Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

Is there a 'war on the motorist'?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The furore over the widening of London’s ultra-low emissions zone (ULEZ) to include all London boroughs has been identified by many as the latest battleground in a ‘war on the motorist’. The Welsh government has imposed a blanket speed limit of 20mph on all ‘residential’ roads. Low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) have proliferated across the UK, making getting from A to B more difficult and increasing traffic jams on main roads nearby. All that on top of high taxes on fuel – in September 2023, around half the ‘pump price’ was made up of tax. In fact, when global oil prices were lower, as much as three quarters of the pump price was tax.
There have been protests against LTNs in London and independent candidates have stood in council elections to make the case for them to be scrapped. Opponents of London’s ULEZ have gone further, vandalising the cameras that are supposed to catch those who haven’t paid. Critics of anti-car measures point out that they are invaluable for many elderly and disabled people, as well as those with children. Life outside the big cities would be much more difficult without independent transport. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has declared ‘I’m slamming the brakes on the war on motorists’ and ‘hare-brained’ schemes such as LTNs and 20mph zones. Westminster is out of touch and too focussed on trains, he says, declaring: ‘cars are freedom for most people.’
Yet others think the claims of a ‘war on the motorist’ are overblown. Mileage has increased hugely in recent decades, from 141 billion miles in 1982 to 262 billion miles in 2019. The total number of cars rose around 50% between 1994 and 2022, from 21million to 32million – and all those extra vehicles need to park somewhere. The cost of driving has actually fallen compared to the general cost of living, while other forms of transport have become more expensive.
London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, has argued that while the poorest are least likely to own a car, they are much more likely to suffer the consequences of pollution. Drivers tend to be richer, older and of greater social status – are they really so powerless? Indeed, many would argue that cities are much more pleasant when the car is no longer king, creating space for walking and cycling. Campaign group Stop Killing Cyclists argue ’20mph zones make a significant difference for safety for kids’, advocating the Government ‘expand’ 20mph zones.
When so many people rely on cars for personal transport and the whole country relies on vans and trucks to move goods around, why has government at local and national level made driving harder? Is there really a ‘war on the motorist’ when driving is relatively cheaper and more popular than before? What’s wrong with encouraging people to cycle, walk or use public transport?
SPEAKERSMary Dejevskyformer foreign correspondent in Moscow, Paris and Washington; special correspondent in China; writer and broadcaster
Alan Millerco-founder and chair, Together Association;
Simon Nashenvironmentalist; speaker; activist and founder, Green Oil bicycle lubes
CHAIR
Dr Paul Reevesdeveloper of manufacturing simulation technology

Have we given up on sexual freedom?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Sex has never been so fetishised. We hire experts to portray it ‘consensually’ on TV series, we plan classes on how to talk to our kids about it and we row, constantly, about what is the right way to have it. Sex is everywhere – from pop stars in bondage gear to podcasts about technique.
The question is, are we having any? The paradox of our over-sexualised lives is that fewer people – particularly the young – seem to be enjoying casual sex. Poll after poll shows that generation Z is shunning one-night stands in favour of more low-risk escapades, like sexting. With pornographic depictions of women available at the flick of a touchscreen phone, many young people begin their sexual lives already saturated with extreme material. Some argue that this is the fault of the sexual revolution – the mainstreaming of sex and loosening of morals has led to the pornification and sexualisation of childhood. As a result, some young men and women complain that this presents an impossible image to aspire to, turning sex into a disappointment instead of an adventure.
For some, the answer to our problem with sex is that we’ve simply had too much of our cake and eaten it. The self-titled ‘reactionary feminist’ Mary Harrington says that the sexual revolution has failed us. ‘What we need’, she writes ‘is not more freedom, it’s more and better obligations’. Many small-c conservatives claim that what a young generation really needs is less sex and more commitment. For them, high divorce and low birth rates reveal a problem with our relationship with sex. Louise Perry, whose debut book The Case Against the Sexual Revolution has been wildly popular, recently set up ‘Maiden Matchmaking’ events, where the rule is ‘no shagging on the first date’.
It’s not just the right who are worried about the sexual revolution and its consequences – the contraceptive pill is now almost as unpopular with feminist commentators as it is in church aisles. Even the most liberal commentators claim that there is a problem with sex being an ‘expected’ part of adult life – another job that women have to take on in a busy world. Following the MeToo movement, ‘safe sex’ is no longer characterised as concerns about STIs or pregnancy, but about the possibility of rape and assault. Many argue that sexual freedom didn’t equalise the bedsheets, but merely allowed more ways for men to get away with what they want.
Have we given up on sexual freedom? Is chastity really the only answer to a fraught sexual landscape, or are we too obsessed with theorising instead of doing? With all its flaws, didn’t the sexual revolution and reproductive technologies give women the ability to choose which and how many sexual partners they have? Does the backlash against sexual freedom risk turning back the clock on women’s freedom? And should governments, schools and institutions care about how often a nation is knocking boots?
SPEAKERSRalph Leonardauthor, Unshackling Intimacy: Letters on Liberty; contributor, Areo
Nina Powerphilosopher; senior editor, Compact Magazine; author, What Do Men Want? Masculinity and its discontents
Ella Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want
Rosie Wilbyaward-winning comedian; broadcaster; author, Is Monogamy Dead? and The Breakup Monologues: the unexpected joy of heartbreak
CHAIRDr Tiffany Jenkinswriter and broadcaster; author, Strangers and Intimates (forthcoming) and Keeping Their Marbles
 

From diversity to debanking: Is ESG bad for business?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In July, NatWest’s CEO Alison Rose became the latest casualty of the turn to environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) in big business. Rose resigned after the furore over the closure of Nigel Farage’s Coutts account, in part because his political views did not ‘align’ with the company’s values. From Nike annoying women by embracing trans ‘influencer’ Dylan Mulvaney to Gillette annoying men by piggy-backing on the #MeToo movement, there have been numerous high-profile corporate mis-steps in the name of projecting a ‘progressive’ image.
The traditional image of a big business is one of an organisation single-mindedly focused on generating profits for shareholders. But in recent years, there has been a drive to introduce other aims into corporate practice and mission statements, from tackling climate change to promoting ethnic and gender diversity. Given the strong position of big corporations in society, changing the way they conduct business could be a powerful force for good, in the eyes of many.
But there have been concerns that the promotion of such values could be at odds with the views of customers. In April, the backlash against Bud Light’s use of Mulvaney in their advertising led to a boycott of Budweiser products and a decline in the company’s share price. Alissa Heinerscheid, Anheuser-Busch’s vice-president for marketing, had earlier declared that the brand needed to increase its ‘inclusivity’, but she was later reported to have been fired by the company.
What is the best role for big firms in improving society? Should they focus solely on producing the best products and services at the keenest prices? Or given their influence, should they be promoting social change, too? Is the turn to ESG, as many claim, merely ‘wokewashing’ or have top executives really bought into pursuing these aims? What does all this mean for profitability, productivity and material progress more generally – and for the future of companies themselves?
SPEAKERSLuke Johnsonentrepreneur, Gail's Bakery
Catherine McBrideeconomist; fellow, Centre for Brexit Policy
Lesley Smithcorporate reputation and communications consultant; former director, global corporate affairs, Revolut; former public policy director, Amazon
Martin Summersdirector, Flint Global; advisor on ESG policy
Dr Joanna Williamsfounder and director, Cieo; author, How Woke Won and Women vs Feminism
CHAIRHilary Salt FIA, FPMI, FRSAactuary; founder, First Actuarial

Bouncing back or basket case? The state of the UK economy

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Back in the Noughties, a popular image was of the ‘Polish plumber’, coming to the UK to earn more money. But with UK living standards stalling and Poland’s economy growing, could Brits soon be heading the other way? Labour has claimed that Poland’s GDP per person could overtake the UK’s by the end of the decade. Slovenia could overtake the UK as early as next year.
It seems after the problems of the past few years that the UK economy has been in the doldrums. GDP has barely risen above pre-Covid levels and inflation has lingered for longer than elsewhere. Even the poorest US states have higher levels of GDP per person than the UK. For some commentators, the answer is obvious: Brexit. But that hardly explains the fact that the UK economy has struggled for decades.
Yet perhaps the doom-and-gloom is one-sided. Indeed, government ministers argue that such arguments are talking the economy down. According to IMF figures published in April this year, the UK has the sixth-largest economy in the world with GDP per person similar to France and Italy. The UK remains in the top 10 countries for manufacturing ‘value added’. Our leading universities are regularly ranked as among the best in the world. The City of London is one of the two biggest financial services providers, dominating Europe and second only to New York.
Has the UK really stagnated while other countries have leapt ahead? Are things really that bad here, and if so, why?
SPEAKERSSam Bowmaneditor, Works in Progress; board member, Mercatus Center
William Cloustonparty leader, Social Democratic Party
Phil Mullanwriter, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents
Professor Vicky Prycechief economic adviser and board member, Centre for Economics and Business Research; author, Women vs Capitalism
CHAIRRob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum

Banning conversion therapy: a threat to freedom and conscience?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
A mounting number of countries across the world have introduced some form of national ban on conversion therapy. Other states, cities and provinces are looking to do the same. While the UK government may not push to legislate on such a controversial issue in the King’s Speech, it is still under pressure to proceed with some form of Conversion Therapy Bill. The chair of the Labour Party, Anneliese Dodds, has committed to bringing in ‘a full, no loopholes, trans-inclusive ban on conversion therapy’.
Legislating on the issue has led to huge rows about who might be included in the Bill. The government flip-flopped, eventually indicating it would ban ‘all forms of conversion therapy in England and Wales – including those targeting trans people’ – stopping attempts to induce young people and ‘vulnerable adults’ to switch their sexual orientation. Even then, supporters of a ban argued the legislation didn’t not go far enough, especially concerned at a rumour that a ‘consent loophole’ will allow adults to agree to the practice in some circumstances.
There are also concerns on both sides of the trans debate. On the one hand, there is concern that the rights of transgender people and those questioning their gender identity are not protected by the law. NHS England insists that all forms of conversion therapy are ‘unethical and potentially harmful’ – and should be banned entirely. Others worry that legalisation may well interfere in the counselling of young people suffering gender dysphoria. It could also have a chilling effect on freedom of conscience and speech for medical professionals, teachers or religious groups – who often find themselves offering advice on sex and gender.
According to the government, the aim of their originally posed Bill was to ‘protect people’s personal liberty to love who they want to love’. But this raises many dilemmas. For example, some would argue that adults should be free to make their own choices without government interference.
Is there agreement on what ‘conversion therapy’ means? Does the very existence of such therapies undermine and disrespect gender fluid, gender questioning, or other LGBT people? What about the argument that gender ideology itself is a form of conversion therapy, aimed at lesbian and gay sexuality? What constitutes the legitimate exercise of conscience when practical conflicts arise, for example, with anti-discrimination equality laws or medical-service provision? Can freedom of conscience interfere with the rights of some groups to live free from intimidation? How should we proceed when matters of conscience come into conflict with external pressures and expectations?
SPEAKERSDolan Cummingsauthor, Taking Conscience Seriously and The Pictish Princess.. and other stories from before there was a Scotland
Stephanie Davies-Araidirector, Transgender Trend; author, Communicating with Kids
Lord Stewart JacksonConservative peer, House of Lords
Bev Jacksonco-founder and trustee, LGB Alliance
Katy Jon Wentdiversity and inclusion facilitator and educator, Human Library, Pick My Brain, GenderAgenda, Fifty Shades of Gender
CHAIRAnn Furediauthor, The Moral Case for Abortion; former chief executive, BPAS

Are we taxed to death?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Liz Truss’s government collapsed last autumn after markets reacted negatively to her tax-cutting mini-Budget. But the self-declared repair job done by Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt has left the UK with its highest tax burden for decades. Not only did these events damage the Conservatives’ electoral prospects, but also marked an end to Boris Johnson’s ‘cakeism’ – high public spending without higher taxes – and an ideological defeat for free-market, low-tax advocates.
Yet the introduction of the US Inflation Reduction Act (US IRA) has seemingly re-opened the debate around tax competition after years of movement towards a global minimum tax. The US IRA offers a range of subsidies and tax breaks in green industries that potentially threaten UK investment opportunities just as the government has raised corporation tax. Meanwhile, the government’s focus on fiscal discipline seems to sit uncomfortably for some with the City of London’s reputation as an enabler of international tax avoidance.
There have been notable campaigns to reduce or abolish some taxes, like stamp duty and inheritance tax. Yet ministers seem unwilling to move on these issues, in part because of losing tax receipts, but also because tax cuts are regarded as too unpopular. Another issue is ‘fiscal drag’, where the freezing of tax allowances means most people pay more tax than before and more people are brought into higher tax bands as their wages rise.
One year on from the mini-Budget, can the tax system still play a role in ‘going for growth’?  With public finances under strain globally following the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, do Western governments need to clamp down harder on tax avoidance – or is capital flight an even greater risk in a polarised world? Did the fall of the Truss government mark the end of the vision of the UK as a potential ‘Singapore-on-Thames’, or does the emergence of the US IRA mean the UK can’t afford not to compete?
SPEAKERSPaul Emberyfirefighter; trade unionist; columnist; author, Despised: why the modern Left loathes the working class; broadcaster
Reem Ibrahimcommunications officer, Institute of Economic Affairs; Linda Whetstone Scholar
CHAIRDavid Bowdenassociate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Are the Culture Wars a distraction?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Compared with issues like the cost-of-living crisis, climate change or the war in Ukraine and the return of global conflict to Europe, many view the culture war as a peripheral issue. At a time when developments such as AI threaten mankind’s progress and, in the minds of some, could lead to our extinction, one commentator argues: ‘The culture wars may be seen not as genuine debates but as a form of Freudian displacement. The woke and anti-woke need each other to engage in piffling spats as a diversion from realities they both find too psychologically threatening to confront.’
Do they have a point? Are we effectively fiddling while Rome burns? Whether it’s fights over vegan sausage rolls or galleries flying rainbow flags, culture-war debates certainly generate a lot of heat. But when economic realities mean, for example, that hospitals are under strain and many cannot access vital health treatment, not surprisingly identitarian wars over language codes can be viewed as an artificial attempt to distract us from the problems that really matter – at a time when few politicians seem capable of offering genuine solutions. For others, the UK culture wars are an American import – an alt-right, Christian fundamentalist assault on stability and the body politic. Given that even the most strident culture warriors on the conservative side are at pains to insist they are not racist, sexist or transphobic, why get so agitated about different degrees of enthusiasm for a worldview we all basically share?
Or is there more to it than is admitted? While today’s cultural divides may not straightforwardly map onto historic Left-Right splits, some say that, in essence, they do reflect significant contemporary class and political divides. Given that how we see the world, and what we value and want out of life, is mediated through culture, today’s battles around historic figures’ links to slavery, or institutions ‘virtue signalling’ over toilets and pronouns can have the capacity to fundamentally influence how we understand ourselves and negotiate change. If no one, from the National Trust to the British Library, will uphold the traditional values and the legacy of the past, will we lose our sense of who we are and where we’ve come from?
Are the culture wars simply a Twitter sideshow to the more serious concerns of everyday life? Or is the way we relate to each other, and to our shared values, fundamental to how we plan for a future together? Given that dissent from so-called ‘woke’ ideas – whether on race, gender or culture itself  – has become impossible without being demonised as stirring up toxic, divisive and dangerous trends, is there any choice but to engage in the culture wars? Will it have to be reckoned with if we are to have a serious discussion about anything else? And if, as some argue, today’s culture war is a continuation of the age-old conflict between liberty and authoritarianism, does the claim that the culture war is a ‘distraction’ not in itself become a distraction from the issues that matter?
SPEAKERSProfessor Aaqil Ahmeddirector, Amplify Consulting Ltd; professor of media, University of Bolton; former head of religion, Channel 4 and BBC
Andrew Doylepresenter, Free Speech Nation, GB News; writer and comedian; author, The New Puritans: how the religion of social justice captured the Western world and Free Speech and Why It Matters
Professor Frank Furedisociologist and social commentator; executive director, MCC Brussels; author, 100 Years of Identity Crisis: culture war over socialisation
Lord Ken Macdonald KCbarrister, Matrix Chambers; crossbench peer
Nina Powerphilosopher; senior editor, Compact Magazine; author, What Do Men Want? Masculinity and its discontents
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Who's afraid of populism?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The recent clamour in Germany for a ban on a right-wing populist party, Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), has once again thrust the question of populism and democracy centre stage. With polls showing support for AfD at an all-time high, President Frank-Walter Steinmeier warned that ‘enemies’ of democracy could soon erode Germans’ freedoms and ‘brutalise’ society. ‘We all have it in our hands to put those who despise our democracy in their place’, he warned, ominously.
However, since Plato argued that excessive freedom leads to mass ignorance, hysteria and, ultimately, tyranny, it has been Western cultural and political elites themselves that have often been driven by a sense of mistrust or even hostility towards democracy and the people. No doubt such fears are accentuated by populist parties being voted into power in Finland, Italy, Hungary, Sweden and more. The latest anxieties centre on Net Zero as the focus of the next big populist revolt. Liberal opinion frets that ‘green policies are the new Brexit’ and suspiciously eyes new rural-metropolitan divides, for example, as expressed by the Dutch Farmer Citizen Movement.
Pragmatically, it can be convenient for mainstream politicians, especially on the left, to use the populist label to discredit grassroots opposition by denouncing the likes of protesters against London’s ultra-low emissions zone (ULEZ) as alt-right conspiracy-mongers. But mainstream free-market conservatives can be equally ill at ease, for example with popular hostility to migration or globalism and can wince at expressions of old-fashioned socially conservative attitudes to family and working-class community norms.
‘Never Trump’ anti-populist Republicans have been as keen as liberal-minded Democrats to distance themselves from the tens of millions of ‘deplorables’ who have helped singing Virginia farmer Oliver Anthony’s song ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ become an overnight viral success. In the UK, Singapore-On-Thames Vote Leave politicians’ seem to have conflicting priorities with those Red Wall Brexiteers, who demand British jobs for British workers.
Do erstwhile socially conservative populists such as Sohrab Ahmari have a point when they say populism must take a leftwards turn and address economic transformation? Perhaps populism is in fact less of an ally of conservatism, than the force of revenge against nominally conservative parties that bought into a liberal, elitist agenda. But does this reactive aspect to populism limit its ability for forge a new political movement?
If populism is worth embracing as offering a voice for people, how can it provide a genuine alternative to the politics of technocratic governance? With many populists fixated on cultural battles, is there a danger of simply mimicking the narrow identitarian outlook of progressives, in this context transferring a sense of victimhood to the lives of the masses? And how can we move beyond populism being defined in the public eye by its detractors?
SPEAKERSSabine Beppler-Spahlchair, Freiblickinstitut e.V; CEO, Sprachkunst36; author, Off-centre: how party consensus undermines our democracy; Germany correspondent, spiked
Lord David Frostmember of the House of Lords
Tim Montgomerieconservative journalist; founder, ConservativeHome, UnHerd and Centre for Social Justice
Jacob Reynoldshead of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas
Freddie Sayerseditor-in-chief, UnHerd; former editor-in-chief, YouGov; founder, PoliticsHome
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Whatsappened to privacy?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
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 Appletondirector, civil liberties group, Manifesto Club; author, Officious: Rise of the Busybody State; writer, Notes on Freedom
David Davismember of parliament, Conservative Party
Dr Tiffany Jenkinswriter and broadcaster; author, Strangers and Intimates (forthcoming) and Keeping Their Marbles
Tim Stanleycolumnist and leader writer, Daily Telegraph; author, Whatever Happened to Tradition? History, Belonging and the Future of the West
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

War on the past: a war on the public?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
When Sir Winston Churchill stated that ‘a nation that forgets its past has no future’, he had no idea that decades later we’d have such a problem with history; that we’d problematise anyone daring to defend past achievements and values. Indeed today, even quoting Churchill is enough to get you cancelled in some circles. Meanwhile, historical figures and the intellectual legacy of the past are presented as ‘problematic’. Towering figures such as David Hume and Immanuel Kant are casually dismissed from the curriculum as racists; buildings or streets renamed because scientists such as Thomas Henry Huxley failed to live up to modern values; galleries rearranged or even shuttered because an Athenian figure or Victorian explorer exhibited racist, sexist and ableist behaviour.
If the past is filled with bad people who did bad things, their continued presence is cast as the root cause of problems in the here and now. Hence why correcting the sins of our fathers is the solution – or at least the first step – to dealing with contemporary issues. Racism, sexism and homophobia in old books or historic figures must be removed from our cultural landscape so that there can be no confusion over what values we hold today. Some worry that we have all but adopted Walter Benjamin’s ‘Angel of History’ theory – that the past is merely the rubble of human mistake and misery, piling up as the years go on. Everything that is old was wrong, and, as such, the outdated ideas of yesterday must be cast out from contemporary society.
While some suggest it was ever thus – young generations decrying their parents’ beliefs as outdated and unworkable – today’s cultural war on history seems more an assault on the traditions, the language, the values of today’s public who do not espouse the fashion of disdain for past mores. Modern linguistic updating, school history-books rewritten, places renamed to eradicate historical sinners, self-censorship and internal iconoclasm instigated by cultural institutions can leave the majority of citizens feeling alienated and disorientated. Some argue, the expansion of the present backwards in chronological time serves to detach Western society and its citizens from its legacy, and from the origins and the traditions that underpin conventions, practices and identity – not just an aversion to the people of the past, but a visceral aversion to the people of today who espouse the ‘wrong’, ‘outdated’ values.
Is there anything intrinsically wrong in updating backward attitudes of the past? Before we confront the problems of our time, should we fix the problems of the past? Or by erasing the boundary between our history and our current moment, are we imprisoning ourselves in a timeless vacuum? Is our only hope of looking to the future in regaining some clarity about how to draw the line between the then and the now? Without a knowledge of the past, can we know ourselves?
SPEAKERSDr Ashley Frawleysociologist; author, Significant Emotions and Semiotics of Happiness
Ivan Hewettwriter and broadcaster; chief music critic, Telegraph; professor, Royal College of Music; author, Music: healing the rift
Ivan Krastevpolitical analyst; permanent fellow, Institute for Human Sciences, IWM Vienna; chairman, Centre for Liberal Strategies; author, Is it Tomorrow, Yet? How the Pandemic Changes Europe
Dr Sean Langsenior lecturer in History, Anglia Ruskin University; author, First World War for Dummies and What History Do We Need?; fellow, Historical Association
Professor Robert Tombsemeritus professor of French history, Cambridge University; co-editor, History Reclaimed
CHAIRJacob Reynoldshead of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Power play: who really rules today?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
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?
SPEAKERSPamela Dowchief operating officer, Civic Future
Professor Frank Furedisociologist and social commentator; executive director, MCC Brussels; author, 100 Years of Identity Crisis: culture war over socialisation
Matthew Goodwinprofessor 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 Lambertstaff writer, New Statesman; editor, New Statesman Saturday Read
Professor Anand Menondirector, UK in a Changing Europe
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Deifying diversity: a value for our times?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
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?
SPEAKERSSimon Fanshawe OBEconsultant and writer; author The Power of Difference ; co-founder, Diversity by Design
Maya Forstaterexecutive director, Sex Matters
Mercy Murokipolicy fellow to minister for women and equalities and business and trade secretary
Tomiwa Owoladewriter and critic; contributing writer, New Statesman; author, This is Not America: Why Black Lives in Britain Matter
Dr Joanna Williamsfounder and director, Cieo; author, How Woke Won and Women vs Feminism
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Against fatalism: how can we create a new enlightenment?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
‘Dare to know.’ This was the battle cry of the Age of Enlightenment in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Europe. This spirit remade the world, birthed new sciences and inventions, breathed life into democracy and unleashed economies that lifted millions from obscurity and destitution.
Today, by contrast, daring seems to be in short supply. A strange cloud of both complacency and despondency seems to have settled over the Western world. From climate change to the cost-of-living crisis, we are told both that our problems are enormous, and also that there is not much we can hope to do to fix them – except to lower our expectations. Such a mood strikes a stark contrast with the spirit of the Enlightenment, which assumed that through reason, science, argument and human ingenuity, all the problems that society faced could be dealt with.
Across the political divide, there seems to be a shared assumption that human agency is at best a mirage, at worst a dangerous fairytale. We live in an ‘age of determinisms’ – techno-determinism, neuro-determinism, environmental determinism. Popular historians and philosophers announce that human beings are at the mercy of immovable processes. Research in genetics is used to suggest that government policies and individual effort matter little in accounting for social outcomes. Conspiracists proclaim that we are all pawns of globalists pulling the strings.
Yet this whole mood seems challenged by masses of people across the West who feel their societies are heading fast in the wrong direction. The desire to ‘take back control’ echoes across the globe. This demand could have easily been another Enlightenment slogan: the idea that by turning power over to the people, we might attain mastery over the forces that shape society. Both on left and right, there has been much discussion about how to give voice to the demand for change.
But perhaps what is needed is less a new technocratic innovation – a people’s assembly or a voting reform, a new social media tool or a new form of community service – than a way to give room to a spirit of popular engagement. The Age of Enlightenment, by way of comparison, was clearly founded on a ‘republic of letters’ that extended from the most prestigious journals and universities to the humblest of coffee houses.
Where, then, are we to find the successor to the Enlightenment coffee house? How do we recapture the spirit of an age that insisted human beings could remake the world? Do we need a new Enlightenment, and how do we ‘dare to know’ today?
SPEAKERSProfessor Frank Furedisociologist and social commentator; executive director, MCC Brussels; author, 100 Years of Identity Crisis: culture war over socialisation
Professor Jonathan Israelprofessor emeritus, School of Historical Studies, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton; author, Spinoza, Life and Legacy and Radical Enlightenment
Munira Mirzachief executive, Civic Future
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Should schools teach social justice?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Many teachers think gaining academic knowledge on its own is not enough for young people to avoid inequality, discrimination and marginalisation today. Instead, schools need to go beyond narrow academic goals and teach our children how to combat racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, poverty and promote environmentalism. Others think academic knowledge is valuable for its own sake and should be defended, and worry it is being consistently diluted to make room for social-justice concerns.
But hasn’t the education system always been political? Some argue that social justice is a natural extension of a liberal, democratic education, and that it is essential for becoming a well-rounded adult. Furthermore, ‘British values’, in one way or another, have always informed school curricula. Are concerns about social justice more of the same, or is this a unique problem of too many teachers bringing their personal political agendas into the classroom?
Is social justice morphing into advocacy education and undermining impartiality? Should we accept social justice in schools as a natural reflection of discussions in wider society, or is it time to insist on a clear distinction between the political and educational domains? Is there a place for social justice in the classroom?
SPEAKERSDr Debbie Haytonteacher; trade unionist; columnist, Spectator and UnHerd; author, Transsexual Apostate: my journey back to reality
Eric Kaufmannprofessor of politics, University of Buckingham, author, Taboo: how making race sacred produced a cultural revolution
Michael Merrickdirector of schools, Diocese of Lancaster; former teacher; education and social commentator
Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbertdirector, Don't Divide Us; author, What Should Schools Teach? Disciplines, subjects and the pursuit of truth
CHAIR
Kevin Rooneyhistory and politics teacher; editor, irishborderpoll.com; convenor, AoI Education Forum; co-author, The Blood Stained Poppy

Curing cancer: is it all about the science?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
After Covid, a wave of undiagnosed and late treated cancers has arisen in the UK and other countries – a consequence of delayed treatments, cancelled screening and operations, and ever-expanding waiting lists. At the same time, Covid vaccine development has shown how medical progress can be accelerated when the right resources and political will are brought to bear.
But a side effect of the pandemic has been a growing scepticism about scientific and medical authority. Half a century after President Richard Nixon signed the National Cancer Act, firing the starting gun on the War on Cancer, is this a battle we can no longer win – not because of a lack of scientific progress but because of growing distrust of science and medicine?
‘Cancer’ is an umbrella term for hundreds of different conditions, each with its own particular form and potential treatment and much has been achieved. For most cancer patients today, treatment can extend their lives or eradicate cancer altogether, especially when diagnosed and treated early. A vaccine against human papillomavirus virus (HPV) looks likely to slash the incidence of cervical cancers, while the innovative developments in transoral robotic surgery (Tors) offer significant hope to patients with head and neck cancers.
Alongside increasingly effective chemotherapy, radiotherapy and newer proton therapy, immunotherapy has transformed the survival rate across many cancers. Cell-based treatments are ‘curing’ some types of blood cancer and gene therapies offer hope in rare and hard-to-treat cancers. Furthermore, public-health interventions have reduced some major causes of cancer, like smoking and air pollution.
But the number of cancer cases has been rising inexorably and threatens to kill more people in the UK than all of the waves of Covid so far. Many argue that we will be faced with tough choices if we want to beat cancer, for example tackling ‘lifestyle’ factors like smoking, drinking and eating. Yet public health campaigns are sometimes met with doubt or anger in social media. In addition, anonymised personal health data could be an invaluable research tool, but will patients and the public be willing to share it?
Will we ever be able to say we’ve cured cancer? Can we afford to treat everyone? Is prevention as important as treatment – and how willing are the public to follow public-health advice about risk factors for cancer, like obesity and alcohol consumption? Can trust between medics, researchers and the public be restored?
SPEAKERS
Nicky Drurygenomic counsellor, Nottingham Regional Genomics Service; former member, United Kingdom Human Genetics Commission
Professor Eliot Forsterchief executive officer, F-star Therapeutics; non-executive chairman, Avacta plc; honorary visiting professor of molecular and clinical cancer medicine, University of Liverpool
Miranda Greenjournalist; commentator; deputy opinion editor, Financial Times; co-founder, The Day; former Liberal Democrat advisor
Professor Karol Sikoramedical director, Cancer Partners International; founder, Cancer Partners UK; author, Treatment of Cancer; honorary consultant oncologist, Hammersmith Hospital
CHAIR
Ellie Leeprofessor of family and parenting research, University of Kent, Canterbury; director, Centre for Parenting Culture Studies