Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

Gentle parenting vs smacking

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster, on Saturday 18 October.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In August, the New Statesman ran a front-page article entitled ‘The millennial parent trap: This generation are desperate to raise their children differently. Why?’ Certainly, one of the clearest generational divides between millennials and their boomer parents is found in parenting styles. ‘Gentle parenting’ – non-confrontational and positive-reinforcing – has been adopted by many young parents in opposition to their parents and grandparents’ preferred means of discipline.
In the midst of endless books and articles full of these new theories and methods of child-rearing, gentle parenting is embraced as respecting the emotions of a child and the motivations behind those emotions. If a child is naughty, has a tantrum, spits at toddler friends, even hits a sibling, it’s the parents’ job to try and get to the bottom of why, and to address the root cause of the child’s frustrations. As one commentator notes: ‘A child should be understood, never punished.’ Or, God forbid, smacked.
Because there hasn’t merely been a shift in methods – many now think that physical punishment is so wrong it should be illegal. The slipper, the belt, the wooden spoon – physical discipline that used to be the norm, particularly in Irish, African and Asian immigrant families – is now associated with the bad old days and characterised as on a par with child cruelty.
Smacking bans came into force in Scotland in 2020 and Wales in 2022. There are now calls for UK-wide criminalisation – removing the current allowance for ‘reasonable punishment’. NSPCC representatives, MPs and campaigners say that smacking – even when light and performative – causes physical and psychological harm leaving children with a warped view of violence.
Those who oppose a ban argue that there is a great difference between loving disciplinary methods and the kind of abuse that would harm a child. They also point to worsening behaviour standards among young children, arguing that the shift towards gentle parenting – in which parents don’t discipline at all, whether physical or verbal – is failing to provide the boundaries that children need to socialise.  But gentle parenting advocates suggest their child-centred approach is more holistic, that traditional discipline is too crude and cruel, and lazily avoids teaching children to express themselves and learn to think through what motivates their actions.
But if parenting – as a verb – becomes a demand for psychological sophistication in encounters with one’s own kids, does it undermine parents’ autonomy? Does it weaken confidence in Mum and Dad’s instinctive sense of knowing what’s best for their children? Already, the chatter amongst Gen Zers is that the fashion for gentle parenting makes the prospect of having children so demanding and daunting that they are nervous they won’t be able to live up to the task.
Are traditional methods of discipline, like smacking, so harmful that we should ban them, or are there consequences for allowing interference into private family decisions? Is gentle parenting creating a nation of naughty kids, or is it time to start rethinking how we socialise children without the need for physical discipline?
SPEAKERSNaomi Firshtjournalist and commentator
Dr Ashley Frawleysociologist; author, Significant Emotions and Semiotics of Happiness
Emma Gillandevent co-ordinator, Academy of Ideas; convener; Battle Book Club
Nancy McDermottdirector, Genspect USA; US editor, Inspecting Gender; author, The Problem with Parenting
Dr Lola Salemlecturer in French and music, University of Oxford; author; professional singer, Maîtrise de Radio France
CHAIRProfessor Ellie Leeprofessor of family and parenting research, University of Kent, Canterbury; director, Centre for Parenting Culture Studies

Letters on Liberty: AI – Separating Man from Machine

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster, on Saturday 18 October.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Since 2020, the Academy of Ideas has published Letters on Liberty – a radical pamphlet series aimed at reimagining arguments for freedom today and inspiring rowdy, good-natured disagreement.
In his Letter – AI: Separating Man from Machine – Sandy Starr questions whether the fears and controversies caused by generative AI are really the fault of the machines, or due to the questions they pose to our understanding of humanity. He asks whether we are incapable of dealing with both the challenges and the opportunities of generative AI. Should we not be able to harness its creativity, using its power to aid to human possibility rather than taking away from it? Reflecting King Lear’s assertion that ‘Nothing can come from nothing’, much of what AI creates requires human imagination and input. Can we not take solace in some credit for what it produces?
Narratives of fear surrounding generative AI often deflect concerns around human nature onto the machine. Giving chatbots prompts to cheat on homework, or to create deepfakes, are dependent on the desire to use computers to cheat or deceive. What is it about the temptation to use AI for bad, or out of laziness, rather than for progress?
Join Sandy and respondents to discuss how AI changes our perception of what it means to be human, how this is so often shaped by the creative process, and why AI is seen as such a threat. Is it that while the speed and ability of machines have their benefits it distracts from the greater meaning of human creativity? Are there not greater possibilities of AI being used to further humanity, rather than to diminish it?
SPEAKERSDr Shahrar Aliformer deputy leader, Green Party
Simon Cullenfaculty research fellow; visiting research professor of civil discourse and artificial intelligence, Heterodox Academy
Dr Patrik Schumacherprincipal, Zaha Hadid Architects; author, The Autopoiesis of Architecture and Tectonism – Architecture for the 21st Century
Sandy Starrdeputy director, Progress Educational Trust; author, AI: Separating Man from Machine
Leo Villaarchivist and promotions manager, Academy of Ideas
CHAIRSally Taplinbusiness consultant, Businessfourzero; visiting MBA lecturer, Bayes Business School; former board member, Lewes FC

Sex Realism and the new book burnings

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster, on Saturday 18 October.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
‘Wheesht’ is Scottish Gaelic for ‘hold your tongue’ and the scandal engulfing the National Library for Scotland’s exclusion of a book in its centenary exhibition demonstrates that, yet again, the women of Scotland absolutely won’t.
The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht (WWWW) is a collection of essays by female writers ranging from anonymous bloggers to well-known authors, including JK Rowling. It details five years of the grassroots fightback against the institutional capture of the Scottish political and cultural establishment by trans activism.
With a series of freedom of information requests, the book’s editors discovered that despite being fairly voted in by the public and even passing the Library’s own ‘sensitivity test’, WWWW was pulled from the exhibition following complaints and threats by the library’s LGBTQ+ staff network, who insisted that the suffragette-coloured tome was ‘hate speech’. (The Library reversed the decision after an outcry.)
The Edinburgh International Book Festival was also criticised for not featuring this best seller or any other popular gender-critical books, such as Jenny Lindsay’s Hounded, denying these writers the platform to discuss their work on their home turf. Festival organisers responded that it was an ‘inflammatory’ and ‘divisive’ issue, which they had decided to avoid this year.
It’s not just women that are being bullied out of opportunities for public recognition in publishing. A similar furore has erupted over the Polari Prize, whose stated mission is ‘to discover, celebrate, and promote LGBTQ+ literature written by authors born or based in the UK and Ireland’. Objections to the nomination of Earth by John Boyne, one of Ireland’s most successful gay authors, started as a single complaint but quickly blew up into judges and nominees removing themselves from the competition and an angry open letter from over 800 activists. The organisers eventually capitulated and announced a ‘pause’ of this year’s awards.
Gillian Philip lost her successful career writing youth fiction just for tweeting #IStandWithJKRowling. She is one of 25 case studies featured in the report by SEEN in Publishing and Sex Matters, Everyday Cancellation in Publishing, of authors and publishing professionals who have been cancelled for their gender-critical views in recent years.
But trans authors also claim to be victims of censorship. Politicians and pride organisers recently condemned Kent County Council’s Reform UK leader when she posted on X that the authority had removed transgender-related books from the children’s sections of its libraries, importing the raging debate over the age-appropriateness of kids’ books from the US.
Banned books can of course benefit from the Streisand Effect and both Earth and WWWW have reportedly been flying off the shelves due to the controversy. However, this is little consolation to lesser-known writers and publishers whose livelihoods have been destroyed, or never even given the opportunity to launch.
What can be done to push back against the current climate of a censorious and ideologically driven publishing industry?
SPEAKERSMatilda Goslingsocial researcher; author, Evidence-Based Parenting and Teenagers – The Evidence Base
Jenny Hollandwriter and critic; former assistant, New York Times; author, Saving Culture (from itself) Substack
Suzanne Moorewriter, the Daily Telegraph
Meghan Murphywriter and journalist; podcast host, The Same Drugs
Gillian Philipwriter and haulage worker
CHAIRTimandra 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

True crime: why is it popular and is it ethical?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster, on Saturday 18 October.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The world has gone mad for true crime – the real stories of serial killers, abductions and abusers. Crime podcasters and YouTubers gain audiences in the millions; Netflix is stuffed with documentaries about cold cases. Unsolved mysteries are particularly appealing: Madeleine McCann’s disappearance still draws mass attention from wannabe sleuths nearly two decades on.
Some accuse these entertainers of making light of serious crimes, and bring up potential emotional harm to victims’ families. This sensationalism, they argue, only desensitises us to the full range of human horrors. But fans defend their interest – and women seem to be especially drawn in. Certain enthusiasts argue the detailed descriptions of abduction, rape and murder make female fans safer; they become more aware of their surroundings, and learn to spot potential predators.
There’s also an argument that true crime brings the legal system into public scrutiny. Fans bring mistrials, ignored evidence and police malpractice to light. The level of exposure granted by this new media complex reduces the likelihood of the worst cases happening again. But others complain, as in last year’s Lucy Letby case, that excessive press coverage might prejudice ongoing legal cases.
How can we explain true crime’s contemporary appeal? Why are women more affected? Is there space in public life for these graphic tell-alls? Is it possible to reconcile the sensationalism of our mass media with genuine concern for the victims and their families?
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
Peter Bleksleywriter and broadcaster; former detective, Scotland Yard
Dr Mark Dapinauthor; historian; journalist; broadcaster (Australia)
Dr Ruth Dudley Edwardsjournalist; historian; crime novelist; broadcaster; awards include the Crime Writers’ Association Non-Fiction Gold Dagger for Aftermath: The Omagh Bombing and the Families’ Pursuit of Justice
Dr Philip Kiszelysenior fellow, New Culture Forum; director, NCF Literary Festival, national organiser, NCF Locals
CHAIRMax Sandersonassistant managing editor, Guardian

Racial grievance politics: how did we become so divided?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster, on Saturday 18 October.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Over recent months, there has been a loud and vociferous debate raging in the UK about the merits or otherwise of multicultural policies. In the past,  Martin Luther King’s dictum of ‘colour-blindness’ was embraced by all sides politically and aspired to a multi-ethnic society that saw skin colour and ethnicity as secondary factors to unity and cohesion. More recently, institutionalised and ubiquitous state multiculturalism has instead encouraged British citizens to view each other through the prism of ethnic, religious and cultural difference. Combined with a more contemporary embrace of identity politics and critical race theory, which regards white people as inherently privileged, multiculturalism has been accused of dangerously stoking up fragmentation and division.
But there are shifts that imply identity politics is now being embraced across the political spectrum. The political right, in particular, reacted against the race- and identity-based grievances associated with the Black Lives Matter movement’s rise after the death of George Floyd. It rejected ‘two-tierism’, justified by DEI, whether in the criminal-justice system or in hiring practices. However, more recently, increasing sections of the right have begun to embrace similar thinking, only in reverse. A newly emerging white-identitarian sentiment now frequently suggests white victimhood must be addressed by policies, arguing white people are becoming an oppressed class, while minorities are presented as a protected elite.
Although the term itself is contested, critics of this emergent ‘woke right’ argue it has much in common with its counterpart on the left: race essentialism and identity-based grievance. They point out that while past waves of immigration were always a source of some racial tensions; crucially, movements were created that transcended difference and encouraged mass political struggles for equality and against discrimination. Yet the slogan ‘black and white, unite and fight’ – which focused on commonality of values, hopes and aspirations – seems out of sync with today’s identitarian discourse espoused by both left and right.
Is white identitarianism an understandable reaction to left-wing wokeism? Is it possible to go beyond mutually suspicious ethno-religious blocs, each armed with competing grievances and claims to victimhood? Is a framework of common values and beliefs – that enables us to treat all people equally, regardless of ethnicity – possible today?
SPEAKERSAlbie Amankonabroadcaster; financial analyst; executive member, 2022 Group; champion, Next Gen Tories; general council, LGBT+ Conservatives; co-founder, Conservatives Against Racism.
Chris Baylisswriter and consultant
Sonya Douglasartist, poet and campaigner
Tim Samuelsdocumentary-maker; broadcaster; author
Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbertdirector, Don't Divide Us; author, What Should Schools Teach? Disciplines, subjects and the pursuit of truth
CHAIRDr Jan Macvarisheducation and events director, Free Speech Union

Should 16-year-olds have the vote?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster, on Saturday 18 October.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Under plans being drawn up by the Labour government, anyone over the age of 16 will be allowed to vote in the next UK General Election. According to Keir Starmer, ‘seismic’ change is necessary to ensure young people’s voices are heard. Do you agree?
There are longstanding arguments for and against lowering the voting age. However, critics claim Labour is motivated by partisan advantage, as age has become the biggest demographic divide in British politics, with younger people being more likely to vote Labour.
Opponents argue 16-year-olds are not allowed to drink alcohol unsupervised, get a tattoo, consume pornography, watch explicit films, play violent video games or even lie on a sunbed. Most importantly, anyone under the age of 18 must be in some form of education or training, even if they also work. If they are treated like children in these instances, is it not inconsistent and hypocritical to treat them as adults when it comes to voting?
In contrast, supporters of lowering the voting age argue that 16 is the same age at which you can legally marry, have sex, join the army, leave home and pay taxes. In the German federal states, Austria, Argentina and Brazil, research shows 16- to 18-year-olds are highly engaged and turn out in higher numbers than 18- to 20-year-olds.
Will lowering the voting age to 16 disproportionately benefit Labour and Greens as some suggest or is the answer far from clear? Evidence from recent elections in Austria and Brazil indicate young people voted quite similarly to other age groups. In recent EU elections in Germany, the right-wing AfD did very well among 16- to 24-year-olds. Likewise, in France, young voters turned out in large numbers for Marine Le Pen’s National Rally.
What it is to be a citizen and an adult in 2025? What are the political and philosophical arguments for lowering the voting age? What is motivating the government to lower the voting age? Would you trust 16-year-olds with the vote?
SPEAKERSIsobel Elkan16-year-old A-level student
Kevin Meaghercommentator; associate editor, Labour Uncut; author, A United Ireland: Why unification is inevitable and how it will come about; former ministerial special adviser, Labour
Fraser Myersdeputy editor, spiked; host, the spiked podcast
Tallulah Suttonsociology and politics researcher; University of Cambridge; author, Labour Heartlands in Brexit Britain
CHAIRKevin Rooneyreligion, philosophy and ethics teacher; editor, irishborderpoll.com; convenor, AoI Education Forum; co-author, The Blood Stained Poppy

Free speech in Trump’s America

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster, on Saturday 18 October.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Speaking at this year’s Munich Security Conference, the US vice president, JD Vance, declared: ‘Free speech, I fear, is in retreat’, vowing that the Trump administration would ‘fight to defend it’.
The early days of the administration suggested this promise would be fulfilled. The administration moved quickly to challenge entrenched race and gender ideologies, dismantle DEI mandates, oppose federal censorship on social media, and confront ideological overreach in universities and public institutions, offering hope for free speech.
Yet some of the administration’s actions have triggered alarm among civil-liberties groups. Deportations of foreign students voicing pro-Palestine and pro-Hamas opinions – carried out using visa revocations – have led to accusations of selective suppression. Will Creely of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has described the deportations as some of the most serious threats to free speech in recent memory. Seven FIRE members even signed an open letter urging universities, media outlets and law firms to resist what they saw as state overreach.
Commentators like Jacob Mchangama argue that many of the cases in question, such as the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, fail to meet the ‘clear and present danger’ test historically used to justify state interference in speech. Critics also highlight Trump’s continued antagonism to the press, including labelling media outlets ‘enemies of the people’ and excluding journalists from briefings for refusing to refer to the ‘Gulf of America’. Executive orders targeting ‘anti-American ideology’ have even promoted changes to public museum exhibits, with some accusing the administration of using it to enforce a singular narrative.
Supporters argue that these steps are necessary corrections to what they view as the enforced ideological monoculture in US institutions, especially regarding race, gender, and foreign policy. Others frame these actions as defensive, designed to safeguard national security and prevent incitement. But even some conservative voices are questioning whether recent actions have shifted from defending free expression to imposing a new orthodoxy.
While critics see hypocrisy, defenders see pragmatism. Is this the revival of free speech or simply the repurposing of state power for expedient ends? Are those who once decried cancel culture now engaging in it from the other side? Can free speech be meaningfully protected without ideological bias? Is censorship still censorship if it comes dressed as national security? Is free speech being degraded in a more potent way than before?
SPEAKERSSimon Hankinsonsenior research fellow, The Heritage Foundation; author, The Ten Woke Commandments (You Must Not Obey)
Dr Cheryl Hudsonlecturer in US political history, University of Liverpool; author, Citizenship in Chicago: Democracy, Race, and the Remaking of American Identity 1894-1924
Dr James Orrassociate professor of philosophy of religion, University of Cambridge
Tom Slatereditor, spiked; co-host, spiked podcast and Last Orders
Nadine StrossenJohn Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law Emerita, New York Law School; senior fellow, FIRE; former president, American Civil Liberties Union
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; organiser, European Free Speech Network

EU in crisis: will the Eurocrats survive?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster, on Saturday 18 October.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In July, Ursula von der Leyen survived a no-confidence vote as president of the European Commission – the first time the so-called ‘nuclear option’ had been used by the European Parliament since November 2014. Though the motion was defeated, the debates before, during and after demonstrated the pressure on the alliance of centrist parties in the European Parliament. The EU’s weakness was demonstrated by the thoroughly one-sided trade deal it was forced to agree with President Trump.
The pressure on centrists in the EU institutions reflects similar difficulties in many of the EU’s nation states. Chancellor Merz’s CDU-led coalition government in Germany is nose-diving in the polls. The electorate voted for change and ended up with something very similar to the previous coalition – all because the CDU refuses to work with the increasingly popular AfD. Or consider the political instability of the French government, after President Macron called a snap election in 2024 that resulted in a meaningless and hence fragile coalition of the ‘anything but’ Le Pen’s National Rally party.
At the heart of the situation lies growing public anger and raging debates on key issues such as mass migration, the EU’s role in a changing international landscape and the impact of the EU’s Green Deal and Net Zero policies. All these issues and more, such as the farmer protests, played a significant role in the European Parliamentary elections of June 2024, where the so-called ‘far-right’ made significant gains in several nations. Whilst the ‘cordon sanitaire’ against the far-right remains in place for now, the highly instrumental alliance at the centre, with little common purpose other than to remain in power, is fracturing.
The centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) – the party of von der Leyen – has already worked with parties to its right to water down anti-greenwashing and deforestation legislation, as well as to call for greater accountability over the EU’s funding of NGOs. This has resulted in cries of foul play from the EPP’s supposed partners on the left (Socialists, Liberals and Greens) and warnings to von der Leyen not to backtrack on the Green Deal.
With an increasingly febrile atmosphere over mass migration, flatlining economic productivity, punishingly high energy prices and the EU struggling to navigate geopolitical challenges from Trump to China and Russia – can the centre hold or is a fundamental political realignment increasingly likely? As the evolving political situation continues to unfold within European nation states – with national elections due in Czechia, Netherlands, Slovenia, Hungary, Cyprus, Sweden, Latvia and Denmark over the coming year and unstable coalitions struggling on in France, Germany, Austria and Poland – what are the prospects for the future of the centrist parties clinging to power across the EU?
SPEAKERSPieter Cleppeeditor-in-chief, BrusselsReport.eu
Suzanne Evansdirector, Political Insight
James Hollandpolitical advisor, European Parliament
Richard Schenkresearch fellow, MCC Brussels
CHAIRTony Gillandchief of staff, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Ploughing on? The state of British farming

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster, on Saturday 18 October.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In last autumn’s Budget, Rachel Reeves announced that full agricultural property relief for inheritance tax on farms would be limited to £1million, leaving family farms potentially facing huge tax bills. The announcement inspired mass protests by farmers, with tractors parked all the way down Whitehall. Many pointed out that it would spell the end for all but the smallest farms being passed down through generations. The issue proved to be a lightning rod for wider concerns about farming today.
The issues facing farmers have received greater publicity thanks to the popularity of the Amazon Prime series Clarkson’s Farm. Farmers have long complained about the behaviour of the major supermarkets in driving down prices, particularly for milk. Subsidies based on how much land is farmed are being replaced by payments for providing environmental benefits, creating uncertainty, while Net Zero policies increase costs. Brexit has led to labour shortages and made exporting to Europe more difficult. The cost of important inputs, from fuel to fertiliser, shot up during the energy price crisis and have not reverted to previous levels.
Overall, many farmers struggle to make a living from producing food and are forced to diversify by using their land and buildings for other purposes – or selling up altogether, often to replace agricultural farms with solar farms.
Yet the UK is far from self-sufficient in food and the proportion of the food we eat that is homegrown is in decline. Defra figures suggest we now grow just 62 per cent of the food we need. It’s not just farmers who worry that we aren’t producing enough, leaving us at the mercy of global markets.
On the other hand, being able to buy food from around the world protects us from the danger of bad harvests at home. Moreover, if we can buy more cheaply from abroad, doesn’t that mean more money to be spent in the rest of the economy? Some argue that British agriculture needs a shake-up, with fewer but bigger farms having the resources to invest in the best equipment and techniques. The Labour government’s ‘reset’ deal with the EU promises to make it easier for smaller producers to export, too.
What should be the future of farming in the UK? Should we do more to support local production? What can we do to make life easier for farmers? Do Westminster and Whitehall really understand – or even care about – the concerns of the countryside?
SPEAKERSRosie Duffield MPmember of parliament for Canterbury
Baroness Kate Hoeynon-aligned peer, House of Lords; former Labour MP; former sports minister; former unpaid commissioner for sport, London Mayor's office; Leave campaigner
Alan Hughesbusiness owner, Farmers to Action
Catherine McBrideeconomist and trade specialist
Kurt Mortonfarmer and owner, Manor Farm Partnership; member, Farmers To Action
CHAIRAlan Millerco-founder and chair, Together Association
 

Can we fix the dysfunctional state?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster, on Saturday 18 October.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Is the British state broken? Voters increasingly seem to think so. From seemingly out-of-control rents, taxes, mortgages and bills to a dysfunctional health service, few of the building blocks of modern life seem to work well in contemporary Britain.
On the face of it, the extreme disfunction of the country is odd. Britain is not just home to the so-called ‘Rolls Royce civil service’ but also dominated by elites whose claim to their position is that they have unique technical and managerial skills that ordinary people lack. British institutions are dominated by targets, performance reviews, experts and managers. Yet each government seems less able than the last to deliver on its promises.
Some argue that the rot is deeper than mere dysfunction. The state seems to view the nation with unbridled suspicion, relying on propaganda, secrecy and cover-ups. The recent Afghanistan scandal – where it emerged that successive governments had engaged in a comprehensive cover-up to avoid scrutiny of a massive data leak and a top-secret plan to fly thousands of Afghans to the UK – seems a case in point. Other scandals, like the grooming gangs or the miscarriage of justice for sub-postmasters, point to a similar level of deep, institutional complicity. But it not just scandals. The so-called ‘Boriswave’ – the enormous surge in migration, post-Brexit, presided over by Boris Johnson – seems to confirm ordinary people’s suspicions that, no matter how they vote, the elites respond time and again with the same policies.
Is it less a case, then, of how to reform the state than how to totally re-imagine it? A number of new initiatives, from Fix Britain to Dominic Cummings’s plan to reshape government, argue for systematic changes to make the state respond to political priorities. The Civil Service regularly comes in for particular scrutiny. When civil servants are not being accused of laziness for preferring to work from home, they are described as actively hostile to national political priorities – a kind of deep state, a behind-the-scenes government, unaccountable to anyone. This was summed up by the remarks of Gus O’Donnell, formerly the UK’s most senior civil servant, who claimed: ‘I think it’s my job to maximise global welfare not national welfare.’
Certainly, not all civil servants think in such hostile terms. Many of them point to a lack of leadership, not just inside the Civil Service, but politically as well. Indeed, the whole culture of targets, reviews, DEI and other elements of managerialism seem to actively frustrate anyone who wants to actually get things done. In response, Reform UK has proposed bringing into government more individuals with business experience to totally change the culture. But is this a question of technocratic skills or something deeper?
So, what’s behind the crisis of the British state? Is it a question of incompetence, or leadership? Do we need better incentives, managers and experts, or something more far-reaching? In fact, is the failure of the state more a failure of politics – an absence of political vision, will and, above all, a drive to actually represent the concerns of the wider nation at the heart of government?
SPEAKERSLord David Frostmember of the House of Lords
Munira Mirzachief executive, Civic Future
Jacob Reynoldshead of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas
Andreas Wesemannpartner, Ashcombe Advisers LLP
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!
 

Battle of Ideas festival 2025: welcome address

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster, on Saturday 18 October.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The twentieth annual Battle of Ideas festival opened with a Welcome Address.
SPEAKERS
Ben Deloentrepreneur, mathematician and philanthropist
Alastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; organiser, European Free Speech Network
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!
 

Build Back Better: why can’t we build anything at all?

Recorded at the Buxton Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 5 November at Devonshire Dome, Buxton.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
During the pandemic, the government launched a policy paper, Build Back Better: Our Plan for Growth, ‘setting out the government’s plans to support economic growth through significant investment in infrastructure, skills and innovation’. In his foreword, the then prime minister, Boris Johnson, declared that ‘we must grasp the historic opportunity before us: to learn the lessons of this awful pandemic and build back better, levelling up across our United Kingdom and fixing the problems that have held back too many people for too long’.
Yet from housing to airports, power stations to reservoirs, it seems difficult, if not impossible, to build very much at all. Any sort of development is met with resistance from people accused of being NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard). In short, even if those people think that a particular development is a good idea in principle, they don’t want it to be too close to where they live. And with MPs unwilling to upset constituents, this seems to be a powerful lobby.
But while NIMBYs are a long-standing problem, another kind of objection is from environmentalists who seek to hold the government to its promise of ‘Net Zero’ greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050. If we are to eliminate emissions and ‘save the planet’, then anything from fracking to an extra runway can be called into question.
Even when major infrastructure works do get the go-ahead, they seem routinely beset by delays. Work on London’s Elizabeth Line started in 2009, but the core section only opened in May 2022. The high-speed rail line between London and northern England – HS2 – is still years behind schedule, truncated and massively over budget. Even maintaining infrastructure seems difficult, with news that Doncaster Sheffield Airport is threatened with closure.
If we really want plentiful, affordable housing, modern infrastructure and a thriving economy, what are the barriers to be overcome? How can we ‘build back better’?
SPEAKERSSimon Cookeurbanist; former regeneration portfolio holder and leader of the Conservative group, Bradford City Council
Rosamund Cuckstonsenior HR professional; co-organiser, Birmingham Salon
Dr Caspar Hewettlecturer and degree programme director, Water Group, EuroAquae+, School of Engineering, Newcastle University; director, The Great Debate
Gawain Towlerconsultant; former director of communications, Brexit Party
CHAIRAustin Williamssenior lecturer, Dept of Architecture, Kingston University, London; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution: understanding Chinese eco-cities

Beyond the Hype: the inside story of science’s biggest media controversies

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Over the past two decades, there have been enormous controversies around science issues. Genetically modified foods were described as ‘Frankenfoods’ in the press. The ‘Climategate’ email leak created a storm about the honesty and integrity of climate scientists. Then there was the time the government sacked its own science advisor, David Nutt, for challenging drug laws.
Fiona Fox has been at the centre of all of this. In 2001, she became the founding director of the Science Media Centre, Britain’s independent press office for science. Now she has now written a book, Beyond the Hype: the inside story of science’s biggest media controversies. Published in April 2022, the book is part memoir of the first 20 years of the SMC, part manifesto for change – particularly the urgent need to separate communication of scientific research from government communications.
What can we learn from these furores about science? Who is to blame when science is distorted? How can we foster a better understanding of science, particularly when science is at the centre of big political debates?
SPEAKERFiona Foxchief executive and founding director, Science Media Centre; author, Beyond The Hype: the inside story on science's biggest controversies
CHAIRMax Sandersoneditor of weekly podcasts, Guardian

Beyond the birds and the bees: modern sex ed

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
If once sex education meant ensuring pupils were given access to basic biology and the mechanical details of reproduction, today it has become mired in the non-biological Culture Wars.
In September 2020, sex education was made compulsory across secondary schools. Pupils from primary onwards are asked to grapple with sensitive and often controversial topics such as sexuality, intimate interpersonal relationships, consent and, most controversially, gender identity as quite distinct from biology. Many head teachers have sought outside help from external agencies to provide teaching materials, staff training and workshops to pupils, providing what some see as a trojan horse for gender activism into schools.
Shocking stories have emerged from classrooms: discussions on masturbation with children as young as five, LGBTQ+ concepts – from queer to kink – normalised on the curriculum, key words introduced to children as young as eight, including cisgender, pansexual, asexual, intersex, non-binary and gender fluid. The fear that children are being exposed to over-sexualised concepts has been stoked-up by schools introducing Drag Queen Story Hour, in which men dressed as women read stories and perform to children aged from three to 12.
But are all these concerns just a moral panic, driven by conservative – even prejudiced – parents and right-wing culture warriors? In a world in which increasing numbers of young people are exploring their gender identity, won’t new RSE lessons help new generations negotiate modern sexual norms? Or is the safeguarding of children being compromised in the enthusiasm to promote equality, diversity and inclusion ideology?
Get your tickets to the 2022 Battle of Ideas festival here.
SPEAKERSRyan Christopherdirector, ADF UK; co-founder, Humanum Institute; public speaker
Stephanie Davies-Araidirector, Transgender Trend; author, Communicating with Kids
Milli Hillfreelance journalist; founder, Positive Birth Movement; author, Positive Birth Book
Josephine Husseyschool teacher
CHAIRAnn Furediauthor, The Moral Case for Abortion; former chief executive, BPAS

Balloon debate: what’s the greatest protest song?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
This year, the Battle of Ideas Balloon Debate tackles the greatest ever protest song.
Six participants will argue for their choice, in a light-hearted debate with a serious intent. Audience participation encourages you to agree, disagree, challenge, assess and dismiss those arguments and the songs that you think strike a bum note.
The panel will have a few minutes only to convince you of their choice. Could it be a Platinum Jubilee victory for the Sex Pistols, or will this finally be the year to ‘Give Peace a Chance’? Does the appeal of Bruce Springsteen’s ‘Born in the USA’ to Democrats and Republicans alike mean it’s an agitprop hit or a dud? Are you more Billie Holiday or NWA? This balloon debate will be informative and fun. There will be outrage as apparent frontrunners slide down the charts and less-obvious challengers make a charge for Number One.
The discussion allows just five minutes for each panelist’s defence before you, the audience, takes them to task. You can challenge or reinforce their choice. The audience then votes to chuck three contenders out of the virtual balloon before the remaining candidates make a final plea for your vote. Who knows, we might even ask the winner to lead us all in Battle-style karaoke singalong of the winning song!
SPEAKERSEmma Burnellfounder and political consultant, Political Human; journalist; playwright, No Cure For Love and Triggered
Tom Collyermusician; writer; assistant programmer, Battle of Ideas festival; sailing coach; alumnus, Debating Matters
Neil Davenportcultural critic; head of faculty of social sciences, JFS Sixth Form Centre
Brian Dennytrade-union journalist, Rebuild Britain; author, Rebuild Britain’s Fishing Industry; curator, Working River: songs and music of the Thames project
Ralph Leonardauthor, Unshackling Intimacy: Letters on Liberty; contributor, Areo
Winston Marshallmusician; writer; podcast host, Marshall Matters; founding member, Mumford & Sons
Joel Millsacting director for music, British Council ; former programmer, The Spitz
Ali Mirajcolumnist, TheArticle; founder, the Contrarian Prize; infrastructure financier; DJ
CHAIRDavid Bowdenassociate fellow, Academy of Ideas