Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

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

Could AI break the productivity impasse?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
UK productivity – output per hour worked – in many Western economies has stagnated in recent years, particularly in the UK. A House of Commons Library paper notes: ‘Historically, UK labour productivity has grown by around two per cent per year but since the 2008/2009 recession it has risen more slowly’. In fact, productivity has barely improved at all for a decade and a half. But might artificial intelligence (AI) technologies change all that – particularly in the services sector?
Author and academic Erik Brynjolfsson found that AI assistance could improve productivity by 14 per cent in white-collar occupations. Goldman Sachs has estimated that a quarter of work tasks could be automated by AI, particularly office and administrative work. Other analysts predict a big role for AI in data analysis and content creation. These are mostly predictions or estimates based on specific scenarios. But AI is still in its infancy and there is plenty of scope for systems to improve and for them to be used both more effectively in existing applications and in new ways, too.
However, there are plenty of concerns with AI at the moment, including accuracy of output, data security and issues over copyright in relation to the materials that AI systems learn from. There are also a lot of areas where it is hard to see where AI could make a big difference, such as one-to-one personal services like nursing or hairdressing. There is also the question of how the massive data centres will be powered at a time when Net Zero policies mean cutting energy production rather than raising it is the order of the day. Old-fashioned investment, from better roads to cheaper energy, would seem more obvious ways to reduce costs and labour requirements. Big Tech firms are pouring money into AI – but the returns have been meagre so far.
What will be the impact of AI on the economy? If many jobs in the future will be automated, what happens to the redundant workers? Is this just the latest tech hype that will blow over when rose-tinted expectations aren’t fulfilled – or are we simply at the start of a workplace revolution that will provide new impetus to the economy?
SPEAKERSTom Bewickvisiting professor of skills and workforce policy, Staffordshire University; fellow, Royal Society of Arts
Donald Clarklearning tech entrepreneur; investor; professor; author, Learning and the Metaverse; founder, Epic plc; CEO, WildFire
Dr Norman Lewisvisiting research fellow, MCC Brussels; co-author, Big Potatoes: the London manifesto for innovation
Andrew Orlowskiwriter and critic; business columnist, Daily Telegraph
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

Climate lawfare: saving the planet or subverting democracy?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In April this year, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in favour of a group of elderly Swiss women who want to sue their government for not doing enough to prevent climate change from damaging their health. For climate campaigners, this was a welcome victory for vulnerable citizens against irresponsible politicians. For critics of the decision, it was perverse, given that Swiss people have among the highest life expectancies in the world. The decision has been loudly ignored by the Swiss government, but nonetheless seems to set an important precedent.
The ECHR case is far from the only example of climate lawfare. For example, in February 2020, the Court of Appeal blocked plans for a third runway at Heathrow Airport, although the decision was reversed on appeal to the Supreme Court. In July 2022, ClientEarth and other environmental groups won a court case to force the UK government to revise its climate-change strategy – and won another case in February 2024 after arguing the revised strategy still wasn’t good enough. There have been frequent attempts to use the courts to block new infrastructure projects or challenge government policy on the grounds that climate commitments have not been taken into account.
The door for such cases has been opened by the UK’s commitment, through the Climate Change Act, to decarbonise the economy by 2050. But a growing number of commentators have denounced the Net Zero target as ill-thought-out, unworkable and too expensive. The Labour government seems still to be committed to spending more on renewables while restricting oil and gas production. But such enthusiasm for Net Zero may falter if the economy continues to struggle as a result of such measures.
Have the courts been too willing to side with environmentalists, sparking accusations of judicial activism and undermining democracy? Or are they simply forcing governments to follow through on their commitments to tackle climate change?
SPEAKERSDr Shahrar Aliformer deputy leader, Green Party
Jon Holbrookbarrister; writer, spiked, Critic, Conservative Woman
Alastair Melloncivil engineer; PPC candidate, SDP, Coventry South
Tina Louise Rotheryco-founder, UK Nanas (Against Fracking)
Stuart Smithactivist, Future Cities Project; co-organiser, What the Papers Say debates
CHAIRRob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate
 

Can schools fix ‘Broken Britain’?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Labour’s initial response to the summer riots was police-led. It used 6,000 specialist police and swift trials, while also condemning the rioters and denying that they had any legitimate concerns. It has also promised a harsh clampdown on online disinformation, with some already imprisoned for social-media posts. Now schools are being charged with sorting out such contentious issues, in part at least because seemingly some of those rioting were themselves school-age.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has said she is launching a review of the curriculum in primary and secondary schools to ‘embed critical skills in lessons to arm our children against the disinformation, fake news and putrid conspiracy theories awash on social media’ and children will be taught how to spot extremist content. However, without any clear guidelines about what is considered extremist, who will determine what to spot? How will refocusing the curriculum (again) deal with wildly differing opinions far beyond the classroom on what constitutes fake news and conspiracies?
More broadly, there is also attention being paid to underlining questions of what has fractured society so badly. How can we tackle a lack of community cohesion, and the undeniable feelings of alienation felt by many citizens? Inevitably, yet again, it’s argued that teachers have an important role to play in healing our social wounds, post-riots.  The Chartered College of Teaching has pointed out that schools shouldn’t be expected to ‘solve all the problems of society’. But the general secretary of the National Education Union, Daniel Kebede, urged the government to use its National Curriculum review to ‘investigate how to build an anti-racist curriculum that boosts engagement, self-esteem and a sense of belonging for every child’ insisting that ‘divisive, hateful language and negative, racist stereotypes have a real and immediate impact on classrooms and on the wellbeing of students and educators’.
But haven’t we been here before, charging education with creating a sense of belonging? Since 2014, all teachers in English schools have been required by law to ‘actively promote’ the shared British values of democracy, mutual respect and tolerance for those with different faiths and beliefs, as well as the rule of law and individual liberty. They are also required to report any pupil that they judge to be at risk of becoming a political extremist. As is now patently clear, these strategies have not had the outcomes policymakers hoped for.
What’s more, in today’s febrile climate, doesn’t this approach risk dragging schools into a one-sided explanation for the recent civil unrest? Will pupils who express concern over contentious issues such as mass migration, identity politics’ failings, two-tier policing and other contested viewpoints be accused of extremism? Might an activist approach encourage classroom interactions to ape the very polarised divisions it seeks to counter? Is there a danger that in assuming such a directly political role, teachers risk becoming indoctrinators? Can such an approach succeed, or is it doomed to fail?
SPEAKERSPamela Dowchief operating officer, Civic Future
Dr Rakib Ehsanauthor, Beyond Grievance: what the Left gets wrong about ethnic minorities
Michael Merrickdirector of schools, Diocese of Lancaster; former teacher; education and social commentator
Ian MitchellEnglish literature and psychology teacher; writer, Teachwire; member, AoI Education Forum
CHAIRToby Marshallfilm studies teacher; member, AoI Education Forum

Britain isn’t working: the rise of joblessness

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In the UK, there are currently around 9.4 million people aged between 16 and 64 years old who are economically inactive – neither in work, nor looking for work. Yet official unemployment stands at a relatively low rate of 4.4 per cent. Although part of this high figure for economic inactivity is put down to more older workers retiring early and large numbers of students, it is widely acknowledged that the UK has a worklessness problem.
Some critics argue that the cause is a combination of a lack of well-paid, quality jobs in poorer parts of the country coupled with a benefits system that tops up the lowest wages. This is supported by the fact that many of the sectors with the most acute labour shortages, such as social care and hospitality, are those that pay the least, though some better-paid jobs are facing worker shortages, too.
Ill-health is another factor that is widely cited. There are more than 2.8million people who say they are too sick to work, the highest number since records were first collected by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The biggest rises are not only among those who can’t work because of mental-health issues, but also among 18– to 24-year-olds, whereas in the past it was mainly older workers who cited sickness as a reason for inactivity.
Some point to ‘long Covid’ and long NHS waiting lists, suggesting there is a real problem of ill health. Others suggest that many may have lost – or never gained – the ‘habit’ of working. Whatever the cause, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility (OBR) noted in 2023 that the UK has been the worst affected out of the G7 countries since the pandemic.
It seems the UK’s employers need to get inactive people to take up jobs or they will have to rely on high rates of immigration to get things done – with all the attendant political controversy. That said, vacancies – which were well over one million in the aftermath of the lockdowns – have fallen every month for two years, and now stand at just under 900,000; official unemployment levels have been rising, too.
Are the shortages of workers a temporary, post-pandemic blip or a sign of a structural problem? Is it mainly due to the structure of our labour market and the kinds of jobs available, or are there other factors at play? Will the economy suffer if a minority never work? What can be done to get the UK back to work?
SPEAKERSJulia Hobsbawm OBEhost, The Nowhere Office; founder, Workathon; author, Working Assumptions; commentator and columnist, Bloomberg
Dr Linda Murdochresearcher on wellbeing and work ethic; former director of careers, University of Glasgow; citizens advice volunteer
Professor Vicky Prycechief economic adviser and board member, Centre for Economics and Business Research; author, Women vs Capitalism
Andy Twelvesspokesperson, British Computer Society and The Chartered Institute for IT; trade unionist; founder, OrganiseLab; broadcaster
CHAIRPhil Mullanwriter, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

Breaking through Britain’s innovation barrier

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Britain has famously been a nation of inventors and innovators. From the breakthroughs of the Industrial Revolution through huge inventions like television and the telephone to designing cool consumer products like the iPhone and cutting-edge microchips, British ingenuity has been world-leading.
Yet it seems as if innovation has slowed down in recent years, and particularly so in the UK. It feels like there has been little or nothing that could be called ‘revolutionary’ since the rise of the smartphone. High-profile US tech investor, Peter Thiel, has claimed that innovation in America is ‘somewhere between dire straits and dead’.
One prominent American economist, Robert Gordon, has argued that the burst of innovation from the Second Industrial Revolution – from 1870 to 1900, and encompassing everything from electricity to chemicals, petroleum to communications – provided a sustained period of rising living standards through most of the twentieth century. Since then, the impact of the more modest innovations of the information-technology revolution has already petered out.
If innovation has slowed down, why? For some commentators, put simply, all the really important stuff has been invented – all we can do is tweak and improve. We’ve already learned to fly, communicate almost instantly over huge distances, create and manipulate materials, and so on. Other factors might be the time lag before a new technology really comes into its own and whether globalisation – and the availability of cheap labour elsewhere in the world – has dampened the drive to innovate. Some point to excessive regulation, a ‘safety first’ culture and the obsession with the environment over human progress as other potential factors.
And perhaps such pessimism is overblown. We don’t need to travel across the world now to meet people – we can do it online very well for a fraction of the cost in time and money. We may still travel in metal boxes with four wheels, but our cars increasingly do much of the hard work for us, even if the truly driverless car is still a long way off. If we want to enjoy nicotine, we now have a plethora of different ways to do so – from vaping to heat-not-burn technology – that means there are finally satisfying and safer alternatives to the tobacco cigarette.
Is innovation really in the doldrums? To the extent that that is true, how can we realise the potential of human ingenuity today?
SPEAKERSDuncan CunninghamUK and Ireland external affairs director, Philip Morris Limited
Kevin McCullaghfounder, Plan; innovation strategist and writer
Mercy Murokicolumnist, the Sun; former policy fellow to minister for women and equalities and business and trade secretary
Dr Nikos Sotirakopoulosvisiting fellow, Ayn Rand Institute; instructor, Ayn Rand University; author, Identity Politics and Tribalism: the new culture wars
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

Boomers vs Zoomers: bridging the generational divide

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
TV design celebrity Laurence Llewelyn- Bowen recently bought a large house in the Cotswolds where three generations of his family live together, noting that in the past, families stayed together, working on the farm or in the shop. This contemporary experiment in intergenerational living is posited as an antidote to a toxic generational divide between Baby Boomers and Gen Z, or Zoomers.
In popular debate. negative stereotypes abound as the older and younger generations are pitted against each other. To many, Boomers (born 1946 to 1964) are regarded as the luckiest generation in history. They benefited from economic prosperity, secure homeownership, and never had to fight in a war. This has made them selfish and greedy, according to their critics, having bequeathed a terrible legacy on the young – from economic instability and an inaccessible housing ladder to catastrophic environmental damage.
On the other hand, Zoomers (born roughly 1997 to 2012) are sometimes perceived to be narcissistic, entitled, lazy and listless. Many argue they have little desire to work, are obsessed with their mental health, spend all of their time online and have no sense of duty or obligation to society. Unable to buy property, put down roots and start a family, Zoomers hit back, arguing it was their generation that was forced to study online, work remotely and stay home to protect the elderly during the pandemic. Of course we are listless, they say. What did you expect?
Is there any truth to such stereotypes, and are they helpful? Some researchers argue there is little evidence to back up this so-called generational divide. They argue where differences in preference and values do exist, they are actually quite small. Furthermore, the idea of a clearly demarcated divide obscures huge differences within generations, from property wealth to political affiliations.
Moreover, is such divisive language unnecessarily driving these generations apart when, in fact, they share a problem with loneliness and disconnection, and have a wealth of shared experiences that can bring them together? Older people and younger people, for example, have been shown to suffer isolation in the highest numbers, according to multiple studies.
There is also strong evidence to support the benefits of intergenerational bonds. The Japan Society for Intergenerational Studies has trialled ‘intergenerational contact events’. Global Intergenerational Week has been set up to promote intergenerational initiatives and policies around the world, and studies have shown how contact between old and young can benefit both parties’ well-being in the short and long term.
Are generations really a useful, definable category and are they a helpful way to understand the challenges that we face today? How real is this generational divide, and what should we do to bridge it?
SPEAKERSFelice Basbøllproject assistant, Ideas Matter; student, Trinity College Dublin
Jennie Bristowreader in sociology, Canterbury Christ Church University; author, The Corona Generation: coming of age in a crisis and Growing up in Lockdown
Dr Eliza Filbyhistorian of generations and contemporary values; author, Inheritocracy: Why we Should Talk about the Bank of Mum and Dad
Natalie Turnerdeputy director of localities, Centre for Ageing Better
CHAIRJane Sandemanchief operating officer, The Passage; convenor, AoI Parents Forum; contributor, Standing up to Supernanny

Bookshop Barnie: Why the World Needs More Children by Paul Morland

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Paul Morland is an author and broadcaster who writes and speaks about population and the big demographic trends across the world. His latest book, No-One Left: Why the world needs more children, opens with the line: ‘We are seeing the birth pangs of a new epoch, but it’s an epoch without birth pangs.’
Over 250 pages, Moreland argues that there is a demographic calamity awaiting us. He says that unless we radically change our attitudes towards parenthood, have more children and embrace a new progressive pro-natalism, we face disaster. Maybe JD Vance could get off the couch, come along, and get a few tips.
The Financial Times says that it is a ‘a highly readable book’ whereas The Times says that Morland ‘shows an infuriating lack of sensitivity to women’s concerns’. The Daily Telegraph‘s Camilla Tominey called it a ‘brilliant book’, while the Independent said that is was ‘simplistic, misguided, sexist, racist and entirely irrational answer to the wrong question’.
You don’t have to have read the book to join the discussion about whether the world is overcrowded, or whether we need more people on the planet. Is the rise of replacement theory a cause for concern? Are we, as Morland says ‘running out of people’? How might a push for a pro-natalist politics effect women’s freedom? Or is this all a storm in a teacup – as machines fill the productivity gap? 
SPEAKERDr Paul Morlanddemographer; business consultant; author, No One Left: Why the World Needs More Children
HOSTAustin Williamsdirector, Future Cities Project; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution; series editor, Five Critical Essays.

Book launch: The Power of Nuclear: The rise, fall and return of our mightiest energy source

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
From the pilot’s seat in the B-29 that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, to Chernobyl’s exclusion zone, to the site in Finland where highly radioactive waste will be buried, Marco Visscher’s new book, The Power of Nuclear: The rise, fall and return of our mightiest energy source, tells the incredible story of nuclear power.
Providing a vivid account of the characters and events that have shaped the world’s most controversial energy source and our thinking around it, The Power of Nuclear weaves politics, culture and technology, to explore nuclear power’s past and future.
Join Visscher to discuss some of the key questions surrounding nuclear energy. How dangerous is radiation, and what should you do after a nuclear accident? Have nuclear weapons really made the world less safe? With all the focus on renewable energy, from wind farms to solar panels, should we bring the focus back to nuclear as the only viable way of producing the energy we need to power the world? Why do some still reject the evidence showing the atom can provide unlimited clean energy, free countries of their dependence on fossil fuels and combat climate change? Or in these unstable times, can we trust states and politicians to implement plans for nuclear energy properly?
SPEAKERMarco Visscherjournalist; author, The Power of Nuclear: The rise, fall and return of our mightiest energy source
CHAIRDr Dominic Standishwriter and commentator on energy; professor, University of Iowa; author, Venice in Environmental Peril? Myth and reality

Ballots betrayed? The crisis of political representation

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In recent years, it has become common to hear people describe themselves as ‘politically homeless’. Many traditional Labour and Conservative voters have expressed a disaffection with their parties, claiming they no longer represent their interests and values. In 2019, many talked of a political realignment – one which could see the major parties reform along class lines, at least in part inspired by Brexit. But, as this realignment failed to emerge, it is perhaps unsurprising that just 59.9 per cent of people voted in the 2024 General Election – the second-lowest election turnout since 1918.
The election results themselves have highlighted what many call a ‘crisis of political representation’. The Labour Party won nearly two thirds of parliamentary seats with just a third of the popular vote. Conversely, the vote shares of both the Green Party and newcomers Reform UK were not matched by a representative number of seats in parliament. For example, Reform UK won 14.3 per cent of the overall vote share, with only five of their candidates elected. This represents one MP per 821,322 votes, while the Labour victory amounted to one Labour MP per 23,615 votes.
Many argue that the larger and more established parties have the resources and data to make their campaigns more efficient than new and emerging parties. This fact alone is likely to see the dominance of the two-party system left intact, at a time when more independent candidates and smaller parties have emerged to meet voters’ lack of representation. Some commentators went as far as to describe the 2024 election as ‘the most distorted election result in UK history’, with many asking if it is time for the UK to abandon its ‘first past the post’ (FPTP) electoral system in favour of some form of proportional representation (PR).
While FPTP was once celebrated as delivering clear results and a stable government, the past decade of political turmoil in the UK may have weakened this argument. Many FPTP advocates point to countries like France, where the recent election returned a hung parliament and has led to a crisis in governance. However, PR advocates can also pick European examples, pointing to the rise of the BBB (Farmer-Citizen Party) in the Netherlands, which emerged to represent farmers’ interests and has grown to become a governing party.
Would simply changing the voting system solve the problem of political representation? Some have argued for more referendums – on everything from immigration law to Net Zero policies. Did the backlash to Brexit show that referendums are doomed to divide, or a necessary boost to democratic participation? Could other electoral tweaks be implemented, such as smaller constituencies? Would PR simply lead to a situation where coalitions must be formed, forcing parties to surrender their principles to ensure legislation is passed? And are we in danger of forgetting the importance of ideas in political engagement, when getting hung up on the technicalities of voting?
SPEAKERSSteven Barrettbarrister; broadcaster; writer on law, Spectator
Dr Richard Johnsonwriter; senior lecturer in politics, Queen Mary, University of London; co-author, Keeping the Red Flag Flying: The Labour Party in Opposition since 1922
Dr Mo Lovattnational coordinator, Debating Matters; programme coordinator, Academy of Ideas
Jo-Anne Nadlerpolitical commentator and writer; campaigner, Don't Divide Us
Richard Tice MPmember of parliament for Boston and Skegness; deputy leader, Reform UK; businessman
CHAIRDr James Pantondeputy head welfare, St Edwards School, Oxford; associate lecturer in philosophy, The Open University

Balloon debate: who is the world’s greatest comic?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
his year’s Balloon Debate will see top comedians competing with each other to convince you why their choice of ‘best comic genius ever’ is right. Could it be the iconoclastic honesty of Lenny Bruce or the surreal word play of Les Dawson? Do you like your stand-up from Billy Connolly or Bill Burr, Dave Allen or Dave Chappelle? Maybe it’s a writer and performer like Ronnie Barker, Victoria Wood or Larry David? Do you like your comedy in pairs, from Laurel & Hardy to French & Saunders – or even teams, like Monty Python? Or should the gong go to people rarely seen on screen, like Galton & Simpson or John Sullivan? With so many potential worthy winners, there will be much to muse upon – and laugh about.
The participants will argue for their choice in a light-hearted debate with deeply held passion. They each have five minutes to put their case and they can choose any person living or dead – it may be a comic writer, a stand-up comedian, a politician, or someone they know in their local pub.
Audience participation is encouraged and you will be invited to agree, disagree, challenge and dispute the cases put forward.
The audience then votes to chuck half the contenders out of the virtual balloon before the remaining candidates make a final plea for your vote. Get your Saturday night off to an hilarious start as we our panelists kid about to find the GOAT.
SPEAKERSPaul Coxcomedian, writer and broadcaster
Nick Dixoncomedian; presenter, GB News; host, The Current Thing
Simon Evanscomedian; regular host, Headliners; presenter, BBC Radio 4's Simon Evans Goes to Market
Dominic Frisbywriter; comedian; author, Bitcoin: the future of money?
Ethan Greenresearcher, Ideas Matter; scriptwriter, Stilicho's Last Rite: Eulogy To Rome; videographer, Pharos Foundation
Cressida Wettoncomedian; panellist, Headliners, GB News
HOSTAndy Shawco-founder and organiser, Comedy Unleashed

Assisted dying on the NHS?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
This autumn, Parliament will debate the issue of assisted dying, thanks to a private member’s bill introduced by the former justice secretary and Labour peer, Lord Falconer. This would allow terminally ill adults with six months or less to live to get medical help to end their lives. Keir Starmer is reported to be in favour and has confirmed he will allow a free vote in the Commons on the issue.
Legalising assisted suicide in the UK has gained support recently, including from celebrities like Esther Rantzen and Miriam Margolyes. The actress Diana Rigg recorded a death-bed message arguing a law would give ‘human beings true agency over their own bodies at the end of life’. There is polling evidence to show that the UK public now overwhelmingly thinks terminally ill adults should be allowed to make that choice – but those polled also have qualms. Law changes would mean asking NHS doctors to hand a patient lethal drugs so they could end their life, effectively allowing assisted dying on the NHS. No wonder the health secretary, Wes Streeting, has said that it is ‘a debate I will wrestle with. I’m uncharacteristically undecided on this issue’, although conceding ‘it is a debate whose time has come’.
A survey for the think tank Living and Dying found that 43 per cent feared a change in the law could incentivise health professionals to encourage some patients to take their lives, given the pressures on the NHS. Such fears seemed to be confirmed by a column in The Times by Matthew Parris earlier this year, which provoked outrage by arguing that it would benefit the economy if we allowed assisted dying to help avoid ‘the ruinously expensive overhang’ of ‘old age and infirmity’. Meanwhile, 60 per cent said they felt that giving GPs the power to help patients take their own life would fundamentally change the doctor-patient relationship, given that the current prime responsibility of medics is to save and protect life.
The Law Society, which is adamant that it does not have a moral or ethical position on a similar bill under consideration in Scotland, has also noted that the proposed role for medical professionals is a concern. That bill’s provisions, the Law Society notes, have not considered key questions, such as who can provide a medical assessment and what happens if a doctor does not believe the requirements for assisted dying have been met. A British Medical Association survey in 2021 found that those working in clinical oncology, general practice, geriatric medicine and palliative care were all more likely to be against decriminalisation than in favour.
Is such opposition to assisted dying a case of medical professionals riding roughshod over patients’ wishes? Is assisted dying a reasonable extension of bodily autonomy – a key facet of medical ethics? Or are opponents of the legislation right to claim it would mean NHS doctors, however well-motivated, being licensed by the state to commit premeditated killing of human beings? Should we be concerned that legalisation of assisted dying in other countries has soon moved beyond the terminally ill to other groups? Who should have the final power to decide who lives and who dies, and should the NHS be involved?
SPEAKERSDr Piers Bennphilosopher, author and lecturer
Baroness Ilora Finlay of Llandaffpresident, Chartered Society for Physiotherapy; professor, palliative medicine; co-editor, The Reality of Assisted Dying: Understanding the Issues
Rev Canon Rosie Harperbishop’s adviser in women’s ministry and bishop’s chaplain
Professor Kevin Yuillemeritus professor of history, University of Sunderland; author, Assisted Suicide: the liberal, humanist case against legalization
CHAIRGareth Sturdyeducation and science writer; co-organiser, AoI Education Forum

Are we making a meal of GM foods?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Twenty years ago, there was widespread anxiety about genetically modified (GM) foods. Newspapers referred to them as ‘Frankenfoods’ and consumers were suspicious of them, in part because of a vociferous campaign against them by some environmentalists. This campaign continues, most notably in the case of ‘golden rice’.
Yet, while the EU and UK have been tied up in knots about the wisdom of growing GM crops, the rest of the world has embraced them. According to the Royal Society: ‘In 1996, just 1.7 million hectares (MHa) were planted with GM crops globally but by 2015, 179.7 million hectares of GM crops were grown, accounting for over 10 per cent of the world’s arable land.’ By 2023, that had increased further to 206 million hectares.
The Royal Society notes the kinds of GM crops being grown and where, including ‘potato (USA), squash/pumpkin (USA), alfalfa (USA), aubergine (Bangladesh), sugar beet (USA, Canada), papaya (USA and China), oilseed rape (four countries), maize (corn) (17 countries), soya beans (11 countries) and cotton (15 countries)’.
Yet concerns remain about the long-term consequences for health and the environment. Greenpeace argues that GM crops ‘encourage corporate control of the food chain and pesticide-heavy industrial farming. GM plants can also contaminate other crops and lead to “super weeds”. This technology must be strictly controlled to protect our environment, farmers and independent science.’ Furthermore, as influencers turn to sourdough and home-grown vegetables, the organic movement opposes GM-food along with anything else ‘highly processed’.
Most controversially, perhaps, the anti-GM campaign has held back the development and application of ‘golden rice’, which contains a modification that means that rice plants produce beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A. Lack of vitamin A is a widespread cause of blindness and diminished immunity in developing countries, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Being able to get vitamin A via a staple food could be very beneficial. Yet environmentalist protesters have trashed test fields and, earlier this year, the Filipino Court of Appeals revoked the biosafety permits for golden rice, with the case brought in part by Greenpeace.
Are GM foods safe, both for health and the environment? Why has there been such resistance to them in some parts of the world while they flourish elsewhere? Is it time for the UK and Europe to fully embrace GM? Do we need to utilise every means to increase food production when the world’s population is heading towards 10 billion?
SPEAKERSAdam Hibbertchair of the south east, Social Democratic Party; author and journalist; corporate communications leader
Zion Lightsscience communicator
Ed Renniefounder and co-director, Climate Debate UK; political strategist
Harry Wilkinsonhead of policy, Global Warming Policy Foundation
CHAIRRob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate

Are the arts being expelled from education?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
A recent report from the Cultural Learning Alliance (CLA) gives proof of a trend we all knew was there – cultural education in the UK is in steep decline. Confirming received wisdom that arts education has suffered since austerity, the report reveals a deliberate de-prioritising of the arts in England’s state schools since the arts-free English Baccalaureate was introduced in 2010. Since then, creative GCSEs, the number of arts teachers and the hours they teach have all been in steep decline.
The impression of official disdain for the arts is further cemented at university level. In 2021, funding for creative courses was halved to ‘target taxpayers’ money’ toward ‘science, technology and engineering’. In 2024 alone, several universities, including Goldsmiths, Queen Mary University of London and the University of Surrey, have announced major cuts to their arts departments.
Many arguments against this decline focus on social concerns – the CLA report highlights a stark increase in the gap between wealthier and poorer students’ engagement in the arts. Likewise, defenders of the arts highlight how children benefit in terms of transferrable skills and mental wellbeing. Participation in the arts at school increases the chances of low-income students getting a degree, volunteering, and voting, they argue. They also draw links to improved reading and maths scores – and even better health.
Within the creative industries, concerns are expressed about reduced opportunities leading to a shrinking future generations of artists, a reduction in the diversity and quality of creative output and a reinforcing of the idea that the arts are only for the middle-classes. Arguing that the creative sector is one of the UK’s major exports, many are also worried that reduced competitiveness would be of economic concern. It doesn’t have to be this way – some of the world’s best arts education programmes are based in poorer, often authoritarian countries and yet produce some of today’s biggest names. Conductor Gustavo Dudamel trained in Venezuela’s much-imitated El Sistema programme; Royal Ballet director Carlos Acosta CBE at the renowned Cuban National Ballet School. China’s conservatories have produced numerous world-famous musicians. Can we learn from these countries’ decision to prioritise arts funding amid economic and political challenges?
Are these even the right ways to value education in the arts? Or do such arguments imply that an arts education exists solely to facilitate social or economic ends? Schools are asked to prepare pupils for an uncertain economic future while navigating time and budget constraints. Against this backdrop, is it possible to justify dedicating scarce resources to the arts, which many deem ‘non-essential’? Is an instrumental approach the only way to save the arts, or is it time to reignite the case for art for art’s sake?
SPEAKERSDr Oliver Doylemusicologist and lecturer
Manick Govindaindependent writer, commentator, mentor/arts adviser and curator
Dr Lola Salemlecturer in French and music, University of Oxford; author; professional singer, Maîtrise de Radio France; critic
Gabriella Swallowaward-winning cellist
CHAIREleanor Kavanagh-Brownevent producer, Academy of Ideas; musician; trustee

Are cultural boycotts killing artistic freedom?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Boycotting as a political strategy is fashionable again, and this time round the arts are centre stage. This year a slew of campaigns supported by authors, musicians and artists have targeted festivals, galleries and theatres. Bands Boycott Barclays encouraged a third of performers to quit Brighton’s Great Escape festival while Fossil Free Books organised author boycotts of the Hay Literary Festival to oust investment-management firm Baillie Gifford. The ramifications – including financial costs to organisers and artists – have been significant. Both these high-profile sponsors subsequently suspending support for festivals and others are considering their future involvement.
Some recent boycotts have been specifically focused on opposition to the war in Gaza. Calls from Queers for Palestine and Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) to boycott Eurovision 2024 due to inclusion of Israel led to ugly protests in Malmö. Some UK cinemas refused to screen Eurovision and venues that persisted with plans faced a backlash, including the iconic LGBT venue, the Royal Vauxhall Tavern. One worry is that boycotts fuel wider anti-Jewish prejudice. A leading agent claims ‘much of literary London is now a no-go zone for Jews’, while a survey by Artists Against Antisemitism UK reveals less awareness in the cultural industries of anti-Semitism than other forms of racism. Moreover, pro-Palestine artists have also been on the receiving end. For example, the Royal Academy removed works from its Young Artists’ Summer Show after an open letter from the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
On ditching Baillie Gifford, Hay’s chief executive, Julie Finch, said that the priority is ‘our audience and our artists’. Above all else, she added, ‘we must preserve the freedom of our stages and spaces for open debate and discussion, where audiences can hear a range of perspectives’. Elsewhere, some boycotters have resisted attacks on artists. Home Theatre in Manchester and Bristol’s Arnolfini arts centre backed out of hosting events featuring Palestinian artists or speakers, before u-turning or apologising after sustained pressure from campaigners.
Yet given that boycotts and the resultant loss of sponsorship money appears more likely to significantly limit opportunities for artists to show, speak to and debate their work, can we really say they’re likely to work in artists’ favour? Indeed, one danger is that art becomes but a footnote to the political battles. And notably a tit-for-tat mentality has developed, for example encouraging the demand that ‘If you care about Gaza, Boycott Glastonbury’ and elsewhere that anti-Zionist artists should lose funding due to accusations of anti-Semitism. Some worry that we risk normalising censorship, as in Berlin, where artists receiving public funding must now contractually commit not to express some views deemed abhorrent.
Are boycotts best understood as artists and audiences exercising a freedom to act politically, or actions that undermine artistic freedom? Do boycotts amount to simply another form of virtue-signalling, or an admirable way of standing up for one’s beliefs? Why do those artists and festival organisers with little sympathy with campaigners’ causes seem unable to stand up for artistic freedom? Can artistic freedom survive an era of cultural boycotts?
SPEAKERSProfessor Aaqil Ahmeddirector, Amplify Consulting Ltd; professor of media, University of Bolton; former head of religion, Channel 4 and BBC
Jonny Bestarts producer; festival director; musician
Denise Fahmydirector, Freedom in the Arts
Josh Howiecomedian; writer and star, Josh Howie’s Losing It, BBC Radio 4; actor, Hapless; columnist, Jewish Chronicle
Liat Rosenthalhead of creative programme, Woolwich Works
CHAIRDr Tiffany Jenkinswriter and broadcaster; author, Strangers and Intimates (forthcoming) and Keeping Their Marbles