Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

Can we manufacture a new economy?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2015 on Saturday 17 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
While the UK economy has recovered from the economic crisis, few would argue that the recovery is built on strong foundations. Wages are only just starting to rise in real terms after a number of years of decline. Economic output remains weak compared to previous recoveries, and the state is still spending almost £90 billion a year more than it receives in tax. A particular concern for economists is low productivity – the amount of wealth produced by each worker – which is well below that of other countries and 15 per cent below where it would have been if pre-crisis trends had continued.
Yet across the main political parties there seems little vision of how the UK economy could look different in five, 10 or 20 years’ time. The chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, has made much play about the creation of a ‘northern powerhouse’. The HS2 railway has cross-party support, but many are sceptical about its economic potential. Beyond this, there seems little sense of how the economy could be transformed. Indeed, many new industries with the potential to revolutionise the UK economy – like fracking, nuclear power and biotech – have faced considerable resistance.
In 2014, the Wright Report, an independent report commissioned by the Labour Party, called for ‘a modern, active industrial policy’ that was not about ‘government “picking winners”, investing in large companies, or trying to plan the economy’ but focused on ‘improving the environment in which companies operate, recognising the positive influence that government can have, and working together to tackle the challenges’. These included barriers to investment, the overall load of taxation and the lack of skilled workers, all still serious problems. That said, there are causes for optimism. In certain sectors, productivity has risen sharply in recent years. Productivity in car manufacturing is high, while in aircraft engine manufacturing and financial services, the UK is a world leader. Moreover, the UK’s universities offer excellent capacity for research and development.
If UK businesses can be excellent in some arenas, why is the UK apparently so unproductive overall? What are the barriers to a new and innovative economy? Why is new business investment so low? Do we need a bout of creative destruction, making painful choices about leaving some areas of economic activity behind, in order to allow new sources of wealth creation to flourish?
SPEAKERSFrances Coppolaassociate editor, Pieria; contributor to Nesta’s Our Work Here is Done, exploring the frontiers of robot technology
Katie Evanseconomist, Social Market Foundation
Phil Mullaneconomist and business manager; author, Creative Destruction: How to start an economic renaissance
Bauke Schrambusiness reporter, International Business Times UK
Mike Wrightexecutive director, Jaguar Land Rover
CHAIRRob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, IoI Economy Forum

Big Data, big danger?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2014 on Sunday 19 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In recent years, with advances in data-storage capacity and accessibility, more and more information about us is being captured and analysed by government agencies and private companies. While there is some nervousness about this, the proponents of ‘Big Data’ argue that the benefits outweigh the risks to privacy.
For example, the benefits of having huge pools of data from medical records to examine the pros and cons of medical treatments or the dangers of certain lifestyle choices - allowing hitherto unrecognised relationships to be identified and new hypotheses to be formed - are said to be worth the risk that medical confidentiality will be breached. We are told that if the police and security services have access to mobile phone, credit card and travel card data, then it will be easier to prevent crime and terrorism.
However, while computers can do the heavy lifting in collating and analysing data, the choices about which data to collect are made by humans. For example, why choose to collect data from Oyster cards instead of using passenger surveys? Another criticism is that researchers’ prior assumptions are given the veneer of objectivity and authority simply by being stated in statistical form. The way that data is used as a replacement for political principle is also troubling. It is far harder to hold to the principle that people should be free to drink alcohol as they please if opponents have stats and graphs that seem to confirm a strong link between alcohol and violent crime. As a result, politicians may endeavour to justify policies using the supposedly unimpeachable evidence of Big Data rather than on more philosophical grounds.
There are also concerns for individual liberty. Data can tell us much about trends and tendencies across populations. But there are fears that data may be used preemptively, to identify individuals who are more likely to commit crime, become obese, fail at school or suffer an early death - leading to premature or unnecessary state intervention.
Regardless of the sophistication of computer technology, ultimately decisions must be based on human judgements. For example, statistician Nate Silver achieved fame by correctly predicting the outcome of the 2012 US presidential election in 49 out of 50 states. But, as Silver himself noted, his predictions were based on applying mathematical techniques to a range of information, including the opinions of experts. Expert judgement is still required to enable Big Data to fulfill its potential.
Should we question the hype around Big Data? Is it really true that the benefits of Big Data outweigh the dangers? Should we place limits on data collection to protect individual liberties? Even in areas where data is put to benign use, could over-reliance on algorithms impede the process of human judgement? Is it time to recognise the limitations of Big Data and put the stats in their place?
SPEAKERSSheila Birdprogramme leader, MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge Institute of Public Health
Yann Bonduellepartner, UK Consulting leader, Data & Analytics team, PwC
Marion Oswaldhead, Centre for Information Rights, University of Winchester
Sandy Starrcommunications officer, Progress Educational Trust; webmaster, BioNews
CHAIRTimandra Harknessjournalist, writer & broadcaster; presenter, Futureproofing and other BBC Radio 4 programmes; author, Big Data: does size matter?

Let's talk about race

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Too often, talking about race feels fraught with difficulty, leaving us walking on eggshells to avoid offence. However, this can mean that important questions and queries go unanswered, and grievances can fester. Luckily, more and more authors are taking up the challenge – and this session features three of them in conversation.
Rakib Ehsan’s Beyond Grievance: What the Left Gets Wrong About Ethnic Minorities argues that the left too often buys into toxic, imported ideologies around identity politics. Left-wingers are also complacent, he argues, assuming they can depend upon a traditional support base among ethnic minorities. As a result, they fail to engage with the small-c conservative values around family, faith and flag that many of these communities support. Yet these values could create a fairer multi-ethnic society based upon equal opportunity, social cohesion and a national sense of belonging.
Remi Adekoya’s book It’s Not About Whiteness, It’s About Wealth notes that Western conversations on race and racism often revolve around the holy trinity of the race debate: colonialism, the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the ideology of white supremacism. However, Adekoya argues that it is socioeconomic realities which play the leading role in sustaining racial hierarchies in everyday life. He looks at the global big picture, regularly overlooked in the current debate.
Finally, in Against Decolonisation: Campus Culture Wars and the Decline of the West, Doug Stokes challenges the theories and arguments deployed by ‘decolonisers’ in a university system now characterised by garbled leadership and illiberal groupthink. More broadly, Stokes examines the threat posed by Critical Theory to wider society and critiques the desire to question the West’s sense of itself, deconstruct its narratives and overthrow its institutional order.
SPEAKERSDr Remi Adekoyalecturer of politics, University of York; author It’s Not About Whiteness, It’s About Wealth and Biracial Britain
Dr Rakib Ehsanauthor, Beyond Grievance: what the Left gets wrong about ethnic minorities
Professor Doug Stokesprofessor in international security and director of the Strategy and Security Institute, University of Exeter; senior adviser, Legatum Institute; author, The Geopolitics of the Culture Wars
CHAIRDr Jim Butcherlecturer; researcher; co-author, Volunteer Tourism: the lifestyle politics of international development

Gender ideology and criminal justice

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Some of the biggest controversies in relation to gender identity and criminal justice concern transwomen prisoners in women’s jails. The shocking example of double rapist Adam Graham (Isla Bryson) is said to have brought down the SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon and irrevocably damaged the reputation of Scotland’s Gender Recognition Reform Act.
However, behind the scenes and less widely discussed are loopholes in safeguarding, the framework of measures designed to protect the health, well-being and human rights of individuals in particular need of protection, including children and vulnerable adults.
Identity verification is a crucial part of safeguarding, including during the process of obtaining a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check. However, any individual can easily, and for any reason, change their name and gender on documents used to establish identity, including their passport and driving licence. But if individuals who change both name and gender can effectively sever the link with any existing records of offending, with exceptional enhanced privacy rights granted to those who change their gender, surely the resulting safeguarding loopholes compromise the DBS service?
While the government has acknowledged the safeguarding loopholes created where registered sex offenders change their name by deed poll, why do the authorities fail to address the problems created by the ability to change identity in a more fundamental way by simultaneously changing gender as well? How can rules of safeguarding be effective if they do not apply equally to everyone? Why are members of one group excused from the normal requirements of safeguarding? Or is changing gender itself a special category in need of particular and special legal and safeguarding protection?
SPEAKERSProfessor Ian Achesonsenior advisor, Counter Extremism Project; visiting professor, school of law, policing and forensics, University of Staffordshire
Dr Kate Colemanfounder and director, Keep Prisons Single Sex
Ceri-Lee Galvinsexual abuse victim; campaigner for changes to safeguarding regulations created by exemptions for gender change perpetrators
CHAIRAdam Rawcliffedirector of partnerships, Spectator; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Is levelling up really levelling down? The great inequality debate

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2021 on Sunday 10 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
One of the government’s flagship slogans (and campaigns) is ‘levelling up’. Making society more equal and fairer is surely a positive thing, and good for all. According to the Equality Trust:
‘UK income inequality is among the highest in the developed world and evidence shows that this is bad for almost everyone. People in more equal societies live longer, have better mental health and have better chances for a good education regardless of their background. Community life is stronger where the income gap is narrower, children do better at school and they are less likely to become teenage parents. When inequality is reduced, people trust each other more and there is less violence and rates of imprisonment are lower.’
So equality of opportunity – or perhaps more radically, allowing everyone (more or less) to have the same income – is a no brainer. If the economic consequences of the pandemic are that the poor seem to have got poorer while the wealthy have done even better, tackling this disparity should be a priority for policy. But is equality really all it is cracked up to be? While everyone would agree that poverty is a bad thing, that doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone should get the same. Even those on minimum wage in the UK are much better off than people in poorer but more equal countries. People vary in how talented, skilful and hard-working they are, but would people take risks or slog to get qualifications if there were no material benefit to themselves?
Should we give greater rewards to the smartest and most industrious people – especially if it creates a more productive society that benefits everyone to some degree? Or is inequality fundamentally unfair and divisive? What should the role of governments be: to legislate for equality or get out of the way and let talent, hard work and personal vocation determine people’s incomes?
SPEAKERSHilary Saltactuary; founder, First Actuarial
Don Watkinsauthor, Free Market Revolution, Equal Is Unfair and I Am Justice
CHAIRKevin Rooneyconvenor, AoI Education Forum; politics teacher; co-author, The Blood Stained Poppy

From profits to prophets: why has big business gone woke?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2021 on Saturday 9 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In recent years, many of the biggest corporations in the world have been prominent in promoting ‘progressive’ causes. Many high-profile business leaders see themselves as thought leaders, too, offering fulsome support to a range of campaigns on issues such as gay rights, anti-racism and climate change.
In 2018, Nike signed an endorsement deal with Colin Kaepernick, the NFL player who sparked the movement for taking the knee as a protest against racism. Last year, major music-streaming services including Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music and YouTube Music pledged their support for Blackout Tuesday after the killing of George Floyd. Almost every big company is keen to promote its work in promoting sustainability, such as McDonald’s choosing to sell only organic milk.
Corporate politics hasn’t simply been about projecting a progressive image, but has actually getting involved with political and media debate. This year, new TV channel GB News was hit with a social-media campaign demanding that big companies withdraw their advertising from the station. Major companies and brands like Kopparberg, IKEA, Specsavers, Octopus Energy, Grolsch, Moneysupermarket and Vodafone soon joined in. Big corporations like Coca-Cola have registered opposition to changes in voting laws in the state of Georgia.
For supporters of this trend, it represents a welcome shift in corporate strategy. In the past, big firms were associated with a conservative outlook (particularly towards women and ethnic minorities), an emphasis on free-market economics and behind-the-scenes lobbying in support of their own narrow commercial interests. Increasingly, those firms are now at the forefront of pushing liberal ideas.
Some critics doubt the sincerity of this corporate turn, seeing it as ‘wokewash’, simply another form of branding designed to increase sales. Other critics worry that this is a turn away from exactly the sort of profit-seeking behaviour that has driven economic and technological change successfully in the past. If, as the Davos 2020 manifesto suggests, ‘a company serves not only its shareholders, but all its stakeholders – employees, customers, suppliers, local communities and society at large’, will it lose sight of the importance of making money?
Is it a positive sign that big corporations are starting to care about something more than profits? Are woke campaigns and branding a distraction from the need to provide good products and services that consumers want? Is there any truth in the critical joke ‘Get woke, go broke’? What does it mean for democracy if corporations play an increasingly activist role in pursuing a liberal agenda?
SPEAKERSLaura Bierer-Nielsenpolitical consultant; founder and director, Foundation for Uyghur Freedom
Konstantin Kisincomedian; creator and co-host, TRIGGERnometry YouTube show; author, An Immigrant's Love Letter to the West
Professor Vicky Prycechief economic adviser and board member, Centre for Economics and Business Research; author, Women vs Capitalism
Dr Diane Wei Liangprofessor of business; author, The Eye of Jade and Lake With No Name
James Woudhuysenvisiting professor, London South Bank University; co-author, Energise! A future for energy innovation; co-author, Why is construction so backward?
CHAIRRob KillickCEO, Clerkswell; author, The UK After The Recession

Disunited Kingdom: the rebirth of nations?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2021 on Sunday 10 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
According to many political commentators, the break-up of the UK is becoming inevitable. When devolution was implemented in the 1990s, one of the aims of its supporters was to head off rising support for separation. But the opposite has happened, with support for Scottish independence and greater Welsh autonomy growing even stronger. In Scotland, for example, the pro-independence SNP has now won four elections on the trot and has renewed calls for another referendum. Some commentators now believe that a politicised sense of Englishness is on the rise, too.
One factor is the differential impact of the Brexit referendum. People in England and Wales voted to leave the EU while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain. The situation is full of contradictions and complications. For example, people emphasising a British national identity were more likely to vote Leave in Scotland and Wales but Remain in England. Those supporting the cause of ‘independence’ in Scotland and Wales want to remain within the EU, proclaiming the importance of free movement, yet their borders were imposed during the Covid crisis. The devolved government in Scotland favours rejoining the EU, yet others wonder how that fits with the desire for self-government.
On all sides, there has been a problem of legitimacy. Those who favour keeping the Union have struggled to espouse a convincing sense of what it means to be British. The result has often been a crude attempt to manufacture a sense of Britishness. For example, the Westminster government recently announced plans are being drawn up to protect ‘distinctively British’ television programming and asked Ofcom to provide a definition of Britishness for public-service broadcasters.
Meanwhile, contrary to the tradition that the push for statehood means demanding more democracy and freedom, the devolved assemblies appear to have amplified the illiberal impulses of twenty-first-century politics. In Scotland, for example, the government has devoted much of its energy to devising new ways to monitor, control and restrict people’s day-to-day lives: criminalising football supporters, attempting to impose a ‘named person’ to monitor children’s upbringing and passing a Hate Crime Bill that opponents regard as an attack on free speech.
Forty years ago, writer Tom Nairn said that the break-up of Britain would come, not because of the strength of the independence cause in any particular part of Britain, but because of a more general fading of support for the Union. Has Nairn been proved correct? Is the real issue not a democratic surge to independence but gradual separation by attrition? That said, there are signs that perhaps the break-up of the Union is not a foregone conclusion. In recent months, for example, opinion polls have suggested that support for Scottish independence has weakened.
Perhaps the real nail in the coffin is if the English lose interest in the Union. In his book How Britain Ends, journalist Gavin Esler argues that the UK could survive Scottish and Welsh nationalism, but English nationalism is the force that will break up the Union. Is he right?
With Brexit divisions and the impact of Covid, are we witnessing the fragmentation of the Union and a new sovereignty by stealth? How substantial are the differences between the UK and devolved governments’ approaches? Do those arguing for independence or more devolution offer the genuine possibility of a democratic future? Or does this trajectory risk creating a Union based on anomalies and a patchwork of competencies, in the process undermining the viability of UK democracy?
SPEAKERSDr Richard Johnsonwriter; lecturer in US politics, Queen Mary, University of London; author, The End of the Second Reconstruction: Obama, Trump, and the crisis of civil rights
Penny Lewislecturer, University of Dundee; author, Architecture and Collective Life
Alex Salmondleader, ALBA Party; former leader, Scottish National Party; author, The Dream Shall Never Die
Christopher Snowdonhead of lifestyle economics, Institute of Economic Affairs; editor, Nanny State Index; author, Selfishness, Greed and Capitalism
Max Wind-Cowieco-author, A Place for Pride; former head, Progressive Conservatism Project, Demos; commentator
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Who are we? Identity in crisis

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2021 on Saturday 9 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Identity has become a defining factor in how we understand ourselves in the modern age. But the idea of what identity means hasn’t always been the same. The concept of identity is used by some as a marker of where you’re from, by others as a way of explaining who you are deep inside. For some, identity is a fixed, constant factor from which we shape our lives. Others see identity as something changeable and malleable according to how we want to project ourselves into the world.
What’s certain is that our changing concept of identity and its importance has come to shape much of contemporary political debate. ‘Identity politics’ is praised by supporters as a move to focus political change around the needs of individuals and their different identities. Feminists who coined the term ‘the personal is political’ have long argued that women and men’s private lives, and how these identities present in society, are crucial to understanding why sexism and misogyny exists.
On the other hand, identity politics and its ‘intersectional’ tendency is criticised by those who see it as move away from collective political ideals like universalism and solidarity. For example, many political commentators now seek to draw their authority from links to their own personal identities – such as speaking ‘as a gay man’ – a move which some applaud as a celebration of ‘lived experience’ and others condemn as divisive.
But what happens if we start to lose confidence about our identity? A common complaint among younger people is the worry that they ‘don’t know who they are’, with demands for therapeutic or medical intervention offering solutions to help lost youngsters discover what their true identity really is. On a bigger scale, divisions on political issues from Brexit to Covid-19 call into question the idea of a national identity or shared sense of self among the populace. Recent events in Afghanistan have posed the question of whether the West is sure of its identity on the world stage.
But not everyone is worried about this shift. In fact, many argue that it’s important to stress and celebrate our differences – from race and gender to culture and heritage – in order to resist regressive political identities from coming to the fore. For some, identity has now become a battleground: anti-racists claim that copying cultural identities is ‘appropriation’ and racist, while gender-critical feminists claim that trans women are ‘threatening’ their identity as women.
Two new books examine the way in which identity has moved from a sense of inner meaning to a thing we wear on our sleeve, and the implications of that change. Professor Frank Furedi’s 100 Years of Identity Crisis: culture war over socialisation argues that we must understand our current ‘crisis’ of identity to explain the problems we have with socialisation and the ever-toxic culture wars. Rakib Ehsan’s forthcoming book, Manufactured Grievance: the modern Left and Britain’s ethnic minorities, looks at how a narrow focus on personal identity – particularly when it comes to race – is in danger of impeding a ‘civic nationalism’ based on traditional shared values of ‘faith, family and flag’.
Do we know who we are anymore? And does embracing our sense of identity hinder or help our ability to engage in collective ambitions, like figuring out what society stands for? How has the atomisation of modern life changed our identities – particularly when the online world offers opportunities to curate and manicure our own view of ourselves? Is identity important, or should we be telling young people that it’s what they do in the world, rather than who they are, that matters? And can today’s culture wars be seen as part of this identity crisis – or should we accept that all aspects of life are now up for grabs on the political stage?
SPEAKERSDr Rakib Ehsanauthor, Manufactured Grievance: the modern Left and Britain’s ethnic minorities; research fellow, The Henry Jackson Society
Professor Frank Furedisociologist and social commentator; author, 100 Years of Identity Crisis: culture war over socialisation and Democracy Under Siege: don't let them lock it down!
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

What are Western values and should we defend them?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2021 on Sunday 10 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The recent abandonment of Afghanistan by the UK and the US is widely seen as a humiliating defeat for the West. Coinciding with the 20th anniversary of 9/11, the hurried exit and its consequences have led to a soul-searching discussion about what the West really means today. Are we prepared to fight for Western values, and do we even agree on what Western values are?
The failure in Afghanistan is not just seen as a blow to foreign policy – many describe a more profound sense of the decline, arguing that an existential crisis threatens the universal influence of Western values like freedom, democracy, civil liberties. The enemy seems less likely to be the Taliban and more a combination of internal self-doubt and domestic hostility. Any time a politician talks about the importance of citizenship classes or socialising a young generation into a particular cultural or social outlook, all hell breaks loose. For many, we seem to have lost not only the ideas about what we stand for, but the confidence to believe in them.
Indeed, within Western societies many seem increasingly uncomfortable with the traditions and ideals of Western civilisation. According to journalist and author Tim Stanley, ‘the West feels lost. Brexit, Trump, the coronavirus: we hurtle from one crisis to another, lacking definition, terrified that our best days are behind us’. Stanley argues that ‘we can only face the future with hope if we have a proper sense of tradition – political, social and religious’. But the notion of tradition itself is contested by some, as elitist, Eurocentric, and a coda for white privilege.
The norms and customs of modern democratic societies, based on the gains of the Enlightenment period, have also been called into question. Populist uprisings and controversial elections have led to a disenchantment with democracy – can voters really be trusted, or does majoritarian rule deny minority rights? Unimpeded individual liberty is castigated as leading to selfish individualism, at odds with social equality or economic fairness. Long before the pandemic, a defence of freedom gave way to concerns around safety, with a focus on the need to protect citizens from terrorism, crime or even dangerous ideas. Unlimited free speech is increasingly portrayed as a breeding ground for hate speech, portrayed as a threat to the wellbeing of minority groups and in need of limitations if deemed offensive. Even the idea of universalism is seen as a cover for power relations. Instead, relativism and identity politics exert increasing influence.
Stanley’s injunction that we ‘ignore our past at our peril’ immediately clashes with the reality of how history has become one of the major battlegrounds in the culture wars. Some have argued that we seem to be embroiled in a war on the past. But what is wrong with creating new norms based on social justice, or new values forged around ‘inclusion’ and ‘diversity’? After all, tradition previously dictated that marriage was confined to people from the opposite sex. This has all changed – and public sentiment more broadly has become more openly welcoming of sexual minorities. We’ve moved on to reject traditional views of women as the weaker sex, no longer confining them to the home, and we’ve also sought to come to terms with history’s dark side – from slavery or militarist colonisation to removing taboos and ‘stigmas’ about everything from mental health to our biology. Surely this is a new enlightenment?
How does all of this help us understand the demoralisation of Western values? Without historic traditions and agreed cultural values, how can individuals become part of a shared community? How can society nurture a bond between generations and a sense of common purpose and solidarity if we’re constantly calling into question our fundamental values? Can we defend crucial principles such as free speech and democracy against nihilistic destruction or well-meaning challenges? Or is it time to consign the West – and Western civilisation – to the dustbin of history, and start again?
SPEAKERSProfessor Aaqil Ahmeddirector, Amplify Consulting Ltd; professor of media, University of Bolton; former head of religion, Channel 4 and BBC
Dr Stephen Blackwoodfounder and president, Ralston College, Savannah; author, The Consolation of Boethius as Poetic Liturgy
Professor Frank Furedisociologist and social commentator; author, 100 Years of Identity Crisis: culture war over socialisation and Democracy Under Siege: don't let them lock it down!
Jodie Ginsbergchief executive, Internews Europe
Tim Stanleycolumnist and leader writer, Daily Telegraph; author, Whatever Happened to Tradition? History, Belonging and the Future of the West
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Stuck in the present with you: political change in an era of pessimism

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2021 on Sunday 10 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
‘Why should I be studying for a future that soon may be no more, when no one is doing anything to save that future?’Greta Thunberg COP24 climate talks, Poland, December 2018
‘The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say – we will never forgive you.’Greta Thunberg, UN Climate Summit, New York, 2019.
As Greta’s denunciations illustrate, it seems clear that today’s activists face a gloomy dilemma with no apparent way out: historic actions have created this mess and the most we can hope for in the future is survival. This outlook threatens to leave society unmoored and stuck in the present, just as much as drivers have been regularly stuck in protest-created traffic jams on the M25.
In the past, political change was future-orientated and optimistic, full of hope at the possibility of improving lives. Today, the tone seems more pessimistic, even millenarian. There is a widespread assumption that today’s young people and future generations will be worse off than their parents. Young political activists accuse their elders of leaving a rotten legacy of a wrecked planet, institutional bigotry and economic chaos.
In turn, adult society seems haunted by its responsibility for the alleged sins of the past. For example, in the name of future generations, the spectre of ecological catastrophe is now shaping policy and institutional priorities. While the need to reduce CO2 emissions may provide a mission for a world otherwise shorn of moral certainties, it’s underlying message seems debilitating. ‘Code Red’ warnings of a grim future caused by irresponsible human action in the past capture an increasing alienation from both the past and the future.
A driving force of political action today is to disavow what were seen as the gains of the past. For example, environmentalists decry the huge strides made for humanity on the back of the Industrial Revolution, which are now seen as creating today’s problems. Social and economic changes, hard fought for as the by-products of modernity, resulting in decreasing child mortality, extended life expectancy, the wonders of modern sanitation, agriculture, prosperity, energy and transport are now catastrophised as evidence of humanity being inherently destructive. Today’s ‘net zero’ targets are, by implication, necessary reparations for historic wrongdoing.
More broadly, debates rage with unmatched intensity about history. What purports to be a newly enlightened focus on social injustice in the here and now actually seems preoccupied with indicting past wrongs. Holding historical figures and events to contemporary standards has created a toxic battleground over statues, museums, ‘dead white men’ and past injustices. It seems as if every major institution is engaged in examining its past for traces of slavery and racism, and purging such links from its image today.
But where does it leave society if its history is constantly treated as a hostile inheritance? Many are now worried about the fragmentary and demoralising outcomes of stigmatising historical figures as bigots. More than 40 senior UK and ‘Anglosphere’ academics recently launched History Reclaimed, concerned about the way the culture wars have overtaken their field. They claim that recent campaigns to rewrite the histories of Western democracies have undermined ‘their solidarity as communities, their sense of achievement, even their basic legitimacy’.
What are we to base our values on today if a community’s achievements of the past are constantly questioned and humanity’s past achievements are demonised as shameful? Is political change even possible without finding something of value in the actions of our ancestors? Conversely, if the future is characterised as a dark and scary place, how can such a fatalistic pessimism inspire positive political action? If we are alienated from both history and the future, do we risk becoming stuck in the same endless present? Can we save history from nihilism? Can we become active agents once more in shaping the future?
SPEAKERSAaron Bastanico-founder, Novara Media; author, Fully Automated Luxury Communism: a manifesto
Lord Maurice GlasmanLabour life peer; director, the Common Good Foundation; author, Unnecessary Suffering: Managing Market Utopia
Jacob Reynoldspartnerships manager, Academy of Ideas
Baroness StowellConservative peer, House of Lords; former leader of the House of Lords; former head of corporate affairs, BBC
Robert Tombsemeritus professor of French history, Cambridge University; author, This Sovereign Isle: Britain In and Out of Europe
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Social solidarity after social isolation

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2021 on Saturday 9 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
At the height of the pandemic lockdowns, much was made of the spirit of solidarity shown by the British public. While comparisons to the ‘Blitz Spirit’ were often made, the reality was more complicated.
For many, the idea of being ‘all in this together’ contrasted with widespread loneliness, a growing sense of frustration and a prolonged period of demoralisation. Throughout history, crises have forged new coalitions and prompted social change. As the threat of the pandemic recedes, many are asking what the legacy of this strange period will be – a period where the mark of a good citizen was to stay away from other people.
Few would deny that there were many inspiring moments. The famous ‘clap for carers’ saw millions on their doorsteps. A call for NHS volunteers was met with an avalanche of applications. Since then, many thousands more have volunteered to help with the vaccine rollout, countless mutual aid societies have been formed and many neighbourhoods have formed tighter bonds.
Yet at the same time, the paradoxes of our age revealed themselves. Mutual aid groups co-existed with curtain-twitchers reporting how many walks their neighbours had taken; local authorities were zealously breaking up gatherings while promoting alfresco dining in town centres. What’s more, no one seemed to know what to do with the ‘army’ of NHS volunteers.
What explains these contradictions? Many argue that the ‘decline of community’ long predates the pandemic: with people getting richer, they tend to pay for services rather than relying on neighbours. Others point to the strangulation of public life through the use of Public Space Protection Orders and ASBOs. Perhaps decades of privatisation have sapped the resources and goodwill from communities.
Yet, despite these deeper trends, lockdowns themselves have certainly had an effect. Perhaps fundamentally, there seemed an irresolvable contradiction: lockdowns, which isolated people in their homes, seems at odd with solidarity, which brings people together. Masks, to take one example, can be seen as both a positive, pro-social attempt to keep others safe or as an isolating, alienating garment that says, ‘stay away’. Similarly, the unprecedently high take-up of the vaccine reflected the desire of people to protect their loved ones and reduce the pressure on the NHS – but many have felt the threat of vaccine passports amounts to little better than blackmail.
Whatever the post-pandemic period is to bring, it is clear that the aspiration towards solidarity remains strong. The scenes of jubilation and exuberance displayed during England’s Euro 2020 run were seen as an expression of a desire to be part of something together. What’s more, however hollow Boris Johnson’s ‘levelling up’ agenda is accused of being, it seems that it represents a widespread desire to restore a sense of civic pride and community engagement.
Are there figures willing and able to define what solidarity means today? After a long period of isolation, what will remain of traditional avenues of solidarity, from pubs to sports? Has the experience of the past two years forged new bonds or entrenched a growing sense of isolation? What, ultimately, does solidarity mean today?
SPEAKERSPaul Emberyfirefighter; trade unionist; columnist; author; broadcaster
Inaya Folarin ImanGB News journalist; political commentator; social campaigner; founder and director, The Equiano Project
Dr Tiffany Jenkinswriter and broadcaster; author, Keeping Their Marbles: how treasures of the past ended up in museums and why they should stay there; presenter, A Narrative History of Secrecy
Lord Moylanconservative peer
CHAIRJacob Reynoldspartnerships manager, Academy of Ideas

Free speech: how can we combat campus cancel culture?

Recorded at Open for Debate on Saturday 31 July at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
From corporate boycotts of GB News to cancelling of gender-critical artists within cultural institutions, disputes over freedom of speech are myriad today. But perhaps the litmus test of how society deals with the challenges to freedom comes within universities.
After years of concerns being raised about no-platform polices and cancel culture on campus, the government has declared its intention to ensure that universities and colleges are ‘bastions of free thought and intellectual debate’. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill promises to ensure that no higher education providers – including student unions – will be allowed to limit lawful free speech and expression of diverse views.
Slipping quickly into ‘get-tough’ mode, Lord Wharton of Yarm, the new chairman of Office for Students, has served noticed that he’ll not be afraid to use the new powers. These include financial compensation for academics and speakers denied the opportunity to express their views, as well as fining and deregistering institutions and measures such as banning degree courses from recruiting new students.
Opinion is split on how to respond. Academic Eric Kaufmann, one of those who welcome the initiative, says the proposal represents a major advance in the struggle to defend academic freedom against progressive intolerance. He argues that conservatives and ‘gender-critical’ scholars disproportionately face political discrimination and institutional disciplinary threats, which has led to a wider culture of self-censorship.
Others – like the powerful Russell Group of 24 leading universities – are less sure. They say the proposed new measures are unnecessary when there are others already in place that they claim to support and adhere to. In the wake of the pandemic, as many universities fear going bust and hope to benefit from cash support from government, some are concerned that new measures will add an unnecessary bureaucratic cost alongside requirements under the Prevent anti-radicalisation programme, and employment and contract laws protecting staff.
Some argue that the measures are too narrow and technocratic to counter today’s censorious mood. High-profile cases of no-platforming and ‘snowflakery’ make headlines, but more subtle erosions of academic freedom are rooted in an increasingly censorious cultural outlook. A safety-first approach has led to the closing down of controversial areas of research under REF embedded ethics tests, while texts and thinkers have been sidelined in the face of demands to decolonise. A record number of students are reporting problems with their mental health, which some have pointed out correlates with government initiatives focusing on well-being and happiness. Can legally enforced rules and fines counter the culture of trigger warnings and the sidelining of material or speakers in order to protect against ‘psychological harm’?
Others worry that government interference in higher education might further undermine, rather than protect, academic freedom. Having denied that there is a free-speech problem for years, the government’s opponents say appointing a Free Speech Champion or ‘tsar’ to preside over campus represents a ‘land grab’ by a government keen to meddle in institutions that have historically been thought of as independent from political interference. For example, the education secretary, Gavin Williamson, said it was ‘frankly disturbing’ that some universities had not adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Is mandating what is permissible not the opposite of freedom, or perhaps even a cynical move for political gain?
How should we view the latest attempts to push free speech on campus? However well intentioned, could official demands for political ‘balance’ in universities end up leading to measures that further impinge on academic freedom? Or is this simply a welcome start to a larger battle to get campus censorship taken seriously? And as the outlook of the social-justice warrior becomes ever more embedded, with campus concerns over critical race theory, unconscious bias and the war on statues now consuming broader society, how best can universities make the case for academic freedom?
SPEAKERSDr Marie Kawthar Daoudalecturer in French language and literature, Oriel College, University of Oxford; author, L’Anti-Salomé
Dennis Hayesprofessor of education, University of Derby; founder and director, Academics For Academic Freedom (AFAF); author, The Death of Academic Freedom? Free speech and censorship
Eric Kaufmannprofessor of politics, Birkbeck College, University of London; Advisory Council member, Free Speech Union; author, Whiteshift: immigration, populism and the future of white majorities
James Murraylawyer; senior associate, Taylor Vinters; research fellow, University of Buckingham;
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Beyond Culture Wars: how to argue better in an age of conformity

Recorded at Open for Debate on Saturday 31 July at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Whether in debates about Brexit, lockdown, Black Lives Matter or gender issues, today’s political discourse feels more brittle and toxic than ever before. Denunciations replace debate. Caricatures of people’s opinions are deployed to delegitimise those we disagree with. Twitter pile-ons attempt to ‘cancel’ people. Even politicians across all parties encourage Big Tech to censor what some deem to be misinformation about Covid, vaccines or lockdowns in general, labelling a wide range of views as conspiracy theories. On every side of political debate, caricatures of our opponents views’ seem to replace honest engagement. For example, those in favour of lockdowns dismiss sceptics as uncaring, and those against them dismiss advocates as fascists.
Debate in general has been replaced by something sinister. Take the events at Batley Grammar School. A teacher was suspended and forced into hiding for fear of his life after being subject to protests – and threats – for showing a cartoon of the prophet Mohammed in a lesson about blasphemy. Some feel this appears to have brought in a blasphemy law by the back door. Many worry that if what can be said is dictated by non-educational standards – like avoiding offence – then teachers will be hindered in teaching the curriculum.
More broadly, there appears to be a demand for conformity, an enforced consensus on certain issues, and dissent is often demonised. As the slogan ‘silence is violence’ insists, even staying quiet on contentious issues is not enough. It is clear which are the ‘correct’ views, and these appear to becoming increasingly insisted upon by major institutions in society.
Even at the heart of educational institutions, where one might hope to find open-ended inquiry that could usefully counter one-sided intellectual bubbles, we instead find that both schools and universities are widely accused of being hotbeds of groupthink. From the fact that academics overwhelmingly backed Remain in the 2016 EU referendum to the widespread endorsement by teachers of pupils attending climate change ‘school strikes’, many insist that education is suffering from a lack of viewpoint diversity.
In universities, polls show conservative-leaning students and academics feel forced to conceal their views for fear of being demonised or even penalised in terms of marks, research grants and career prospects.
Even if exaggerated by some, the idea of a silent majority (or even minority) who feel nervous about arguing against so-called ‘woke’ opinions rings true for many. No-platforming, safe spaces, trigger warnings – these terms are now part of the public conversation and suggest a lack of tolerance and willingness to debate conflicting ideas. In contrast, others argue that those deploying these terms are indulging in a right-wing moral panic about ‘cultural Marxism’ that boils down to little more than a desire by conservatives to protect the status quo.
Is this chasm unbreachable? How do we open up debate in these circumstances? What happens to dissent and critical thinking? Do one-sided discussions merely encourage us to adopt one tribe’s views and dismiss all others? How can we encourage people, especially the young, to think for themselves and assess ideas on their own merit? Or, as many insist, is debate simply a cover to avoid challenging abhorrent, conspiratorial, bigoted, or ‘dangerous’ opinions? How can all of us learn to argue better?
SPEAKERSArif Ahmedreader in philosophy, University of Cambridge; fellow, Gonville and Caius College; free-speech campaigner
Dr Shahrar Alispokesperson for policing and domestic safety, Green Party; author, Why Vote Green 2015
Claire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!
Reverend Seminarian Calvin Robinsonsenior fellow, Policy Exchange; subject matter expert, National Centre for Computing Education; former assistant principal
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

Should we resist the new normal?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2021 on Saturday 9 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The lockdown response to Covid-19 has been a unique period in our social history, and many are now asking whether it will result in a profound change in human attitudes and behaviour. Will habits of fraternity and solidarity have been damaged irreparably by so many months of anti-social measures like stay-at-home isolation, ‘social distancing’, or masks? Will the onslaught of restrictive legislation, from the suspension of the right to protest to the suggestion of vaccine passports, have knocked our faith in a free society? And have the life and death experiences of a global pandemic led to existential questions about what it means to be human?
Profound social changes often lead to such questions. But behind all this, many sense a problem: the so-called ‘new normal’. There is a tendency to depict the future of humanity as at the mercy of events beyond its control – from the threat of viruses to the demand for net zero, from endless public-health emergencies to a mental-health epidemic. Extreme conspiracy theories about a ‘great reset’ seem to capture the sense that many in power see the ‘new normal’ as an opportunity to push for big changes to society. A sense of inevitability hangs in the air – everything will be different, whether we like it or not. At the same time, there seems a widespread acquiescence to the reorganisation of public life around safety and precaution. As Lord Sumption, the former Supreme Court Justice, put it: ‘The British public has not even begun to understand the seriousness of what is happening to our country. Many don’t care and won’t care until it is too late’. Does this view disparage the public, or point to the success of official fearmongering?
On the other hand, many insist there is much to gain from an attempt to create a ‘new normal’. For one, the ‘old normal’ was no utopia – with economic stagnation, flatlining living standards and fraying social bonds. Old moral certainties have been called into question for some time, with populist upheavals representing a widespread sense of alienation from mainstream politics. What’s more, new-normal changes such as working-from-home have left many with more time for friends, family and leisure. Many argue that the pandemic legacy should be used to ‘build back better’; to tackle the inequalities and injustices that defined pre-pandemic life. Perhaps embracing the ‘new normal’ might open new possibilities.
However, critics note that most of these changes seem to have been created and enacted without much input from the public. Concerns that many felt were underlying the Brexit vote of 2016 – a sense of ordinary people being removed from those who make decisions – seem to have resurfaced. Small-business owners are grappling with new coronavirus regulations and city dwellers are waking up to overnight road closures and traffic changes. The 2021 local elections returned a spate of independent candidates, which many argued reflected a widespread feeling that traditional politicians were far removed from the concerns of the public. What was the point of a revolt against technocrats and experts if the ‘new normal’ comprises of subordinating democratic decision-making and following the benevolent guidance of public-health nudges, social justice advocates, or environmentalists?
Has the last 19 months produced a historic chance for society to revisit its priorities and change society for the better? Or are there some things worth keeping from the way we lived in the ‘old normal’? Can we rescue the idea of change from a widespread fatalism? Or is all this change itself the issue? Should we embrace, or resist, the new normal?
SPEAKERSKate Andrewscommentator; economics editor, the Spectator; weekly columnist, Daily Telegraph business pages
James Bloodworthjournalist; author, Hired: six months undercover in low-wage Britain
Tom Slatereditor, spiked; regular commentator on TV and radio; co-host, spiked podcast
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!

Going green: eco-dogma or salvation?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2021 on Saturday 9 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
This is ‘a code red for humanity’. So proclaimed the UN secretary general in response to the organisation’s latest climate assessment report in August. The report claims that dangerously rising levels of carbon emissions will lead to more heatwaves, droughts, floods and storms for decades, if not centuries, to come.
This report was closely followed by the discovery of a ‘warming blob’ originating in New Zealand that has contributed to a decade-long drought in parts of South America, while fires were raging through the state of California. In Europe, German and Belgian towns and villages were submerged by floods and UK streets were temporarily turned into rivers. Since then, we’ve seen Hurricane Ida hit Louisiana, the tail-end of which caused a deluge across four north-eastern US states, including New York.
It’s not just floods that are bringing UK streets to a halt. The latest round of protests by Extinction Rebellion (XR) have simultaneously highlighted a cause and frustrated working citizens. XR claim the only way to save the planet is by forcing the agenda through radical action. At recent protests across the streets of central London, a speaker declared that ‘your only salvation is to respect the first peoples of this Earth’.
But while protesters demand ‘radical action’, less acknowledged is the ever-growing domination of green thinking across society. In 1987, Our Common Future, the report of the World Commission on the Environment and Development, made the concept of ‘sustainable development’ mainstream. Since then, governments, public institutions and private corporations alike have embraced environmental imperatives.
After this year’s local election successes, the Green Party is staking a claim to be England’s third party. In Scotland, the Green Party is now entering government alongside the SNP. But in truth, all the major parties have become converts to the environmentalist cause, from Labour’s 2008 Climate Act to its upgrade in 2019 by the blue-green Conservative Party, locking in the UK’s commitment to reduce emissions to ‘net zero’ by 2050. The Conservative government has made great play of hosting the latest round of climate talks, COP26, in Glasgow in November. Further afield, Greens run most major French cities and are seeking to win this year’s German elections.
Yet the political consensus is at odds with the fact that ‘net zero’ policies – like giving up or severely restricting cheap travel, banning gas boilers and eating less meat – aren’t that popular in practice. Worse, environmentalist solutions can exacerbate the problems. The green-inspired switch away from nuclear power in Germany has not only vastly increased energy prices but resulted in increased emissions – ironically, from the renewed use of coal. A lack of wind in September forced National Grid to fire up coal-fired power stations in the UK.
Critics argue that environmentalist policies are causing harm in the less-developed world, too. The demand from greens for an end to funding for fossil-fuelled energy projects in the less-developed world risks leaving those countries mired in ‘maldevelopment’.
With their policies failing to attract broad support, there is open discussion among some green commentators about how to force through reductions in carbon emissions by undemocratic means, if necessary. Environmentalists have certainly found it easier to persuade politicians to impose regulations than to persuade the rest of us to change our lifestyles.
So how can we solve a problem like climate change? Should it be treated as an emergency that should subsume all other priorities? Do green policies even work or do they make matters worse? Is the problem that political and corporate rhetoric about taking action is just superficial ‘greenwash’, being seen to be green rather than making fundamental changes? Has the political consensus around climate change robbed voters of a chance to have our say?
SPEAKERSDr Shahrar Alispokesperson for policing and domestic safety, Green Party; author, Why Vote Green 2015
Sabine Beppler-Spahlchair, Freiblickinstitut e.V; CEO, Sprachkunst36; author, Off-centre: how party consensus undermines our democracy; Germany correspondent, spiked
Heydon Prowsesatirist; writer and actor, The Revolution Will be Televised, The Ministry of Justice and Revolting; columnist, Wokeyleaks, Spectator
Austin Williamssenior lecturer, Dept of Architecture, Kingston University, London; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution: understanding Chinese eco-cities
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question