Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

Free speech on campus: should hecklers be banned?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The right to protest and heckle is crucial to exercising our freedom of speech. But increasingly, actions on campus are deliberately designed to disrupt proceedings and to intimidate and silence speakers.
Protests at the University of Edinburgh resulted in a film showing of Adult Human Female being abandoned – twice. Kathleen Stock’s appearance at the Oxford Union was disrupted by an activist glued to the debating-chamber floor near the speaker’s chair. Infamously, at Goldsmiths, University of London, Maryam Namazie’s talk on blasphemy and apostasy was abandoned when Islamic Society students aggressively interrupted her before switching off the slide projector.
Such protests – or the possibility of disorderly protests – that lead to an event being cancelled, abandoned or rendered pointless amount to a ‘heckler’s veto’.
In the context of campus free-speech wars, the new Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act places a duty on universities to champion academic freedom and free speech. However, concerns over the chilling effect of the heckler’s veto have led some supporters of freedom to argue institutions should not be obliged to support forms of speech that restrict another person’s right to free expression or academic freedom. The right to protest, they argue, does not amount to a right to silence others, not least as free expression within universities is vital to developing knowledge.
Defenders of these protests say opponents of gender-critical views should be equally free to express themselves – and that it’s better to protest speakers they dislike rather than try to get them cancelled. Noisy, disruptive interventions, they argue, are simply a form of free speech – and the heckle is a long-standing and legitimate tactic to express disagreement. They also point to the irony of a free-speech act being used to limit freedom, and worry that to ban these protests could invite ever more restrictions. For example, a protester who was arrested outside Adult Human Female was subsequently banned from attending or being within 200 feet of any protest on any subject on the university’s campus. Vice-chancellors have warned that anyone expressing support for Hamas could face arrest.
How should we respond to the dilemma of the heckler’s veto? Should universities take practical steps to restrict protests when they are so loud that they deny someone else’s free speech, whether over trans issues or the conflict in Israel? Is it legitimate to veto the heckler’s veto? Or could this be a slippery slope that may end up constraining and compromising wider hard-won freedoms?
SPEAKERSDennis Hayesprofessor of education, University of Derby; founder and director, Academics For Academic Freedom (AFAF); author, The Death of Academic Freedom? Free speech and censorship
Dr Holly Lawford-Smithassociate professor in political philosophy, University of Melbourne; author, Gender-Critical Feminism and Sex Matters: Essays in Gender-Critical Philosophy
Dr James Orrassociate professor of philosophy of religion, University of Cambridge
Professor Alice Sullivanprofessor of sociology, UCL Social Research Institute
Professor James Tooleyvice chancellor, University of Buckingham; author, The Beautiful Tree
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Extreme weather: Can we adapt to a changing climate?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The wildfire in Hawaii in August is just one example of extreme weather and natural disasters in recent months. Southern Europe has baked in record temperatures. Indeed, July was reportedly the hottest month globally since records began. Earlier this year, wildfires in Canada covered much of the north-eastern US with smoke. There have also been major floods and landslides this year in Sweden, Slovenia and the Czech Republic. Last year, devastating floods affected Pakistan, leaving over 1,700 people dead.
Environmental campaigners, experts and many politicians argue that climate change is already making such events more likely. Disasters aside, extreme weather events make life much more unpleasant and costly. Extreme weather will continue to become more common unless we phase out fossil fuels and cut emissions.
But others note that the data on extreme weather does not, in the main, support the idea that these events are becoming more common. Moreover, they argue that economic development allows societies to be better prepared and more resilient when disaster strikes. Diverting vast resources to reducing emissions could actually lead to more deaths in the future, particularly in poorer countries.
Should we spend trillions on reducing our greenhouse-gas emissions? Given that economic losses from such events can be enormous, even if lives are saved, isn’t prevention better than cure? Or would that money be better spent on making societies more resilient to extreme weather? Does the narrative of climate-change catastrophe get in the way of less dramatic measures that can protect people and property?
SPEAKERSTimandra Harknessjournalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree; author, Big Data: does size matter?
Laurie Laybournresearcher; writer; associate fellow, Institute for Public Policy Research; co-author, Planet on Fire: A manifesto for the age of environmental breakdown
Harry Wilkinsonhead of policy, Global Warming Policy Foundation
Martin Wrightdirector, Positive News; formerly editor-in-chief, Green Futures; former director, Forum for the Future
CHAIRJacob Reynoldshead of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Can renewables power the world?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
There is wide agreement across politics, business and academia that climate change is the preeminent threat to humanity and that fossil fuels must be phased out as quickly as possible. The most popular solution, it would seem, is to power society using renewable energy. Some forms of renewable power, like hydro power, are too limited to specific geographies to make a big difference, so two have come to dominate: wind and solar.
Proponents argue that both are potentially cheaper than using fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal. Once the capital costs have been paid, capturing energy from the wind or the sun is very cheap because there is no fuel required – nature provides it for free. We simply need to build enough wind turbines and solar panels to generate what we need. With better storage technologies, we can compensate for days of low wind or little sun by using the excess generated at other times. Many environmentalists argue they are a much better answer than nuclear, too.
But opponents argue that wind and solar are simply too unreliable to serve the needs of modern economies. In the UK, for example, there are often spells in winter with short days, low wind and cold temperatures. We simply couldn’t store enough power to cover these shortfalls. The costs and the sheer amount of materials that would be required make it practically impossible. Indeed, they argue, the claim that renewables are cheap is simply false. Such technologies are no substitute, critics say, for the low cost and energy density of fossil fuels. No wonder that where renewables have been rapidly introduced, energy costs have gone up, too.
Are renewables the answer to the climate crisis and our energy needs? Can we solve the issues with storage? Should we pursue nuclear as well – or even instead? Are the costs of ditching fossil fuels simply too high?
SPEAKERSProf Dr Michaela KendallCEO, Adelan; UK Hydrogen Champion for Mission Innovation, UK Government
Simon Nashenvironmentalist; speaker; activist and founder, Green Oil bicycle lubes
Dr Ralph Schoellhammercommentator and podcaster; lecturer, Webster University Vienna and MCC Brussels
James Woudhuysenvisiting professor, forecasting and innovation, London South Bank University
CHAIRRob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum

Why do comedians keep siding with the establishment?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
At this year’s Edinburgh Festival Fringe, Comedy Unleashed’s show, featuring Graham Linehan, was cancelled because the venue did not ‘support his views’ and his presence would ‘violate their space’. The edgy spirit that used to characterise the Edinburgh Festival Fringe specifically, and stand-up comedy more generally, seems to have evaporated. There was no outcry from comedians attending the festival and very few publicly expressed even the mildest of support for free expression in the arts.
Earlier this year, Nigel Farage was debanked by Coutts, for expressing views that go against the bank’s ‘values’. Despite the bankers themselves having admitted fault, comedian Omid Djalili publicly sided with the elite bank. When comedians see no problem with using the denial of banking services as a form of punishment for holding certain views, how can they claim that they are ‘punching up’?
Why do comedians increasingly side with the Establishment? How can comics say that they are ‘punching up’ when they support the people being ‘cancelled’ by corporations? As society becomes more authoritarian, where is the satirical response and creative backlash?
SPEAKERSMiriam Eliasatirical conceptual artist; author, We See the Sights, We Go To The Gallery and We Do Lockdown; creator, A Series Of Psychotic Episodes
Dominic Frisbywriter; comedian; author, Bitcoin: the future of money?
Graham 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
CHAIRAndy Shawco-founder, Comedy Unleashed

What is 'The Blob'?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In the 1950s sci-fi movie, The Blob was a jelly-like creature that landed from space, growing as it consumed every person or town in its path. Seized on by Ronald Reagan’s education secretary, William Bennett, to collectively describe the growth of teachers, public servants, lobbyists and unions who resisted reform, ‘the blob’ was popularised in the UK by Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings, depicting their frustrations at perceived intransigence to reform at the Department for Education.
Since then, the blob has mutated to become a catch-all pejorative term that collectively describes those resistant to the government’s wishes. The BBC and the judiciary are branded as the blob due to perceived anti-Brexit bias. The blob is also blamed for the downfall of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, whose respective pro-Brexit and low-tax worldviews were seemingly resisted or sabotaged within government. Meanwhile, Home Office civil servants allegedly resist implementation of the Rwanda deportation programme, aided by anonymous ECHR judges and activist immigration lawyers boasting of removing clients from flights.
Some say the blob serves as evidence of the dominance of a ‘new elite’, including the civil service acting in tandem with a new graduate class now dominating academia, NGOs and the so-called ‘Charity Industrial Complex’. This shapeless, shifting obstacle to reform acts deliberately to stop policies they oppose, reinforcing a particular status quo at the expense of the concerns of voters. Democratic decision-making, critics say, is under threat by new forces in society that are richer, more influential, and more ideological than ever.
However, the term itself has many critics. Simon Case, the UK’s most senior civil servant, has described use of ‘the blob’ as ‘dehumanising’. Others say overuse of the term, allied to its lack of specificity, allows the Tories and other critics to turn a despondency with institutional resistance into an all-purpose conspiracy theory, used to delegitimise valid concerns of their opponents.
Others point out that, ironically, without critical challenge from civil servants and the third sector, the government could end up in its own echo chamber. Critics of government policy are now being banned from even speaking to civil servants – seemingly undermining the very democracy that those worried about the blob are supposedly concerned about.
Is grouping together such a wide range of experts, political actors and civil society institutions either accurate or useful? Has the civil service really been captured or is this just the latest manifestation of conspiratorial thinking? To what extent is the blob just a convenient scapegoat for politicians to deflect from their own failures? And if a notional blob does, in reality, present resistance to change, what steps could be taken to challenge it?
SPEAKERSProfessor Ian Achesonsenior advisor, Counter Extremism Project; visiting professor, school of law, policing and forensics, University of Staffordshire
Nick Busvine OBEconsultant; founding partner, Herminius Holdings Ltd; advisory board member, Briefings for Britain; former diplomat, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Poppy Coburnassistant comment editor, Daily Telegraph
Professor Bill Durodiéchair of International Relations, department of Politics, Languages and International Studies, University of Bath
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Rising tensions, falling growth: prospects for the global economy?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Economies around the world have been on the back foot in recent years. The Covid pandemic and the policy response to it – from lockdowns and restrictions on travel to business restrictions and furlough payments – continues to be felt. The war in Ukraine has created problems with energy and food supplies, as well as calling into question assumptions about trade. Covid supply-chain problems have reinforced calls to ‘reshore’ or ‘friendshore’ production, potentially putting a brake on globalisation.
But it’s not just such ‘one off’ issues that are leading many commentators to look gloomily at the prospects for economic growth. Poor economic news from Beijing has called into the question of the ability of China to continue to drive the world economy as it has since the crisis in 2008. From ageing populations to dealing with climate change, there are some longstanding headwinds, too.
In the past, the US could play a central role of determining how an economic crisis would be handled. But America is no longer in a dominant economic position to call the shots. Geopolitical tensions, in particular between America and China, may make agreeing on a way forward through the current problems more difficult. The BRICS countries (Brazil, China, Russia, India and South Africa) are trying to forge a path independent of the US, while Europe has plenty of problems of its own.
What are the prospects for the global economy? How will the changing global order affect the international response to an economic slowdown?
SPEAKERSLiam Halligancolumnist, Sunday Telegraph; presenter, On the Money, GB News; author, Home Truths: the UK's chronic housing shortage
Ivan Krastevpolitical analyst; permanent fellow, Institute for Human Sciences, IWM Vienna; chairman, Centre for Liberal Strategies; author, Is it Tomorrow, Yet? How the Pandemic Changes Europe
Helen Searlschief operating officer, Feature Story News
CHAIRPhil Mullanwriter, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

Reviving economies: Is the state a help or a hindrance?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
With the Conservatives doing badly in the polls and Labour riding high, the UK could have a new party in government in the next year or so. How will this change the relationship between the state and the private sector – and will it boost economic performance and living standards?
During the Corbyn years and even beyond, Labour has talked up the possibility of nationalising important parts of the UK economy – such as water and energy supplies and the railways. But more recently, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves appear to have rowed back on such pledges, with Starmer saying he would not be ‘ideological’ about state control.
Many commentators have pointed out that houses are not being built fast enough. While unemployment is relatively low, the quality of jobs is too often poor. Many argue that what it is needed is more state intervention, greater funding for healthcare, a return to state-provided housing and a proper industrial strategy to boost sectors that can be world-leading, especially in supporting the drive to Net Zero.
Others argue that for all the talk of free markets, we actually have too much state intervention and control. Businesses are bound up in regulation. Government expenditure is getting close to the equivalent of 50% of GDP. Planning rules make building anything almost impossible. Far from a free market, we have everyone from civil servants to central bankers determining how the economy develops, with little room for private initiative or democratic control.
But is the state vs market debate moot – because the ability of the state to change things is becoming exhausted? Increasing state spending even further would have relatively little impact, but government debt is already enormous in any event. ‘Cheap money’ policies of low interest rates and quantitative easing have had to be reversed to tackle inflation.
Whoever wins the next election, what is the best way forward for the UK economy?
SPEAKERSPaul Emberyfirefighter; trade unionist; columnist; author, Despised: why the modern Left loathes the working class; broadcaster
Matthew Leshdirector of public policy and communications, Institute of Economic Affairs
Ali Mirajbroadcaster; founder, the Contrarian Prize; infrastructure financier; DJ
Hilary Salt FIA, FPMI, FRSAactuary; founder, First Actuarial
CHAIRPhil Mullanwriter, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

Is there a 'war on the motorist'?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The furore over the widening of London’s ultra-low emissions zone (ULEZ) to include all London boroughs has been identified by many as the latest battleground in a ‘war on the motorist’. The Welsh government has imposed a blanket speed limit of 20mph on all ‘residential’ roads. Low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) have proliferated across the UK, making getting from A to B more difficult and increasing traffic jams on main roads nearby. All that on top of high taxes on fuel – in September 2023, around half the ‘pump price’ was made up of tax. In fact, when global oil prices were lower, as much as three quarters of the pump price was tax.
There have been protests against LTNs in London and independent candidates have stood in council elections to make the case for them to be scrapped. Opponents of London’s ULEZ have gone further, vandalising the cameras that are supposed to catch those who haven’t paid. Critics of anti-car measures point out that they are invaluable for many elderly and disabled people, as well as those with children. Life outside the big cities would be much more difficult without independent transport. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has declared ‘I’m slamming the brakes on the war on motorists’ and ‘hare-brained’ schemes such as LTNs and 20mph zones. Westminster is out of touch and too focussed on trains, he says, declaring: ‘cars are freedom for most people.’
Yet others think the claims of a ‘war on the motorist’ are overblown. Mileage has increased hugely in recent decades, from 141 billion miles in 1982 to 262 billion miles in 2019. The total number of cars rose around 50% between 1994 and 2022, from 21million to 32million – and all those extra vehicles need to park somewhere. The cost of driving has actually fallen compared to the general cost of living, while other forms of transport have become more expensive.
London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, has argued that while the poorest are least likely to own a car, they are much more likely to suffer the consequences of pollution. Drivers tend to be richer, older and of greater social status – are they really so powerless? Indeed, many would argue that cities are much more pleasant when the car is no longer king, creating space for walking and cycling. Campaign group Stop Killing Cyclists argue ’20mph zones make a significant difference for safety for kids’, advocating the Government ‘expand’ 20mph zones.
When so many people rely on cars for personal transport and the whole country relies on vans and trucks to move goods around, why has government at local and national level made driving harder? Is there really a ‘war on the motorist’ when driving is relatively cheaper and more popular than before? What’s wrong with encouraging people to cycle, walk or use public transport?
SPEAKERSMary Dejevskyformer foreign correspondent in Moscow, Paris and Washington; special correspondent in China; writer and broadcaster
Alan Millerco-founder and chair, Together Association;
Simon Nashenvironmentalist; speaker; activist and founder, Green Oil bicycle lubes
CHAIR
Dr Paul Reevesdeveloper of manufacturing simulation technology

Have we given up on sexual freedom?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Sex has never been so fetishised. We hire experts to portray it ‘consensually’ on TV series, we plan classes on how to talk to our kids about it and we row, constantly, about what is the right way to have it. Sex is everywhere – from pop stars in bondage gear to podcasts about technique.
The question is, are we having any? The paradox of our over-sexualised lives is that fewer people – particularly the young – seem to be enjoying casual sex. Poll after poll shows that generation Z is shunning one-night stands in favour of more low-risk escapades, like sexting. With pornographic depictions of women available at the flick of a touchscreen phone, many young people begin their sexual lives already saturated with extreme material. Some argue that this is the fault of the sexual revolution – the mainstreaming of sex and loosening of morals has led to the pornification and sexualisation of childhood. As a result, some young men and women complain that this presents an impossible image to aspire to, turning sex into a disappointment instead of an adventure.
For some, the answer to our problem with sex is that we’ve simply had too much of our cake and eaten it. The self-titled ‘reactionary feminist’ Mary Harrington says that the sexual revolution has failed us. ‘What we need’, she writes ‘is not more freedom, it’s more and better obligations’. Many small-c conservatives claim that what a young generation really needs is less sex and more commitment. For them, high divorce and low birth rates reveal a problem with our relationship with sex. Louise Perry, whose debut book The Case Against the Sexual Revolution has been wildly popular, recently set up ‘Maiden Matchmaking’ events, where the rule is ‘no shagging on the first date’.
It’s not just the right who are worried about the sexual revolution and its consequences – the contraceptive pill is now almost as unpopular with feminist commentators as it is in church aisles. Even the most liberal commentators claim that there is a problem with sex being an ‘expected’ part of adult life – another job that women have to take on in a busy world. Following the MeToo movement, ‘safe sex’ is no longer characterised as concerns about STIs or pregnancy, but about the possibility of rape and assault. Many argue that sexual freedom didn’t equalise the bedsheets, but merely allowed more ways for men to get away with what they want.
Have we given up on sexual freedom? Is chastity really the only answer to a fraught sexual landscape, or are we too obsessed with theorising instead of doing? With all its flaws, didn’t the sexual revolution and reproductive technologies give women the ability to choose which and how many sexual partners they have? Does the backlash against sexual freedom risk turning back the clock on women’s freedom? And should governments, schools and institutions care about how often a nation is knocking boots?
SPEAKERSRalph Leonardauthor, Unshackling Intimacy: Letters on Liberty; contributor, Areo
Nina Powerphilosopher; senior editor, Compact Magazine; author, What Do Men Want? Masculinity and its discontents
Ella Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want
Rosie Wilbyaward-winning comedian; broadcaster; author, Is Monogamy Dead? and The Breakup Monologues: the unexpected joy of heartbreak
CHAIRDr Tiffany Jenkinswriter and broadcaster; author, Strangers and Intimates (forthcoming) and Keeping Their Marbles
 

From diversity to debanking: Is ESG bad for business?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In July, NatWest’s CEO Alison Rose became the latest casualty of the turn to environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) in big business. Rose resigned after the furore over the closure of Nigel Farage’s Coutts account, in part because his political views did not ‘align’ with the company’s values. From Nike annoying women by embracing trans ‘influencer’ Dylan Mulvaney to Gillette annoying men by piggy-backing on the #MeToo movement, there have been numerous high-profile corporate mis-steps in the name of projecting a ‘progressive’ image.
The traditional image of a big business is one of an organisation single-mindedly focused on generating profits for shareholders. But in recent years, there has been a drive to introduce other aims into corporate practice and mission statements, from tackling climate change to promoting ethnic and gender diversity. Given the strong position of big corporations in society, changing the way they conduct business could be a powerful force for good, in the eyes of many.
But there have been concerns that the promotion of such values could be at odds with the views of customers. In April, the backlash against Bud Light’s use of Mulvaney in their advertising led to a boycott of Budweiser products and a decline in the company’s share price. Alissa Heinerscheid, Anheuser-Busch’s vice-president for marketing, had earlier declared that the brand needed to increase its ‘inclusivity’, but she was later reported to have been fired by the company.
What is the best role for big firms in improving society? Should they focus solely on producing the best products and services at the keenest prices? Or given their influence, should they be promoting social change, too? Is the turn to ESG, as many claim, merely ‘wokewashing’ or have top executives really bought into pursuing these aims? What does all this mean for profitability, productivity and material progress more generally – and for the future of companies themselves?
SPEAKERSLuke Johnsonentrepreneur, Gail's Bakery
Catherine McBrideeconomist; fellow, Centre for Brexit Policy
Lesley Smithcorporate reputation and communications consultant; former director, global corporate affairs, Revolut; former public policy director, Amazon
Martin Summersdirector, Flint Global; advisor on ESG policy
Dr Joanna Williamsfounder and director, Cieo; author, How Woke Won and Women vs Feminism
CHAIRHilary Salt FIA, FPMI, FRSAactuary; founder, First Actuarial

Bouncing back or basket case? The state of the UK economy

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Back in the Noughties, a popular image was of the ‘Polish plumber’, coming to the UK to earn more money. But with UK living standards stalling and Poland’s economy growing, could Brits soon be heading the other way? Labour has claimed that Poland’s GDP per person could overtake the UK’s by the end of the decade. Slovenia could overtake the UK as early as next year.
It seems after the problems of the past few years that the UK economy has been in the doldrums. GDP has barely risen above pre-Covid levels and inflation has lingered for longer than elsewhere. Even the poorest US states have higher levels of GDP per person than the UK. For some commentators, the answer is obvious: Brexit. But that hardly explains the fact that the UK economy has struggled for decades.
Yet perhaps the doom-and-gloom is one-sided. Indeed, government ministers argue that such arguments are talking the economy down. According to IMF figures published in April this year, the UK has the sixth-largest economy in the world with GDP per person similar to France and Italy. The UK remains in the top 10 countries for manufacturing ‘value added’. Our leading universities are regularly ranked as among the best in the world. The City of London is one of the two biggest financial services providers, dominating Europe and second only to New York.
Has the UK really stagnated while other countries have leapt ahead? Are things really that bad here, and if so, why?
SPEAKERSSam Bowmaneditor, Works in Progress; board member, Mercatus Center
William Cloustonparty leader, Social Democratic Party
Phil Mullanwriter, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents
Professor Vicky Prycechief economic adviser and board member, Centre for Economics and Business Research; author, Women vs Capitalism
CHAIRRob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum

Banning conversion therapy: a threat to freedom and conscience?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
A mounting number of countries across the world have introduced some form of national ban on conversion therapy. Other states, cities and provinces are looking to do the same. While the UK government may not push to legislate on such a controversial issue in the King’s Speech, it is still under pressure to proceed with some form of Conversion Therapy Bill. The chair of the Labour Party, Anneliese Dodds, has committed to bringing in ‘a full, no loopholes, trans-inclusive ban on conversion therapy’.
Legislating on the issue has led to huge rows about who might be included in the Bill. The government flip-flopped, eventually indicating it would ban ‘all forms of conversion therapy in England and Wales – including those targeting trans people’ – stopping attempts to induce young people and ‘vulnerable adults’ to switch their sexual orientation. Even then, supporters of a ban argued the legislation didn’t not go far enough, especially concerned at a rumour that a ‘consent loophole’ will allow adults to agree to the practice in some circumstances.
There are also concerns on both sides of the trans debate. On the one hand, there is concern that the rights of transgender people and those questioning their gender identity are not protected by the law. NHS England insists that all forms of conversion therapy are ‘unethical and potentially harmful’ – and should be banned entirely. Others worry that legalisation may well interfere in the counselling of young people suffering gender dysphoria. It could also have a chilling effect on freedom of conscience and speech for medical professionals, teachers or religious groups – who often find themselves offering advice on sex and gender.
According to the government, the aim of their originally posed Bill was to ‘protect people’s personal liberty to love who they want to love’. But this raises many dilemmas. For example, some would argue that adults should be free to make their own choices without government interference.
Is there agreement on what ‘conversion therapy’ means? Does the very existence of such therapies undermine and disrespect gender fluid, gender questioning, or other LGBT people? What about the argument that gender ideology itself is a form of conversion therapy, aimed at lesbian and gay sexuality? What constitutes the legitimate exercise of conscience when practical conflicts arise, for example, with anti-discrimination equality laws or medical-service provision? Can freedom of conscience interfere with the rights of some groups to live free from intimidation? How should we proceed when matters of conscience come into conflict with external pressures and expectations?
SPEAKERSDolan Cummingsauthor, Taking Conscience Seriously and The Pictish Princess.. and other stories from before there was a Scotland
Stephanie Davies-Araidirector, Transgender Trend; author, Communicating with Kids
Lord Stewart JacksonConservative peer, House of Lords
Bev Jacksonco-founder and trustee, LGB Alliance
Katy Jon Wentdiversity and inclusion facilitator and educator, Human Library, Pick My Brain, GenderAgenda, Fifty Shades of Gender
CHAIRAnn Furediauthor, The Moral Case for Abortion; former chief executive, BPAS

Are we taxed to death?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Liz Truss’s government collapsed last autumn after markets reacted negatively to her tax-cutting mini-Budget. But the self-declared repair job done by Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt has left the UK with its highest tax burden for decades. Not only did these events damage the Conservatives’ electoral prospects, but also marked an end to Boris Johnson’s ‘cakeism’ – high public spending without higher taxes – and an ideological defeat for free-market, low-tax advocates.
Yet the introduction of the US Inflation Reduction Act (US IRA) has seemingly re-opened the debate around tax competition after years of movement towards a global minimum tax. The US IRA offers a range of subsidies and tax breaks in green industries that potentially threaten UK investment opportunities just as the government has raised corporation tax. Meanwhile, the government’s focus on fiscal discipline seems to sit uncomfortably for some with the City of London’s reputation as an enabler of international tax avoidance.
There have been notable campaigns to reduce or abolish some taxes, like stamp duty and inheritance tax. Yet ministers seem unwilling to move on these issues, in part because of losing tax receipts, but also because tax cuts are regarded as too unpopular. Another issue is ‘fiscal drag’, where the freezing of tax allowances means most people pay more tax than before and more people are brought into higher tax bands as their wages rise.
One year on from the mini-Budget, can the tax system still play a role in ‘going for growth’?  With public finances under strain globally following the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, do Western governments need to clamp down harder on tax avoidance – or is capital flight an even greater risk in a polarised world? Did the fall of the Truss government mark the end of the vision of the UK as a potential ‘Singapore-on-Thames’, or does the emergence of the US IRA mean the UK can’t afford not to compete?
SPEAKERSPaul Emberyfirefighter; trade unionist; columnist; author, Despised: why the modern Left loathes the working class; broadcaster
Reem Ibrahimcommunications officer, Institute of Economic Affairs; Linda Whetstone Scholar
CHAIRDavid Bowdenassociate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Are the Culture Wars a distraction?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Compared with issues like the cost-of-living crisis, climate change or the war in Ukraine and the return of global conflict to Europe, many view the culture war as a peripheral issue. At a time when developments such as AI threaten mankind’s progress and, in the minds of some, could lead to our extinction, one commentator argues: ‘The culture wars may be seen not as genuine debates but as a form of Freudian displacement. The woke and anti-woke need each other to engage in piffling spats as a diversion from realities they both find too psychologically threatening to confront.’
Do they have a point? Are we effectively fiddling while Rome burns? Whether it’s fights over vegan sausage rolls or galleries flying rainbow flags, culture-war debates certainly generate a lot of heat. But when economic realities mean, for example, that hospitals are under strain and many cannot access vital health treatment, not surprisingly identitarian wars over language codes can be viewed as an artificial attempt to distract us from the problems that really matter – at a time when few politicians seem capable of offering genuine solutions. For others, the UK culture wars are an American import – an alt-right, Christian fundamentalist assault on stability and the body politic. Given that even the most strident culture warriors on the conservative side are at pains to insist they are not racist, sexist or transphobic, why get so agitated about different degrees of enthusiasm for a worldview we all basically share?
Or is there more to it than is admitted? While today’s cultural divides may not straightforwardly map onto historic Left-Right splits, some say that, in essence, they do reflect significant contemporary class and political divides. Given that how we see the world, and what we value and want out of life, is mediated through culture, today’s battles around historic figures’ links to slavery, or institutions ‘virtue signalling’ over toilets and pronouns can have the capacity to fundamentally influence how we understand ourselves and negotiate change. If no one, from the National Trust to the British Library, will uphold the traditional values and the legacy of the past, will we lose our sense of who we are and where we’ve come from?
Are the culture wars simply a Twitter sideshow to the more serious concerns of everyday life? Or is the way we relate to each other, and to our shared values, fundamental to how we plan for a future together? Given that dissent from so-called ‘woke’ ideas – whether on race, gender or culture itself  – has become impossible without being demonised as stirring up toxic, divisive and dangerous trends, is there any choice but to engage in the culture wars? Will it have to be reckoned with if we are to have a serious discussion about anything else? And if, as some argue, today’s culture war is a continuation of the age-old conflict between liberty and authoritarianism, does the claim that the culture war is a ‘distraction’ not in itself become a distraction from the issues that matter?
SPEAKERSProfessor Aaqil Ahmeddirector, Amplify Consulting Ltd; professor of media, University of Bolton; former head of religion, Channel 4 and BBC
Andrew 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
Professor Frank Furedisociologist and social commentator; executive director, MCC Brussels; author, 100 Years of Identity Crisis: culture war over socialisation
Lord Ken Macdonald KCbarrister, Matrix Chambers; crossbench peer
Nina Powerphilosopher; senior editor, Compact Magazine; author, What Do Men Want? Masculinity and its discontents
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Who's afraid of populism?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The recent clamour in Germany for a ban on a right-wing populist party, Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), has once again thrust the question of populism and democracy centre stage. With polls showing support for AfD at an all-time high, President Frank-Walter Steinmeier warned that ‘enemies’ of democracy could soon erode Germans’ freedoms and ‘brutalise’ society. ‘We all have it in our hands to put those who despise our democracy in their place’, he warned, ominously.
However, since Plato argued that excessive freedom leads to mass ignorance, hysteria and, ultimately, tyranny, it has been Western cultural and political elites themselves that have often been driven by a sense of mistrust or even hostility towards democracy and the people. No doubt such fears are accentuated by populist parties being voted into power in Finland, Italy, Hungary, Sweden and more. The latest anxieties centre on Net Zero as the focus of the next big populist revolt. Liberal opinion frets that ‘green policies are the new Brexit’ and suspiciously eyes new rural-metropolitan divides, for example, as expressed by the Dutch Farmer Citizen Movement.
Pragmatically, it can be convenient for mainstream politicians, especially on the left, to use the populist label to discredit grassroots opposition by denouncing the likes of protesters against London’s ultra-low emissions zone (ULEZ) as alt-right conspiracy-mongers. But mainstream free-market conservatives can be equally ill at ease, for example with popular hostility to migration or globalism and can wince at expressions of old-fashioned socially conservative attitudes to family and working-class community norms.
‘Never Trump’ anti-populist Republicans have been as keen as liberal-minded Democrats to distance themselves from the tens of millions of ‘deplorables’ who have helped singing Virginia farmer Oliver Anthony’s song ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ become an overnight viral success. In the UK, Singapore-On-Thames Vote Leave politicians’ seem to have conflicting priorities with those Red Wall Brexiteers, who demand British jobs for British workers.
Do erstwhile socially conservative populists such as Sohrab Ahmari have a point when they say populism must take a leftwards turn and address economic transformation? Perhaps populism is in fact less of an ally of conservatism, than the force of revenge against nominally conservative parties that bought into a liberal, elitist agenda. But does this reactive aspect to populism limit its ability for forge a new political movement?
If populism is worth embracing as offering a voice for people, how can it provide a genuine alternative to the politics of technocratic governance? With many populists fixated on cultural battles, is there a danger of simply mimicking the narrow identitarian outlook of progressives, in this context transferring a sense of victimhood to the lives of the masses? And how can we move beyond populism being defined in the public eye by its detractors?
SPEAKERSSabine Beppler-Spahlchair, Freiblickinstitut e.V; CEO, Sprachkunst36; author, Off-centre: how party consensus undermines our democracy; Germany correspondent, spiked
Lord David Frostmember of the House of Lords
Tim Montgomerieconservative journalist; founder, ConservativeHome, UnHerd and Centre for Social Justice
Jacob Reynoldshead of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas
Freddie Sayerseditor-in-chief, UnHerd; former editor-in-chief, YouGov; founder, PoliticsHome
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question