Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

Taking back control: who will defend autonomy today?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House in London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The idea that we are capable of making important decisions for ourselves seems to have fallen out of fashion. The left has long assumed that the results of elections are determined by the interests of billionaire media moguls rather than the interests of voters. The ‘nanny state’ directs us to change our bad habits, from smoking bans and strict gambling rules to sugar taxes and minimum prices for alcohol. Governments around the world have flirted with ‘nudge’ policies as a politically palatable version of paternalism.
For many on the left, autonomy and agency are myths. Instead of defending free will, many groups – from the poor to gamblers – are assumed to need intervention from experts. If those on the right traditionally lampooned ‘nanny staters’, there seems to have been a shift in regarding individual autonomy as problematic. Too much freedom is discussed as a threat to community, associated with selfishness, self-indulgent identity politics, and the unrestrained and corrosive passions unleashed by expressive individualism. Both sides seem to have lost faith in the capacity of individuals for moral decision making.
But if choices are taken away from us, some argue that there is little point in ethics and moral reasoning. We have no need to develop as adults, parents and citizens because all the important decisions are made for us. The upshot is a society that is morally weak with little capacity to shape the future.
Moreover, the rejection of autonomy is inconsistent. For example, battle lines have recently been drawn on two issues – abortion rights and vaccine mandates. Those who value choice on one of these issues are often vehemently opposed to allowing choice on the other.
Is autonomy a myth in a society where so many events and circumstances are beyond our control? What’s wrong with experts making the ‘right’ choices for us? Is there anyone willing to defend free will and autonomy today – and if not, why?
SPEAKERS
Dr Ashley Frawleysenior lecturer in sociology and social policy, Swansea University; author, Significant Emotions and Semiotics of Happiness
Ann Furediauthor, The Moral Case for Abortion; former chief executive, BPAS
Nina Powerphilosopher; senior editor, Compact Magazine; author, What Do Men Want?: masculinity and its discontents
Christopher Snowdonhead of lifestyle economics, Institute of Economic Affairs; editor, Nanny State Index; author, Killjoys
CHAIR
Rob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum

Globalism in crisis: has Davos Man had his day?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October, at Church House in London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The ‘double whammy’ of the Covid pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have shattered the faith many had in the globalist world order. Covid – with its accompanying lockdowns, travel restrictions and supply-chain disruptions – shook the belief in the idea of an ever-converging world, with goods, people and money only ever a short flight away. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shook the idea that, after the Cold War, confrontation between major powers was impossible in a closely integrated world. Both shook faith in the global institutions, systems, and regulatory bodies that were supposed to prevent these crises.
Yet even before these shocks, the populist revolts of Trumpism and Brexit suggested that many across the West were unhappy with the march of globalisation and the rise of international technocrats.
Even if the economic processes underpinning globalisation are unlikely to ever subside, the ideology of ‘Globalism’ – that decisions are better made by global leaders, businesses, technocrats and experts rather than national elites or ordinary people – seems deeply weakened. The pronouncements of the World Economic Forum – with Davos as the natural habitat of globalist movers and shakers – are now widely and routinely mocked online. The pandemic and energy crises have forced renewed attention on national politicians rather than globe-trotting technocrats. Even the international reaction to the invasion of Ukraine has been more dominated by national leaders like Biden, Johnson and Zelensky than by leading lights in the UN or EU.
Yet, when talk returns to the ‘climate crisis’, international cooperation, global organisations and experts return to the fore. When it comes to inflation, too, central bankers are careful to coordinate their policies internationally. Technologies like the internet continue to forge a sense of connection across national boundaries. Even the ‘onshoring’ of supply chains is carefully coordinated by global corporations.
Is Globalism really finished? Can it survive the populist challenges of the present? And what is Globalism anyway?
SPEAKERS
Lord Maurice GlasmanLabour life peer; author, Blue Labour: the politics of the common good; director, the Common Good Foundation
Joan HoeyEurope director and editor, the Democracy Index, EIU; regional director for Europe, Economist Intelligence’s Country Analysis division
Eric Kaufmannprofessor of politics, Birkbeck College, University of London; Advisory Council member, Free Speech Union; author, The Political Culture of Young Britain and The Politics of the Culture Wars in Contemporary Britain
Professor Vicky Prycechief economic adviser and board member, Centre for Economics and Business Research; author, Women vs Capitalism
CHAIR
Phil MullanWriter, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

Can populism win the future?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022, Saturday 15 October, Church House, London
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Reports of populism’s death appear to have been greatly exaggerated. Yes, Donald Trump was bundled out of the White House. Remainers cheer Boris Johnson’s departure and the end of Vote Leave’s presence at No.10. In Europe, the parties in Germany, Slovenia and Poland who harnessed anti-establishment anger have found themselves on the defensive.
Claims that the populist experiment was killed off by the mishandling of the Covid pandemic by populist leaders, and that normal service will now resume, seem wide of the mark. Joe Biden’s presidency has succeeded in reinvigorating opposition to ‘Beltway politics’. The gilets jaunes may be less prominent in France, but support for Marine Le Pen’s National Rally and Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s La Nouvelle Union Popular has taken off. In Italy, technocrat Mario Draghi resigned, leaving Brothers of Italy on the cusp of power, while the EU’s irritant-in-chief, Viktor Orbán, swept to victory in this year’s Hungarian elections. Beyond populist parties, lockdowns and vaccine mandates encouraged widespread protest movements, notably the Canadian truckers, who in turn inspired tractor protesters making waves in Europe and beyond.
But while populists stubbornly refuse to depart the scene, questions remain as to how people’s aspirations for change can be realised. In 2019, the Conservative Party gained an 80-seat majority on pledge to ‘Get Brexit Done’ only to compromise on Brexit and take more control for the executive – leaving the electorate feeling side-lined once again. Is this confirmation that widespread yearning for change necessitates a break from the old and formation of new parties? In France, two thirds of voters did switch to anti-establishment parties and groups. However, Macron remains in power and new parties compromised on their opposition to the EU. All in all, despite ongoing movements agitating for popular change have gained significant support, they have not yet decisively broken through to represent majority opinion.
How can populists and the politically homeless take the next step and shape the political outlook and organisations that can meet challenges ahead? Having made progress countering technocratic political parties, can populists respond to the growing politicisation and influence of unelected experts, so evident during the pandemic and increasingly via economic crisis? Will an increasing focus on issues such as Net Zero and the onset of a cost-of-living crisis change the political dynamics? Given cultural and political establishments remain firmly in control of institutions, especially the media, what now needs to be done to take back control and radically shape the future of politics?
SPEAKERS
Ivar Arpijournalist; publisher and podcaster, Rak höger; co-author, Så blev vi alla rasister and Genusdoktrinen
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
Sherelle Jacobscolumnist, Daily Telegraph
Tom Slatereditor, spiked; regular commentator on TV and radio; co-host, spiked podcast
CHAIR
Alastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Call to courage: winning the battle of ideas

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022, Sunday 16 October, Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Recent events have forced us to confront the meaning of courage. Priti Patel may have created a new award for civil bravery in one of her last acts as Home Secretary, but vulnerability has, for some time, been favoured more than valour. Witness the expansion of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from a rare condition – often associated with war-related trauma – to an everyday figure of speech. Today, there are those that even claim to suffer from PTSD after being ‘triggered’ by ‘harmful’ literary works or statues.
In this context, the impressive, against-all-odds resistance of the Ukrainian people against Russia’s invasion stands out. Thousands of ordinary farmers, factory workers, taxi drivers, professors and students courageously volunteered to take on the fourth largest power on earth because they believe that defending their national freedom is so important. Likewise, the recent protests in Iran have been inspirational – with women defying the brutality of the morality police to demand greater freedom from religious autocracy.
But courage is not just needed in times of war, or when under the thumb of authoritarian regimes. If once we talked about courage of convictions, today’s principle-lite, U-turning leaders illustrate how cancel culture makes cowards of far too many. In contrast, the heroism of Salman Rushdie or JK Rowling – in refusing to capitulate to censors, bullies or fatwas – shows that courage remains the political virtue par excellence, even if only espoused by a minority.
Do we all need to take a lesson from such examples of courage? Many have noted the dispiriting rise of so-called ‘bystanders’ – people who merely look on while evil unfolds in front of them. This is commonly noted with regards to people standing and filming acts of violence or bad behaviour, rather than intervening. Do slogans like ‘see it, say it, sorted’, encourage a passive, ‘let the authorities deal with it’ attitude – rather than an active, courageous one? Such an attitude may not even be limited to the public. Even police forces, like those on guard at the Manchester Arena before the bombing, or responding to a school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, have been accused of preferring passivity to intervention. Explanations range from social atomisation to fear of lawsuits or excessive bureaucracy. Whatever the reason, such generalised passivity is put into sharp focus by the actions of so-called ‘have-a-go-heroes’ – such as Folajimi Olubunmi-Adewole, who died heroically trying to rescue a drowning woman. In this era of safety first, risk aversion, and even nihilistic fatalism, do we need to draw on the older virtue of courage just to dare to live freely?
Today – at a time of enormous upheavals and significant political challenges – do we need to bring courage back into politics? There are certainly encouraging signs – do recent successes of gender-critical activists, the push back against diversity policies, or support for those threatened with being cancelled indicate new forms of solidarity? Can fighting back against the cost-of-living crisis, under the banner of Enough is Enough, forge a new movement? And as millions of UK citizens courageously refused to back down – and succeeded in forcing the establishment to ensure their democratic vote was not overturned – is the democratic Brexit spirit of taking back control ready to be rekindled?
SPEAKERS
Julie Bindeljournalist; author, Feminism for Women: the real route to liberation
Professor Sunetra Guptaprofessor of theoretical epidemiology, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford; award-winning novelist
Ali Mirajcolumnist, TheArticle; founder, the Contrarian Prize; infrastructure financier; DJ
Tim Stanleycolumnist and leader writer, Daily Telegraph; author, Whatever Happened to Tradition? History, Belonging and the Future of the West
Bruno WaterfieldBrussels correspondent, The Times
CHAIR
Claire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Age of ‘isms’: what happened to ideology?

Recorded on Sunday 16 October 2022 at Church House, Westminster, London
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
With epithets such as neo-fascism or cultural Marxism hurled around with abandon, you could be forgiven for thinking society is gripped by partisan political rivals in thrall to ideological fervour. In reality, while we face many enormous challenges, big political ideas seem in short supply. But is that true?
The Tory leadership race attracted scorn for offering little more than reheated versions of Thatcherism. Keir Starmer’s Labour Party is criticised as a poor Tony Blair tribute act. Attempts to outline new political ‘visions’ – from Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ to Johnson’s ‘Levelling Up’ – invariably fall flat. At the same time, disruptive change that does have potential to transform the status quo – from Brexit to Extinction Rebellion – is routinely dismissed as extremist.
For most of the twentieth century, politics was dominated by big, competing visions of the future and contested ideological outlooks – the major ‘isms’ of Liberalism, Socialism and Communism. But after the end of the Cold War, politicians began to make a virtue of avoiding such all-encompassing visions, announcing that the ‘end of history’ meant a retreat from such political conflict. In the new post-ideological age of technocracy and managerialism, politicians promised to run governments like businesses, based on ‘results’, not big ideas. An obsession with ‘delivery’ and calls to ‘follow the science’ and defer to experts seemed to place ideological vision beyond the pale.
However, with politics today feeling ever more charged and divisive, we might ask if the hold of ideology over society remains as strong as ever. After all, we’ve seen the rise of a new generation of ‘isms’ – from neoliberalism to globalism. Meanwhile, sweeping changes to society are being realised as government departments, policy makers, arts institutions and corporations alike pursue agendas of environmentalism and transgenderism, albeit presented as promoting the ‘values’ of sustainability and diversity. In our supposedly non-ideological times, has ideology been smuggled in through the back door to remain pervasive in all parts of society, whether public or private?
What do we mean by ideology and what forms do they take today? How does ideology differ from other categories, such as morality or political ideals? Do we live in an era of less explicit or even silent ideologies and, if so, what are the important systems of ideas today? In times of crisis, when pragmatism is associated with short-termism and endless U-turns, could we benefit from an injection of ideological zeal? How do those who seek support for a transformative political project move forward today?
SPEAKERS
Professor Frank Furedisociologist and social commentator; author, The Road to Ukraine: how the West lost its way and 100 Years of Identity Crisis: culture war over socialisation
Rod Liddlecolumnist, The Sunday Times, the Sun and the Spectator; author, The Great Betrayal; associate editor, Spectator; former editor, BBC Radio 4 Today programme
John McTernanpolitical strategist; former director of political operations, Blair government; writer, Financial Times and Unherd
Dr Zoe Strimpelhistorian; British Academy research fellow, University of Warwick; columnist, Sunday Telegraph; author, What the Hell Is He Thinking?, The Man Diet and Seeking Love in Modern Britain
CHAIR
Alastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Can culture survive the culture wars?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2021 on Sunday 9 October at Church House, Westminster, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Cultural works of value were previously understood to be those that proved themselves through the passage of time. Many people will be familiar with the defence of culture by Matthew Arnold, who described it as ‘acquainting ourselves with the best that has been known and said in the world, and thus with the history of the human spirit’.
But for some, the past is increasingly viewed as a dark and problematic place. Works from previous generations inevitably contain ideas and words that were of their time – some we might want to hold on to, and some might seem unacceptable today. And a growing number of contemporary critics now argue that cultural artefacts of the past that don’t align with modern sentiments and values should be forgotten – even removed – despite their aesthetic quality.
Censorship has long existed in the arts – from governments banning authors like DH Lawrence for his sexually explicit content to the BBC refusing to air Ewan McColl’s music because of his ‘communist’ sympathies. But many argue that today’s hostility to cultural heritage is different. Instead of conservative attempts to control the status quo by rejecting new ideas, today’s critics are focused on what has come before.
Both Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn and Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird have been removed from curricula and libraries in the UK and US, with critics complaining of the use of the ‘n-word’ and racist stereotypes in both books. Likewise, the Tate’s director, Alex Farquharson, has said that JMW Turner ‘mustn’t be idolised’ because he once bought a share in a Jamaican cattle ranch. There was uproar when the Royal Court staged a new production of Andrea Dunbar’s play Rita, Sue and Bob Too, with one critic arguing that a ‘a tale of grooming, underage sex and “slut-shaming”’ shouldn’t have been allowed in a post #MeToo era.
Channels like Turner Classic Movies and Disney Plus have placed content warnings on films like Gone With The Wind to inform viewers of racist content before they begin viewing. Similar moves are afoot in theatre, where a recent production of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet featured trigger warnings about its depiction of suicide, moments of violence and references to drug use. Fans of such moves applaud the ability to make works more ‘relevant’ or ‘accessible’, while critics argue that these modern tweaks change the audience’s ability to come to their own conclusions about the meaning and intent of the play.
What happens when we judge the culture of the past by the morals of the present? Do we risk missing art’s transcendental or universal qualities if we focus on the political content of our cultural history? Who decides what is culturally acceptable, and what must face the chopping block? Is the war on culture righteous iconoclasm, or is this resistance to the past a danger to our appreciation of culture in the here and now?
SPEAKERS
Jan Bowmanartist; illustrator; author
Dolan Cummingsauthor, Gehenna: a novel of Hell and Earth; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas; co-founder, Manifesto Club
Jonathan Grantchartered accountant; arts critic
Josephine Husseyschool teacher; theatre lover
Dr Philip Kiszelylecturer in performance and cultural histories, University of Leeds; author, Hollywood through Private Eyes
CHAIRJane Sandemanchief operating officer, The Passage; convenor, AoI Parents Forum; contributor, Standing up to Supernanny

What does the Sewell Report mean for education?

Recorded at Open for Debate on Saturday 31 July 2021 at Church House, Westminster, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In summer 2020, Prime Minister Boris Johnson commissioned an investigation into race and ethnic disparities in the UK. The committee published its report this March, and many of its key findings focus on education. At a time when anti-racist campaigners accuse the education system of entrenching a system of ‘white privilege’, the report argues that the relationship between education and racial discrimination is not so straightforward.
The ‘Sewell Report’, colloquially named after its lead author Dr Tony Sewell, claims that ‘new arrivals to Britain have seized on the opportunities afforded by the state-school system and access to university. The story for some ethnic groups has been one of remarkable social mobility, outperforming the national average and enabling them to attain success at the highest levels within a generation. Conversely, other groups experience lower than average educational outcomes which can have a significant impact on employment rates, earnings and general wellbeing. It is important to understand why these disparities arise and what can be done to reduce them.’
The report’s practical recommendations include: ‘raising the status of technical and vocational education, providing more school-leaver apprenticeships and offering second chances for those who do not get on the academic ladder at 16, or who fall off it at or after university’. It also appears to acknowledge the validity of calls from Black Lives Matter campaigners for a ‘decolonised curriculum’, in its recommendation that all pupils should be equipped with ‘a wider understanding of the UK which encompasses the contributions made by different groups, cultures and regions’.
Despite the report’s claims to provide a nuanced insight into the issue of race and racism, it generated immediate controversy. A group of teaching unions branded it an ‘insult to all those in Britain who experience racism every day of their lives’. Kalwant Bhopal, director of the Centre for Research in Race and Education at the University of Birmingham, said the report was ‘based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how racism works’. Defenders of the report, however, have argued that critics have not engaged with its content, and that it provides a much-needed positive alternative to the dominant victim-oriented account of race relations.
So what does the report actually say, and how valid are its claims about race and education? Is education really the ‘single most emphatic success story of the British ethnic minority experience’, or does the report undermine attempts to tackle racism in schools and universities? How does the way the report’s supporters and critics understand the concept of race differ? This is a chance to hear directly from the lead author and discuss what, if anything, we can learn from the report.
SPEAKERS
Kunle Olulodedirector, Voice4Change England
Zara Qureshiproject manager, The Equiano Project; co-founding member, Free Speech Champions
Dr Tony Sewell CBEchair, Generating Genius; chairman, The Sewell Report; former chair, Race and Ethnic Disparities Commission
James Tooleyvice chancellor, University of Buckingham; author, The Beautiful Tree
Professor Patrick Vernon OBEindependent non-executive director, Birmingham and Solihull ICS; social commentator; co-author, 100 Great Black Britons; creator, Every Generation Game: Windrush Edition; fellow, Clore and Winston Churchill
CHAIR
Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthberthead of education and co-ordinator, Don't Divide Us; author, What should schools teach? Disciplines, subjects and the pursuit of truth