROWN spokesperson, SDP Scotland; former spokesperson, Business for Britain in Scotland; campaigner, Better Together

DR RUTH DUDLEY EDWARDS journalist, historian and broadcaster; award-winning author, The Seven and Patrick Pearse: the triumph of failure

LINDA MURDOCH campaigner for rights and democracy in Scotland; director of careers, University of Glasgow

AKASH PAUN senior fellow, Institute for Government; associate fellow, Centre on Constitutional Change, Edinburgh University

DR GLYNNE WILLIAMS associate professor, School of Business, University of Leicester

CHAIR: JUSTINE BRIAN director, Civitas Schools

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas newsletter at battleofideas.org.uk/subscribe

The Court of Arbitration for Sport has ruled women with naturally higher levels of testosterone cannot compete in women’s sport events unless they reduce their testosterone with medication. CAS was hearing an appeal by a South African runner, Caster Semenya, against a ruling by the governing body of athletics, the IAAF, that she cannot compete in certain events having been born with a condition leading to unusually high testosterone levels. What does this mean for elite sport? And can we separate sports from other areas of society in which discrimination against people with different sexual developments is taboo?

DR CARLTON BRICK lecturer in sociology, School of Media, Culture and Society, University of the West of Scotland

DR SILVIA CAMPORESI director of bioethics and society postgraduate programme, King’s College London; co-author, Bioethics, Genetics and Sport

GEORGINA NEWCOMBE student, Durham University; athlete and footballer; Living Freedom alumnus

DR JOEL NATHAN ROSEN associate professor of sociology and anthropology, Moravian College; author, The Erosion of the American Sporting Ethos

DR EMILY RYALL reader in applied philosophy, University of Gloucestershire; author, Philosophy of Sport: key questions

CHAIR: GEOFF KIDDER
 director, membership and events, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Book Club

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas newsletter at battleofideas.org.uk/subscribe

Discussing these issues and more are Alastair Donald, Claire Fox, Rob Lyons, Jacob Reynolds and Ella Whelan.

Thanks to Living and Dying Well for their partnership on this debate.

The question of whether assisted suicide (often known as assisted dying) is morally defensible, or should be legally permitted, is a familiar issue of medical ethics. Polls suggest that most people in Britain support a change in the law to allow it. By contrast, the British medical establishment has a longstanding record of opposition to legalisation – though there are suggestions that this may be changing. Should the law look leniently on relatives who help a patient to die? What if the patient would suffer more harm by staying alive? Indeed, should the idea of ‘harm’ be redefined and, if so, how? What would be the role of doctors, and ‘conscientious objection’, were the law to change?

Dr Jacky Davis consultant radiologist, Whittington Hospital; member, BMA Council, chair, Healthcare Professionals for Assisted Dying; board member, Dignity in Dying

Dr Carol Davis palliative medicine consultant and clinical lead for end of life care, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust; board member, Living and Dying Well

John Harris professor emeritus, University of Manchester; author, How to be Good; former member, United Kingdom Human Genetics Commission

Dr Kevin Yuill associate professor of history, University of Sunderland; author, Assisted Suicide: the liberal, humanist case against legalization and The Second Amendment and Gun Control: freedom, fear, and the American constitution

Chair: Dr Piers Benn visiting lecturer and adjunct professor; author, Freedom of Speech and the Flight from Reason

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas newsletter at battleofideas.org.uk/subscribe

The angry exchanges in parliament after the Supreme Court ruled against prorogation were typical of the ill-tempered discourse around Brexit. This year it was also deemed acceptable to ‘milkshake’ those you disagree with. Looking at a world seemingly filled with slurs, angry social-media comments, inflammatory remarks about migrants and nasty jibes about ‘gammons’ and ‘TERFs’, many commentators have called this an age of ‘toxic politics’. Should we lament a lost civility, or is the emergence of more forthright and angry disagreements in fact a good thing? What is the line between passionate disagreement and toxic bile? How can we fi nd ways to disagree with other people constructively?

DOLAN CUMMINGS associate fellow, Academy of Ideas; co- founder, Manifesto Club; author, That Existential Leap: a crime story

TIMANDRA HARKNESS journalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, Radio 4’s FutureProofi ng and How to Disagree: a beginner’s guide to having better arguments

DR DEBORAH E LIPSTADT professor of Holocaust Studies, Emory University, Atlanta; author, Antisemitism: here and now

JACOB MCHANGAMA executive director, Justitia, a Copenhagen based human-rights think tank; host and narrator, Clear and Present Danger: a history of free speech podcast

JAMES TOOLEY professor of educational entrepreneurship and policy, University of Buckingham; author, The Beautiful Tree CHAIR: ALASTAIR DONALD co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom

Earlier this year, Gillette produced an advert aimed at challenging ‘toxic masculinity’. Although somewhat frivolous, the example illustrates a growing trend among the world’s biggest companies to weigh in on social issues. In perhaps the most infamous example of all, in 2017, Pepsi released an advert with Kylie Jenner healing divisions at a protest march. The advert was widely condemned for appropriating the legacy of the civil-rights movement. But many companies seem to genuinely care about social causes. Unilever, one of the world’s biggest companies, has made ambitious environmental commitments that are priorities at all levels of the company. For some observers, this is evidence of a genuine shift in how businesses think about their role, often underpinned by new generations of employees demanding change. But critics have condemned what’s been called ‘woke capitalism’ or even ‘wokewashing’. Are 'woke' corporations a cynical attempt to curry favour with the lucrative millennial market, or should we celebrate demonstrations of corporate conscience? What does the rise of woke capitalism tell us about the prospects and possibilities for more radical change today?

Asad Dhunna founder, The Unmistakables; commentator; former director of communications, Pride in London

Dr Eliane Glaser writer; radio producer; reader, Bath Spa University; author, Anti-Politics: on the demonisation of ideology, authority, and the state

Dr Norman Lewis director, Futures-Diagnosis Ltd; co-author, Big Potatoes: the London manifesto for innovation

Dan Mobley global corporate relations director, Diageo

Toby Young co-founder, West London Free School; author, How to Lose Friends & Alienate People; associate editor, Spectator and Quillette

CHAIR: Patrick Hayes director, British Educational Suppliers Association (BESA); director, EdTech Exchange

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas newsletter at battleofideas.org.uk/subscribe

DR ASHLEY FRAWLEY senior lecturer in sociology and social policy, Swansea University; author, Significant Emotions and Semiotics of Happiness

DR BETH GUILDING academic, Goldsmiths, University of London; co-editor, Narrating the Passions: new perspectives from modern and contemporary literature; columnist, Times Higher Education

VANITY VON GLOW internationally ignored superstar; cabaret performer; host, The Vanity Project

CHAIR: JANE SANDEMAN chief operating officer, The Passage; convenor, AoI Parents Forum; contributor, Standing up to Supernanny

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas newsletter at battleofideas.org.uk/subscribe

Today’s political culture seems obsessed with dark, apocalyptic visions. From young people staging ‘die-ins’ to protest about the environment to talk of an ‘insect apocalypse’, fears and threats loom large. Extinction Rebellion argues that the threat of catastrophe means we must reject growth and material progress in favour of a new eco-austerity. Even proponents of new technology often see it as a means of avoiding environmental catastrophe rather than transforming the world for the better. What can we learn about the present from our attitude to the future? Do we need to recover our faith in the future – and by extension, ourselves?

DR SHAHRAR ALI home affairs spokesperson and former deputy leader, Green Party; author, Why Vote Green 2015

GREGORY CLAEYS professor of history, Royal Holloway, University of London; author, Searching for Utopia: the history of an idea; fellow, RSA

DR ASHLEY FRAWLEY senior lecturer in sociology and social policy, Swansea University; author, Semiotics of Happiness and Significant Emotions (forthcoming)

BRENDAN O’NEILL editor, spiked; host, The Brendan O’Neill Show; writer, the Sun and the Spectator; author, A Duty to Offend

CHAIR: JACOB REYNOLDS partnerships manager, Academy of Ideas; co-convenor, Living Freedom and The Academy, boi charity

Monty Python’s Life of Brian was released in the UK on 8 November 1979. The film had problems from the start, with its funding withdrawn by EMI films at the last minute, but it was rescued by former Beatle George Harrison putting up the money for it to be made. Forty years later, it would be nice to say that we’re more relaxed about religion and comedy. But in truth, while Christianity is considered fair game (notwithstanding the later controversy over Jerry Springer: The Opera), satirising Islam remains deeply controversial, as illustrated by the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the mealy-mouthed reaction to the killings by many supposedly liberal commentators and artists. Could Brian be made today? Why does it still work today? Have we lost the ability to ridicule the dominant ideas of our society? And have comedians, writers and producers lost their edge for fear of causing offence?

SIMON EVANS comedian; regular panellist, BBC Radio 4's The News Quiz

RIA LINA award winning standup comedian; former forensic IT investigator, Serious Fraud Office; former research scientist, Herpesvirus bioinformatics

ANN MCELHINNEY director and producer, FrackNation; co-author and co-producer, Gosnell; producer, FBI Lovebirds: UnderCovers; co-host, The Ann and Phelim Scoop

DR JOEL NATHAN ROSENJ associate professor of sociology and anthropology, Moravian College, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; author, The Erosion of the American Sporting Ethos: shifting attitudes toward competition

ANDY SHAW co-founder, Comedy Unleashed

CHAIR: ROB LYONS science and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas newsletter at battleofideas.org.uk/subscribe

‘Humour is a weapon of the patriarchy.’ So says Titania McGrath, the Twitter superstar who describes herself as an activist, healer and radical intersectionalist poet. Titania has become famous for her ‘woke’ words of wisdom, such as ‘heterosexuality is a hoax’. Of course, those of us who have been following Titania’s rise to fame will know that she is, in fact, fictional – a satirical character dreamt up by the author and comedian Andrew Doyle. Boasting a Twitter following in the hundreds of thousands, Doyle’s parody of a ‘typical Guardian reader’ has managed to fool some so-called ‘social-justice warriors’ into believing Titania’s cries of oppression, as well as revealing uncomfortable truths about the degraded state of identity politics. But not everyone is a fan of Titania. Doyle has been accused of ‘punching down’ with his satire of contemporary ‘leftie’ politics. Is poking fun at social-justice campaigns merely a right-wing ploy – even though Doyle himself is a self-declared leftie? And what has it been like for Doyle, to be a comic writer in a world that sometimes seems unable to laugh at itself? Now that Titania’s real identity is out, where does she go from here?

ANDREW DOYLE

writer and comedian; author, Titania McGrath's Woke: A Guide to Social Justice

CHAIR: ELLA WHELAN

co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist and frequent commentator on TV and radio; author, What Women Want

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas newsletter at battleofideas.org.uk/subscribe

A recent EU report found 89 per cent of Jews living in member countries feel anti-Semitism has increased over the past decade, while 85 per cent believe it to be a serious problem. Anti-Semitism has traditionally been associated with the political right and with national chauvinism, but today it is often radical Islamists or even leftists, rather than nationalists, who are accused of prejudice against Jews. But can alleged anti-Semitism in the British Labour party really be compared to the fascist Oswald Mosley? Is anti-Zionism a distinct and legitimate position? How best can we define anti-Semitism? As Israel descends into political and, some would say, moral crisis, is it possible to criticise Israel without being anti-Semitic? And most importantly, if anti-Semitism is on the rise, how can we best combat it?

PROFESSOR FRANK FUREDI sociologist and social commentator; author, How Fear Works: culture of fear in the 21st century and Populism and the European Culture Wars

DR DEBORAH E LIPSTADT professor of Holocaust Studies, Emory University, Atlanta; author, Antisemitism: Here and Now; defendant, Irving v Penguin UK and Lipstadt (2000) CHAIR

CHAIR: CLAIRE FOX director, Academy of Ideas; Brexit Party MEP; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Many commentators have observed that Britain enjoys, by European standards at least, a uniquely stable party-political system. In many other European countries, collapsing empires, social uprisings or world wars fuelled new parties and shifting popular allegiances. Britain, on the other hand, is notable for the longevity – and adaptability – of its established parties. But amid rising volatility, fragmentation and polarisation in the early twenty-first century, are we reaching a historic moment of change? Are new-style political ‘movements’ such as the Brexit Party or independent, local initiatives a promising way forward? Could we be on the brink of a new political landscape and, if so, how should we seek to shape it?

JONNY BALL special projects writer, New Statesman

MIRANDA GREEN journalist and commentator; deputy editor of opinion pages, Financial Times; former Liberal Democrat advisor

SHERELLE JACOBS columnist and commissioning editor of comments, Daily Telegraph

JOHN MILLS economist and entrepreneur; author, Left Behind: why voters deserted social democracy – and how to win them back

TOM SLATER deputy editor, spiked; regular commentator on TV and radio; editor, Unsafe Space: the crisis of free speech on campus

CHAIR: JOEL COHEN associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Schools are unique institutions. Their most obvious role is in relation to education and the generational transfer of knowledge. However, they also mediate between the state and parents in shaping the next generation. Schools enforce behavioural expectations and instil particular values while preparing children for the responsibilities of adulthood.

Schools have always played this role. However, over recent years the values and expectations championed by schools have become more explicitly political and more contested. From lessons on climate change and recycling to cultural awareness days, it can appear as if schools, through children, aim at broader social change.

In this respect we seem to now be witnessing the emergence of the ‘Culture Wars’ in Education. One consequence is that tensions between schools and parents spill out in conflicts over contentious issues such as teaching of sex and relationships education. However, from the contents of lunchboxes to disputes over ‘gender neutral’ school uniform policies, few area of school life now seem beyond controversy.

In this special lecture and discussion, Joanna Williams, author of Consuming Higher Education: why learning can’t be bought, explores how these conflicts might be resolved. Should it be the state or parents who decide which values and behaviours to inculcate in children? And how should schools mediate between the two?

SPEAKER Dr Joanna Williams author, Women vs Feminism and Consuming Higher Education: why learning can’t be bought; associate editor, spiked

Since the fall of communism, the dominant narrative around international politics and economics has been that of a stable order defined by liberal, free-market values and agreements. In recent years, faith in the liberal international vision seems to have been shattered. In response to the rise of China and resurgence of Russia, populists across the world, most famously President Trump, have denounced free-trade agreements and collective security arrangements. Are we really moving into a more protectionist world, or will free-trade ideology make a comeback? How will the rise of China and the ‘global south’, alongside the apparent slow decline of the US, change things?

CAMERON ABADI deputy editor, Foreign Policy

REMI ADEKOYA PhD researcher on identity politics, Sheffield University; columnist; member, Editorial Working Group, Review of African Political Economy

PROFESSOR BILL DURODIE chair of international relations, University of Bath

DR TARA MCCORMACK lecturer, international politics, University of Leicester

CHAIR: JACOB REYNOLDS partnerships manager, Academy of Ideas; co-convenor, Living Freedom; organiser, Debating Matters

Original introduction

In her new book, Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and a veteran campaigner for abortion rights, sets out the ethical arguments for a woman’s right to choose, drawing on the traditions of sociological thinking and moral philosophy. This discussion will consider the moral and philosophical foundations on which Furedi builds her case. We will also explore the relevance of this approach to the pro-choice cause, particularly the current campaign to decriminalise abortion altogether. Is it moral for women to choose abortion? Should campaigners for abortion focus on issues of health and mental well-being or argue for an absolute right to abortion?

Speaker

ANN FUREDI chief executive, British Pregnancy Advisory Service; author, The Moral Case for Abortion

Respondents

MARY KENNY journalist and author

DR ELLIE LEE reader in social policy, University of Kent, Canterbury; director, Centre for Parenting Culture Studies

CHAIR: JON O’BRIEN president, Catholics for Choice

Visiting Europe in the summer, President Trump lambasted Germany’s relationship with Russia, took a dig at Theresa May’s Brexit strategy and seemingly sided with Vladimir Putin against America’s own intelligence agencies. The UK’s former foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, also famously made numerous diplomatic gaffes. Once diplomacy was regarded as a careful art, furthering national interests through back-channels and coded language, and pursued by highly educated diplomats. But in recent years, politicians have seemed keener to make loud public statements at the expense of cool negotiation. Why do politicians seem to respond to events on the hoof rather than pursuing a long-term strategy? Are they playing with fire?

MARY DEJEVSKY former foreign correspondent in Moscow, Paris and Washington; special correspondent in China; writer and broadcaster

PROFESSOR BILL DURODIÉ chair of international relations, University of Bath

DR SEAN LANG senior lecturer in History, Anglia Ruskin University; author, First World War for Dummies

CARNE ROSS author, The Leaderless Revolution; executive director, Independent Diplomat

Original session introduction

Internationally renowned American social critic Camille Paglia has been called ‘the anti-feminist feminist’. A staunch defender of individual freedom, she has argued against laws prohibiting pornography, drugs and abortion. Describing contemporary feminism as a ‘reactionary reversion’ and ‘a gross betrayal of the radical principles of 1960s counterculture’, she stands firmly on the side of free speech and against political correctness. She has argued that though today’s feminists strike progressive poses, their ideas emanate from an entitled, upper-middle-class point of view. This has led Paglia to become one of the US’s foremost critics of contemporary feminist orthodoxies such as the idea of ‘rape culture’, which she believes stifles women’s autonomy.

Instead, Paglia is keen to stimulate reasoned discussion about some of the most controversial and inflammatory issues dominating campus politics and debates about threats to young women. She is calling such fashionable concepts such as ‘rape culture…a ridiculous term…not helpful in the quest for women’s liberation’. She is associated with a brand of feminism which encourages women to embrace the dangers of being in the world and has argued that the current enthusiasm for things such as compulsory sexual consent classes in colleges illustrates how sex is being policed by ‘drearily puritanical and hopelessly totalitarian regulatory regimes and codes’.

In Brexit Britain, much focus has fallen on the divides that cut across generational, educational and class lines. But increasingly there is a new geographical divide that is taking shape – one where voguish metropolitan regions, prosperous urban centres and university towns contrast starkly with vast swathes of territory now labelled ‘left-behind Britain’. Is it still possible to rejuvenate former ports, market towns, coastal resorts and county towns? Should the focus be economic investment or a social and cultural transformation? Do we need a new urban paradigm, or should we create incentives to save, rebuild and inject new life into these urban areas?

DR RUTH DUDLEY EDWARDS journalist and writer; award-winning author

CAROLINE FLINT MP member of parliament, Don Valley; co-chair, Northern Powerhouse All Party Parliamentary Group

DAVID GOODHART head of demography, Policy Exchange; author, The Road to Somewhere

MO LOVATT writer and researcher specialising in arts and culture policy; co-chair, The Great Debate

CHAIR: ALASTAIR DONALD associate director, Academy of Ideas; codirector, Future Cities Project

The speaker is John Mills, an entrepreneur, economist and author, noted for his writing on Brexit, the Labour Party and the exchange rate. In the political world, he formerly served as chair of Labour Leave, Labour Future, The Pound Campaign and LESC, and co-chair of Business for Britain and Vote Leave. In the business world, he is founder and chairman of consumer goods company John Mills Limited (JML), which exports to over 70 countries around the world.

The topic is based on a recent pamphlet by John Mills which can be downloaded at academyofideas.org.uk/johnmills

Please note, as this is a recording of live public meeting, the audio is at times less than perfect.

Should funding for cultural projects be scaled back in a time of fiscal crisis? As we approach the National Lottery’s 25th anniversary, many are asking questions about where funding for culture should come from. Some anti-austerity campaigners say that new projects like the V&A museum in Dundee, at a cost of £80million, put unnecessary pressure on already stretched budgets. Others argue that a vibrant cultural scene is key to building confidence in communities and creating social cohesion, threatened by visible inequalities in wealth, housing, health and education. What about private funding? Could that compromise artistic freedom? And should we view culture as a luxury or a necessity in a modern-day society?

ALEXANDER ADAMS artist, writer and art critic; author, Culture War: art, identity politics and cultural entryism (forthcoming)

DR TIFFANY JENKINS writer and broadcaster; author, Keeping Their Marbles: how treasures of the past ended up in museums and why they should stay there

BARB JUNGR award-winning singer, songwriter, composer and writer

SEAN GREGORY director of learning & engagement, Barbican Centre and Guildhall School of Music & Drama

CHAIR: CLAIRE FOX director, Academy of Ideas;

After the fall of the Soviet Union, a broad political consensus emerged that ‘there is no alternative’ to capitalism, which even the 2008 financial crash did little to disturb. But now things appear to be changing, with support for politicians like Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders who call for a new way of organising the economy. A slew of recent books, epitomised by Paul Mason’s Post-Capitalism, argue that technological innovations have opened up ways to transcend capitalism from within. Are we now seeing the arrival of capitalism’s ‘undertaker’ in the shape of artificial intelligence (AI) and automation? Could it be true - is capitalism’s time nearly up?

AARON BASTANI co-founder, Novara Media; author, Fully Automated Luxury Communism: a manifesto

ROBERT HARRIES membership coordinator, education trade association

WENDY LIU software developer; editor, economics section, New Socialist

NIKOS SOTIRAKOPOULOS lecturer in sociology, York St John University; author, The Rise of Lifestyle Activism: from new left to Occupy

PROFESSOR GUY STANDING professorial research associate, SOAS, University of London; author, Basic Income: and how we can make it happen

CHAIR: ROB LYONS convenor, Academy of Ideas Economy Forum

‘There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.’ Oscar Wilde’s view of art as essentially an aesthetic pursuit, one concerned with transcendent beauty and the human condition, has arguably now been superseded. But artists are routinely being ‘called out’ if their work represents minority groups in a light that is perceived as negative. The Globe’s new director, Michelle Terry, has been applauded for using blind casting to combat alleged inequality in the arts. Should art be judged on whether or not it is sending the right message? What are the implications for artists themselves?

JON BRITTAIN staff writer, Netflix’s The Crown; playwright, Rotterdam; comedy writer; director, Sight Gags for Perverts, Shtick and Don’t Bother, They’re Here

JAMES DREYFUS award winning television, film and theatre actor

MO LOVATT writer and researcher specialising in arts and culture policy; co-chair, The Great Debate

KIMBERLY MCINTOSH policy offcer, The Runnymede Trust and Race on the Agenda; writer, Guardian, gal-dem

CHAIR: ANDREW DOYLE writer and comedian; co-author, Jonathan Pie: Off The Record

According to the 2017 Ipsos MORI Veracity Index, nurses and doctors are the most-trusted people in the UK. But in certain contexts, this trust seems to evaporate. Take the ever-present anti-vaccination (or ‘anti-vax’) movement, the popular reaction when medical professionals decide it is no longer right to try to keep very sick children alive or instances of apparent malpractice have also raised serious public concerns. In these cases, doctors are regarded with suspicion rather than trust. What role does something like ‘fake news’ play in polarising these debates? Given the overwhelming scientific consensus about the merits of vaccines, is the ‘anti-vax’ movement simply anti-science, or even anti-intellectual? Or is it healthy to have more sceptical intellectual currents to hold the scientific establishment to account? And when it comes to controversial end-of-life decisions, are they simply about emotion versus reason, or are there important points of principle that need to be considered and debated between doctor, patient, and family?

RICHARD CLARKE PhD candidate, health psychology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

DR MICHAEL FITZPATRICK General practitioner; writer on medicine and politics; author, MMR and Autism: what parents need to know and The Tyranny of Health

DR CLARE GERADA Medical director, NHS Practitioner Health Programme; former chair, Royal College of General Practitioners

DR KEVIN YUILL Senior lecturer in American history, University of Sunderland; author, Assisted Suicide: the liberal, humanist case against legalization and The Second Amendment and Gun Control: freedom, fear, and the American constitution

CHAIR: MAX SANDERSON Audio producer, Guardian

From racist attacks to ominous  propaganda, anti-Semitism appears to be  making a comeback in Europe. In the UK,  the Labour Party has been very publicly  split over how it deals with the issue.  In one respect, it looks like the simple  return of what has been called ‘the longest  hatred’. But while anti-Semitism has long  been seen as a right-wing phenomenon,  particularly since the Nazis, today’s anti-Semites are more likely to rail against Jews  in the name of the Palestinians, a favourite  cause of the left. Is hatred of Jews really on  the rise? Is it re-emerging in new forms? 

RICHARD ANGELL  director, Progress; elected member,  TUC’s LGBT committee; formerly worked  for All Party Parliamentary Group on  Combatting Antisemitism 

DR STEPHEN LAW philosopher; author, The War For Children’s  Minds 

BRENDAN O’NEILL  editor, spiked; columnist, Penthouse; writer  the Sun and the Spectator; author, A Duty  to Offend 

JULIAN PETLEY  professor of journalism, Brunel University;  editorial board member, British Journalism  Review; principal editor, Journal of British  Cinema and Television 

MELANIE PHILLIPS  columnist, The Times; regular panellist,  BBC Radio 4’s Moral Maze; author, The  Legacy and best-selling book, Londonistan 

CHAIR: JACOB FUREDI  junior commissioning editor, Daily Mail 

Published in 1997, Frank Furedi’s book Culture of Fear was widely acclaimed as perceptive and prophetic. In his new book, How Fear Works, Furedi seeks to explore two interrelated themes: why fear has acquired such a morally commanding status in society today and how the way we fear has changed from the way it was experienced in the past.

How has fear become detached from its material and physical source, so that it is now experienced as a secular version of a transcendental force? What is the role of the media in promoting fear and does anyone benefit from this culture of fear?

TIMANDRA HARKNESS journalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, FutureProofing; author, Big Data: does size matter?

IN CONVERSATION WITH:

PROFESSOR FRANK FUREDI sociologist and social commentator; author, How Fear Works: culture of fear in the 21st century and Populism and the European Culture Wars

Science fiction has long explored the use of robots for sex, but the application of new technologies has been pushing the boundaries of sexuality towards the mechanical in real life. Interaction with fully functioning robotic sexual partners could soon be a practical alternative to actual sex. Advocates claim many people could benefit, from men who struggle with intimacy to women trafficked into sex work. Critics claim sex robots are a ‘pornified’ ideal of female sexuality and they are concerned about how these robotic partners will represent women. So are sex robots an innovation to be embraced or a step towards sexual dystopia?

Please note that, given the subject matter, this podcast contains adult themes and language.

DR PIERS BENN adjunct professor at Fordham University London Centre

DR KATE DEVLIN senior lecturer in social and cultural AI, King’s College London; author, Turned On: the science of the sex robot

SIMON EVANS comedian; regular panellist, BBC Radio 4’s The News Quiz

TIMANDRA HARKNESS journalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, FutureProofing; author, Big Data: does size matter?

In Blueprint: how DNA makes us who we are, the world’s leading behavioural geneticist, Robert Plomin, argues that our inherited DNA differences make us who we are as individuals. This conclusion is at odds with the importance ascribed to our education and the environment in which we grow up in shaping the person we become. But are there scientific or other good reasons to doubt Plomin’s conclusions? If we start making predictions about people’s lives and potential on the basis of their DNA, does this risk reducing their autonomy? How much can our DNA tell us about who we are?

DR PHILIP BALL science writer; broadcaster; author; presenter, BBC Radio 4, Science Stories

ROBERT PLOMIN professor of behavioural genetics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience; author, Blueprint: how DNA makes us who we are

Over the past year, debates about democracy and its woes have been ubiquitous. There are fears tech giants and algorithms are undermining elections. Liberal democratic values such as free speech and universalism are questioned, even by liberals. Populism is variously claimed to be a threat to democracy or its very embodiment. Some claim undereducated voters were conned into voting for Brexit or Donald Trump and argue citizens should have to earn the right to vote by passing a test. Elected governments in Poland and Hungary have been censured by the EU. But managerial style of rule suggests anti-democratic tendencies have been developing for decades, excluding and ultimately angering voters. Many government powers are now exercised by unelected experts and quangos. Is it time to give more power to The People? What is democracy and what threatens it today? Can liberalism renew itself sufficiently to save democracy?

ZANNY MINTON BEDDOES editor-in-chief, The Economist

DANIEL MOYLAN former deputy chairman, Transport for London; co-chairman, Urban Design London

STEVE RICHARDS broadcaster; political commentator; presenter, BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster; author, The Rise of the Outsiders

BRUNO WATERFIELD Brussels correspondent, The Times; co-author, No Means No

What does it mean to be a woman? For some it’s about motherhood, others femininity, and some reject the whole idea of ‘womanhood’ outright. The Conservative Party’s proposed changes to the law around gender recognition have caused a fair amount of controversy around the question of what gender means and what it takes to be a woman. Is it about experience? Is it simply an identity which can be picked up by anyone? And, beyond the trans debate, is there anything worth defending in the idea of ‘womanhood’? Do women share a collective identity? What is a woman anyway?

SPEAKERS

HEATHER BRUNSKELL-EVANS academic and writer; co-editor, Transgender Children and Young People

CHRISSIE DAZ schoolteacher; cabaret performer; writer on transgender and gender variant identity

KATHY GYNGELL co-editor, The Conservative Woman

JOANNA WILLIAMS head of education and culture, Policy Exchange; author, Women vs Feminism; associate editor, spiked

Whatever way we read today’s political disruptions, change is in the air. Mainstream political parties internationally, from Italy to Sweden, are being thrown into disarray by new challengers. Democratic votes, from Brexit to Trump, are seemingly giving two fingers to establishment norms. This turbulent atmosphere is undoubtedly unsettling. It is understandable that we can be tempted to resist change because of the risks associated with it. But can we transform today’s turbulence as an opportunity to shape the future, grasp the moment with hope, be inspired by a period that is resonant with possibilities? Can we create a climate in which people will embrace new experiences and exhibit a willingness to take risks?

SPEAKERS Professor Frank Furedi sociologist and social commentator; author, How Fear Works: culture of fear in the 21st century and Populism and the European Culture Wars

Dr Eliane Glaser writer; radio producer; senior lecturer, Bath Spa University; author, Anti-Politics: on the demonization of ideology, authority, and the state

Matthew Goodwin professor of political science, University of Kent; senior fellow, Chatham House; author, National Populism: the revolt against liberal democracy and Revolt on the Right

Stephen Kinnock MP Labour MP for Aberavon; member, Exiting the EU Select Committee and EU Scrutiny Committee; co-editor Spirit of Britain, Purpose of Labour: building a whole nation politics to reunite our divided country

CHAIR Claire Fox director, Academy of Ideas; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Almost every aspect of life in the UK is heavily regulated, from housing and transport to food and energy. Public health authorities have extended the reach of government intervention into our personal consumption of cigarettes, alcohol, salt, sugar and fat. While many critics of the EU look forward to Brexit as a means of cutting regulation, most of the ‘red tape’ and ‘nanny state’ rules we face are homegrown. Why has Britain become such an intensively regulated society? Is state intrusion the price we must pay to keep big business in check – or does it simply mean higher costs and more limits on choice?

ROB KILLICK CEO, Clerkswell; author, The UK After The Recession

MARK LITTLEWOOD Director General, Institute of Economic Affairs

DAN MOBLEY global corporate relations director, Diageo

JO-ANNE NADLER commentator; author, Too Nice to be a Tory

INTRODUCTION

Advertising has become a familiar target of hostile campaigners. Public health campaigners and quangos want bans or restrictions on adverts for foods and drinks that are high in sugar, salt or fat. Campaigns around alcohol, gambling and ‘payday’ loans demand bans on the promotion of these activities. Others seek to suppress adverts featuring models who are excessively thin – or, indeed, models who are overweight. Why are all these campaigners so convinced by the manipulative power of advertising? What is the evidence that advertising can control behaviour? Can it really do any more than influence consumers to choose one brand over another?

SPEAKERS

DR SHIRLEY DENT communications specialist and PR lecturer; co-author, Radical Blake

CARL MILLER research director, Centre for the Analysis of Social Media, Demos; author, The Death of the Gods: the new global power grab

CHRISTOPHER SNOWDON head of lifestyle economics, Institute of Economic Affairs; editor, Nanny State Index; author, Selfishness, Greed and Capitalism

STEVE SODEN director, Best Interests Ltd

Language has always been a source of political controversy as much as a medium for discussing politics. Terms like ‘terrorist’ and ‘freedom fighter’ reveal the politics of the speaker as much as the nature of those described. But recent years have seen the proliferation of completely new terms: white Brexit voters are ‘gammons’, women critical of feminism have ‘internalised misogyny’, students are ‘snowflakes’. It can be hard to keep up. But is the way we talk about politics simply changing, or becoming impoverished? What’s the line between the natural evolution of political language, and its degeneration into trendy slurs?

SPEAKERS

Professor Frank Furedi sociologist and social commentator; author, How Fear Works: culture of fear in the 21st century and Populism and the European Culture Wars

Sophia Gaston director, Centre for Social and Political Risk, Henry Jackson Society; visiting research fellow, London School of Economics

Professor Dr Robert Pfaller philosopher, University of Art and Industrial Design, Linz, Austria; author, (in German)

Novelist Lionel Shriver isn’t afraid of speaking her mind. At the 2016 Brisbane Writers Festival, she caused a furore by calling into question the contemporary focus on identity politics, saying ‘I hope the concept of cultural appropriation is a passing fad’. More recently, she was accused of racism when arguing that diversity quotas in publishing mean literary excellence becomes secondary to ticking boxes. As well as a staunch defender of intellectual freedom, Shriver is perhaps better known as a multiple award-winning author. How difficult is it to criticise identity politics in today’s climate? Is diversity in the arts something to aspire to or should we focus on the content of what’s being published, rather than the writer?

CLAIRE FOX director, Academy of Ideas; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

IN CONVERSATION WITH

LIONEL SHRIVER award-winning novelist; novels include, We Need to Talk About Kevin (2005 Orange prize winner), The Mandibles: a family, 2029 – 2047 and The Post-Birthday World; her first short story collection, Property, was published this year

In the past few years, remotely piloted air systems and unmanned air systems – commonly called ‘drones’ or ‘multicopters’ – have become widely popular. A relative lack of regulation until recently has meant that drones are still a controversial if exciting new technology, and society is undecided how best to deal with the challenges they pose. But will the danger of excessive regulation and the attention given to a new technology when problems arise mean we never get those benefits? How do we deal with concerns about safety and ethics, while ensuring we create an environment that allows the exciting promise of this technology to be implemented? Will a wider mood of risk-aversion keep drones firmly on the ground?

SPEAKERS

Dr Owen McAree senior research officer with responsibility for drone-related research, Liverpool John Moores University; member, UK Governments Drone Industry Action Group

Dr Sophie Robinson flight physicist; lead engineer, Kopter Group AG

Alastair Muir safety director, NATS; chair, UN International Civil Aviation Organisation

Donald Clark EdTech entrepreneur; CEO, WildFire

CHAIR: Timandra Harkness journalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, FutureProofing; author, Big Data: does size matter?

Our partners for this session were NATS.