Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

Battle of Ideas 2024 Welcome Address

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
The nineteenth annual Battle of Ideas festival opened with a Welcome Address.
SPEAKERSBen Deloentrepreneur, mathematician and philanthropist
Claire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

War and civilisation: a brief history

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In August 2024, it emerged that the US was preparing for the possibility of a nuclear attack coordinated between China, Russia and North Korea. Add in the support of Iran, and we might ask: is this an alliance of four rather different civilisations ranged against the Western sort? The 100million-strong Chinese Communist Party, Russian nationalism, North Korean Stalinism and Shia Islamism have little in common with each other. But all of these forces share the feeling that the West has lost its grip. Is that true?
In this lecture, Professor James Woudhuysen takes us swiftly through over 200 years of history to look at the way war has changed the world, from forging the nation state – a powerful force for civilisation – to the way it has been used not just to defeat external opponents, but internal opponents, too. While the 80th anniversary of D-Day reminds us that great, global ‘hot wars’ have been absent for decades, wars in Ukraine and Gaza are a reminder that conflict is never far away – with ramifications far beyond the particular battlefields on which it is fought.
With historical perspective on our side, what should we make of the various threats to the West today? Are we facing an existential threat from without or is the sabre-rattling merely bluster? If Western nation-states were shaped by war, do the same tendencies make future wars inevitable? Is the real problem that the West itself has lost confidence in Western civilisation?
SPEAKERJames Woudhuysenvisiting professor, forecasting and innovation, London South Bank University
CHAIRJean Smithfounder member, Our Fight UK; co-founder and director, NY Salon

The women who wouldn’t wheesht

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
For more than a decade, gender ideology seemed to enjoy unstoppable momentum across the Western world, establishing itself in the corridors of power, the faculty of universities, the HR departments of institutions and the boardrooms of corporations. As a consequence, from swimming-pool changing rooms to prison cells, woman’s refuges to political meetings, the ability of women to exercise sex-based rights has been under attack.
However, many now recognise that a shift has taken place in the sex and gender wars, with slithers of space opening up for women to speak about their views on gender ideology without being silenced. High-profile cases relating to equality law, parliamentary rows, and scandals within the healthcare system from the Cass Review to the WPATH files have empowered many silent but supportive people to come forward and say, enough is enough.
What is clear is that the influence of gender ideology would have continued unchallenged without ordinary and extraordinary women speaking up. The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht is a Sunday Times bestseller that captures an important moment in contemporary history: how a grassroots women’s movement, harking back to the Suffragettes and second-wave feminism, took on the political establishment and changed the course of history.
Through a collection of essays and photographs, some of the women involved tell the story of their five-year campaign to protect women’s sex-based rights. Including JK Rowling, former MP Joanna Cherry KC and those – like Jenny Lindsay, Gillian Philip and Professor Kathleen Stock, who lost careers or opportunities – the book also features anonymous women who fought for their rights as survivors of sexual abuse in the face of hostility from politicians. In a moving introduction, the woman who coined the phrase ‘Women Won’t Wheesht’ explains how she was motivated to fight for the right of her profoundly disabled daughter to have female-only care.
Join some of the contributors to the book to discuss the causes and consequences of this political upheaval of women’s rights. How did it take years of women risking losing jobs, families and friends to challenge a previously fringe ideology? And while some battles have been won – from the resignation of Nicola Sturgeon to widespread coverage of the injustices in sport – are the sex and gender wars still raging?
SPEAKERSJoanna Cherry KCKing’s Counsel at Scottish Bar; former SNP MP for Edinburgh South West; former chair, Joint Committee on Human Rights
Gillian Philipwriter and haulage worker
Susan Smithco-director, For Women Scotland; director, Beira’s Place; contributor, The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht
CHAIRMarion Calderco-director, For Women Scotland

The wellbeing industry: is it doing us any good?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Wellbeing is big business and the ‘wellness’ industry is booming. Since the inaugural Global Wellness Day in 2012, annual worldwide spending on wellness has ballooned to $5.6tn dollars, considerably more than the GDP of Germany, the world’s third-largest economy. In the US, the number of professional therapists is growing faster than any other occupation. In the UK, as wellness programmes and wellbeing champions become prominent in the workplace, 290,000 therapists are now employed, double that of a decade ago.
Nowhere is the wellness industry thriving more than amongst the young. In line with government-sponsored initiatives like the University Mental Health Charter Programme, and supported by enterprises such as Student Minds, expansive counselling and welfare services cater to staff and students, who are urged to ‘develop insight, understanding and skills’ to manage and maintain wellbeing. Another burgeoning growth area is in new mental-health apps, popular tools to cultivate and tend your wellbeing.
The booming wellness industry coincides with an apparent nationwide deterioration of mental health, including rapidly rising levels of depression, anxiety and behavioural disorders.  Some put this down to ‘intensification’ of work, tighter deadlines, managers ill-equipped to look after employees or anxieties over the rising cost of living.  But others say the problems are more social and cultural, for example reflecting post-pandemic blues or toxic workplace culture, where employees are stressed from microaggressions, racism or homophobia.
With record absenteeism and debilitating impacts in terms of people’s ability to manage their lives, one question is whether the wellness industry is helping people. With growing mental-health problems seemingly outpacing the increased resources devoted to wellness, is there a need for more investment in professionals and an expanded remit, such as employers advising on life beyond work, from financial budgeting to exercise and eating regimes? But others warn society risks relying on professional ‘help’ that will undermine resilience to deal with the challenges of everyday life for ourselves.
The former secretary of state for work and pensions, Mel Stride, argues that we have ‘gone too far’ in medicalising the ‘normal anxieties of life’ and some worry the growth of wellness has a debilitating effect on wider society. Post-pandemic worklessness is rife as monthly numbers signing on long-term sick have doubled – with mental health the biggest single complaint. In universities, increasingly students cite wellbeing problems as mitigating or extenuating circumstances ahead of exams.
What is driving the growth of the wellness industry? Is it a necessary service helping those in need or unnecessarily encouraging us to declare we are ill? How can we strike the right balance between treating those who need help and avoiding causing problems for individuals and society? And how should we respond to the cultural ascension of the wellness industry and its politically imposed ideals?
SPEAKERSRachel Bosenterferhigher-education professional; women's rights activist
Amy Gallagherpsychiatric nurse and psychotherapist
Roy Lilleyhealth-policy analyst; writer; broadcaster and commentator; co-author, Wellness: why can’t we stop people getting sick in the first place?
Para Mullanformer operations director, EY-Seren; fellow, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development
CHAIRRosamund Cuckstonsenior HR professional; co-organiser, Birmingham Salon

The War Against the Past: looking to the future

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Whether through toppling statues, decolonising curricula and institutions – or even erasing terms from our vocabulary – Western civilisation, and its past, is now regularly portrayed as a story of shame. Where once society boasted of its history, marking anniversaries and celebrating great achievements, today a bleaker and more apologetic view often prevails.
For Professor Frank Furedi, this assault on our cultural heritage is a problem. In his latest book, The War Against the Past: Why the West must fight for its history, he writes that ‘a society that loses touch with its past will face a permanent crisis of identity’. To be able to understand where we are today, and where we might move in the future, he writes, is impossible without an appreciation of how we got here.
Some worry that a detachment from a sense of a collective past might hamper a sense of social solidarity – preventing people from identifying as members of a common community. They argue that when human accomplishments – from Greek philosophy or the intellectual revolution of the Enlightenment to the scientific achievements of modernity – are indicted for association with exploitation and oppression, we risk removing the building blocks that give us confidence to progress further.
If we deny a dialogue with history, despite how repugnant we now find experiences of slavery, religious dogma or colonialism, do we risk robbing society of an understanding of how to move forward? On the contrary, some argue a re-writing of Western history is necessary to forge a fairer future. As Jonathan Sumption put it in his review of Furedi’s book in the Spectator, those who argue for decolonisation don’t see slavery or colonialism as ‘just historical phenomena but symptoms of underlying attitudes whose persistence is held to be the main obstacle to the proper recognition of marginalised groups’.
What complicates matters is that history has never been a settled story. From a conservative orientation to tradition to a left-leaning belief in the future, including a modernist confidence in breaking from the past, how society relates to its history has long been contested. Are critics right to say that the defence of the past today simply amounts to a new generation of nostalgics taking refuge in their version of the past?
What is the role of our historical inheritance? Is a war against that past that devalues our ancestors and erodes humanity’s past achievements a fatal blow to the pursuit of political change today? Or should we be less concerned with the past and more about how to make the case for progress in the here and now?
SPEAKERSProfessor Frank Furedisociologist and social commentator; executive director, MCC Brussels
Dr James Orrassociate professor of philosophy of religion, University of Cambridge
Emma Webbwriter, broadcaster and presenter at GB News; fellow, New Culture Forum
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

The turn against (over)tourism

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Holiday lets, overpriced bars and trinket shops – many of the world’s most beautiful destinations rely on tourism to stay afloat. Tourism is also a serious economic consideration for many countries – in 2023, the worldwide travel and tourism market recovered from a Covid-era slump and bounced back to a figure of around £7.6 trillion, making up 9.1 per cent of the global GDP. But not everyone is thrilled about the return of happy campers. Over the past few years, once-welcoming tourist destinations have now become verboten for visitors.
Last year, Amsterdam discouraged unruly British visitors with their ‘stay away’ advertising campaigns, warning against drinking to excess, urinating in canals and taking illegal drugs. In Barcelona, a growing housing crisis has brought scrutiny to the short-term rental economy propped up by apps like AirBnB. Anti-tourism graffiti has been spotted all over the city, and members of a ‘tourism degrowth’ organisation have been filmed squirting tourists with water pistols and blocking hotel doors with tape, revealing the tensions between local Barcelonians and the customers much of the city’s industry relies on. The city’s mayor has pledged to suspend short-term lets by 2029, taking pressure off the shrinking residential sector. But some argue these measures will simply force landlords underground, creating a black market for unruly tourists.
Some areas have introduced levies to soften the impact of overtourism. In 2023, Unesco threatened to move Venice onto their world heritage danger list following a rise in avoidable damage by tourists to the city’s fragile structures. While a €5 visitor levy introduced this summer has raised around £1million for the city’s council, it has seemingly done nothing to curb visitor numbers or to lessen nuisances for locals. This May, Wales proposed its own visitor tax for tourists staying in overnight accommodation, arguing that it is ‘fair and reasonable to ask visitors to make a contribution towards the wider costs of tourism’. But critics, like the Taxpayers’ Alliance, have argued that this charge will be detrimental to Wales’s ‘competitive edge’, harming small businesses and Welsh residents in the hospitality and tourism sectors as prospective visitors decide to go elsewhere.
We all love a holiday – indeed, the aspiration of ‘seeing the world’ is something many of us still hold as an essential human experience. With cheap flights, social norms more accustomed to international travel and more people seeking out the same destinations, how should we balance the lives of locals with the desires of out-of-towners? What effect did the pandemic have – why did many locals, accustomed to the solitude brought by Covid-19 on their beaches and beauty spots, suddenly become so hostile to tourists? Is there a bigger question of management, with states failing to control overtourism in attractive locations, while other parts of the nation decay and see less revenue? Is it up to the state to resolve this, or should local decision-making play a more significant factor?
SPEAKERSDr Jim Butcherlecturer; researcher; co-author, Volunteer Tourism: the lifestyle politics of international development
Katie Glasscolumnist, feature writer and travel journalist
Emma Zaoliinternational relations and French student, Durham University
CHAIRAustin Williamsdirector, Future Cities Project; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution; series editor, Five Critical Essays.

The rise and fall of the ivory tower

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The UK’s higher-education sector is in crisis, with 40 per cent of universities and other higher-education institutions expected to run a loss this financial year. Fewer 18-year-olds are electing to go to university. Courses are closing, academic redundancies are on the rise, students are dissatisfied, staff are demoralised, bureaucracy is increasing, and, if you believe the hype, standards are falling. More universities are at risk of bankruptcy.
Should we be bovvered?
Figures produced on behalf of Universities UK claim the sector is worth £116 billion to the economy, supporting more than three quarters of a million jobs, of which nearly half (382,500) are indirect, through businesses that benefit from the economic stimulus universities create. The fallout of a financial meltdown could be considerable.
But some commentators think it may be time for a shake-out of a bloated sector in order to move to a slimmed-down educational offering. University for the brightest and best, but not for the rest?
What is causing the perceived imminent collapse of the UK’s educational establishment? One factor may be students voting with their feet as a post-Covid reaction to the way that they were treated: locked down, online and isolated. Another concern is the high cost of higher education – with students paying £9,250 per year, but some only receiving one or two lectures a week. Then there’s the thorny issue of ‘useless’ degrees. Students have long been promised better paid jobs by getting a vocational degree. But is it a myth that unis can solve the skills crisis, while undermining the academic purpose of higher education as an outcome?
Perhaps the cause is that lecturers’ wages are too high because of trade unions’ excessive demands – or maybe it is the exorbitant salaries paid to vice-chancellors and their army of functionaries. And there is disquiet with standards, either from curricula that are now perceived as more concerned with expounding political viewpoints than teaching critically neutral subject matter, or because grade inflation has brought universities into disrepute. Inevitably, some point to Brexit as the problem. After all, foreign students have long been encouraged to come and fill the funding gap, paying upwards of £30,000 in annual fees.
Will the new Labour government be able to turn things around? Is this an inevitable corrective for a sector that expanded too far – or are we in danger of losing valuable departments, institutions and educational opportunities? And what about the impact on local economies if student numbers fall?
SPEAKERSJennie Bristowreader in sociology, Canterbury Christ Church University; author, The Corona Generation: coming of age in a crisis and Growing up in Lockdown
Maeve Halliganstudent; musician; member, The Hooligans; student representative, Academic for Academic Freedom (AFAF)
Dr Neil Thinauthor; honorary research fellow, social and political science, University of Edinburgh; former director of teaching, SPS Undergraduate School
CHAIRAustin Williamsdirector, Future Cities Project; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution; series editor, Five Critical Essays.

The queering of society

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The word ‘queer’ has had many iterations. First it meant ‘strange’, ‘odd’ or even ‘eccentric’ – think of the expression, ‘there’s nowt so queer as folk’. During the trial of Oscar Wilde, a letter by the Marquis of Queensberry described Wilde and other gay men as ‘snob queers’. Indeed, for many, the term still produces a wince, as it took on the form of a homophobic slur.
Today, however, ‘queer’ has been adopted positively, falling under the LGBTQ+ umbrella representing those whose ‘gender identity’ or sexuality does not fit into ‘cisgender’ norms. No longer just a word, the concept of ‘queering’ has now emerged – a technique to challenge binaries, boundaries and ‘heteronormativity’ across society as a whole. While originally associated with the takeover of Pride events by queer activism, queering is now visible in everyday life – it is impossible to walk down a UK high street and not see ‘queer’ symbolism in the shape of flags or traffic signs.
Applying a queering methodology is inevitably pervasive in academia, but increasing numbers of artistic or cinematic works now incorporate ‘non-binary’ or ‘queer’ figures. This can involve re-writing history – for example, the recent Paris Olympics opening ceremony, which portrayed what seemed to be the Last Supper complete with drag queens and men sporting thongs. Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre queered Joan of Arc (they/them) in its production of I, Joan. Even items recovered in the sixteenth-century shipwreck, Mary Rose, from nit combs to gold rings, have been reassessed through a ‘queer lens’.
Queering can also apply to thinking about the future – a recent report published by Queen’s University Belfast encouraged a gender-inclusive approach to discussion of the Northern Irish border by ‘queering the peace process’. Queers for Palestine are a regular feature on Gaza protests, arguing that we should ‘unpack the multiple intersections of queer politics and the Palestinian struggle’. Likewise, there are calls to queer the education system and curriculum to ‘encourage intersectional ways of thinking’ among primary-age children; to allow them to appreciate the tyranny of boundaries.
Critics of queering argue that this clashes with the reality of most people’s lived experiences in which rules, boundaries and norms are, well, normal. For example, referring to the debate about transwomen’s access to women-only spaces, tennis legend Martina Navratilova tweeted: ‘All our lives we are taught about boundaries, we teach our children about boundaries and now we women are supposed to give them all up for males?’
What is behind this complete shifting of language and the attempt to re-write the past, present and future through a ‘queer lens’? Is queering simply a new way of looking at the world, one which we should embrace with an attitude of ‘live and let live’? Or is there something to be defended in our understanding of binaries and boundaries, that help our understanding of each other rather than harm?
SPEAKERSJames Essesbarrister; social commentator; co-founder, Thoughtful Therapists
Professor Frank Furedisociologist and social commentator; executive director, MCC Brussels
Kate Harrisco-founder and trustee, LGB Alliance; formerly Brighton Women’s Centre and Brighton Women’s Aid
Graham Linehancreator and co-creator, Father Ted, Black Books and The IT Crowd; comedy writer, Count Arthur Strong, Brass Eye and The Fast Show; author, Tough Crowd: How I Made and Lost a Career in Comedy
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

The politicisation of maternity

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Having a baby is a joy, but it’s also no easy task. Aside from the pains every woman has had to go through – from months of indigestion to hours of labour – women bringing a baby into the modern world are now faced with a set of extra challenges. From moral panics about feeding practices to endless books and podcasts on parenting styles, being pregnant and giving birth has become a political act.
Even the medical services women rely on to have children safely have been politicised. As Sirin Kale revealed in the Guardian, midwifery and maternity services have long been influenced by external groups like the Natural Childbirth Trust (NCT), which advocates for unmedicated, ‘natural’ births, using hypnobirthing and aromatherapy. As a result, many women have expressed guilt or shame about asking for pain relief during labour. What used to be common sense – loving your newborn – has now become a studied science, with lessons on skin-to-skin bonding and oxytocin production encouraged by NHS staff across the country.
Likewise, the practical question of how to feed a baby is now a hotly contested topic of debate – one which can often get nasty on social media. Breastfeeding advocacy has won over governments and international NGOs, who have, through legislation and health policy, imposed a ‘breast is best’ narrative. Likewise, the ramping up of efforts to monitor women’s alcohol consumption both before and during pregnancy aims to protect women from the ‘unhealthy choice’ of a glass of wine in pregnancy.
For some, motherhood is political. In the 1960s, woman’s campaigners railed against the over-medicalisation of pregnancy and birth, and contested the benefit of the singularly powerful influence of doctors. Intrusive medical practices and a disregard for women’s bodily autonomy inspired a reclaiming of maternity as an expression of womanhood. But for others, this politicisation of pregnancy created a sense of pressure to do things the ‘right way’, leaving some women feeling like they have failed a test if they do not.
The dark backdrop to all of this is that maternity services are in crisis – with the Care Quality Commission finding in 2023 that two thirds of the maternity units it examined were ‘inadequate’ or required improvement, declaring ‘many are still not receiving the safe, high-quality care that they deserve’. From preventable maternal and infant deaths to extreme birth trauma becoming commonplace, has the move towards a natural, politicised birth come at the cost of safety?
Has all this talk about the right way to be pregnant and give birth scared some women off completely, with birth rates consistently dropping? Or are these new practices in maternity a necessary correction to a lack of woman-centred care that was characteristic of previous generations? Should the NHS be involved in political campaigns from La Leche League to the NCT, or are these external organisations merely providing guidance to women who want it? Can, and should, we aim to take the politics out of maternity?
SPEAKERSEmily BarleyMaternity safety campaigner
Dr Ruth Ann Harpurclinical psychologist; co-founder, Infant Feeding Alliance
Professor Ellie Leeprofessor of family and parenting research, University of Kent, Canterbury; director, Centre for Parenting Culture Studies
Clare Murphyco-director, Feed; former chief executive, British Pregnancy Advisory Service; former health reporter, BBC
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

The polarisation problem: can we speak across the divide?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
It is almost a cliché to note how ‘bitterly divided’ and polarised politics and culture has become. The UK’s summer riots revealed a deeply troubled society, with different groups in our towns and cities seeming to live parallel lives. Meanwhile, polarised abuse is ubiquitous on social media. No doubt algorithms keep us trapped in ‘echo chambers’, but the sense that there’s less willingness to engage with, or even hear, the views from the ‘other side’ is pervasive. Straw men are the order of the day, rather than steel-manning arguments.
Indeed, we don’t agree on what problems we face, let alone the solutions. In fact, we often presume the problem is each other. We even seem to speak different languages – sure, we communicate in the same native tongue, but we can’t agree on the basic meaning of words. For example, what does ‘far-right’ mean when it is promiscuously applied? Likewise, many who run institutions seem fluent in Equality, Diversity and Inclusion lingo, while millions become tongue-tied when faced with acronyms such as LGBTQI+, or trip-over linguistic hurdles thrown up by prescriptive language codes.
Beyond describing this polarisation, what’s to be done? Calling for more civility and a better standard of debating is undoubtedly a positive initial step. Yet often those who claim they want to make exchanges less toxic, preaching a kumbaya ‘be kind’ approach, advocate for censorship which, in turn, only creates more polarisation.
Consider the core message from Labour culture secretary Lisa Nandy when she declared that the ‘era of culture wars is over’. ‘In recent years we’ve found multiple ways to divide ourselves from one another’, she told her new staff at DCMS, ‘changing that is the mission of this department’. For many, this ‘nothing to see here’ approach read as an order to ‘shut up’. Indeed, Nandy’s colleague, the education secretary Bridget Phillipson, dumped the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act for similar reasons, arguing that it was an example of the Conservatives’ ongoing ‘culture war’ against Britain’s institutions. For technocrats, polarisation is merely a nuisance that gets in the way of efficient governance. Labour may be desperate to draw a line under all those tetchy debates about trans rights, racial identity politics and free speech, but isn’t that asking one side to accept defeat rather than achieving genuine peace?
Is it possible to encourage genuine pluralistic debate without sacrificing your principles and ideals? After all, it’s no good pretending to get along if our political divisions represent real problems that need solving. Can we transcend our acrimonious personalised differences in an era of individual and group tribalism? Is identity politics the problem, rather than polarisation? And if the culture wars aren’t over, can we argue our way out of them?
SPEAKERSDr Calum TM Nicholsondirector of research, Danube Institute
Max Sandersonassistant managing editor, Guardian
Tom Slatereditor, spiked; co-host, spiked podcast and Last Orders
Dr Kathleen Stockcolumnist, UnHerd; co-director, The Lesbian Project; author, Material Girls: why reality matters for feminism
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

The Great British Energy crisis

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The Labour government has set out an ambitious goal to decarbonise the UK’s electricity supply by 2030. Labour’s plan includes prioritising renewable energy sources like wind and solar power while reducing the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels. In line with this, the government has indicated it may halt new licences for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. The government also announced the creation of Great British Energy, a publicly funded body to invest in renewable energy. The energy secretary, Ed Miliband, claims these measures will make the UK’s electricity supply greener, more secure and cheaper.
However, there are plenty of commentators warning about the feasibility and impact of this strategy. Renewable energy, while crucial to achieving decarbonisation, is notoriously unpredictable. The sun doesn’t always shine, and the wind doesn’t always blow, leading to concerns about the reliability of the energy supply – unless renewables are backed up in some way, whether by gas-powered plants, rising imports or expensive storage. Far from being cheaper than fossil fuels, critics note, renewable energy continues to need substantial subsidies, which are even more glaring as the price of gas has returned to more normal levels following the energy-price crisis of recent years.
Moreover, most of the UK’s nuclear power stations, which have long provided a steady and reliable source of low-carbon electricity, are set to close between 2026 and 2030. Replacements for them are still a long way off, with Hinkley Point C years behind target and Sizewell C still tied up in paperwork and court cases. The previous government’s plan to produce 24 gigawatts (GW) of power from nuclear sources by 2050 – up from 6 GW now – seems increasingly over-optimistic. Indeed, Labour already seems to be getting cold feet on a proposed nuclear-power plant in north Wales.
Will Labour’s energy strategy lead to a cheaper, more secure electricity supply, as it claims? Or are we on the brink of an energy crisis, with higher costs and increased vulnerability to blackouts? Are higher bills a price worth paying to tackle climate change or, when global emissions are still climbing, a pointless sacrifice of British jobs and living standards?
SPEAKERSDr Shahrar Aliformer deputy leader, Green Party
Lord David Frostmember of the House of Lords
Prof Dr Michaela KendallCEO, Adelan; UK Hydrogen Champion for Mission Innovation, UK Government
James Woudhuysenvisiting professor, forecasting and innovation, London South Bank University
CHAIRRob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate

Reclaim the high street

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
When Lloyds Banking Group recently revealed it will close 190 branches from October and 47 next year – following on from similar announcements by NatWest Group and Barclays – it was heralded by some commentators as yet more evidence of the long-term decline of once-vibrant town centres. Research suggests 33 parliamentary constituencies could be left without a local bank branch by the end of 2024.
The bank closures come on top of the widespread closure of local post offices. We are left with images of boarded-up shops, myriad charity pop-ups and precincts than bustling centres full of communal spirit and thriving businesses. The decay of town centres and high streets is considered by many to explain an increasingly profound disconnect from people and place, a growing feeling that many towns are neglected, left behind, hostile to forging social ties. Some have even suggested that the riots are proof that residents no longer respect their local areas.
The demise of the high street means fewer and fewer physical spots where, during the mundane daily tasks we all must do, there is the potential for chance meetings and physical interaction to happen. Older people, who often rely on bank and postal services and the interactions involved in using them, are often the first to notice. But both older and younger people – the latter, in particular, still feeling the effects of the pandemic – are also noticing the demise of places to socialise. The traditional pub, where different generations often mix together, is in long-term decline, while nightclubs and cafés have also suffered. For example, one group estimates that over 3,000 pubs, bars and nightclubs have shut down since March 2020. Over time, the fabric of local communities can be eroded and all generations impacted.
So, should the government intervene and regulate so that some physical services are required to remain on the high streets? The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), for example, recently proposed new rules ‘to maintain reasonable access’ to cash and deposit facilities, and committed to working with the banks to roll out 350 banking hubs over the next five years.
What is to be done? Can measures that involve local communities be put in place to stop the rise of boarded-up high streets and help them reinvigorate their own streets and locales?
SPEAKERSSam Bidwelldirector, Next Generation Centre, Adam Smith Insitute
Neil Davenportcultural critic; head of faculty of social sciences, JFS Sixth Form Centre
Paul Finch OBEprogramme director, World Architecture Festival
Lord MoylanConservative peer; chair, Lords Built Environment Select Committee
Deb Nagandirector, Deb Nagan Studio
CHAIRNiall Crowleydesigner; writer; former East End pub landlord; co-producer and co-editor, Arts First podcast

Putting your life on (meno)pause

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Menopause is the permanent cessation of periods and the ability to bear children. In the UK today, there are around 13million women who are peri- or post-menopausal – about a third of the female population. According to recent research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 67 per cent of working women state that menopausal symptoms have had a ‘mostly negative’ effect on their ability to carry out their job, including hot flushes, mood swings and heart palpitations to brain fog and an inability to sleep.
In response, some argue that workplaces should change to accommodate menopausal women. In 2022, the Women and Equalities Committee issued a report recommending that the menopause becomes ‘a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010’. In February, the Labour Party promised to make large firms implement and publish menopause action plans. Measures could include uniform alterations, temperature-controlled areas in the office and even paid time off. A recent report from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) even suggested that the menopause could be regarded as a disability, leaving employers open to legal action and having to pay damages to women negatively affected at work.
Formerly something of a taboo, campaigners, such as TV presenter Davina McCall, have called for open discussions about the problems women face during the menopause. But the changes being proposed in the workplace remain contentious. Some critics argue a change in legislation could lead to employers being reluctant to hire or promote women. Some also argue that these measures could actually perpetuate the stigma around menopause by framing it as a condition that incapacitates women – a regressive step in the hard-fought for battle for women to be treated as equal to men in the workplace.
Is the menopause a debilitating condition that workplaces should recognise? Or is it simply a natural process that many of us have to endure, unpleasant though it may be? Could menopausal leave simply open the door to male menopausal leave, a position already being advocated by some local councils in the UK? Until recently, some healthcare professionals have been reluctant to put women on HRT, but many women now swear by it as a life-changing solution. Are we in danger of rehabilitating the old-fashioned notion that women are mentally and physically inferior to men? Or should modern workplaces fit the needs of their staff?
SPEAKERSAnn Furediauthor, The Moral Case for Abortion; former chief executive, BPAS
Victoria Smithfeminist writer; author, Hags: The demonization of middle-aged women
CHAIRDr Mo Lovattnational coordinator, Debating Matters; programme coordinator, Academy of Ideas

Populism: a response to two-tier rule?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Despite constant reassurances from international commentators that the ‘grown ups are now back in charge’, populist sentiment continues to assert itself throughout Europe. Populist parties have made serious headway, whether in the European elections, the rise of France’s RN or the election of five Reform UK MPs in the UK (despite the first-past-the-post voting system). There have been large and widespread farmers’ protests against the consequences of Net Zero targets and demonstrations on the streets against illegal migration in too many countries to mention. This all suggests that populist discontent is by no means quelled.
What’s more, some argue that hostile responses from those who run society could stir up further populist feeling. Rather than pausing to ask why so many millions of citizens are revolting, sometimes even rioting, elites seem wedded to doubling down on existing policies. Instead of changing course, politicians across the spectrum determinedly pursue strategies designed to correct the behaviour of the people who voted the ‘wrong way’ or won’t get in line, to destroy expressions of populism in all its manifestations.
In frustration at an inability to defeat populism either electorally or by political persuasion, some worry about policies that could lead to even greater polarisation. A worrying ‘Us versus Them’ narrative is becoming the norm, and with it, two-tier governance. There seems a concerted effort to manufacture consensus around metropolitan opinion as being ‘on the right side of history’. Anyone not signed up to this consensus is ‘the other’, an enemy within, an idea targeting largely working-class people who, it is alleged, have been radicalised by wrong-think.
The ideological demonisation of populism is expressed in increasingly politicised and toxic language wars. Certain opinions or outlooks – from the blandest expressions of national patriotism to hostility to non-consensual mass immigration, from worries about a lack of integration by certain migrant groups to fear of Islamism – are being routinely dubbed hateful, and in turn conflated with speech that incites violence. Labelled as far-right, even neo-Nazi, accused of whipping up bigotry and racism, populism is being consciously associated with the malignant authoritarianism of the 1930s – and deemed unacceptable in mainstream public life.
This is mirrored by a new tactic: quarantining dissent – attempts at insulating a supposedly healthy political population from being infected with the dangerous disease of populism. Former spin doctor Alastair Campbell complained in 2019 that ‘what we have at the moment is a populist virus’. Within the EU, such an approach has been institutionalised. Mainstream centrist and leftish political parties have recently agreed to shut out the Patriots for Europe and the Europe of Sovereign Nations party fractions in the European Parliament, which will prevent any of these populist groupings’ MEPs from gaining any influence over the running of institutions or committees in the EU.
Will fear of being socially isolated deflate the present populist dynamism? In the long term, can the mere invocation of the threat of the far-right really discredit populist political parties or quell the concerns that have driven them forward? As citizens increasingly start to see through the narrative that seeks to demonise their aspirations, does this drive a greater wedge between the state and the people? How will new political ideas – so crucial for any political project of transformative change – emerge, if the establishment remains so rigid, tone-deaf and hostile in the face of bottom-up dissatisfaction with the status quo?
SPEAKERSSabine Beppler-Spahlchair, Freiblickinstitut e.V; CEO, Sprachkunst36; Germany correspondent, spiked
Thomas Fazijournalist and writer; author, Reclaiming the State: A progressive vision of sovereignty for a post-neoliberal world; columnist, UnHerd; contributing editor, Compact
Dr Roslyn Fullermanaging director, Solonian Democracy Institute; author, In Defence of Democracy
Winston Marshallpolitical commentator; musician; host, The Winston Marshall Show
Bruno WaterfieldBrussels correspondent, The Times
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Podcast live: The Booking Club with Jack Aldane – Geoff Norcott on the British Bloke Decoded

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The Booking Club is the podcast where leading authors and commentators discuss their latest books and breakthroughs at their favourite places to eat and drink.
Guest authors on the series so far have included David Baddiel, Michael Rosen, Rory Sutherland, Tom Holland, Helen Lewis, Grace Blakeley, Will Self and Louise Perry. For this special live podcast, Jack will be joined by Geoff Norcott.
Jack’s podcast channel can be found on his Substack, where you can catch up on all the latest episodes, as well as dive into My Martin Amis, a second series that delves into the life and legacy of the late English novelist through the writers, critics and publicists on whom he left his mark.
GUESTGeoff Norcottcomedian
HOSTJack Aldanehost and producer, The Booking Club
ProducerAlastair Donald
co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question