Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

From BBC to GB News: can the media be impartial?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Earlier this year, for the first time ever, Match of The Day aired without a host after Gary Lineker was removed from the airwaves by the BBC’s director general, Tim Davie. Lineker was said to be in breach of the BBC’s impartiality guidelines for tweeting that the language surrounding the government’s new asylum policy was ‘not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 1930s’.
The incident was just the most high-profile in a growing list of BBC controversies that include its allegedly biased coverage of the coronation of King Charles, and Carol Vorderman’s scathing criticism of Conservatives. There was also controversy over the decision not to broadcast an episode of Sir David Attenborough’s flagship series on British wildlife after allegations that the BBC had taken funding from two charities previously criticised for their political lobbying. Following the October attacks on Israel, a huge row has broken out over the BBC’s refusal to describe Hamas as ‘terrorists’.
But it’s not just the BBC that finds itself grappling with the problem of impartiality these days. Journalists, presenters, news organisations and even podcasts such as The News Agents are regularly called into question, with all sides of the political spectrum crying foul. The BBC’s Nick Robinson has said the corporation’s reputation for impartiality built over decades faces an existential threat from the growing influence of partisan political figures on newer channels. Ofcom is investigating GB News and TalkTV over a willingness to push opinionated television news into controversial areas that result in misinformation and use of politicians as presenters.
What do we mean by ‘impartiality’? And how does that ideal match up to how it plays out in practice? Some argue that there is a considerable difference between the duties on news programmes and presenters and the hosts of other programmes who express views on personal social feeds. Should celebrity presenters be held to have breached impartiality rules or does this impinge on their free expression? Will our existing opinions and reaction to external pressures not always play a role?
Others say the problem is not presenters lacking objectivity or young journalists lacking training, but rather the rules themselves. Does it make sense for Ofcom to try to apply a broadcast code written in a different period dominated by the BBC and ITV in an era of new independent channels? Is it sensible or even possible for an individual to insist that organisations show true impartiality? And ultimately, what’s at stake if we ditch the idea of impartiality altogether?
SPEAKERSMichael Bookereditorial director, GB News
Iain Macwhirtercolumnist, The Times and Spectator; author, Disunited Kingdom: how Westminster won a referendum but lost Scotland
Helen Searlschief operating officer, Feature Story News
Baroness Stowellchair, Communications & Digital Select Committee
CHAIRMax Sandersonsenior editor, audio, Guardian

Bookshop Barnie with Peter Hitchens: A Revolution Betrayed

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In his latest book, A Revolution Betrayed: How egalitarians wrecked the British education system, Peter Hitchens describes the misjudgements made by politicians over the years that have led to the increase in class distinction and privilege in our education system, exploring the history of, and contemporary conditions at, independent, grammar and comprehensive schools. He argues that by trying to bring about an educational system which is egalitarian over the years, politicians have created a system which is the exact opposite.
A review for the Higher Education Policy Institute says that the book celebrates an ‘out-of-time world (that) I am deeply thankful not to inhabit’. The Spectator review says that this is a history book with a ‘bee in its bonnet’. The far from impartial website Comprehensive Future considers that Hitchens cannot ‘offer any personal experience of grammar schools, having been educated entirely in private schools’.
This session is an opportunity to critically engage with the issues raised in A Revolution Betrayed in an open, honest and intelligent setting. Sit up straight and pay attention!
SPEAKERPeter Hitchenscolumnist, The Mail on Sunday; author, A Revolution Betrayed: how egalitarians wrecked the British education system
CHAIRAustin Williamsdirector, Future Cities Project; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution; convenor, Critical Subjects Architecture School

Should we leave the European Convention on Human Rights?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Most people acknowledge that there is an issue with Britain’s borders. The question is: who or what is to blame? For many, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and its courts in Strasbourg, has become the focus – either as the bulwark against anti-refugee sentiment, or the block on democratic process. With deportations being halted on the grounds of ‘human rights’, one’s view on membership of the ECHR has become shorthand for where you stand on the issue of refugees, asylum seekers and illegal migrants.
Rows over the ECHR have been brewing for some time. In 2000, the Human Rights Act made the Convention an integral part of domestic law, that individuals could enforce in British courts. Since then, many, particularly on the Right, have questioned the wisdom of what they increasingly refer to as Labour’s Human Rights Act. In recent years, the Conservative Party has been committed to reforming human rights by replacing the HRA with a British Bill of Rights. But no such legislation is forthcoming – and many have pointed out that, as long as Britain remains signed-up to the ECHR, a British Bill of Rights would be superfluous. Much like the European Union, the ECHR seems to have split the Tories. Some MPs hope to cut ties completely – nearly 70 Tory MPs, many from Red Wall seats, backed quitting the ECHR in a vote on a Private Member’s Bill last year. Others – like Tom Tugendhat’s Tory Reform Group – remain concerned about what a Brexit-style exit might do to the UK’s international reputation.
In the aftermath of the Second World War the European Convention on Human Rights was seen as a protection against the tyranny and oppression that some European nations had recently endured. Nowadays, those who support it stress the importance of human rights as setting a minimum standard which democracies should guarantee. Is the problem therefore simply one of European judicial overreach, or is it essentially about the very notion of ‘human rights’ themselves? Are human rights and democratic, collective action doomed to forever be at loggerheads? With courts in Strasbourg and London ruling to impede government plans to stop small boats crossing the Channel, are human rights making popular government impossible? Or is the ECHR being scapegoated for inadequacies in our own backyard?
SPEAKERSSteven Barrettbarrister, Radcliffe Chambers; writer on law, Spectator
Jamie Burtonfounder and chair, Just Fair; barrister (KC), Doughty Street Chambers; author Three Times Failed: why we need enforceable socio-economic rights
Luke Gittoscriminal lawyer; author, Human Rights – Illusory Freedom; director, Freedom Law Clinic
John Oxleywriter, New Statesman, Spectator,and UnHerd; consultant; barrister
Angelica Walker-Werthwriter, editor and programmes manager, Objective Standard Institute
CHAIRJon Holbrookbarrister; writer, spiked, Critic, Conservative Woman

Misinformation wars: who fact-checks the fact-checkers?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
There’s no doubt that the growth of social media, online self-publishing online and, now, AI, has resulted in many untruths circulating in the public square. It can be hard to tell what is true or false, when nonsense and unfounded assertions can be spread on the internet without challenge – sometimes by tinfoil-conspiratorial proponents and bad faith actors, sometimes by well-meaning if naïve individuals.
In response, an international industry of official fact-checkers and mainstream media dis-and-misinformation organisations has been born. But do the public need protection from untruths? And how do we respond to misinformation being weaponised as a way of to justify discrediting and censoring dissenting views?
Earlier this year, US  Judge Doughty said the evidence presented in the case of Missouri vs Biden showed that, during the Covid-19 pandemic, the US government ‘seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth”’. Why? US officials had worked with Silicon Valley leaders to suppress reports of the lab-leak theory of Covid’s origin – which is now considered the most likely explanation by many countries’ state agencies. Similarly, the Twitter files exposed that the reporting around Hunter Biden’s laptop, which was initially dismissed and suppressed as a Russian disinformation operation, was in fact true, and has since been verified by mainstream outlets. With all this in mind, it becomes difficult to differentiate between what is labelled disinformation, and what are simply inconvenient truths.
Meanwhile, some argue the fact-checkers are themselves not immune from spreading misinformation. In her recent podcast series Marianna in Conspiracyland, Marianna Spring, the BBC’s ‘disinformation and social-media correspondent’, used a BBC commissioned survey to suggest that a quarter of British people believe ‘Covid was a hoax’. Spring argued that huge numbers had attended conspiratorial demos and were reading obscure conspiratorial newspapers. The survey has since been discredited, as ‘100 per cent false’. Even though the i paper’s Stuart Ritchie put the figures down to a mix of tiny sample sizes and woolly worded questions, and an academic institution conceded the figure were misleading, and that the figures were uncritically pushed by the BBC and the Guardian as fact.
Who fact-checks the fact-checkers? Should a society that respects free speech need to prove that all ideas are true before they are aired? Or does encouraging ill-informed debate risk distorting and damaging the public square? Should we tolerate the threat of ‘disinformation’ to avoid censorship of dissent? Or is there something we can do to promote truth and freedom?
SPEAKERSLiam Deaconcommunications and campaigns consultant, Pagefield Communications; former journalist; former head of press, Brexit Party
Andrew Lowenthalwriter and researcher; director, liber-net; co-founder and former executive director, EngageMedia
Florence ReadUnHerd producer; presenter, UnHerd TV
CHAIRTessa Clarkejournalist; author; documentary reporter; deputy director, Academics for Academic Freedom (AFAF)

Is AI the end of art?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The worlds of art and entertainment are wrestling with, and reeling from, the opportunities and challenges posed by ‘generative’ AI – tools that can generate seemingly unique, bespoke creations in response to ‘prompts’ submitted in plain language. Such technology is now having a dramatic impact on almost every profession or art form that involves static or moving images, written or spoken words, sound, music or programming code.
Everything from the fantastical to the photorealistic is affected. AI can generate convincing ‘photos’ of people who have never actually existed, and can create ‘deepfakes’ so good that public figures – whether living or long deceased – can now be ‘filmed’ saying and doing completely invented things. Indeed, a key concern behind this year’s high-profile Hollywood strikes is actors fearing that they will be imitated and replaced by AI creations – losing control of their likenesses not just during their lifetimes, but also after their deaths.
Otherworldly images are no less affected by AI. Polish illustrator Greg Rutkowski – who has made a career out of depicting dragons and fantastical battles – recently found himself demoted (or promoted, depending on one’s perspective) from popular artist to one of the world’s most popular AI prompts, beating Michelangelo and Picasso. The internet is now swamped with AI recreations of Rutkowski’s once distinctive style, while the artist’s own livelihood – and recognition for work that is genuinely his – are in jeopardy.
There are many such examples, spanning different forms of creativity. Some are trying to take a stand against these trends, but solidarity between professions is wanting. Major publishers, including Bloomsbury Books, have recently issued apologies, when it was discovered that they were using AI-generated art on their book covers. Some soundtrack composers – who were already complaining about being reduced to poorly paid, interchangeable and uncredited ‘ghost composers’ in the content-hungry age of streaming – now fear being replaced by machines altogether.
Some creators insist that their consent should have been sought before their work was included in the vast datasets on which AI has been trained. Some are seeking the removal of their work from such datasets even now, although the path from machine learning to AI creations is so intricate that this may be the practical equivalent of trying to unbake a cake. Others, by contrast, revel in the new creative possibilities arising from AI, and approach the technology as an enormous and exciting artistic toolkit.
Who will prevail? And what will be the consequences?
SPEAKERSDr JJ Charlesworthart critic; editor, ArtReview
Vivek Hariacomposer, London Symphony Orchestra, Birmingham Contemporary Music Group and Piatti Quartet; writer on art, technology and culture
Rosie Kaydancer; choreographer; CEO and artistic director, K2CO LTD; founder, Freedom in the Arts
Dr Hamish Toddmathematician; videogame programmer; creator, Virus, the Beauty of the Beast
CHAIRSandy Starrdeputy director, Progress Educational Trust; author, AI: Separating Man from Machine

What are the limits of AI?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The computing pioneer Alan Turing predicted that, by the twenty-first century, ‘one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted’. If anything, his prediction now seems rather conservative. One tech entrepreneur – who has been appointed by the UK government to chair the Frontier AI Taskforce, a body established to ‘develop the safe and reliable use’ of AI – has described the AI of the future as potentially not just human-like but God-like (with a capital ‘G’) and ‘capable of infinite self-improvement’.
This prospect is presented as either inspiring or terrifying – often both at once. As well as ploughing £100million of public funding into its new Taskforce, the government has also announced a Global Summit on AI Safety, and will convene with tech giants at Bletchley Park in November this year ‘to ensure this technology is developed and adopted safely and responsibly’. The choice of Bletchley Park is meant to evoke the urgency of the Second World War, while also reminding us of AI’s origins in Alan Turing’s work, which established the basis for all modern computing.
Meanwhile, most of us struggle to make sense of successive headlines which tell us that ‘generative’ AI – including text generators and chatbots like ChatGPT and Bard, and image generators such as Stable Diffusion, Midjourney and DALL-E – has either made some astonishing new breakthrough, or failed to live up to the initial hype. When major technical mishaps continue to disrupt our daily lives – from the UK’s air-traffic control being brought to a standstill by a single piece of wrongly inputted data, to a security breach at the Electoral Commission exposing the personal data of 40million UK voters – how seriously should we take the proposition that today’s tech, or tomorrow’s, might have the power of God?
Is ‘infinite self-improvement’ a genuine possibility with AI, or might a more thorough assessment reveal some fundamental limits? If we delve into the rich history of computing, going all the way back to the nineteenth century, could we find the key to a more rational understanding of today’s fast-evolving technology?
SPEAKERSDr Stuart Derbyshireassociate professor in psychology, National University of Singapore and the Clinical Imaging Research Centre
Professor Anders C Hansenprofessor of mathematics, University of Cambridge; author, Compressive Imaging: structure, sampling, learning
Timandra Harknessjournalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree; author, Big Data: does size matter?
Andrew Orlowskiwriter and critic; business columnist, Daily Telegraph
Dr Kathleen Stockcolumnist, UnHerd; co-director, The Lesbian Project; author, Material Girls: why reality matters for feminism
CHAIRSandy Starrdeputy director, Progress Educational Trust; author, AI: Separating Man from Machine

Terminator or tech hype? AI and the apocalypse

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
An apocalyptic mood surrounds the latest advances in AI. Sci-fi and tech enthusiasts have long murmured about the ‘singularity’ – the point at which technology runs irreversibly away from us. Since the growth in use of OpenAI’s ChatGPT, such digital doomsaying has gone mainstream, going way beyond the usual concerns about AI taking our jobs.
This year, a statement urging global leaders to take seriously the existential threat of AI garnered many high-profile signatories, including Jared Kaplan, Sam Harris, Demis Hassabis, Sam Altman and Bill Gates. Rishi Sunak is on record as having met with several of the key signatories to discuss the global threat. In 2015, when Elon Musk helped establish OpenAI, he declared he was motivated by fear that AI could become the ‘biggest existential threat’ to humanity.
Sam Altman, who became OpenAI’s CEO following Musk’s departure, is an avowed ‘prepper’ – one of many tech executives who have invested in underground bunkers and supplies, lest the worst should happen. Google CEO Sundar Pichai admits that concerns about AI ‘keep me up at night’, while his colleague Geoffrey Hinton – a 75-year-old pioneer known as the ‘godfather’ of AI – quit his job at Google, saying that he now regrets his work and fears what he has created.
Are these apocalyptic fears of AI warranted? Or are they obscuring and stifling the true potential of this technology? The inscrutability of the way AI works – its ‘black box’ of algorithms – is now seen by many as Pandora’s box, dividing opinion around greater openness versus keeping the technology under wraps.
Who should have access to AI? Is it a liability if it falls into the hands of nefarious actors, or do we need greater transparency, to ensure that the technology aligns with our human values and objectives? Do fears of an existential threat reflect the pessimism of our current moment? Or should we take seriously the warnings from those who are at the forefront of developing this technology?
SPEAKERSDr Norman Lewisvisiting research fellow, MCC Brussels; co-author, Big Potatoes: the London manifesto for innovation
Elizabeth SegerAI governance and ethics researcher, Centre for the Governance of AI
Professor Ulrike Tillmann FRSmathematician; director, Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences; fellow, Alan Turing Institute
CHAIRSandy Starrdeputy director, Progress Educational Trust; author, AI: Separating Man from Machine

Inventing the future: how do we unleash innovation?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Engineering and technological progress in the modern day feels slow and cumbersome compared to 20, 50 or 100 years ago. It seems the progress we are making today is less impressive, or sometimes even regressive, compared to that of the twentieth century.
Perhaps this is inevitable. For example, the leaps forward made by the invention of the transistor and the microprocessor were far more important than the incremental gains in speed and power-saving with the latest wave of five-nanometre chips, impressive though they are.
Yet there are still plenty of frustrations. Brunel built swathes of bridges, tunnels and tracks all over the country, but now we can’t complete a rail project without massive delays and cost overruns. The revolution created by construction of the motorway system seems a distant memory when we can’t even keep up with pothole repairs. Apple once shocked the world with a touch-screen device, but now every new phone is a vapid iteration and incremental improvement, to the point of mundanity.
What is to be done? The government is always announcing new initiatives to increase innovation, but seldom do we see any benefits. Indeed, government intervention in the form of over-regulation is seen by many as a hindrance to innovation. For example, the Guardian wrote last year that new Brexit rules meant British inventions were being prevented from being sold in the UK. Crash testing and emissions standards have bloated our vehicles. The planned bans on petrol and diesel cars may be forcing manufacturers down the road of all-electric vehicles before the technology is mature enough.
But, as the ill-fated Titanic expedition sadly demonstrated, many regulations were written for a reason. Cars are much safer now. Better safety standards for appliances mean fewer house fires. Enforcing a universal phone charger may hamper innovation, but it does make life a lot easier in many ways, too.
Maybe the laws of physics are the ultimate barrier we face? We’ve been promised nuclear fusion energy for 50 years but even the latest experimental reactors barely produce more power than gets put in.
What is holding innovation back? Have we run out of ideas or are we limited by the laws of physics? Have we pretty much done all the ‘big stuff’? Has government intervention been a help or a hindrance? Do we even believe in technological progress anymore?
SPEAKERSSteve Jordandirector, hyperTunnel Limited
Simon Nashenvironmentalist; speaker; activist and founder, Green Oil bicycle lubes
Dr Nikos Sotirakopoulosvisiting fellow, Ayn Rand Institute; instructor, Ayn Rand University; author, Identity Politics and Tribalism: the new culture wars
Sally Taplinbusiness consultant, Businessfourzero; visiting MBA lecturer, Bayes Business School
James Woudhuysenvisiting professor, forecasting and innovation, London South Bank University
CHAIRMartyn Perksdigital business consultant and writer; former Islington by-election independent candidate; co-author, Big Potatoes: the London manifesto for innovation

Andrew Tate and the Lost Boys

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
From bad influences to rebels without a cause, society has always worried about young men. But the recent popularity of the influencer and self-titled ‘king of toxic masculinity’, Andrew Tate, among young men – and even pre-teen boys – has left schools and parents in a panic. Such is the fear of Tate’s influence that headteachers have reached out to the Department for Education for guidance on how to talk to their lads about his misogynistic views on women.
But the Tate phenomenon is complicated: many young men claim to take his messages about women with a pinch of salt, instead finding meaning in his proselytising about ambition, self-sufficiency and becoming ‘a man’. In fact, almost everyone agrees that we need to talk about men – from campaigns to improve their mental health to authors like Caitlin Moran releasing books called What About Men? The question is, why do we seem to be getting it so wrong?
Some argue that contemporary feminist discussions about young women, from ‘He for She’ campaigns to the fallout from the #MeToo movement, often seem to put boys down in order to raise girls up. Others argue that the contemporary condemnation of ‘toxic masculinity’ has eliminated any discussion about what a ‘positive’ masculinity might look like, leaving boys to turn to online figures to find out how to grow up.
Has our nervousness about masculinity left us unable to talk to boys about what it means to be a man? Does the popularity of Tate and other influencers prove that sexism is still a problem, or should we be more concerned that large numbers of boys are turning to strangers online for life guidance? Are we dealing with a generation of lost boys, or is this crisis in manhood simply a twenty-first century version of the problem epitomised by The Wild One’s Johnny Strabler?
SPEAKERSNick Dixoncomedian; presenter, GB News; host, The Current Thing; host, The Weekly Sceptic
Dr Ashley Frawleysociologist; author, Significant Emotions and Semiotics of Happiness
Matilda Goslingsocial researcher; author, Evidence-Based Parenting and Teenagers – The Evidence Base (forthcoming)
Dennis Kavanaghdirector, Gay Men’s Network
CHAIRToby Marshallfilm studies teacher; member, AoI Education Forum

Tough Crowd: Graham Linehan in conversation with Andrew Doyle

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Graham Linehan is one of the most acclaimed comedy writers of his generation. He is the co-creator of Father Ted and Black Books, and also wrote and directed The IT Crowd. During his career, he has won five BAFTAs, including a lifetime achievement award.
In recent years, Linehan has become a campaigner for the rights of women and gay people, and his opposition to gender-identity ideology has seen him effectively blacklisted from the comedy industry. As such, he is one of the most high-profile examples of what has become known as ‘cancel culture’. His recent foray into stand-up saw his performance at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe cancelled by two venues; in the end, he performed on a makeshift platform outside the Scottish Parliament.
Linehan has now written a memoir – Tough Crowd: How I Made and Lost a Career in Comedy – in which he reflects on his successes and the strange turn his life has taken.
SPEAKERSGraham Linehancreator and co-creator, Father Ted, Black Books and The IT Crowd; comedy writer, Count Arthur Strong, Brass Eye and The Fast Show; author, Tough Crowd: How I Made and Lost a Career in Comedy
CHAIRAndrew Doylepresenter, Free Speech Nation, GB News; writer and comedian; author, The New Puritans: how the religion of social justice captured the Western world and Free Speech and Why It Matters
 

The politics of hate: is everyone a bigot but me?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The self-image of Western societies as cosmopolitan, liberal and tolerant has collapsed of late, with a darker view taking hold of people as extreme, hate-filled and hurtful. For example, in the wake of the Hamas attacks on Israel, anti-Semitism – ‘the oldest hatred’ – has come forcefully into public view. Accordingly, controlling ‘hate speech’ has become a major focus for critics and campaigners, as well as legislators and regulators. They proceed in the belief that, as one Guardian commentator put it: ‘Words of hate create an ethos of hate, an atmosphere of hate, a political, social Petri dish of hate. Eventually, spoken words become deeds.’
Campaigners say escalating incidences of hate justify interventions. The most recent published date show 155,841 offences recorded in the year to March – up 26 per cent from the previous year – with hate crimes against transgender people seeing the biggest increase, jumping by 56 per cent since last year. Meanwhile, in the past five years, the number of recorded non-crime hate incidents (NCHI) has grown to 120,000.
Critics say the nebulous definition and subjective interpretation of hate, which is largely in the eye of the victim or reporter, is trivialising such ‘crimes’. But is there more to this issue than definitional disarray? Some say the problem is being inflated by ‘fishing’ exercises. The Citizen’s Advice Bureau, for example, says ‘it is always best’ to ‘act early’ and report incidents even if ‘unsure whether the incident is a criminal offence… or serious enough to be reported’. Meanwhile, Police Scotland has promised to set up a new unit to tackle ‘hate crimes’ such as misgendering and denying men access to ladies’ toilets.
Some say that what is labelled ‘hate speech’ is increasingly being weaponised to silence opponents and narrow viewpoint diversity. Groups such as Stop Funding Hate aim to persuade advertisers to pull support from broadcasters and publications on the grounds that views aired spread hate and division. More broadly, fuelled by identity politics, competing groups too often accuse other identities of hate and bigotry – demonising those we disagree with is a tactic used across the political spectrum. On one side, people are labeled hateful TERFs, gammon, alt-right or xenophobic, while the other side are hate-driven snowflakes, misogynists, Remoaners, pinko commies and cry-bullies.
What are the prospects of making political exchange less toxic and productive, if labelling those we disagree with as hate-mongers continues to escalate? How should defenders of freedom best make the case for free speech over hate speech? How should we understand what counts as hate speech, and how do we account for its rise to become central to how Western societies are organising their legal systems and public life?
SPEAKERSKate Harrisco-founder and trustee, LGB Alliance; formerly Brighton Women’s Centre and Brighton Women’s Aid
Eve Kayexecutive producer unscripted; International Emmy winner; Realscreen and Critics Choice Award winner; Creative Arts Emmy winner
Winston Marshallmusician; writer; podcast host, Marshall Matters; founding member, Mumford & Sons
Faisal Saeed Al Mutarfounder and president, Ideas Beyond Borders
Martin Wrightdirector, Positive News; formerly editor-in-chief, Green Futures; former director, Forum for the Future
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Online censorship: an international clampdown?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
According to this year’s Global Expression Report, since the turn of the century, 6.3 billion people – living in 81 countries and amounting to 80 per cent of the global population – have experienced declines in freedom of expression. This ‘free speech recession’ has been attributed to various developments. Numerous countries – led by the likes of Brazil, France and Germany, but stretching far and wide to Canada and Australia – have developed measures to criminalise speech, often including political speech that is now interpreted as discriminatory or hateful. Closer to home, Ireland and Scotland have enacted online hate legislation and the UK government has pushed its own Online Safety Bill through parliament.
One favoured ‘excuse’ for censorship is tackling misinformation. Much of the focus is online, where national legislators gain support from supranational bodies such as the EU, via initiatives such as the Digital Services Act (DSA). Regulators are often backed up by clandestine task forces such as the UK’s Counter Disinformation Unit while public broadcasters are increasingly anointed ‘gatekeepers of truth’ asked to identify ‘fake news’ and ‘verify’ what can be heard or seen. After the Twitter Files revealed Big Tech colludes with state agencies to manipulate information through flagging, filtering and ‘shadow-banning’ what can be seen, the Biden-led White House was accused by a federal judge of acting as ‘an Orwellian Ministry of Truth’.
Another justification for censorship is ‘hate speech’. While ‘hate’ is often defined in highly subjective ways, what should be done about the dissemination of outright propaganda, for example, in favour of Hamas?
On the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where UN member-states asserted the freedom ‘to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers’, what is driving the loss of belief in free expression? Some say that in an online age, misinformation is now the most pressing global challenge, others that fears over populism allied to the culture wars have fostered a loss of faith in the public to be trusted with free expression. Some commentators go so far as to argue that a new all-powerful ‘deep state’, driven by governments and Big Tech, has created a ‘Censorship Industrial Complex’.
Are we right to talk about global trends or are there significant differences across countries – and if so, what are the most important developments? With countries such as Ireland making even private possession of offensive material a crime and the UK’s Online Safety Bill potentially opening the floodgates to banishing private chat by outlawing end-to-end encryption messaging services such as WhatsApp, how worried should we be about the consequences for privacy? Does the new ease of online accessibility justify the new strict regulations and penalties? How should we balance concerns about safety and security with protecting freedom? How best can we make the case for free expression to overcome the international drive towards censorship?
SPEAKERSSilkie Carlodirector, Big Brother Watch; co-author, Information Security for Journalists
Thomas Fazijournalist and writer; author, The Battle for Europe: how an elite hijacked a continent - and how we can take it back and The Covid Consensus: the global assault on democracy and the poor - a critique from the Left
Konstantin Kisinsatirist; podcaster, TRIGGERnometry; author, An Immigrant's Love Letter to the West
Dr Norman Lewisvisiting research fellow, MCC Brussels; co-author, Big Potatoes: the London manifesto for innovation
CHAIRToby Younggeneral secretary, Free Speech Union; author, How to Lose Friends & Alienate People; associate editor, Spectator

Net zero: can the economy and democracy survive?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Climate change has become the great overarching mission of our times for politicians and business leaders. With the UN secretary general declaring that we are now in an era of ‘global boiling’, every leading politician talks about reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to ‘net zero’ – with the few emissions the economy does produce balanced by some method to soak them up, from planting trees to carbon capture and storage. As a result, a timetable has been created to eliminate emissions, step by step, between now and 2050.
Proponents of Net Zero argue that the process could be a creative one, leading to the development of new technologies and millions of well-paid ‘green’ jobs. Moreover, they point to opinion polls which suggest that the idea is popular with the public.
But the price to be paid for Net Zero is becoming ever clearer and is no longer a distant prospect. As soon as 2026, new oil-powered boilers will be banned and all new housing must have heat pumps installed. Gas boilers, petrol and diesel cars and cheap flights are all in the firing line.
But the impact of Net Zero goes way beyond these measures, with major impacts on jobs and livelihoods. For example, farmers in the Netherlands and Ireland have been angered by EU emissions targets that mean the number of animals that can be reared must be drastically reduced. Energy for industry is becoming more expensive, too, with many high energy users already looking at much lower costs in the US, where the exploitation of shale gas through fracking has kept prices low.
Opinion polls suggest that while Net Zero is popular in the abstract, the policies designed to make it happen are much less so. Moreover, with unanimity among the major parties in the UK that Net Zero is an inviolable policy, there is no electoral route to push back against such policies, except to vote for smaller parties with little hope of winning seats in the near future. Indeed, for some environmentalists, there can be no choice in the matter: if necessary, democracy must be sacrificed to the need to cut emissions.
That said, the Uxbridge by-election – which became something of a referendum on Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ policy – seems to have caused consternation among the major parties. Even though Net Zero itself wasn’t in question, a major environmental initiative seemed to be resoundingly rejected at the ballot box.
Is Net Zero an unpleasant necessity or, more positively, the start of a new industrial revolution? Or is it a policy that is being pursued without the technical means of achieving it in an affordable fashion? Will the backlash against Net Zero increase – and will it matter if governments are determined to pursue it, whether we like it or not?
SPEAKERSLord David Frostmember of the House of Lords
Rob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum
Scarlett Maguiredirector, J.L. Partners; former producer in media
John McTernanpolitical strategist, BCW; former director of political operations, Blair government; writer, Financial Times and UnHerd
CHAIRPhil Mullanwriter, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

Housing crisis: is the leasehold scam a distraction?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In the middle of a housing crisis, where some believe that the emphasis in Westminster and Whitehall should be that we need to ‘build, build, build’, some campaigners – and indeed with Labour and Tory frontbench support – focus less on building more, than on a scandal about a type of homeownership: leasehold.
For many people, buying their first home or affordable flat means they buy a leasehold property, not realising they don’t own a single brick of the properties they thought they were buying. In recent years, there have been multiple scandals surrounding leaseholds. In particular, the messy fallout from the Grenfell Tower tragedy has shone a light on the lack of consumer protection against new-build defects. Freeholder landlords claim to be ‘noble custodians’, bearing the burdens of building ownership and, in return, collecting the income. But with leaseholders facing spiralling and crippling service charges, tens of thousands have discovered that when it comes to paying to fix faulty buildings, they have all the costs and no control, a form of glorified tenancy. No wonder many are now campaigning to abolish leasehold.
However, some claim that those campaigning against ‘toxic tenure’ are a new breed of NIMBYs, with the drive to abolish leasehold likely to be used as yet another excuse to block development and shore up existing homeowners’ property prices. At least leaseholders have a home, it’s argued; focusing on tenure is a luxury compared to those who can’t afford to buy or rent because of the lack of housing stock.
Critics of leasehold reply by noting that existing leasehold flats are just not selling, and argue that the flats market cannot be revived in England and Wales – and the housing crisis cannot be resolved – without tenure reform, including a ban on the creation of future leasehold tenancies. The price gap between freehold houses and leasehold apartments is the widest it has been in 20 years, according to property website Zoopla.
The abolitionists argue for a mass shift to a resident-controlled commonhold system that is the default arrangement for flat living almost everywhere else in the world. Is that too extreme and disruptive? Is the great leasehold debate – which is preoccupying mainstream political parties and a focus for leaseholder activists – an unnecessary, even dangerous, distraction for building more in the middle of our housing crisis? Or is solving tenure essential to ensuring we don’t scam those desperate for their own home into a nightmarish and expensive form of bondage to rich freeholders?
SPEAKERSColin Hortonmanaging director, Hortons Group; founder, Flat; co-owner, Project & Co; podcaster
Harry Scoffinco-founder, Commonhold Now, housing campaigner; freelance journalist
Melissa Yorkassistant property editor, The Times & Sunday Times
CHAIRAustin Williamsdirector, Future Cities Project; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution; convenor, Critical Subjects Architecture School

Housing Britain: YIMBYS vs. NIMBYS

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
When Conservative MP Theresa Villiers recently led 60 rebel Tory MPs to bulldoze the government into scrapping mandatory housing targets, she was dubbed ‘the patron saint of NIMBYism’. Notoriously, the UK planning system empowers those wishing to object to new homes and infrastructure – on grounds ranging from sensible to spurious. Removing targets acting as a big stick to force local councils to permit enough new homes in their areas is considered by some to give a green light to NIMBYs who – reflecting their ‘not-in-my-backyard’ attitude to development – delay or even stop much needed projects, thereby ‘spitting in the face of a generation’ as younger people find it harder than ever to own a home.
However, a new force has recently stepped into the fray. YIMBYs – or ‘yes-in-my-backyard’ – are fed up with Britain’s long-standing inability to build. Fuelled by angry millennials and inspired by counterparts around the world, including North America and Australia, new groups have emerged in cities such as London, Oxford and Cambridge. Backed by Keir Starmer, who pledges to take the side of ‘builders not the blockers’, YIMBYs vow to take on their NIMBY nemeses and head to planning meetings en masse to argue for more housing – often the type of dense, city infill projects or urban expansions that generate most opposition from NIMBYs.
While the battle lines seem clear, is this battle more complicated than it seems? After all, while derided NIMBYs can be small numbers of loud, local campaigners, or well-funded third-sector campaigns from the RSPB or National Trust, they often push at an open door of a system incentivising councillors or MPs of all parties to block developments. Meanwhile, the YIMBY cry of ‘build, build, build’ might appear to solve our problems, but given this seldom stretches to the infrastructure – schools and hospitals, never mind concert halls and parks, that make places work – can anyone blame NIMBYs for sceptical attitudes to development?
To complicate matters, demographic tensions mean the housing debate can often be framed as old, selfish homeowners blocking young people’s desperate housing needs. Meanwhile, increasing migration means housing can become embroiled in arguments about attitudes to refugees, with YIMBY campaigners accused of metropolitan disdain for communities’ concerns about overcrowded towns and fragmenting social cohesion caused by a careless demand for endless new builds.
Can we avoid this moral framing of the housing debate? Might the introduction of New Towns meet both sides’ aspirations? Do we need denser development, or should we bite the bullet and build on the green belt? And with value-for-money measures typically favouring development in the more prosperous and populous South East of England over the North, could YIMBYism merely entrench existing regional inequalities?
SPEAKERSJames Heartfieldlecturer and author
Molly Kingsleyco-founder, UsForThem; co-author, The Children’s Inquiry
Lord MoylanConservative peer
Shreya Nandaeconomist; senior fellow, Social Market Foundation; adviser, London YIMBY
Charlie Winstanleypolitical advisor to the Mayor of Salford; co-author, GM Housing Strategy
CHAIRJoel Cohenassociate fellow, Academy of Ideas