Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

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

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