Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

From smoking bans to junk-food restrictions: where’s the evidence?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
One of the Labour government’s first big policy announcements was to float the idea of an outdoor smoking ban in pubs, restaurants and children’s play areas. Sir Keir Starmer justified the idea, saying; ‘80,000 people lose their lives every year because of smoking. That’s a preventable death that’s a huge burden on the NHS,’ The idea comes on top of the Conservative government’s plan to ban anyone born after 1 January 2009 from purchasing tobacco products, which Labour has announced it will legislate for. But are such ‘nanny state’ policies justified by the evidence?
No one can be under any illusions that smoking is good for your health. The link between smoking and lung cancer, for example, became known in the mid-1950s and governments have been warning us about the health risks for over 60 years. But while there is some evidence of risks from ‘second-hand smoke’ to justify the indoor smoking bans passed in the Noughties, that doesn’t seem to justify bans outdoors. The justification for bans on smoking and even buying tobacco seems to be to make it ever harder to smoke anywhere, encouraging smokers to quit, and thus protecting the NHS.
Government intervention and even legislation to protect the nation’s health has multiplied in recent decades. Both Scotland and Wales have imposed minimum unit prices on alcohol – with the minimum price increasing in Scotland from 30 September. Prior to the general election, Labour also promised to consider bans of ‘junk food’ advertising, inspired by Transport for London’s network-wide ban. More and more councils are introducing bans on takeaways near schools.
Critics have pointed out that these measures seem to have little impact on health. Smoking has been in decline for decades. Even with minimum pricing, alcohol deaths in Scotland are at a 15-year high. Advertising bans and other restrictions on ‘junk food’ have not seen the nation’s waistlines shrink. If smokers did quit en masse and live longer, opponents point out, the effect would be more pressure on government finances – from extra pension payments, social care and lost taxation – not less.
Where is the evidence for these interventionist measures? Are the risks from heart disease, cancer and obesity so strong that we must do everything possible to change people’s lifestyles? Or should we emphasise providing well-evidence advice and let adults choose for themselves?
SPEAKERSDr Carlton Bricklecturer in sociology, University of the West of Scotland; author, Contesting County Lines: Case studies in drug crime & deviant entrepreneurship
Reem Ibrahimacting director of communications and Linda Whetstone Scholar, Institute of Economic Affairs
Molly Kingsleyco-founder, UsForThem; co-author, The Children’s Inquiry and The Accountability Deficit
Professor David Patonprofessor of Industrial Economics, Nottingham University Business School
CHAIRAlan Millerco-founder and chair, Together Association

From riots to shoplifting: dealing with lawlessness

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
‘Lawless Britain is out of control’, screamed a recent headline, capturing the sentiment that the UK has descended into a ‘Wild West’ country where there is a general disregard for the law. That was before the recent riots, which both added to the mood of a lack of respect for authority, but also arguably reflected a general feeling of insecurity in local areas. Where are the police on our streets when daily news is filled with reports of stabbings, anti-social behaviour, drug-related crimes, vehicle theft and more?
This anxiety may reflect a broader societal concern about the erosion of trust in public institutions such as the police and courts. Long predating the summer’s public disorder, and perhaps one of its catalysts, scandals involving police misconduct, two-tier policing and failures in the justice system seemed to undermine public confidence in the very institutions that were created to uphold the law. Last year, half of the phone thefts in London were not investigated by the Met, and 130,000 incidents of criminal damage in 2023 were not attended by the police. Burglary is viewed by many as a virtually unpunishable crime. The state seems unable or unwilling to keep citizens or property safe.
Is the perceived ineffectiveness of the legal system to blame for the seeming rise of lawlessness? One commentator on the criminal justice system complained that even when offenders are brought before the courts, far too much consideration is given to their human rights rather than to the victims of their crimes. Others think that even when criminals are convicted of a crime, they are not adequately punished, leading offenders to think it’s OK to break law. This summer, the Ministry of Justice announced that in an effort to address prison overcrowding, some offenders will be released after completing only 40 per cent of their sentences.
However, other commentators suggest that fear of lawlessness is itself a misdiagnosis, a new moral panic driven by more existential anxieties about the state of society. There are fears that the demands to lock more people up for longer, often in the name of victims, can lead to an atmosphere of punitive, subjective retribution rather than justice. And what of possible drivers towards criminal activity, such as increasing poverty, neglected local communities with decrepit amenities and declining services? And perhaps perceptions of increased crime are amplified by politicians making laws that deem more and more activities as crimes.
Or is there a broader problem of authority shaping individuals’ values and behaviours, such as the seeming lack of respect for teachers and school discipline? Is social media – which amplifies voices that challenge traditional authority – to blame? Are today’s cultural attitudes towards authority and the law influencing levels of lawlessness?
SPEAKERSProfessor Ian Achesonsenior advisor, Counter Extremism Project; visiting professor, school of law, policing and forensics, University of Staffordshire; author, Screwed: Britain’s prison crisis and how to escape it
Shaun BaileyLord Bailey of Paddington; London Assembly member; youth worker; co-founder, My Generation
Richard Garsidedirector, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies; lead author, Criminal Justice Systems in the UK
Lisa McKenzieworking-class academic; author, Getting By: estates class and culture in austerity Britain and Working Class Lockdown Diaries
Alan Millerco-founder and chair, Together Association;
CHAIRSimon McKeonfounder member, Our Fight UK; QPR season ticket holder; archivist

From ‘powerhouse’ to populism: Germany today

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
‘It’s an earthquake that is changing history’, wrote the Italian newspaper La Repubblica in September after the right-populist AfD won an important state election in eastern Germany.  This was just the latest highlight in a series of spectacular election gains for the populists. Even in the European elections in June, which were accompanied by countless scandals involving the party’s main candidate, the AfD came second. It finished ahead of all the current governing coalition parties.
The AfD is not the only populist party that has been able to celebrate spectacular successes. In January, a new left-wing populist party, the BSW, was founded. It has also managed to overtake the government parties in recent elections – winning over 10 per cent of the votes from a standing start. The established parties, meanwhile, are struggling to secure majorities, with the SPD only just beating the AfD in the recent Brandenburg election.
The rise of populism in Germany has come as a surprise for many observers. Less than a decade ago, the country was still perceived as a somewhat boring anchor of stability in Europe. Thus, in 2017, the influential Bertelsmann foundation claimed that ‘the majority of Germans reject populist views’. What has changed? Is it the voters or the politics – or both?
The challenges the country is currently facing are formidable. The economy is faltering, contracting by 0.1 per cent in the second quarter of 2024. ‘The location is simply too expensive, the infrastructure too dilapidated, the bureaucracy too paralysing’, is the pessimistic verdict of the German Economic Institute. As the government continues to pursue its immensely costly aim of Net Zero, more people are beginning to feel the squeeze in living standards.
In the past, German governments tended to solve problems with money, by increasing subsidies and social welfare. But now the government is dealing with a serious budget shortfall. A tighter budget has already led some to question whether the government will be able to uphold its promise – made in 2022 response to the Ukraine war – to increase its defence expenditure.
To many Germans, it seems as if the good times are over. Apart from the economic problems, there are also political issues. One of these is mass migration. After a series of deadly Islamist attacks, and as a reaction to the recent successes of the populists, the government has promised to reintroduce border controls, albeit only for a limited period of time. But polls show that very few voters still trust the established parties to really solve these problems.
Is the EU’s most populous country facing years of internal divisions, or even decline? Which forces or groups will be able to lead the country towards the necessary changes? Will Germany become the sick man of Europe? And if so, what will this mean for the rest of the continent?
SPEAKERSAlexander Horneconomic commentator; management consultant
Lysia Lealstudent of City & Regional Planning, Technische Universität Berlin
Dr Patrik Schumacherprincipal, Zaha Hadid Architects; author, The Autopoiesis of Architecture and Tectonism – Architecture for the 21st Century
CHAIRSabine Beppler-Spahlchair, Freiblickinstitut e.V; CEO, Sprachkunst36; Germany correspondent, spiked

Running back to EU? Labour, Europe and the economy

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In July, on the eve of the General Election, Keir Starmer was asked if he could foresee ‘any circumstances’ in which the UK would rejoin the EU’s single market ‘in his life’. His response was an emphatic ‘no’. Yet it is clear that Labour wants to ‘reset’ the UK’s relations with Europe. Reports in July suggested the German government wants to expand Starmer’s offer of security cooperation into a ‘mega-deal’ that encompasses everything from agricultural rules to the Erasmus student exchange programme.
In the period after the UK left the EU, there were considerable difficulties for many businesses in working out how to trade with the EU, despite a deal that largely dispensed with tariffs on goods. Many difficulties remain – particularly with Northern Ireland’s status, having a foot in both the EU and the UK markets. Many commentators believe leaving the single market was a mistake that is hitting the UK’s economic growth.
But others believe that Brexit has had little impact on the economy. The UK’s economic problems are longstanding, they argue, and have much more to do with a lack of investment and slow productivity growth than with our trading relations with the EU. The pandemic lockdowns and the energy-price crisis were much more important ‘headwinds’ than Brexit. Others believe recent UK administrations have failed to take full advantage of the post-Brexit freedoms to deregulate and pursue other national economic policy opportunities.
Moreover, recent UK GDP figures compare favourably with similar countries – Germany, France and Italy – in the EU. Indeed, former European Central Bank boss Mario Draghi has admitted to having ‘nightmares’ over Europe’s lack of competitiveness and future economic prospects. And there are persistent concerns about being in the single market without being in the EU – that the UK would end up being a ‘rule taker’ rather than a ‘rule maker’ – while being obliged to accept free movement.
How far can Starmer go in forging closer ties with the EU when there is little appetite for reviving the debate about Brexit? Has leaving the single market been an economic disaster as some claim? Or is this yesterday’s news, distracting us from the policies we need at home to revive the economy?
SPEAKERSCatherine McBrideeconomist; fellow, Centre for Brexit Policy
Ali Mirajbroadcaster; founder, the Contrarian Prize; infrastructure financier; DJ
Dr Thomas Sampsonassociate professor, LSE; associate in Trade programme, Centre for Economic Performance
Gawain Towlerformer head of press, Reform UK
CHAIRPhil Mullanwriter, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

Equality law: freedom’s friend or foe?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
It has long been accepted that the fight for equality and for freedom march together in lockstep. But the quest for equality has become ever more a matter of law – culminating in The Equality Act 2010. Politics has become increasingly organised around complex and sometimes conflicting issues of identity, and some fear the great causes of equality and freedom are coming into conflict. Some legal protections of identity groups intended to secure equality now pose thorny issues related to freedom, whether it is the right to enjoy single-sex services or, more broadly, free speech. Conversely, many pro-free speech activists now see the Act as more essential than ever in protecting the expression of legal, if controversial, views.
Enacted by the last Labour government, The Equality Act brought together a host of existing legislation, including laws covering race relations and various discrimination acts, including on the grounds of sex and disability. Supporters of the Act stress that extending previous discrimination law in socially progressive ways has enabled formerly marginalised voices to be afforded space and dignity by protecting people from less favourable treatment. With protections including for sex, race, religion or belief, disability, sexual orientation and gender reassignment, supporters argue the Act encouraged more diverse representation in workplaces, management boards and educational curricula of universities and schools.
Yet 14 years on, it has become clear that some of the Act’s provisions are causing problems. For example, the rise of gender ideology means the legislation has been used as a threat against feminist student societies, women’s sport, and single-sex spaces like domestic violence refuges and rape-crisis centres. The issue is that the Act gives protection to both women and people undergoing ‘gender reassignment’ in ways that are seen as coming into conflict. The law uses the words ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ interchangeably, even though campaigners argue they have different meanings. Maya Forstater, CEO of the charity Sex Matters, said before the election: ‘Whichever party forms the next government, it must grapple with the serious lack of clarity about the law on single-sex services, which is undermining the rights and safety of women and girls in practice.’
Others have raised broader and more systemic issues relating to the Public Sector Equality Duty, including to eliminate discrimination and harassment, and Positive Action to improve representation in workforce, that critics say are being weaponised and can themselves be described as discriminatory.
Recent cases, such as Sean Corby’s, show that the Equality Act is being either overlooked or misunderstood by employers and tribunal judges so as to leave employees at the mercy of the intolerant. This can devastate people’s livelihood and reputation for holding, and voicing, reasonable political opinions on everything from race and racism to climate change. Meanwhile, Section 26 of the Act uses a definition of harassment that includes ‘unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic’ that has ‘the purpose or effect of violating’ an individual’s dignity, a subjective criterion open to grievance claims. Conversely, despite such speech-chilling impacts of the Act, increasingly the provision that treats beliefs as protected characteristics has become a key legal route to guaranteeing free speech.
Is free speech strengthened by the legal concept of protected beliefs? Should a subjective category such as preserving dignity of individuals with protected characteristics trump freedom of thought and expression of dissenting viewpoints? Have we tipped over from justified laws against intended and unintended discrimination, to using the law to pursue overly restrictive, partisan, divisive ends? Is it time to repeal, or at least amend, the Equality Act?
SPEAKERSJoanna Cherry KCKing’s Counsel at Scottish Bar; former SNP MP for Edinburgh South West; former chair, Joint Committee on Human Rights
Dolan Cummingswriter and novelist; co-director, Manifesto Club
Maya Forstaterchief executive, Sex Matters
Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbertdirector, Don't Divide Us; author, What Should Schools Teach? Disciplines, subjects and the pursuit of truth.
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Elections, riots and distrust: what’s the state of democracy?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Despite boasts that democracy was the winner in the recent UK election, with a peaceful transition of one party in government to another, democratic cohesion feels on shaky ground. Within a month of Labour taking power, violence on the streets – and a more general feeling of alienation from those in power – suggest the ballot box is no longer considered the legitimate last word, and many seem convinced their concerns are not taken seriously. ‘They are all the same’ and ‘What’s the point in voting?’ are constant refrains. The low turnout suggests such sentiments are deeply felt.
This sense of disenfranchisement is not helped by the distorted outcome for those who did turn out to place their X on the ballot paper. Despite Labour’s landslide victory, some ask if this was Britain’s least-representative General Election of the modern democratic era. Labour’s 411 seats – 63 per cent of those in the Commons and one of the largest majorities (172) in postwar history – were won with just 34 per cent of the vote and just 20 per cent of the potential electorate. The principle of ‘one person, one vote’ is further confounded by the fact that to elect a Reform MP, it took 820,000 votes, but to elect a Labour MP took just 23,000.
Yet despite receiving the lowest vote share that has ever led to a majority, the Labour government has shown little humility. For example, in response to the recent riots, critics complain that Starmer and his ministers have exhibited imperious and tone-deaf indifference to what might be driving social discontent and civil unrest. Instead, the government has used authoritarian measures to silence and censor popular concerns about mass immigration, Islamism and two-tier policing.
Beyond the usual, if reasonable, complaints of an unfair first-past-the-post voting system, there seems to be a more profound disillusion with democracy. Losers’ consent has become ambivalent, whether the attempts at overturning the 2016 Brexit vote or Donald Trump supporters’ refusal to accept his loss to Biden. The turmoil in France was created by similar attempts to block the popular will. President Emmanuel Macron’s snap legislative elections seemed driven by a desire to thwart the success of Marine Le Pen’s right-populist National Rally (RN), while the disparate ‘coalition of coalitions’ that followed was formed specifically to ensure that the RN – regardless of voters’ wishes – could not form a government.
More broadly, democratic accountability is becoming increasingly ring-fenced away from the electorate as decision-making is outsourced to unelected quangos and law courts and reined in by transnational bodies and treaties. Such encroachments are mirrored in extra-parliamentary activity that sees democracy as a barrier to getting its way. Pro-Gaza activists took to the streets during the UK election to menace and intimidate any candidates who did not denounce Israel as guilty of genocide. Just Stop Oil disruptions are justified because the electorate refuses to listen to their claims of impending climate catastrophe. Some argue the riots were an inevitable reaction to democratic failure on, for example, dealing with the small-boats crisis.
Does this pincer movement of top-down disdain for the demos and bottom-up populist and activist disenchantment with elected politicians seriously threaten democracy per se? How best can we restate the case for the radicalism of democracy and the ideal that all citizens must have the equal right to determine the affairs of the nation, that everyone’s views – from banker to builder, from corporate CEO to care worker – should be heard and responded to?
SPEAKERSProfessor Frank Furedisociologist and social commentator; executive director, MCC Brussels
Anne-Elisabeth Moutetcolumnist and commentator for Telegraph, UnHerd, GB News, BFMTV (Paris)
Josh SimonsLabour MP for Makerfield; former director, Labour Together; author, Algorithms for the People: Democracy in the age of AI
Baroness Stowellchair, Communications & Digital Select Committee
Luke Trylexecutive director, More in Common UK; writer and commentator; former political special advisor
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Don’t look back in nostalgia: is modern music rubbish?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
One of the big stories of the summer has been the announcement of an Oasis reunion, with millions of people seemingly desperate for tickets, a website that was more subsonic than Supersonic and loud complaints about the prices. But why are so many people excited to see a band whose heyday was over 20 years ago – especially when Noel and Liam have been very active on solo projects since they split?
Clearly, there is a huge sense of nostalgia for the band – and, perhaps, for the music of the past in general. Since the days of Definitely Maybe and Morning Glory, many feel that music has been more and more commodified, from The X Factor to K-pop. The old path to success – form a band with your mates, write some songs, get a record deal – seems to be long gone. In 2022, just four new songs by groups made it into the annual Top 100 listing of singles in the UK. Just 10 bands have hit No.1 in the UK charts since 2000 – and the most recent original song by a band to top the charts was by Florence and The Machine in 2012.
But does that really mean music was better in the past? It was always the case that the most interesting musicians rarely troubled the upper reaches of the charts. Half the fun for music lovers was to find the interesting but obscure. There’s plenty of interesting music around now, by established artists and new ones, from Nick Cave to Kneecap. And if pop is now the product of songwriting teams, and much promoted solo singers and manufactured groups – well, how different is that to the glory days of Motown? The other big concert story of the year was Taylor Swift’s Eras tour, selling out stadiums around the world – starring a smart and hugely successful singer-songwriter.
What’s the story? Is the Oasis reunion just mourning glory? If the music industry is changing, can’t we just roll with it and accept there’s something out there for everyone? Is great music dead – or will it live forever?
SPEAKERSProfessor Aaqil Ahmeddirector, Amplify Consulting Ltd; professor of media, University of Bolton; former head of religion, Channel 4 and BBC
Rushabh HariaLondon-based policy and project professional; Living Freedom alumnus
Lysia Lealstudent of City & Regional Planning, Technische Universität Berlin
Harley Richardsonchief product officer, OxEd and Assessment; organiser, AoI Education Forum; blogger, historyofeducation.net; author, The Liberating Power of Education
Leo Villaguitarist; archivist and promotions manager, Academy of Ideas
CHAIRDr Andrew Calcuttbassist; journalist; author of Arrested Development: pop culture and the erosion of adulthood

Does the UK need a First Amendment?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Labour has wasted little time in showing its colours on the question of free speech. There have been threats to further regulate online speech, free-speech protections in universities have been put on hold, there is renewed enthusiasm for recording non-crime hate incidents and plans to outlaw ‘Islamophobia’. The new government seems to see its job as protecting the public from the open, messy world of free expression rather than prioritising our right to openly express beliefs and opinions.
Among those keen to defend free speech, the prospect of new restrictions has generated renewed interest in creating a British ‘First Amendment’ – some kind of constitutional or legal protection of free expression. The First Amendment to the US Constitution, passed in 1791, provides that ‘Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech or of the press’. Advocates of a British equivalent would like to see the same approach enshrined in UK law.
Such a law would not solve every problem. In the US, where the culture wars reign supreme, from the public square to the workplace to universities, many individuals have been judged to have crossed the line or fallen foul of what is judged permissible. Nonetheless, the First Amendment confers on free speech the status of a ‘primary value’, with no categorical exceptions for hate speech and false or misleading speech – areas where free speech has regularly been under attack in Britain.
Sceptics say that, unlike under a system of common law, the First Amendment relies on the existence of a written constitution to give teeth to free-speech protections. If a UK ‘First Amendment’ relied on an act of Parliament, what would stop a new government simply overturning protections? Moreover, legislation that purports to offer speech protections, in areas such as equality law, has already foundered against a variety of competing rights. There are also numerous existing constraints on speech in the form of communications, public-order or online-harms legislation that would have to be considered, modified or even repealed.
Perhaps the fundamental question is whether a society looking to secure free speech should pursue this through legal enforcement. Should the priority be to build a free-speech culture that supports winning political arguments on an ongoing basis? Do we already fall back on the law too much to resolve issues that should be dealt with through political debate? Or would a First Amendment-style act provide a benchmark for free speech that would offer necessary protections in the face of competing priorities?
SPEAKERSNico Perrinoexecutive vice president, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
Tom Slatereditor, spiked; co-host, spiked podcast and Last Orders
Thomas Walker-Werthassociate editor, The Objective Standard; author, Reason for Living: A rational approach to living your best life (forthcoming)
Toby Younggeneral secretary, Free Speech Union; author, How to Lose Friends & Alienate People; associate editor, Spectator
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Demographic change: will we run out of workers?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Population ageing is rapidly becoming a prominent issue in many countries. Whether resulting from falling fertility rates, declining mortality, or increased longevity, older populations are thought to be another huge challenge facing the modern world. When declining birth-rates portend smaller populations, demographic fears amplify.
The World Bank explains that, more often than not, ageing populations are a source of concern, given the potential for higher health care and pension costs, unsustainable fiscal deficits, and intergenerational tensions. Most think tanks seem to concur that ageing is bad for economic growth. Older populations are believed to be less innovative, representing another barrier to reviving productivity growth in the advanced industrialised countries.
Meanwhile it is thought the shrinking proportion of the population that is working will be unable to sustain growing numbers of retired dependent people in reasonable comfort. Other commentators go further to claim that shrinking populations herald societal collapse.
One solution is to bring in workers from overseas. But immigration raises issues of its own, from strains on housing supply and public services to the potential for future liabilities as immigrants themselves grow old. Alongside rising immigration, however, is a rise in worklessness, with millions of working-age people unable to work through ill-health or because they are unable, or perhaps unwilling, to take on paid work. Some have suggested that the government should focus on pro-natal policies, making it easier for people to start families and have more children.
Contemporary demographic trends are frequently viewed as unstoppable and as an inevitable cause of increasing economic costs. Yet, the steady rise in life expectancy can also be viewed as one of the great human success stories. Just 120 years ago, half the population did not live beyond 32 years. Today, half the population is expected to live beyond 70.
How should we approach the consequences of demographic ageing? Is it an inexorable economic and social burden that we need to find ways of adapting to? What is the connection between population structure and size, and a country’s growth potential? Would it help if more policies focused on supporting healthy and active ageing? Can societies survive a decline in their population?
SPEAKERSDominic Frisbywriter; comedian; author, Bitcoin: the future of money?
Phil Mullanwriter, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents
Hilary Salt FIA, FPMI, FRSAdeputy leader SDP; actuary; partner, First Actuarial
Charlie Winstanleypublic and social policy specialist; author, Bricking it (forthcoming) on the UK’s housing crisis
Chair
Rob Lyons
science and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate

Defending the West in a dangerous world

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The world in 2024 is undeniably more conflict-prone than in recent memory. While the post-Cold War era saw various localised conflicts, today’s geopolitical landscape is marked by escalating tensions that could potentially lead to widespread regional or even global disorder. According to many reports, Russia’s war on Ukraine threatens European security, Israel’s conflict with Hamas risks igniting broader Middle Eastern unrest, and growing US-China tensions could spark a new global confrontation, whether hot or cold.
This new era of conflict has highlighted serious deficiencies in Western military readiness. Reports indicate that only the US and Poland are in a tolerable position, while other Western nations struggle. For instance, the UK might deplete its artillery shells within days of a major conflict, Germany faces severe personnel and equipment shortages that prevent it from fielding a full division, and France is grappling with significant logistical and equipment issues. These problems are compounded by widespread recruitment challenges and soaring costs for modernizing equipment, exacerbated by military support to Ukraine stretching many Western arsenals thin.
For years, the end of the Cold War and NATO’s reliance on American military might led many to believe that large military forces were unnecessary. However, despite some unity over Ukraine, NATO faces divisions, with concerns about the US’s shifting focus to China potentially undermining its commitment to deterring Russia. Additionally, trends towards smaller forces where new technology would replace traditional soldiering have been questioned as wars in Ukraine and Gaza reaffirm the need for substantial manpower and weaponry to sustain prolonged conflicts.
Critics argue that a renewed arms race and higher military spending divert resources from other essential public needs and increase global conflict risks. They advocate for diplomacy and understanding of major powers’ interests as the path to peace. On the other hand, traditionalists argue that only robust military strength can effectively deter aggression. And, at a time when world leaders are more likely to speak off-the-cuff on Twitter or to the press rather than embrace the art of diplomacy, international relations can often take on a tense and unpredictable atmosphere.
But amid the familiar debates about military size, military spending and the risks of arms races, some analysts identify a new problem for Western militaries: a worrying lack of willingness on behalf of Western citizens to want to fight if it came to it. Perhaps the problems with recruitment reflect not just a concern about pay, conditions or glamour, but a broader issue whereby few see the need to defend one’s country at all. According to surveys carried out in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, in countries like Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, only about a quarter to a third of people said they’d be willing to fight if their country asked them.
Does the West need to rethink its approach to military preparedness? At a time of sluggish economic performance, are Western countries faced with tough choices on spending? Do we have to ask a more fundamental question: what is the West, and is it worth fighting for?
SPEAKERSDr Tim Blackbooks and essays editor, spiked
Sherelle Jacobscolumnist, Daily Telegraph
Sir Simon Mayallconsultant and writer; former assistant chief of the Army; author, The House of War, the Struggle between Christendom and the Caliphate
Tim Scottexecutive director, The Freedom Association
CHAIRTony Gillandchief of staff, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Decolonised or patriotic curriculum?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
When it comes to fixing Britain’s internal divisions, would you prefer a decolonised or a patriotic curriculum? The National Education Union (NEU) argues that a decolonised school curriculum would ‘remove biases of the current system and provide a sense of belonging for black people’. Examining British imperialism, racism and the historical perspectives of the colonised from around the world, the NEU contends, allows us to better understand the colonial legacies of inequality and racism today.
In contrast, the Reform Party advocates a ‘patriotic curriculum that ensures people are proud of Britain’. Any lessons about an example of British or European imperialism or slavery ‘must be paired with the teaching of a non-European occurrence of the same to ensure balance’. Reform wants to ‘clamp down on woke ideology in schools’, from ‘BLM indoctrination to transgender’ ideology.
Some commentators suggest that the summer riots confirmed that we are now two nations, with the battle over the curriculum a symptom of this division. If people are living alongside others with radically different values and identities, some believe a solution is to use the school curriculum to provide some commonality of meaning.
Should education reflect one’s identity – be it British, black or gay – or be a means to moving beyond it? Is it socialisation or indoctrination to promote a decolonised or patriotic curriculum? Can schools be kept out of divisive politics and domestic culture wars, or should curriculum matters be left to the academic experts? Who should decide what schools teach?
SPEAKERSLouise Burtonhistory teacher
Dia Chakravartycontributing editor, Daily Telegraph
Andre Ediagbonya-Daviesdigital marketing officer; speaker, Academy of Ideas Education Forum
Ben Habibfounder and CEO, First Property Group plc; former deputy leader, Reform UK; former Brexit Party member, European Parliament
CHAIRKevin Rooneyhistory and politics teacher; editor, irishborderpoll.com; convenor, AoI Education Forum; co-author, The Blood Stained Poppy

Declare your pronouns: EDI and compelled speech

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI, or DEI in America) measures have become an important organisational framework for governments, universities, quangos and businesses across the English-speaking world. While some believe our institutions have an important role to play in shaping public opinion and leading the conversation around issues of ‘social justice’, others argue such agendas play an unhelpful role in fuelling the culture wars. For many people, these three letters (in whatever order) signify illiberalism – and a dread of being compelled to repeat EDI mantras on pain of ostracism, re-education or even job loss.
Institutions from corporate banks to galleries, from streaming networks like Netflix to the most prestigious universities, now organise around EDI targets. Everything from employment practices – such as recruitment and promotion, advertising, branding and customer relations – are getting the EDI treatment. Advocates argue that these policies ensure progressive language and an inclusive civility that allows everyone to feel part of organisations. Opponents complain that they are a top-down imposition of political criteria or language codes – such as using ‘preferred pronouns’ – on our speech and behaviour.
Some in higher education worry that EDI policies not only impact on free speech, but also distort academic judgement. In the US, materials from the University of Colorado Boulder’s DEI programme have come under fire for suggesting ethnic-minority students are failing because of a ‘white supremacy culture’ that includes ‘individualism, perfectionism, a sense of urgency’ and ‘worship of the written word’. St Andrews University in Scotland requires all matriculating students to sign a form confessing their privilege and promising to address their ‘unconscious bias’.
Those who favour such measures, suggest that EDI policies can right historical wrongs and encourage greater representation across many sectors. Advocates are determined to fight prejudice in the present by righting the wrongs of the past and enhancing opportunities for those groups who have been historically marginalised. However, critics claim that the opposite is true, pointing out, for example, that ethnic minorities are subjected to the ‘bigotry of low expectations’. They also argue that promotion of group identity fosters division, rather than inclusion, and undermines a social contract that depends on equality of opportunity and universal treatment. In workplaces, there are concerns that hiring practices are no longer equal but differential, treating people according to their skin colour, impeding meritocracy and reinforcing racial thinking.
What is the impact of EDI on our institutions? Do such policies promote social justice and enhance opportunities for underrepresented groups? Or are these policies playing a divisive role in public life, to the detriment of free speech and free inquiry – imposing values on students, employees and customers by compelling the majority to think and speak only in officially approved ways? Is EDI/DEI here to stay or might it DIE in the future under the weight of popular revolt?
SPEAKERSDr John Armstrongreader in financial mathematics, King’s College London; founding member, London Universities’ Council for Academic Freedom
Eric Kaufmannprofessor of politics, University of Buckingham; advisory council member, Free Speech Union; author, Taboo: How Making Race Sacred Led to a Cultural Revolution
Connor Murnanecampus advocacy chief of staff, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
Dr Joanna Williamsauthor, How Woke Won and Women vs Feminism
CHAIRJacob Reynoldshead of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas
 

From social media to AI: a tech moral panic?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Smartphones have become almost ubiquitous in modern society. The rise of social-media services, which have billions of users worldwide, has gone hand in hand with the use of smartphones. Few technologies have seen such rapid adoption. With concerns about several social problems coming to the fore in recent years, a variety of commentators have pointed to this new technology as an important cause. But in this case, does correlation really equal causation?
One problem is how we discuss social and political issues. Social media has democratised political debate. But that debate seems increasingly polarised and toxic, with social media being blamed by many for the summer riots in the UK and Elon Musk being the target of hatred from some for his relatively liberal approach to posts on X/Twitter. The rise of AI, particularly the ease of making ‘deep fakes’, has complicated matters further, making it harder for voters to figure out what candidates really believe or potentially stirring up conflict – as illustrated by fake audio of London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, earlier this year.
There are also worries – most prominently expressed by Professor Jonathan Haidt – that spending so much time looking at devices has damaged children’s mental health, sense of independence and concentration spans. High-profile head teacher Katherine Birbalsingh has caused controversy by banning smartphones from the classrooms at Michaela School in London, a trend now mirrored in state-wide bans on smartphones in schools in some parts of America.
But do such concerns over-inflate the importance of technology? For example, one worry is the decline of children’s independent play and travel – but this has been a trend for decades in much of the West, leading to debates about ‘cotton wool’ kids. Haidt himself has pointed to this as part of the problem. Declining mental health, for children and adults, has also been a concern for many years, but how much of it is new and how much is a result of expanding definitions of mental illness is unclear.
Is new technology really responsible for these social trends – or is it mere coincidence? What else might explain these changes – and what should we do about to tackle such problems?
SPEAKERSLord James Bethellformer health minister; member, House of Lords
Andrew Doylepresenter, Free Speech Nation, GB News; writer and comedian; author, The New Puritans and Free Speech and Why It Matters
Timandra Harknessjournalist, writer and broadcaster; author, Technology is Not the Problem and Big Data: does size matter?; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree
Sandy Starrdeputy director, Progress Educational Trust; author, AI: Separating Man from Machine
CHAIRRob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate

Debating Matters: ‘Smartphones should be banned in the classroom’

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Debating Matters is a sixth-form debating competition that has become renowned for its rigorous and intellectually challenging format – one that values substance over style and getting to grips with real-world issues. This is a one-off showcase debate for the Battle of Ideas festival between students whose challenge is to think through the thorny moral issues at the heart of the motion and the audience is sure to enjoy the high standard of debate.
The use of smartphones by children has become the subject of widespread debate – both in Parliament and within society more broadly. Their use has been linked to a range of poor educational outcomes and mental-health problems, leading many to call for an outright ban for those under 16 years old, particularly in school.
Jonathan Haidt, an American sociologist, has been influential in the discussion, arguing that the ‘between 2010 and 2015, there was a profound shift in the mental health of children and young people’. He ascribes this phenomenon to an increase in time spent online and a subsequent decrease in face-to-face socialising and play.  However, other sociologists have argued that just because the decline in mental health in the young coincides with the advent of the smartphone, doesn’t mean the latter is causing the former. In addition, by focusing specifically on smartphone use, to the exclusion of other factors, we may fail to address the real problems faced by young people today.
However, as many point out, the use of smartphones is a new phenomenon and one which should be studied and debated more widely. So, with that in mind, should smartphones be banned in the classroom?
DEBATE TEAMS:
Proposing the motion: The Burgate School
Debaters:
Lizzie Camfield – upper-sixth student studying A level Maths, Further Maths, Biology, and Philosophy and Ethics, hoping to study conservation at university.
Mollie Gennard – upper-sixth student currently studying History, Philosophy, and Ethics and Psychology, hoping to study Philosophy, Religion & Ethics at university.
Teacher: Mr Evan BaileyEvan has taught maths and further maths at his current school for 23 years. He is also numeracy coordinator, Key Stage Five coordinator and Aim Higher coordinator. He is a keen music lover, crate digger and Manchester United fan.
Opposing the motion: Oakwood Park Grammar School
Debaters:
Ifan Bambury – lower-sixth student studying A-Level Politics, Religious Studies and English Literature, intending to study Politics at university. Ifan is starring in the Christmas pantomime at Maidstone Hazlitt Theatre.
Arthur Pavey – lower-sixth student studying A-level History, Politics and Religious Studies, planning to study Law at university. Arthur is an expert on the AV Referendum of 2011.
Teacher: Ms Abbie HernAbbie is head of sixth form and senior leader at Oakwood Park Grammar School (OPGS) in Kent. She teaches Politics and Sociology and holds an MA in History from Edinburgh University. Abbie has had the pleasure of seeing her OPGS teams take part in Debating Matters since 2015. After being a visitor to the Battle of Ideas in past years, she is delighted to see her students take part.
JUDGESMurray Hancockco-founder and convenor, The Brisbane Dialogues
Professor Ellie Leeprofessor of family and parenting research, University of Kent, Canterbury; director, Centre for Parenting Culture Studies
Stan Swimchief program officer, Bill of Rights Institute
CHAIRDr Mo Lovattnational coordinator, Debating Matters; programme coordinator, Academy of Ideas

Could citizens’ assemblies save democracy?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
This year’s General Election saw the lowest voter turnout in the UK since 1928, leading many to suggest we have become disillusioned with democracy. Some blame voter apathy, while others worry that giving civil servants and bureaucrats too much power has alienated the electorate.
If faith in the political process is indeed so low, could citizens’ assemblies offer an alluring way to entice the electorate back into the voting booth by giving them a stake in the decision-making process?
Downing Street chief of staff, Sue Gray, has revealed she is considering the use of citizens’ assemblies, arguing they would break the deadlock on divisive issues such as reforming the House of Lords, implementing new housebuilding plans and granting more power to elected mayors. The health secretary, Wes Streeting, has also advocated for their use over contentious issues such as assisted dying.
Citizens’ assemblies have been used worldwide for some time. The most cited success story is their use in 2016, in Ireland, which led to the legalisation of abortion.  They are seen as an important tool in reconnecting citizens with politics and directly challenging increasing levels of political disenfranchisement. In addition, many advocates argue that citizens’ assemblies provide a strong bulwark against the rise of populist parties.
Critics of citizens’ assemblies, however, claim that rather than increasing democratic engagement, they actually limit genuine engagement by setting the parameters of the debate – sometimes in quite narrow ways. Very often, opponents argue, they are simply a ‘consensus laundering’ exercise. Critics also point out that the organisations who facilitate these assemblies are unelected and unaccountable – and so are the bodies who fund and oversee their work. This means that those setting the questions and presenting a range of views on the issue have no democratic mandate.
Yet, with trust in politicians and our political processes so low (recent ONS polling shows that only 27 per cent of us trust the government), democratic renewal is an important topic. Could citizens’ assemblies be a way to address this issue and help us build a new democracy? Or are they simply an attempt to exorcise the ‘democratic deficit’ on policies those in power want to implement, but for which there is little popular support?
SPEAKERSDr Roslyn Fullermanaging director, Solonian Democracy Institute; author, In Defence of Democracy
Sophie Harbornefounder, DemocraFest; senior parliamentary researcher
Rich WilsonCEO, Iswe Foundation
CHAIRDr Mo Lovattnational coordinator, Debating Matters; programme coordinator, Academy of Ideas