Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

Against fatalism: how can we create a new enlightenment?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
‘Dare to know.’ This was the battle cry of the Age of Enlightenment in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Europe. This spirit remade the world, birthed new sciences and inventions, breathed life into democracy and unleashed economies that lifted millions from obscurity and destitution.
Today, by contrast, daring seems to be in short supply. A strange cloud of both complacency and despondency seems to have settled over the Western world. From climate change to the cost-of-living crisis, we are told both that our problems are enormous, and also that there is not much we can hope to do to fix them – except to lower our expectations. Such a mood strikes a stark contrast with the spirit of the Enlightenment, which assumed that through reason, science, argument and human ingenuity, all the problems that society faced could be dealt with.
Across the political divide, there seems to be a shared assumption that human agency is at best a mirage, at worst a dangerous fairytale. We live in an ‘age of determinisms’ – techno-determinism, neuro-determinism, environmental determinism. Popular historians and philosophers announce that human beings are at the mercy of immovable processes. Research in genetics is used to suggest that government policies and individual effort matter little in accounting for social outcomes. Conspiracists proclaim that we are all pawns of globalists pulling the strings.
Yet this whole mood seems challenged by masses of people across the West who feel their societies are heading fast in the wrong direction. The desire to ‘take back control’ echoes across the globe. This demand could have easily been another Enlightenment slogan: the idea that by turning power over to the people, we might attain mastery over the forces that shape society. Both on left and right, there has been much discussion about how to give voice to the demand for change.
But perhaps what is needed is less a new technocratic innovation – a people’s assembly or a voting reform, a new social media tool or a new form of community service – than a way to give room to a spirit of popular engagement. The Age of Enlightenment, by way of comparison, was clearly founded on a ‘republic of letters’ that extended from the most prestigious journals and universities to the humblest of coffee houses.
Where, then, are we to find the successor to the Enlightenment coffee house? How do we recapture the spirit of an age that insisted human beings could remake the world? Do we need a new Enlightenment, and how do we ‘dare to know’ today?
SPEAKERSProfessor Frank Furedisociologist and social commentator; executive director, MCC Brussels; author, 100 Years of Identity Crisis: culture war over socialisation
Professor Jonathan Israelprofessor emeritus, School of Historical Studies, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton; author, Spinoza, Life and Legacy and Radical Enlightenment
Munira Mirzachief executive, Civic Future
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Should schools teach social justice?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Many teachers think gaining academic knowledge on its own is not enough for young people to avoid inequality, discrimination and marginalisation today. Instead, schools need to go beyond narrow academic goals and teach our children how to combat racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, poverty and promote environmentalism. Others think academic knowledge is valuable for its own sake and should be defended, and worry it is being consistently diluted to make room for social-justice concerns.
But hasn’t the education system always been political? Some argue that social justice is a natural extension of a liberal, democratic education, and that it is essential for becoming a well-rounded adult. Furthermore, ‘British values’, in one way or another, have always informed school curricula. Are concerns about social justice more of the same, or is this a unique problem of too many teachers bringing their personal political agendas into the classroom?
Is social justice morphing into advocacy education and undermining impartiality? Should we accept social justice in schools as a natural reflection of discussions in wider society, or is it time to insist on a clear distinction between the political and educational domains? Is there a place for social justice in the classroom?
SPEAKERSDr Debbie Haytonteacher; trade unionist; columnist, Spectator and UnHerd; author, Transsexual Apostate: my journey back to reality
Eric Kaufmannprofessor of politics, University of Buckingham, author, Taboo: how making race sacred produced a cultural revolution
Michael Merrickdirector of schools, Diocese of Lancaster; former teacher; education and social commentator
Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbertdirector, Don't Divide Us; author, What Should Schools Teach? Disciplines, subjects and the pursuit of truth
CHAIR
Kevin Rooneyhistory and politics teacher; editor, irishborderpoll.com; convenor, AoI Education Forum; co-author, The Blood Stained Poppy

Curing cancer: is it all about the science?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
After Covid, a wave of undiagnosed and late treated cancers has arisen in the UK and other countries – a consequence of delayed treatments, cancelled screening and operations, and ever-expanding waiting lists. At the same time, Covid vaccine development has shown how medical progress can be accelerated when the right resources and political will are brought to bear.
But a side effect of the pandemic has been a growing scepticism about scientific and medical authority. Half a century after President Richard Nixon signed the National Cancer Act, firing the starting gun on the War on Cancer, is this a battle we can no longer win – not because of a lack of scientific progress but because of growing distrust of science and medicine?
‘Cancer’ is an umbrella term for hundreds of different conditions, each with its own particular form and potential treatment and much has been achieved. For most cancer patients today, treatment can extend their lives or eradicate cancer altogether, especially when diagnosed and treated early. A vaccine against human papillomavirus virus (HPV) looks likely to slash the incidence of cervical cancers, while the innovative developments in transoral robotic surgery (Tors) offer significant hope to patients with head and neck cancers.
Alongside increasingly effective chemotherapy, radiotherapy and newer proton therapy, immunotherapy has transformed the survival rate across many cancers. Cell-based treatments are ‘curing’ some types of blood cancer and gene therapies offer hope in rare and hard-to-treat cancers. Furthermore, public-health interventions have reduced some major causes of cancer, like smoking and air pollution.
But the number of cancer cases has been rising inexorably and threatens to kill more people in the UK than all of the waves of Covid so far. Many argue that we will be faced with tough choices if we want to beat cancer, for example tackling ‘lifestyle’ factors like smoking, drinking and eating. Yet public health campaigns are sometimes met with doubt or anger in social media. In addition, anonymised personal health data could be an invaluable research tool, but will patients and the public be willing to share it?
Will we ever be able to say we’ve cured cancer? Can we afford to treat everyone? Is prevention as important as treatment – and how willing are the public to follow public-health advice about risk factors for cancer, like obesity and alcohol consumption? Can trust between medics, researchers and the public be restored?
SPEAKERS
Nicky Drurygenomic counsellor, Nottingham Regional Genomics Service; former member, United Kingdom Human Genetics Commission
Professor Eliot Forsterchief executive officer, F-star Therapeutics; non-executive chairman, Avacta plc; honorary visiting professor of molecular and clinical cancer medicine, University of Liverpool
Miranda Greenjournalist; commentator; deputy opinion editor, Financial Times; co-founder, The Day; former Liberal Democrat advisor
Professor Karol Sikoramedical director, Cancer Partners International; founder, Cancer Partners UK; author, Treatment of Cancer; honorary consultant oncologist, Hammersmith Hospital
CHAIR
Ellie Leeprofessor of family and parenting research, University of Kent, Canterbury; director, Centre for Parenting Culture Studies

How do we solve the housing crisis?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The vision of a property-owning democracy has fallen flat as the prospect of owning a home increasingly becomes a pipe dream for many.
Millennials needing homes with gardens are cramped within shared flats. Those already on the property ladder struggle with historically high ratios of mortgage payments to incomes. After the Grenfell Tower fire, many leaseholders face escalating costs for cladding and fire-safety measures, as well as impossible terms to re-mortgage. On top of all that, those trying to rent face long waits for social housing or rocketing rents in the private sector. Some universities are withdrawing places due to lack of student accommodation, while some seeking resettlement from Ukraine or Hong Kong are confined to churches or boats.
The moral imperative to build is clear. But where and how can we build the homes that we need?
There is widespread frustration at the stop-start policies of those in charge. Initially spooked by the prospect of permanently alienating younger voters, the government’s planning reform has itself been ditched lest greenbelt development antagonises NIMBYist ‘blue wall’ voters. Tory leadership hopeful Liz Truss sees the problem as one of quotas and over-regulation and promises to remove housebuilding targets – not surprisingly viewed by many as a retreat from a commitment to build.
Does this crisis require a renewed commitment to mass housebuilding? Or do past problems of building at scale suggest it is right that developers work within new parameters? With postwar modernising zeal to urban transformation long since gone, what role should the state have today in building our way out of the crisis? Given the UK has twice as much land tied up in protected greenbelt compared to that already developed, is it time to use it to build new towns or even entire new cities? How can ambitious but high-quality development be realised amidst environmental/energy targets, labour shortages, planning restrictions and restraints on innovation?
SPEAKERS
Simon Cookeurbanist; former regeneration portfolio holder and leader of the Conservative group, Bradford City Council
Ike Ijehwriter; architect; head of housing, architecture and urban space, Policy Exchange; founder, London Architecture Walks
Rabina Khanwriter and commentator; former councillor and special advisor; author, My Hair Is Pink Under This Veil
Austin Williamssenior lecturer, Dept of Architecture, Kingston University, London; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution: understanding Chinese eco-cities
Charlie WinstanleyNorth West co-ordinator, Enough is Enough; political advisor to the Mayor of Salford
 

Business bashing: should corporates ‘care’?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2014 on Saturday 18 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTIONThese are said to be unprecedentedly uncertain times for business, but one area where there seems to be much certainty is that businesses need to do more than be profitable providers of good and services: they must also do the ‘responsible’ thing, do the ‘right’ thing, for the rest of society. Even businesses themselves feel they need to do more than simply make money. Today, the presumption is that businesses cannot be trusted – one element of the broader decline in levels of trust in society – and that this is bad for business and for society.
According to the 2014 Edelman Trust Barometer, only one in two people in the UK have trust in business. A continuing stream of media stories about corporates behaving badly - over a range of issues including excessive boardroom pay and poor working conditions in developing countries - maintains distrust about business motives and actions. It has become received wisdom that in order to restore trust, business needs to reorientate its culture and values.
Yet even the widespread adoption of corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies seems to do little to assuage concerns. To some people, promoting your ‘ethical’ CSR credentials can reek of hypocrisy. Sincere CSR projects can be dismissed as ‘greenwash’. When there is so little trust, can big companies ever satisfy their critics that they are doing enough? As the well-publicised travails of the Co-operative in Britain seem to confirm, there may be pitfalls of being a business that has always had ‘doing good’ high in its values at the expense of the bottom line.
But perhaps we should not expect businesses to ‘do good’. The urge to be socially responsible through initiatives beyond the central, profit-making purpose of a company may be missing the point about what really constitutes ‘doing the right thing’. As Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations almost 250 years ago: ‘It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.’ In turn, the drive to create new wealth provides the resources for many other social goods, from healthcare and education to funding the arts and museums.
Is maximising profit really at odds with social good? Could the CSR agenda conflict with the social benefits of profit-making business? How important is trust for profitability? When government is trusted even less than business, who should decide what ‘the right thing’ means?
SPEAKERSRosalind Searleco-founder, Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations and Head of Trust Research, Coventry University
Marc Sidwellexecutive editor, City A.M.
Stefan Sterndirector, High Pay Centre
CHAIRPhil Mullaneconomist and business manager; author, Creative Destruction: How to start an economic renaissance

The battle over geek culture

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2015 on Saturday 17 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Due to the growing appeal of gaming and comics through the enormous success of once-niche genres such as fantasy and sci-fi, geek culture is now fully mainstream. Yet its success seems to have been accompanied with vicious infighting amongst fans that surprises even culture wars veterans. ‘Gamergate’ seemed to move quickly from a dispute between game developers and journalists to a heated political row over gamers’ attitudes towards women and minorities; a similar dispute gave the Hugo Awards 2015 for science fiction a previously warranted level of cultural notoriety. Many found echoes of these debates in the fracas surrounding space scientist Dr Matt Taylor, where many online commentators felt the choice of a bawdy, sexist shirt overshadowed his achievement in landing the Philae lander on a comet (and moved Taylor himself to a tearful apology).
A number of new developments underpin these battles. The rise of social media has led to a tendency to ‘call people out’, harnessing the power of public shaming to challenge perceived more problematic elements of our culture. The arguments have taken on a fresh intensity with a new wave of cultural critics, such as Anita Sarkeesian. Drawing on feminist critiques of ‘rape culture’, new concerns are being articulated about the harmful effects of violently sexist media and its failure to adequately represent women and minorities in these virtual worlds. In turn, these so-called ‘Social Justice Warriors’ have provoked their own dizzying reactive sub-cultures from Sad Puppies to ‘Gamergaters’ who pride themselves on rejecting perceived politically correct orthodoxies.
How are the frontlines of the culture wars changing? Why have debates over representation and media effects theory – once considered relatively minor academic fields – now become so intensely fraught and high profile? Are these traditional battles between youth culture tribes recast for the digital era, or is there something new in the highly politicised attitude towards lifestyle? What motivates the various factions in the new battles over culture, and where did they come from? And can genuine freedom of expression survive in such a politicised environment?
LISTEN TO THE DEBATE
SPEAKERS
Allum Bokharicolumnist, Breitbart
Serena Kutchinskydigital editor, Prospect
Dr Maren Thomresearcher in film, Queen Mary University of London; education advisor
Jason Walshjournalist; foreign correspondent, CS Monitor
Milo Yiannopoulostechnology editor, Breitbart
CHAIRDavid Bowdenassociate fellow, Academy of Ideas; culture writer

Are political parties over?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2016 at Barbican, London.
In the aftermath of the Brexit vote, it seemed that all four of Britain’s major political parties were falling apart. Similar tendencies towards crisis and disintegration are evident in the old parties in the USA and in Europe. Are we seeing a refreshing departure from the old-style politics of left and right, or simply a process of fragmentation? Are we exaggerating the scale of the crisis facing mainstream parties, and forgetting the often deep and bitter conflicts of the past? Are we really moving towards a new sort of politics? What sort of divisions and alignments are likely to emerge and will we need parties to represent them?
SPEAKERS
Emily Barleychairman, Conservatives for Liberty
James Delingpolejournalist; columnist, Breitbart UK
Dr Michael Fitzpatrickwriter on medicine and politics; author, The Tyranny of Health
Miranda Greenjournalist and former Liberal Democrat advisor, specialising in politics and education
Jhanelle Whitestudent & political activist; former member of Dudley Youth Council; founder and chair of Political Sweep

Censorship and identity: free speech for me, but not for you

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2017 on Sunday 29 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Censorship and identity: free speech for me but not for you?Free speech is no longer presumed to be an unquestionable virtue. Until recently, beyond a small number of authoritarian dictators or reactionary cranks, it was unthinkable to openly oppose free expression, even if it was often espoused with endless caveats. But in 2017, after a gradual chipping away – through ‘I find that offensive’ tropes, trigger warnings and no platforming – free speech is now often explicitly queried. When a British TV breakfast show featured a ‘gay cure quack’ recently, the Guardian‘s Owen Jones declared that his views about LGBTQ people were ‘not simply a matter of opinion to be debated’. Free speech is dubbed an outdated absolute, or worse is seen as a ruse to excuse hate speech against minorities.
In this context, the rise of identity politics now means that free speech for all is no longer a given. As one US writer notes sympathetically, ‘political correctness doesn’t hinder free speech – it expands it. But for marginalised groups, rather than the status quo’. It is claimed that those with ‘privilege’ (‘well-heeled, white, straight, male’) historically used their status – under the mantle of free speech – to hog the public square in order to consolidate their domination. Now at last, victims of prejudice and discrimination have special speech rights that can trump and close down those ‘lifelong beneficiaries of odds stacked in their favour’.  In such a climate, the increasingly popular tactic of the hecklers’ veto – shouting down, even using violence, to silence opponents – has become a legitimate weapon in the fight for social justice.
Furthermore, it is not just what you say that is proscribed, but who is allowed to say it. A person’s words or ideas are considered secondary to identity, and it can be considered illegitimate to express opinions unless you are part of an identity group subjectively affected by any given issue. Identity groups are similarly afforded the authority to determine what is and is not offensive; those who challenge such judgements are often deemed guilty of ‘unconscious bias’. But as privilege itself is contested and definitions of hate speech notoriously subjective, increasing numbers of people can find their speech curtailed. In the UK, well-known feminists Germaine Greer, Julie Bindel and Linda Bellos have been disinvited as speakers for their allegedly transphobic views (as defined by trans activists). Recently, Edinburgh Action for Trans Health defended a brutal assault at a feminist gathering in London’s Hyde Park, organised to discuss government plans to allow people to legally self-identify their gender, saying it was ‘the same as punching Nazis’.
How should free speech activists respond to such new challenges? It no longer seems sufficient to cite the First Amendment, quote JS Mill, or cry academic freedom in trying to thwart assaults on free expression. There was a powerful illustration of this problem recently when protesters affiliated with Black Lives Matter gatecrashed an event at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia and prevented the invited guest from the American Civil Liberties Union from speaking, chanting ‘the revolution will not uphold the Constitution’ and ‘liberalism is white supremacy’.
Is it time for civil libertarians to adjust their priorities, to ensure that people with ‘protected characteristics’ are given ‘particular respect’, and their views given a veto on what they deem as hate speech? Are those who argue for free speech – no ifs, no buts – too often providing the privileged with a licence to talk over the marginalised, even to incite bigotry? Or is identity politics the new tool of censorship and, if so, how should we respond?
SPEAKERSProfessor Frank Furedisociologist and social commentator; author, Populism and the European Culture Wars; previous books include: What's Happened to the University? and Invitation To Terror and On Tolerance
Nick GillespieUS journalist and commentator; editor in chief, Reason.com and Reason TV, the online and video platforms of Reason magazine
Jodie Ginsbergchief executive, Index on Censorship
Trevor Phillipswriter and television producer; founding chair, Equality and Human Rights Commission
Toby Youngdirector, New Schools Network; associate editor, The Spectator; editor, Spectator Life
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panelist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Me, me, me! Narcissism and the new politics of identity

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2018 on Sunday 14 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In Greek mythology, Narcissus famously becomes enraptured with his own reflection in a lake. Today, the archetypal narcissist is obsessed with their reflection in a selfie: 80million photographs are uploaded on Instagram and 1.4 billion people publish personal details on Facebook every day. In the UK in 2017, more than a million selfies were taken each day. In 2013, the Oxford English Dictionary proclaimed that ‘selfie’ was the Word of the Year, recording that its use in the English language had increased 17,000 per cent from the previous year.
In fact, it’s almost a cliché these days to talk about Generation Me, Me, Me. It is argued that millennials are uniquely self-obsessed, preening, full of self-regard and entitlement, yet at the same time ‘suffering’ from a range of psychological issues and problems with self-esteem. But it’s not just the young; we all stand accused, or rather accuse everyone else, of this self-obsession. Christopher Lasch, in his 1979 classic, The Culture of Narcissism, launched the little-used psychological term into the mainstream, but today, according to the New York Times, it has become ‘the go-to diagnosis’ for commentators. Donald Trump is now, apparently, the ‘narcissist in chief’, your boss or co-workers are likely narcissists, everyone on Tinder, and on the telly, and certainly your ex – are narcissists, while Instagram is making narcissists of us all. But don’t worry, because your narcissist parents are to blame for it all anyway.
But in the midst of this labelling, can we untangle any real trends? Certainly, the self and identity seem in flux. Intellectually, the trend is towards a relativistic focus on individual identity. ‘I identify as…’ is a key phrase of contemporary politics. For many, this is a narcissistic demand for recognition; ‘validate my identity’, such demands seem to say. But is identity politics really a narcissistic modern-day attempt at putting oneself centre stage? Was the Enlightenment elevation of the self a narcissistic precursor to today’s body-obsessed, selfie-culture?
More broadly, the seeming obsession with psychological terms to understand social problems arguably highlights further problems. When narcissism – as with depression, or any other psychological phenomenon – is the problem, the only solution seems to be therapy or mindfulness rather than a hope of broader political and collective responses to the pressures and opportunities of the twenty-first century. Moreover, the very nature of ‘self-help’ has undergone a profound shift from the nineteenth-century connotation of a robust individual to the contemporary notion of relying on the therapeutic advice of others to survive.
Are there any positive aspects in constructing Brand Me and a ‘narrative of self’ in terms of reclaiming subjective selfhood? Is narcissism too clichéd a concept to help us understand today’s crisis of identity? When it is used to malign every trend an author doesn’t like, should we abandon it for something more precise? Why has cultural narcissism become so deeply woven into the fabric of contemporary society? Ultimately, are we all self-absorbed narcissists?
SPEAKERS
Dr Graeme Archerwriter; professional statistician; winner, 2011 Orwell Prize for blogging
Dr Beth Guildingacademic, Goldsmiths, University of London; co-editor, Narrating the Passions: new perspectives from modern and contemporary literature
Caroline Macfarlanddirector, Common Vision (CoVi)
Jacob Reynoldspartnerships manager, Academy of Ideas; co-convenor, Living Freedom; organiser, Debating Matters
CHAIRDr Tiffany Jenkinswriter and broadcaster; author, Keeping Their Marbles: how treasures of the past ended up in museums and why they should stay there
 

Are the old political parties dying?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2019 on Sunday 3 November at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTIONMany commentators have observed that Britain enjoys, by European standards at least, a uniquely stable party-political system. In many other European countries, collapsing empires, social uprisings or world wars fuelled new parties and shifting popular allegiances. But Britain is notable for the longevity – and adaptability – of its established parties. Since the 1830s, the Conservative Party has navigated Corn Law dilemmas, the Irish Home Rule crisis and the Thatcherite shift to neoliberalism. The 119-year-old Labour Party has survived the splits over the ‘national government’ in 1931 and even jettisoning the socialist principles in Clause IV of its constitution in 1995. From the mid-1920s to the end of the century, combined support for the two established parties never dipped below seven in 10 voters.
But amid rising volatility, fragmentation and polarisation in the early twenty-first century, are we reaching a historic moment of change?
The 2019 European Elections saw support for the two main parties plummet to 23 per cent. In part, this reflected a surge of support for the pro-Remain Liberal Democrats and Greens in younger, metropolitan areas, but it also showed the evisceration of traditional parties in the regions where the SNP and even Plaid Cymru are filling the gap. Most notable is a trend towards setting up new parties. The Brexit Party was the big winner in the Euro elections, attracting voters disillusioned by the failure to deliver Brexit, while Change UK showed a willingness for leading figures in existing parties to try something new.
Have we reached the point where the two big parties can no longer adapt to shifting political realities? Or are the results in keeping with past Euro elections, where smaller parties have often done well, only to fail to break through at Westminster?
These shifts go beyond the political parties themselves. Experimental initiatives like ‘Flatpack Democracy’, which aims to create independent local politics, have achieved a degree of popularity, while a notable feature of the 2019 local council elections was the rise of ‘independent’ councillors. With longstanding voter allegiances – and even rank-and-file affiliations – either broken or more tenuous, is this the moment for new parties and forms of organisation to make longer-term breakthroughs? And if so, what is needed to realise new opportunities?
Clearly, Brexit has brought some long-term trends to the surface, exposing the void between the electorate and the established parties, and suggesting that political loyalties are reflected in new ways. For example, opinion polls suggest that only nine per cent of people now identify ‘very strongly’ with a political party while 44 per cent say that they are a ‘very strong’ Remainer or Leaver. And while survey evidence is mixed, some polls indicate two-thirds of people recognise there’s a climate emergency, with 76 per cent saying they would cast their vote differently to protect the planet. Add in that age, education and geographical location are all regularly talked-up as influencing how we vote, are the old left-and-right divisions reflected in long-established parties now outdated? If so, how can new aspirations and shifting social and cultural outlooks find a productive political expression?
Is it all over for the traditional parties, and if not, then what should be the priorities to revitalise their futures? Are new parties viable, or is the fate of Change UK a warning that new initiatives face almost insurmountable challenges to succeed? Are new-style political ‘movements’ such as the Brexit Party or independent, local initiatives a promising way forward? Could we be on the brink of a new political landscape and, if so, how should we seek to shape it?
SPEAKERSJonny Ballspecial projects writer, New Statesman
Miranda Greenjournalist; commentator; deputy editor of opinion pages, Financial Times; former Liberal Democrat advisor
Sherelle Jacobscolumnist and commissioning editor of comments, Daily Telegraph
John Millseconomist and entrepreneur; author, Left Behind: why voters deserted social democracy - and how to win them back
Tom Slaterdeputy editor, spiked; regular commentator on TV and radio; editor, Unsafe Space: the crisis of free speech on campus; presenter, Last Orders podcast
CHAIRJoel Cohenassociate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Bookshop Barnie: Konstantin Kisin on an Immigrant's Love Letter to the West

Recording of the discussion at Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London
Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe
Bookshop Barnies are salon-type discussions that challenge an author to justify their work in front of an audience of specialists and critics.
Konstantin Kisin is one half of the Triggernometry podcast (with fellow comedian, Francis Foster). Konstantin is a Russian-British comedian and political commentator who has written a fascinating account of life in the West – and why it is better than Putin’s war-mongering totalitarianism.
An easy argument to win, you might think. But many left-wingers are obsessed with condemning Britain for its hateful, racist, slave-owning, warmongering, elitist, imperialist past. Meanwhile, right-wingers criticise Britain’s woke, intolerant, bureaucratic, lack of belief, decentralised, positive discriminatory present. In such circumstances, it is worth asking what this country offers those looking to the future.
An Immigrant’s Love Letter to the West is an argument for free speech. It’s an argument for liberal democracy and against the illiberalism of contemporary politics. Country Squire magazine says that the book ‘appeals to nuance’. Conversely, the Daily Mail says, without much nuance, that the book shows that ‘Britain is turning into a Soviet state’.
Are we living under an authoritarian regime or should you self-censor from even thinking it? Should we pretend that Britain isn’t riddled with problems, for the sake of a quiet life, or should we stand up for one side against the other in the culture war? This Bookshop Barnie will ask Konstantin Kisin where he gets off coming to this country, saying how great it is.
This session will be introduced by Triggernometry’s Francis Foster.
SPEAKERKonstantin Kisinsatirist; podcaster, TRIGGERnometry; author, An Immigrant's Love Letter to the West
CHAIRAustin Williamssenior lecturer, Dept of Architecture, Kingston University, London; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution: understanding Chinese eco-cities

Podcast live: The Thought Police with Mike Graham and Kevin O’Sullivan

Recording of a live podcast recording at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe
It’s not 1984 anymore, but The Thought Police are everywhere. For better or worse, Mike Graham and Kevin O’Sullivan will be your consciences. But don’t worry. They’re not reporting back to the Oceania thought-crime specialists, they are free-thinking journalists on a mission.
Two ex Fleet-Street journalists now broadcasting on TalkTV, they deliver big opinions as they deliberate, masticate and ruminate over all the key issues. Covering everything from Covid to conferences, politics to papers and finance to football, no stone will be left unturned. It’s The Thought Police. We’re watching you.
Join Mike and Kevin for this special Battle of Ideas festival live recording of The Thought Police.
SPEAKERSProfessor 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
Sarah Phillimorebarrister; campaigner, Fair Cop; member, Bad Law Project
Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe
 
It’s not 1984 anymore, but The Thought Police are everywhere. For better or worse, Mike Graham and Kevin O’Sullivan will be your consciences. But don’t worry. They’re not reporting back to the Oceania thought-crime specialists, they are free-thinking journalists on a mission.
 
Two ex Fleet-Street journalists now broadcasting on TalkTV, they deliver big opinions as they deliberate, masticate and ruminate over all the key issues. Covering everything from Covid to conferences, politics to papers and finance to football, no stone will be left unturned. It’s The Thought Police. We’re watching you.
 
Join Mike and Kevin for this special Battle of Ideas festival live recording of The Thought Police.
 
SPEAKERS
Professor Frank Furedi
sociologist and social commentator; author, The Road to Ukraine: how the West lost its way and 100 Years of Identity Crisis: culture war over socialisation
 
Sarah Phillimore
barrister; campaigner, Fair Cop; member, Bad Law Project
 
CHAIR
Mike Graham
radio presenter, Talk TV/Radio; host, The Independent Republic of Mike Graham
 
Kevin O’Sullivan
presenter, TalkRADIO and TalkTV; reporter; showbiz editor; media correspondent; features editor
Mike Grahamradio presenter, Talk TV/Radio; host, The Independent Republic of Mike Graham
Kevin O’Sullivanpresenter, TalkRADIO and TalkTV; reporter; showbiz editor; media correspondent; features editor

What would a Labour government look like?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
After Labour’s catastrophic haemorrhaging of Red Wall voters in 2019, and widespread disillusion among working-class Brexit voters, Labour seems to be back in contention. For some time, Labour has been way ahead of the Conservatives in the opinion polls. But the gap between the parties became a chasm after the resignation of Boris Johnson and the debacle of Liz Truss’s short-lived premiership. Now, with Labour running roughly 20 points ahead in the polls, a substantial majority at the next election – which must happen no later than January 2025 – seems highly likely. But assuming Labour does win power, what would Keir Starmer actually do?
The answer is, perhaps: who knows? Yes, there has been some headline-grabbing radical proposals such as abolishing the House of Lords and replacing it with an elected chamber of regions and nations. When he won the leadership vote in April 2020, Starmer had stood on a platform of 10 pledges – from increasing income tax for the rich and abolishing universal credit to ‘support’ for ‘common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water’ and a ‘green new deal’.
Since then, Starmer and his shadow ministers have moved away from many of these pledges. For example, plans to abolish university tuition fees have been scrapped, and universal credit looks like it will be ‘reformed’ – but with the two-child limit for benefits left in place. Nationalisation plans have been replaced with the idea of greater regulation. Plans to introduce self-ID for transgender people have been shelved (despite having voted for the SNP’s infamous Gender Recognition Reform Bill, and with no apology forthcoming to its much maligned gender-critical MP Rosie Duffield) as has the idea of reintroducing free movement for EU nationals. Inevitably, the Corbynista wing of the party shout betrayal. With Blair and Mandelson back in the mix, some on the Left dread New Labour Mark 2, without the charisma or vision.
Despite its uber-technocratic pragmatism, many fear Labour has fundamentally changed – emptied of its working-class credentials, instead assuming the garb of identitarian social justice. It seems most comfortable arguing for laws against misogyny, condemning institutional racism or celebrating Pride than either full-throttled support for picket-line strikers or taking up the cause of free speech when under assault from progressive ideologues. It’s true that Labour’s centrepiece policy of a ‘green prosperity plan’ has been watered down from £28 billion per year to an aspiration to be achieved at some point in a Labour administration. But its championing of eco policies – such as heat-pump boilers, anti-driver measures such as ULEZ and LTNs or its financial entanglement with the funder of Just Stop Oil – means that many fear Labour is tin-eared when voters are sceptical of its right-on, illiberal and expensive zealous approach to net-zero targets.
SPEAKERSDr Tim Blackbooks and essays editor, spiked
Dr Richard Johnsonwriter; senior lecturer in US politics, Queen Mary, University of London; co-author, Keeping the Red Flag Flying: The Labour Party in Opposition since 1922 (forthcoming)
Mark Seddondirector, Centre for UN Studies, University of Buckingham; board member, Foreign Correspondents Association, New York; co-author, Jeremy Corbyn and the Strange Rebirth of Labour England
James Smithhost, The Popular Show podcast; writer; academic
Joan Smithauthor & columnist
CHAIRPaddy Hannamresearcher, House of Commons; writer and commentator

Free speech or compelled speech: is silence violence?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, Westminster, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
This issue of ‘mandated’ or ‘compelled’ speech shot to prominence when ‘Silence is Violence’ emerged in 2020 as the slogan of Black Lives Matters protests. Just as words are often now deemed potentially wounding, so too is a failure to speak out in support of new racial justice etiquette or other identitarian causes. To defy taking the knee, hoisting Pride flags or entering pronouns in email signatures is to risk being judged complicit in discriminatory behaviour, and could lead to guilt shaming or shrunken career prospects.
The idea that there is only one way to think on the big issues, and one right answer, is not limited to ‘woke’ causes. Academics are expected to repeat the approved Western line on Ukraine; those who deviate face ostracisation as government ministers threaten a ‘crackdown’. Russian cultural figures, such as conductor Valery Gergiev, face demands for what is effectively a loyalty oath to the West: silence, it seems, is the hallmark of guilty Putin supporters.
Historically, it was considered a sign of progress when freedom of conscience became the norm, protecting individuals from being forced to express thoughts they disagreed with – the right to act without reference to authorities or majorities, custom or opinion. Today, pressure to speak to new political scripts threatens to undermine conscience-based freedoms.
Under new conversion therapy legislation, for example, religious groups and secular therapists alike may be forced to offer affirmative advice on sexuality and gender issues that goes against their beliefs. Elsewhere, political pressure to speak to an official line reduces space for debate and open-mindedness on important social, cultural and political questions. Ironically, while a fatwa tried to impose silence on Salman Rushdie, many teachers and cultural figures are now forced to rehearse official lines on multiculturalism or white privilege.
Is compelled speech an attack on freedom of conscience or simply the price we pay for trying to live in a more equal society? Isn’t it a positive thing that changing social and cultural linguistic norms means it is no longer acceptable to use derogatory racial and sexist slurs? And doesn’t staying schtum sometimes amount to cowardice, such as the official silence surrounding the grooming gangs? Or given the quest for free speech is largely focused on our right to speak freely, do we now need to go on the offensive over our right to remain silent? How can we defy pressure to embrace cultural or political norms and avoid the trap of a retreat into one-dimensional thinking?
SPEAKERS
Arif Ahmedprofessor of philosophy, University of Cambridge; fellow, Gonville and Caius College; author, Evidential Decision Theory
Dr Shahrar Aliformer deputy leader, Green Party; author, Why Vote Green 2015
Abbot Christopher JamisonAbbot President, English Benedictine Congregation; author, Finding the Language of Grace: rediscovering transcendence
Dr Joanna Williamsfounder and director, Cieo; author, How Woke Won and Women vs Feminism
CHAIR
Claire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

The road to Ukraine: has the West lost its way?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House in London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shocked the world and upended many assumptions about how international politics operates. Contrary to the claim that wars are not supposed to happen in Europe or that we live in the era of the End of History, does a major war breaking out in Europe suggest that old conflicts are not as dead as many assumed?
In a new book, sociologist Frank Furedi argues that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine exposed how the West attempted to ignore the importance of History – leaving it confused and unprepared to deal with the current crisis. Fashionable claims about the irrelevance of borders and of nation states were, he argues, exposed as shallow myths.
Were Western countries caught unprepared by Russia’s invasion, and if so, why? Some argue that a focus on globalisation – which was supposed to bring the world closer together – blinded many to the reality that historical disagreements and long-simmering tensions continue to shape global politics. Others note that the culture wars over history – with many hoping to do away with the ‘bad old days’ of the past – contributed to a climate where the past is no longer taken seriously. If borders and nation states still need to be taken seriously, how can countries offer solidarity to others?
Does the Ukraine crisis have its roots deep in the past? Have Western societies forgotten the importance of history? What can be done to reclaim a sense of historical thinking without becoming slaves to the past? Join this discussion with the author of The Road to Ukraine: how the West lost its way (Buy this book on Amazon here).
SPEAKERS
Mary Dejevskyformer foreign correspondent in Moscow, Paris and Washington; special correspondent in China; writer and broadcaster
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
Konstantin Kisinsatirist; podcaster, TRIGGERnometry; author, An Immigrant's Love Letter to the West
CHAIR
Jacob Reynoldspartnerships manager, Academy of Ideas