Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

Publish and be damned?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2021 on Sunday 10 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Who would be in the books business today? From sensitivity readers to social-media scrutiny, publishing books has become a tricky business.
As well as the quality of the work, publishers now seem to concern themselves with the social-media profiles of their authors. Little, Brown Book Group announced that it was dropping its planned release of Julie Burchill’s book Welcome to the Woke Trials after the author was accused of Islamophobia and involved in a row with fellow commentator Ash Sarkar on Twitter.
More recently, calls to censor certain books have come from inside publishing houses themselves, rather than companies having their arms forced by Twitter mobs. In March 2020, staff at the US publisher Hachette refused to work on Woody Allen’s memoir Apropos of Nothing and JK Rowling’s children’s book The Ickabog because of the former’s alleged sexual abuse of his adopted daughter and the latter’s views on transgender rights. While Rowling’s book survived, Hachette pulped Allen’s work after ‘listening sessions’ with staff members.
Sometimes publishers get into trouble retroactively. Kate Clanchy vowed to re-write her award-winning memoir Some Kids I Taught and What They Taught Me after a handful of comments on Goodreads and Twitter claimed that her descriptions of some students were racist and ableist. When fellow author Phillip Pullman defended Clanchy on social media, the Society of Authors (where he is president) emailed its members to distance the organisation from Pullman, warning authors to ‘be mindful of privilege and of the impact of what they create, do and say’. Journalist and author Monisha Rajesh, who claimed that parts of Clanchy’s book were ‘rooted in eugenics and phrenology’, defended the idea that publishers should think about what books they produce. ‘Cancel culture is a term bounced around by people afraid of accountability’, she wrote in the Guardian.
Publishing houses seem to be getting it in the neck. In response of allegations of a pale, male and stale environment, publishing houses embraced the idea of sensitivity readers to check for racist stereotypes alongside quotas for hiring women and minorities. When Bernardine Evaristo became the first woman of colour to top the UK paperback fiction chart in 2020, many argued that the publishing world was finally changing.
Some argue that ‘cancel culture’ in the world of publishing is little more than an attempt to right the wrongs of years of exclusionary practice. But others worry that organisations feel constrained or limited by worrying about political norms. In a series of essays on censorship, author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie pointed out the danger in silencing writers for fear of causing offence: ‘We have a generation of young people on social media so terrified of having the wrong opinions that they have robbed themselves of the opportunity to think and to learn and to grow.’
Is it impossible to publish a book without checking it for tropes, stereotypes and anything else that might catch the ire of Twitter activists? Should we welcome a more cautious approach to the kinds of books we put out in the world? Or could a nervous industry make it more difficult for new authors to break through with bold content? Does a more politically conscious approach to writing make for better books? Or have we lost the confidence to publish and be damned?
SPEAKERSTim Abrahamscontributing editor, Architectural Record; publisher, Machine Books
Ben Cobleyauthor, The Tribe: the liberal-left and the system of diversity; public speaker; former Labour Party activist
Masimba Musodzanovelist in ChiShona and English; blogger, The Times of Israel; writer
Emma Webbcommentator; writer; deputy research director, Free Speech Union; co-founder, Save Our Statues
CHAIRPauline Hadawayresearcher; writer; co-founder, The Liverpool Salon; author, Escaping the Panopticon

Is woke politics the death of rock'n'roll?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2021 on Sunday 10 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In June last year, Grammy-winning US country band the Dixie Chicks announced they would now simply be The Chicks. Famous for criticising the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the female trio decided to drop ‘Dixie’ from their name because of its ‘controversial’ association with slavery and the American South.
Musicians on this side of the Atlantic are feeling political pressure, too. Earlier this year, indie popsters British Sea Power dropped the ‘British’ from their name, instead now going by the moniker Sea Power. In the past, the six-piece once claimed an apparent obsession with Second World War leader Field Marshal Montgomery, and even appeared on the BBC’s primetime Sunday nature show, Countryfile, to talk about their love of the British countryside. Yet now the combination of ‘British’ and ‘Power’ was too much for the band.
In June this year, banjo player and lead guitarist Winston Marshall felt obliged to quit platinum-selling folk tubthumpers Mumford & Sons after attracting flak for his praise of anti-Antifa journalist Andy Ngo. In a goodbye letter to the band, Marshall wrote: ‘In the mania of the moment I was desperate to protect my bandmates. The hornets’ nest that I had unwittingly hit had unleashed a black-hearted swarm on them and their families.’
But not everyone agrees that popular music should be subject to the political mood of the moment. Aussie legend Nick Cave has argued: ‘Art must be wrestled from the hands of the pious, in whatever form it may come – and they are always coming, knives out, intent on murdering creativity. At this depressing time in rock ‘n’ roll though, perhaps they can serve a purpose, perhaps rock music needs to die for a while, so that something powerful and subversive and truly monumental can rise up out of it.’
Is popular music finally growing up and beginning to acknowledge its hitherto historical amnesia and irresponsibility? Or is this willingness to go along with current political trends the antithesis of convention-defying, free-thinking rock’n’roll?
SPEAKERSDr Philip Kiszelylecturer in performance and cultural histories, University of Leeds; author, Hollywood through Private Eyes
Joel Millssenior music programme manager, British Council
CHAIRDr Carlton Bricklecturer in sociology, The University of the West of Scotland

Is 'Cancel Culture' killing comedy? Really?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2021 on Saturday 9 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
After 30 years of sell-out performances, Roy ‘Chubby’ Brown’s show at Sheffield City Hall, set for next year, was cancelled by Sheffield City Trust in September. According to Trust chief Andrew Snelling, Brown’s material did not reflect its values of being ‘inclusive for all in Sheffield’. In response, Brown said that those running trusts and councils should not ‘use your position to force your own private views/opinions and decide what people can and can’t do or can and can’t watch’.
The cancellation of Brown’s gig was just the latest in a series of actions against comedians for saying the wrong things. After the Euro football championships in July, Andrew Lawrence was accused of racism after posting a short, satirical video on social media. As a result, his national tour was cancelled and he was dropped by his agent. Scottish left-wing comedian Janey Godley was dropped from a Scottish government advertising campaign around Covid and suffered venue cancellations when some historic tweets ‘resurfaced’ and were deemed to be offensive.
Yet many comics state that ‘cancel culture’ is a myth, or at least overplayed. Writer and comedian Robin Ince believes that ‘cancel culture’ is an ‘illusory bandwagon, based on the idea that the most powerful people in the world are all these woke people who, for some reason, aren’t actually in power’. A Guardian columnist, Rachel Aroesti, recently wrote that the ‘concept of cancel culture destroying comedy makes most sense if viewed as part of a much broader political campaign against progressive politics’.
Are public officials and industry gatekeepers increasingly deciding the boundaries of comedy? Are jokes about people’s race, gender and sexuality a laughing matter or should they be condoned, regardless of their intent? Do complaints against cancellations simply play into the hands of those who want to undermine equality and fairness?
SPEAKERSAlex Daledesigner and writer
Andrew Doylewriter and comedian; author, Free Speech and Why It Matters
Simon Evanscomedian; regular panellist, BBC Radio 4's The News Quiz
Josephine Husseyschool teacher; theatre lover
CHAIRAndy Shawco-founder, Comedy Unleashed

From HGV drivers to bricklayers: how do we solve the skills crisis?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2021 on Sunday 10 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The shortage of HGV drivers in the UK has made headlines recently, with concern that supply-chain difficulties will get even worse in the lead-up to Christmas. Supermarkets and restaurants are already experiencing delivery delays due to an estimated 90,000 shortfall in HGV drivers. Despite government measures to increase the number of HGV driving tests available, the fear is that haulage companies will be unable to cope with the demands of the busiest shopping time of the year.
According to the DVLA, the impact of the pandemic and the introduction of Covid safety rules over the past 18 months meant that only 25,000 drivers could take their HGV test, down from the usual 70,000 per year. Many have argued that Brexit has led to a skills shortage, not just in HGV drivers, but among nannies, construction workers, NHS staff and hospitality workers. How much of the skills shortage is due to overseas workers returning home, because of new Brexit-related bureaucracy or the pandemic, is unclear. However, there seems little doubt that there are shortages of trained staff in many key sectors.
Despite the headlines, it is clear that the skills shortage in HGV drivers pre-dates both Covid and Brexit. According to Radio 4’s stats show, More or Less, the Road Haulage Association estimated there was a shortfall of 50,000 HGV drivers in 2015, even before the EU referendum. In 2018, when the unemployment rate was at four per cent, and Britain was as close as it has ever been to full employment, the skills shortage was already an issue, particularly in IT, construction, hospitality, healthcare and leisure.
Explanations range from low wages in hospitality and healthcare to an ageing workforce in construction. Indeed, the UK’s skills shortages seem to be a perennial problem. Employers’ organisations have long complained of a mismatch between supply and demand for skills in key areas of the labour market.
Many commentators argue the government must improve education and skills in order to drive economic growth; others bemoan a low-wage/low-skill economy coupled with high levels of income support, which is disincentivising many capable workers from taking up work. For example, last summer, UK fruit farmers lobbied the government to give them special dispensation to hire workers from Eastern Europe to pick their ripening fruit. They argued that the local workless were too lazy to put in the long hours of hard labour required to bring in the harvest. Indeed, another reason given for the shortfall in HGV drivers is that young workers are likely to shun the long, unsocial hours associated with the job.
Does Britain really have an unsolvable skills shortage? And if not, how can we meet the challenge? Can the skills shortage be linked to one-off events like Brexit and Covid, or are there longer-term trends at play? Is the UK workforce simply too work-shy or are poor wages and working conditions to blame? How might we create more meaningful jobs and create an economy where we can close the gap between supply and demand for skilled workers?
SPEAKERSTom Bewickpresenter, Skills World Live; chief executive, Federation of Awarding Bodies
Victoria Hewsonhead of regulatory affairs, Institute of Economic Affairs
Kelvin Hopkinswriter and campaigner, Rebuild Britain
Rick Moorebusiness owner, InControl; electronic engineer; deputy chair political, Blackburn Conservative Association
Linda Murdochcampaigner for rights and democracy in Scotland; director of careers and global opportunities, University of Glasgow
CHAIRJustine Briandirector, Civitas Schools; commentator on food issues

Letters on Liberty: in defence of teaching history

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Open debate has been suffocated by today’s censorious climate and there is little cultural support for freedom as a foundational value. What we need is rowdy, good-natured disagreement and people prepared to experiment with what freedom might mean today. Faced with this challenge, the Academy of Ideas decided to launch Letters on Liberty – a radical public pamphleteering campaign aimed at reimagining arguments for freedom in the 21st century.
In his Letter – In Defence of Teaching History – author and history teacher Nicolas Kinloch looks at the ways in which today’s approach to history is often more concerned with modern activism than an appreciation of the past. History is not just about race and victimhood; nor is it a mere collection of simple moral tales, he argues. Instead, it is a maze of conflicting, stories to tell – all of which students should be exposed to.
Join Nicolas and respondents to ask whether the way we understand and engage with history has changed today. When it comes to teaching history, should teachers resist the restraints imposed by new political ideologies like Critical Race Theory? Or is the way we approach history in an educational environment too tied up with old ways of thinking? How can we navigate the strange and different worlds of the past without causing offence in the present? And why is having a relationship with what has happened in human history so important for preparing a young generation for what is to come?
SPEAKERSTarjinder Gillclass teacher; writer, All in Britain; founding member, Don't Divide Us
Nicolas Kinlochhistory teacher; teacher fellow, School of Oriental and African Studies; honorary fellow, Historical Association; author, In Defence of Teaching History
Dr Robert Pyrahhistorian; research fellow, Oxford Brookes University; podcast co-host, Pseudoscience, Fake News – and How to Fight Back
Kevin Rooneyhistory and politics teacher; editor, irishborderpoll.com; convenor, AoI Education Forum; co-author, The Blood Stained Poppy
CHAIRLouise Burtonhistory teacher

Why Bitcoin matters for freedom in a digital age

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Over the past decade, governments, economists and journalists have regularly presented Bitcoin as dangerous and risky. It’s for criminals, they argue, it’s a ponzi scheme – and it’s destroying the planet.
By contrast, supporters of Bitcoin have argued that the world financial system is a cruel labyrinth – creating a situation where tomorrow is traded for today, where capital is strip-mined without consideration for the future and where our money is devalued by central planners and our liberties eroded and behaviour managed in order to engineer compliance. Bitcoin, they argue, has the potential to help us escape this labyrinth.
In Bitcoin is Venice, Allen Farrington and Sacha Meyers explore the terrain of what they describe as a global, digital, sound, open-source, programmable currency. What might economies look like under a Bitcoin standard? What might this new form of capital do to our current governing bodies? Can Bitcoin bring about a new global Renaissance?
Join Allen Farrington in conversation with Jeremy Hildreth to assess why Bitcoin matters for freedom in a digital age. Do the risks of Bitcoin outweigh its opportunities? Or in adopting it, could we be embarking on a historical transformation on a par with the agricultural and industrial revolutions?
Get your tickets to the 2022 Battle of Ideas festival here.
SPEAKERSAllen Farringtoninvestor; co-author, Bitcoin Is Venice
CHAIRJeremy Hildrethauthor, Unfuckwithable Money and Brand America; travel writer; commentator, Wall Street Journal, Spectator, Monocle, the New York Post and the Washington Times

Trust me, I'm your doctor: are GPs in crisis?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
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?
SPEAKERSProfessor Dame Clare GeradaLondon-based GP; president, Royal College of General Practitioners
Sheila Lewisretired management consultant; patient member, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust
Allison Pearsoncolumnist and chief interviewer, Daily Telegraph; co-presenter, Planet Normal podcast
Jo Phillipsjournalist; co-author, Why Vote? and Why Join a Trade Union?; former political advisor; fellow, Radix
Charlotte Picklesdirector, Reform; former managing editor, UnHerd; member, Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) and the NHS Assembly
CHAIRTony Gillandteacher of maths and economics; Associate Fellow, Academy of Ideas

No, Minister! Crisis In The Civil Service

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The UK’s Civil Service has long been referred to as a well-oiled machine that ranks among the best in the world. More recently, however, the Civil Service has come under intense criticism for its alleged insubordination, embrace of ‘woke’ causes and enthusiasm for working from home at the expense of public service.
Moves to house failed asylum seekers in Rwanda received fierce internal resistance from Home Office civil servants, who questioned the morality of the policy despite its apparent popularity and inclusion in the Conservative Party manifesto. Politicians of all stripes have reported on similar moves by civil servants, but this seems especially true in the aftermath of the vote to leave the EU. Senior civil servants have been accused of caution and groupthink, preventing them from embracing the opportunities presented by Brexit and political realignment.
The attorney general, Suella Braverman, recently spoke up against civil servants undertaking extensive ‘diversity and inclusion’ training during working hours, the allegedly contestable content of such courses, and the ever-expanding HR machine that encourages it. In the same vein, critics point out that gender ideology and radical identity politics are seemingly spread unopposed in the Civil Service, despite polling showing majority opposition to these ideas among the public.
However, in response to an accusation from Liz Truss that Foreign Office officials’ hostility to Israel verges on anti-Semitism, Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA, which represents senior civil servants, argued that ‘throwing around such unfounded inflammatory accusations illustrates a lack of leadership’. Others have argued that the Civil Service is being scapegoated for politicians’ own failings.
Is the Whitehall machine broken beyond repair or are civil servants being victimised in an unfair blame-game? Have citizens lost control of the public institutions that their taxes pay for? Will moving the Civil Service out of London help address this? Is it even possible to provide impartial advice in highly polarised political climates? And what’s wrong with civil servants using their skills and experience to challenge the decisions of politicians?
Get your tickets to the 2022 Battle of Ideas festival here.
SPEAKERSNick Busvine OBEconsultant; founding partner, Herminius Holdings Ltd; advisory board member, Briefings for Britain; Town Councillor, Sevenoaks; former diplomat, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Caroline Ffiskeco-founder and spokesperson, Conservatives for Women
Eric Kaufmannprofessor 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-Cowieco-author, A Place for Pride; former head, Progressive Conservatism Project, Demos; commentator
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Whose kids are they anyway? Reclaiming parental authority

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
‘Mother knows best’ used to be indisputable. But the idea that parents should have the last word on how their children are raised has become unfashionable.
Perhaps the most obvious way in which parental authority has been challenged is in the relationship breakdown between schools and families. The introduction of transgender ideology into sex-education classes and the adoption of pronouns at school has been protested strongly by parents who oppose such views. Some teachers in the US have supported ‘transition closets’, in which students could change their outfits from home to become their ‘true’ selves. For some, this is a welcome intervention to help children whose families don’t support their identity. For others, such a move risks undermining trust between parents and kids, sending them the message that teachers care more than their parents.
But ‘parenting’ – both a verb and a phenomenon – is something which, for a long time, has involved intervention from a whole range of external experts, rather than just mum and dad. In the early 2000s, professor Frank Furedi coined the term paranoid parenting – which claimed that a safety-obsessed culture had hampered parents’ ability to feel confident to bring up kids. Twenty years later, a more intense scrutiny of how people ‘parent’ has resulted in a proliferation of parenting styles – from helicopter to free-range, attachment to ‘gentle’ parenting.
Earlier this year, the Duchess of Cambridge launched the Centre For Early Childhood to empower what she called the ‘early years workforce’. ‘What we experience in the early years, from conception to the age of five, shapes the developing brain’, the centre claims, ‘which is why positive physical, emotional and cognitive development during this period is so crucial’. Some have argued that this is simply a royal version of New Labour’s Sure Start programme, which aimed to combat poverty by ‘giving children the best possible start in life’. While many welcomed access to childcare, others are sceptical of a more interventionist approach to family life. Rather than freeing up parents to do what they want, many feel pressured by such programmes to tick the boxes of what it means to ‘parent’ well. For some parents, the result can often look like late-night googling, feeling judged at check-ups and a more fraught relationship with their children.
Who knows best how to raise kids? Is parenting a skill – only learned by reading books and listening to experts? Is more information and expertise – not just about nappies and winding, but from psychologists and scientific researchers – a welcome support to help parents ‘parent’ better? Or has the loss of intergenerational involvement – from grandparents to neighbours – been replaced with a more technocratic approach to the motto ‘it takes a village to raise a child’? Should schools and government have the final say when it comes to instilling values in the next generation – on everything from sexuality to social norms? And is there a perfect formula for raising the next generation – if so, who owns our children?
SPEAKERSTom Bewickvisiting professor of skills and workforce policy, Staffordshire University; fellow, Royal Society of Arts
Jo-Anne Nadlerpolitical commentator and writer; campaigner, Don't Divide Us
Allison Pearsoncolumnist and chief interviewer, Daily Telegraph; co-presenter, Planet Normal podcast
Dr Stuart Waitonsenior lecturer, sociology and criminology, Abertay University; author, Scared of the Kids: curfews, crime and the regulation of young people; chair, Scottish Union for Education,
CHAIRJane Sandemanchief operating officer, The Passage; convenor, AoI Parents Forum; contributor, Standing up to Supernanny
 

Square-eyed screenagers: Are phones corrupting our kids?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
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?
SPEAKERSElliot Bewickproducer, TRIGGERnometry
Josephine Husseyschool teacher, AoI Education Forum
Molly Kingsleyco-founder, UsForThem; co-author, The Children’s Inquiry
Joe Nuttinternational educational consultant; author, The Point of Poetry, An Introduction to Shakespeare’s Late Plays and A Guidebook to Paradise Lost
Professor Sir Simon Wesselyinterim dean, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neurosciences; regius professor of psychiatry, King’s College London
CHAIRGareth Sturdyphysics adviser, Up Learn; education and science writer

The crisis of childcare: who’s holding the baby?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The cost of childcare is a perennial sore spot for families. But in recent years, competition for places and spiralling prices have meant that many are finding nursery fees unaffordable – even when both parents are in full-time employment. While fans of the government have welcomed promises to extend funded childcare hours both in age and quantity, critics have pointed to a blind spot in plans: there simply aren’t enough places to care for more children.
Outside of the numbers debate, the crisis in childcare has posed some more fundamental questions around raising children. Mums are far more likely to take career breaks, or even give up work, to be the primary caregivers for children, leading some to argue that the inability to tackle the childcare question is linked to sexist views of a woman’s place. On the other hand, some argue that governments should be focused on providing tax breaks to incentivise mothers to stay at home. ‘I wish I spent more time in the office instead of with my small children, said no one on their deathbed ever’, said Conservative MP Miriam Cates in response to the government’s budget announcing increased funding for childcare.
Some worry about what influence the institution of childcare might have on children’s upbringing. Many nurseries are no longer interested in the simple acts of feeding, sleeping and playing, with everything from development curriculums to sex education causing some concern among parents about what kids are exposed to. But others argue that returning to the model of ‘a village raising a child’ is good for children’s development, with childcare enabling mums and dads to stay in touch with the adult world, as well as exposing young children to social environments from an early age.
While mums are still expected to pick up the slack, is it possible to talk about childcare without addressing women’s freedom? Should governments be in the business of encouraging parents to make decisions, one way or another, when it comes to the organisation of family and work life? Are we being too narrow by talking about childcare and work – could a different model be imagined where creches offered respite for families on a more informal basis? And what is the conversation doing to the birth rate – are a young generation being put off having kids by the sheer scale of the challenge of holding the baby?
SPEAKERSAnne Fennellchair, Mothers at Home Matter; president, European Federation of Parents and Carers at Home
Naomi Firshtjournalist and commentator; co-author, The Parisians’ Guide to Cafés, Bars and Restaurants
Emma Gillandpolitics student, University of Birmingham; co-author, The Corona Generation: coming of age in a crisis; editor, Redbrick
CHAIRBeverley MarshallAoI Parents Forum; working mum of three teenage children

Feeding babies: Is breast always best?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Read any report on how babies are fed in the early months of life, and you will soon come across references to the UK’s ‘dismal’, ‘troubling’, ‘low’ breastfeeding rate. Breastfeeding seems to be constantly in the news. Earlier this year, a study claimed that children who were breastfed were more likely to receive better GCSE results. In previous years, exclusive breastfeeding has been credited for higher IQ, babies who like vegetables more and less hyperactive toddlers.
‘Breast is best’ is not only promoted by the NHS and the government, it is written into law via restrictions on how formula can be marketed. Such is the preference for breastfeeding that many food banks are not allowed to provide infant formula to needy families. Supporters of breastfeeding describe formula as an ‘ultra-processed food’ which is both bad for people and the environment – pointing to previous scandals in developing nations around the marketing and use of formula milk. They argue that it is vital for nutrition and bonding between mother and baby, and that many women stop breastfeeding before they would like to because of lingering stigma around public feeding of babies.
At the moment, women clearly favour the bottle – only one per cent still breastfeed exclusively at six months, despite WHO guidelines. The fact that bottle-feeding can be shared by parents, friends and grandparents, with formula eliminating the need to pump, makes many women consider it a viable choice. When it comes to the claims for breastfeeding benefits, some point to the fact that studies on breastfeeding include confounding factors – things like education, opportunity and wider health issues – that make it impossible to prove the supremacy of breast over bottle.
Some view how to feed a baby as a practical, simple question. For others, it raises wider issues about motherhood and women’s autonomy. Should we care what way babies are fed? Is the fraught nature of the breast-is-best debate putting too much pressure on mothers? Should the formula industry’s eye-watering prices be challenged by a preference for breastfeeding? Or are those who campaign under the slogan ‘fed is best’ right to highlight the need for greater acceptance of formula milk?
SPEAKERSMilli Hillfreelance journalist; founder, Positive Birth Movement; author, Positive Birth Book
Harriet Ruddinfant-feeding specialist; trainee Lactation Consultant
Dr Rebecca Steinfeldindependent policy advisor on infant-feeding policy and reproductive choice; co-founder, Campaign for Equal Civil Partnerships
Dr Erin Williamssenior lecturer in reproductive anatomy and physiology, University of Edinburgh; co-founder and director, Feed
CHAIREllie Leeprofessor of family and parenting research, University of Kent, Canterbury; director, Centre for Parenting Culture Studies

The morality of surrogacy

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Surrogacy is a complicated transaction involving at least three individuals, usually more, with moral complications and grey areas around the rights and responsibilities of the two active parties – surrogate and intended parent(s) – and the best interests of the child. The issue was thrust back into the headlines earlier this year with the Law Commission recommending changes to the law in the name of ‘benefitting the child, surrogate and intended parents’. Surrogacy divides its advocates on the specifics of its implementation, as well as there still being opponents of the process altogether.
Pro-surrogacy campaigners defend the bodily autonomy of surrogates and the fantastic outcomes it can have for families unable to bear their own children. It is argued that it is nobody else’s prerogative to decide what a woman does with her body and being a surrogate has been a rewarding and fulfilling experience for countless women. Complications in surrogacy arrangements are unusual, with their frequency sensationalised by the media.
For example, while the practice of the rich and famous paying another woman to have their child can create shocking headlines about wombs for hire, commercial surrogacy is illegal in the UK. Surrogacy is also a biologically practical answer for many infertile or gay male couples, providing a way for people to raise the family they always wanted. Where is the harm if all are consenting adults? Moreover, pro-surrogacy activists suggest that children of surrogacy have performed better in life than the average, perhaps because every child of surrogacy is genuinely wanted and therefore loved.
Some feminists have argued surrogacy exploits vulnerable women and reduces them to vessels of people’s biological narcissism in a world where thousands of children are waiting to be adopted. Surrogacy now also features in contemporary rows on sex and gender identity with the accusation that surrogacy reduces women and their wombs to commodities in the reproductive marketplace, reducing the role of mother to that of egg provider and gestator. This criticism has a particular salience in an era in which it has become acceptable to refer to women in dehumanised terms such as ‘menstruators’ or ‘birthing bodies’.
There are also ‘post-feminists’ who argue surrogacy undermines the idea of motherhood per se, feeding the many social ills caused by the sexual revolution. From this perspective, surrogacy is an assault on an essential and foundational human relationship and contributes to gradual societal breakdown.
Surrogacy is not always an easy issue to debate. Those who have questioned the morality of gay celebs, such as Elton John and Tom Daley, having children via surrogates have been accused of homophobia. However, these morally charged questions need to be addressed.
With a declining birth-rate and growing prevalence of ‘non-traditional’ families, do we need to make all forms of reproductive technology easier to access and come to a moral and legal consensus? How can we balance the bodily autonomy of the surrogate with the interests of the intended parents, all while prioritising what is best for the child? And given the complex moral field in which surrogacy stands, can the process ultimately be justified at all?
SPEAKERSLexi Ellingsworthco-founder, Stop Surrogacy Now UK
Sarah Joneschief executive, Surrogacy UK
Gary PowellEuropean special consultant, Center for Bioethics and Culture; research fellow, sexual orientation and gender identity, Bow Group
Ella Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want
CHAIRDr Jan Macvarisheducation and events director, Free Speech Union; author, Neuroparenting: the expert invasion of family life

Israel at war

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The first weekend of October was the darkest in Israel’s history. A murderous Hamas attack on southern Israel killed at least 1,200 and wounded about 3,000. At least 200 were captured and taken to Gaza. How is it possible to begin to make sense of such a terrible event? Is this the return of pogroms of Jews? Clearly Israel is having to contend with a force that can truly be described as evil.
One issue is why and how Hamas felt so emboldened to launch this murderous assault. There seems to be a broad consensus that the success of Hamas’s brutal assault represented a devastating failure for Israel’s famed intelligence services and military. Some are wondering if this year’s bitter conflict over judicial reform in Israel proved to be a distraction from the deadly external threat. The country has been sharply divided, and military reservists in elite units, including intelligence, were encouraged by the protest movement to refuse to serve.
Perhaps a proper review of what happened will have to wait. Israel has enough to deal with and faces many other imminent challenges. There is the possibility of it becoming embroiled in a ground war in Gaza, which could bring with it a heavy human cost for both Israelis and Palestinians. Israel faces judgement internationally on the scale of its response and the dangers posed to civilians in Gaza. The violent conflict could also spread to the West Bank and even within Israel itself. It is no exaggeration to say that Israel is facing the greatest challenge in its 75-year history.
How should Israel deal with the horrors it is enduring? What are the roots of these challenges and how can Israel best deal with them? Why was Israel so vulnerable in the first place? Will the unity of a country now under attack render recent divisions irrelevant? How can Israel deal with the strains of a war that may have to be fought on multiple fronts?
SPEAKERSDaniel Ben-Amijournalist; creator, Radicalism of Fools; author, Ferraris for All: in defence of economic progress and Cowardly Capitalism
Dr Jake Wallis Simonseditor, Jewish Chronicle; author, Israelophobia
Lord David Wolfsonking’s counsel; member of the House of Lords; former justice minister
CHAIRSimon McKeonarchivist and writer

Bad Boys of the EU? Demonising Poland and Hungary

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
One notable aspect of European Union politics in recent years has been internal tensions when member states’ national priorities clash with EU rules and priorities. Specifically, Hungary and Poland have faced stringent sanctions and have had billions of euros of EU funding withheld under Article 7 of the EU Treaty, for an alleged failure to uphold the EU’s foundational values. What have both countries done to warrant such actions and being targeted as the ‘bad boys’ of the EU?
For Poland, following the 2015 general election, the Law and Justice party (PiS) won control of both the presidency and the parliament. Since then, the government’s wide-ranging reforms of its judicial system are accused by the European Commission of undermining judicial independence. These laws certainly raise questions about Poland’s ability to apply EU law, from the protection of investments to the mutual recognition of decisions in areas as diverse as child custody disputes or the execution of European Arrest Warrants. But do these reforms mean ‘the country’s judiciary is now under the political control of the ruling majority’, as is alleged?
Judicial independence is also a key aspect of the EU’s dispute with Hungary, though issues relating to inadequate anti-corruption measures and media plurality have also been cited. Most recently, the EU has taken Hungary to the Court of Justice of the European Union for enacting child-protection legislation that forbids the promotion of homosexuality and gender reassignment to those under the age of 18.
Hungary and Poland argue they are defending their democratic right to organise their affairs and protect their traditions and customs as they see fit. For example, as far as the Hungarian government and many others are concerned, the education and upbringing of Hungarian children is not the business of the EU and Hungary has every right to protect its children from inappropriate sexualisation. Despite claims to the contrary, Poland still seems to be a functioning democracy, with the results of October’s elections suggesting that PiS has lost power to a coalition led by a former prime minister and president of the EU Council, Donald Tusk.
To its critics, the EU is acting as an imperious technocracy, seeking to impose woke values on nations with different priorities and principles. However, others suggest that Hungary and Poland are using the rhetoric of national sovereignty to justify ‘democratic backsliding’, not just an affront to the EU club’s rules, but a threat to democratic norms domestically.
Is the EU right to intervene in defence of common values or is this simply imposing the values of Brussels technocrats on everyone? Are Poland and Hungary justified in asserting national sovereignty or is this just a smokescreen? What does this ongoing battle tell us about the future direction of Europe and democracy?
SPEAKERSSteven Barrettbarrister, Radcliffe Chambers; writer on law, Spectator
Balázs HidvéghiMember of the European Parliament (member, LIBE and Foreign Affairs committees); former director of communications, Fidesz; former member, Hungarian Parliament
Agnieszka Kolekhead of cultural engagement, MCC Brussels; artist; curator; founder, Passion for Freedom London Art Festival; former deputy director, Ujazdowski Castle, Centre for Contemporary Art, Warsaw
Anna Loutfiequality and human rights barrister; consultant, The Bad Law Project
CHAIRTony Gillandchief of staff, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas