Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

Are schools indoctrinating our kids?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Over the summer, the OCR exam board announced it has replaced literary giants Philip Larkin, Seamus Heaney and Wilfred Owen from its English syllabus in favour of ‘exciting and diverse’ ‘poets of colour’ and ‘disabled and LGBTQ+ voices’. The then education secretary, Nadhim Zahawi, denounced OCR’s changes as ‘cultural vandalism’.
The decision fed widespread parental concern that schools are becoming a hotbed of political activism, their children indoctrinated by biased teachers and curricula as likely to espouse social-justice ideology as passing on ‘the best which has been thought and said’.
However, some argue this narrative of politicised teaching is a caricature, itself a political act of dragging schools into the Culture Wars. The NEU’S Dr Mary Bousted warns that politicians’ hype about impartiality could induce such uncertainty and caution in schools about ‘political issues’ that students will be ‘denied the opportunity to engage with the most challenging issues of our time’, including racism and climate change.
Can contested political ideas be dealt with in classrooms via viewpoint diversity or should schools steer clear of tackling political controversies altogether? Are pupils to be viewed as a captive audience, too young to challenge what they’re hearing, or young people who need to be engaged with contemporary social trends?
SPEAKERSDr Deborah Haytonteacher; trade unionist; contributor, Spectator, Unherd and other publications
Dr Sean Langsenior lecturer in History, Anglia Ruskin University; author, First World War for Dummies and What History Do We Need?; fellow, Historical Association
Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbertdirector, Don't Divide Us; author, What should schools teach? Disciplines, subjects and the pursuit of truth
Emma Webbdirector, Common Sense Society, UK branch; host, Newspeak; commentator; writer; co-founder, Save Our Statues
CHAIRGareth Sturdyphysics advisor, Up Learn; education and science writer

Apollo to Elon Musk: the new frontiers of space

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
December 2022 marks the 50th anniversary of the last Apollo moon mission, Apollo 17. At that time, space exploration was a near-duopoly between the USA and USSR. Since then, it has been confined to unmanned probes or manned research projects, most notably the International Space Station. NASA’s plan to get humans back to the Moon had a false start with the postponement of August’s Artemis I launch.
In recent years, there have been multiple new national players on the scene. China first put a man into space in 2003 and has been putting in place the components of its own large modular space station, Tiangong-3, since 2021. India has launched unmanned missions to the Moon and plans to put a lander there in 2023. Dozens of countries, from Algeria to Vietnam, now operate satellites.
There has also been a proliferation of private companies working in space – including firms like Elon Musk’s SpaceX, Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin and Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic that aim to offer civilian tourist flights. Musk’s Starlink satellite communications service has also played a crucial role in communications during the war in Ukraine.
What is the future for our use of space? Will manned missions beyond Earth’s orbit make a comeback any time soon? And is regulation possible or desirable – or has the Final Frontier become the new Wild West?
SPEAKERSIan Crawfordprofessor of planetary science and astrobiology, Birkbeck College, University of London
Dr Norman Lewisdirector, Futures-Diagnosis Ltd; co-author, Big Potatoes: the London manifesto for innovation
Thomas Walker-Werthfellow and editor, Objective Standard Institute; co-host, Innovation Celebration
CHAIRDr Paul Reevesdeveloper of Manufacturing Simulation Technology

After Elizabeth II: Does the commonwealth have a future?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The Queen’s Platinum Jubilee led to renewed speculation about the future of the Commonwealth and her death will only add to the questions about the Commonwealth’s future. Regarded by many as her most significant achievement, the organisation’s role in levelling sanctions against South Africa in 1986 was said to play a key role in the end of Apartheid by its supporters.
But today, there are increasing accusations that the Commonwealth is an anachronism and an irrelevance. Despite attempts to put it at the heart of post-Brexit Britain, it is unclear what this means beyond a slogan. Furthermore, some Commonwealth countries have either removed or questioned the British monarchy as their head of state. The royals’ role in the organisation has been questioned too, with Prince William even suggesting that it didn’t need to have a member of the royal family at its head.
Yet, many see in these developments the seeds of a renewed and strengthened Commonwealth. If countries can become republics but still want to stay in, as some Caribbean countries have, does this point to the enduring strengths of the organisation? After all, it remains the key – perhaps only – institution where less powerful nations can attempt to influence global affairs. With this in mind, even several Francophone countries, like Gabon or Togo, have begun to join.
When many countries are more likely to demand reparations from the British monarchy rather than bow in deference, is there any role for the Commonwealth today? Can it be a useful platform for smaller nations to influence global affairs, or is it simply outdated?
SPEAKERSTessa Clarkejournalist; author; documentary reporter
Dr Rakib Ehsanauthor, Beyond Grievance: what the Left gets wrong about ethnic minorities
Lord Howellpresident, the All-Party Commonwealth Parliamentary Group; politician; journalist; economic consultant and author
Jonathan McClorypartner, Sanctuary Counsel; expert on soft power, public diplomacy and foreign affairs; creator, partner, The Soft Power 30
CHAIRDr Mo Lovattnational coordinator, Debating Matters; programme coordinator, Academy of Ideas

Working to rule: humanity and the history of the algorithm

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In many ways, we seem to live our lives according to the output of algorithms. They determine the suggestions for the next thing to watch on Netflix and the next thing to buy on Amazon. Our social-media timelines throw up posts that algorithms deem to popular or likely to be of particular interest to us – there are claims this process stoked the summer riots in the UK – along with a side order of personalised adverts. One way or another, algorithms are blamed for many of society’s ills.
Yet an algorithm is simply a well-defined and self-contained procedure, made up of a finite number of ordered steps, to be carried out in order to solve a problem or complete a task. With the twentieth-century advent of computer science, and twenty-first-century developments in Big Data and AI, algorithms have become invisibly woven into countless aspects of our world and our lives. Rarely, however, do we pause to reflect on where algorithms come from and what they tell us about ourselves.
Algorithms are often thought of as a recent phenomenon, but their history can be traced back 4,000 years or more. This history takes us from the First Babylonian Empire, to ancient Alexandria, to Baghdad in the Islamic Golden Age, to nineteenth- and twentieth-century breakthroughs in Königsberg, Göttingen, Vienna, Cambridge and Princeton.
Over the course of their history, algorithms have proved to be an increasingly useful and powerful tool, while confronting humanity with an unsettling question – can all intellectual endeavour be explained, and pursued, in terms of algorithms? Answers to this question, once discovered, gave birth to the rich field of computer science. However, these answers were themselves strange and unsettling, and have been cast in new light by subsequent developments.
In this lecture, Sandy Starr will explore the history of algorithms, and explain how this history can help us think through the challenges posed by today’s AI.
SPEAKERSSandy Starrdeputy director, Progress Educational Trust; author, AI: Separating Man from Machine
CHAIRHarley Richardsonchief product officer, OxEd and Assessment; organiser, AoI Education Forum; blogger, historyofeducation.net; author, The Liberating Power of Education

Will a new Race Equality Act improve race relations?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
‘Labour will introduce a landmark Race Equality Act, to enshrine in law the full right to equal pay for Black, Asian, and other ethnic minority people, strengthen protections against dual discrimination and root out other racial inequalities.’ This is the promise given in Labour’s election manifesto. It all sounds sensible enough at a quick glance – surely any legislation that creates a fairer and more equal society should be welcomed? After the summer riots, UK race relations feel fragile. The question is, will Labour’s promised new laws help or hinder community cohesion?
Some fear the law might be both unnecessary and, worse, could create unnecessary dividing lines, encouraging a racialised view of everyday life. For example, Labour wants to make it mandatory for large companies to report on pay gaps according to ethnicity, bringing it into line with reporting on gaps between men and women’s pay. But is this legislation really necessary, when it is already illegal to pay people less on the basis of their ethnicity? A report from EU Agency for Fundamental Rights even ranks Britain the lowest in terms of prevalence of discrimination due to ethnic background. Moreover, as Lord Sewell’s Report for the Commission of Racial and Ethnic Disparities pointed out, comparing men to women, who each make up about half the population, is more reliable statistically than comparisons between many different, mostly smaller ethnic groups.
The proposed Bill also risks embroiling schools in controversy over reporting on ethnic disparities in outcomes, with vague promises of a ‘curriculum which is rich and broad, inclusive and innovative’. Indeed, some critics have interpreted this as code for rejecting established educational standards and practices in favour of more politicised EDI material entering the classroom. Additionally, promises to reverse the Conservatives’ decision to downgrade the monitoring of anti-Semitic and Islamophobic hate – which potentially means adopting the All-Party Parliamentary Group’s definition of Islamophobia – compounds fears that, rather than progressing equality, a new race-relations law might fuel even more division.
Why does the Labour Party think British people need more law to improve race relations via eliminating disparities? Is disparity proof of inequality? Might proposed Positive Action schemes create new divisions and resentment in workplaces and schools? Or is the law a well-meaning and important stepping stone in ensuring a cohesive society, with all possible vestiges of racism removed from the public square?
SPEAKERSAlbie Amankonabroadcaster; financial analyst; executive member, 2022 Group; vice chair of outreach, LGBT+ Conservatives; co-founder, Conservatives Against Racism
Dr Anna Loutfibarrister, The Barrister Group; managing partner, DL Law; advisory council member, Don’t Divide Us
Hardeep Singhjournalist, author, ‘Islamophobia’ Revisited; deputy director, Network of Sikh Organisations
Colin Wynter KCmulti-award winning barrister, Maryon Wynter Chambers;
CHAIRDr Alka Sehgal Cuthbertdirector, Don't Divide Us; author, What Should Schools Teach? Disciplines, subjects and the pursuit of truth

Why JS Bach still matters

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
From the introspection of his solo cello suites to the grand drama of his choral works, Johann Sebastian Bach is one of the musical greats – uniting technical mastery with a profound understanding of musical form and structure. Although exceptionally talented, his real genius lay in his ability to synthesise tradition with innovation, to create music not merely mathematically precise, but capable of expressing the full cosmos of human emotion.
But, in this year, the 300th anniversary of the premiere of Bach’s St John Passion, does this godlike figure of classical music still matter? Alas, it seems, even among music scholars, he is no longer considered a Titan. In some academic circles, the fact that Bach was a heterosexual white male makes him merely an irrelevance – and even offensive to modern sensibilities.
For example, take a pivotal scene in the Hollywood film Tár, in which self-declared ‘BIPOC, pangender’ music student Max says that Bach’s reputation for misogyny and cisgender-white-maleness make it hard for him to appreciate the composer’s music. Lydia Tár, the fictional conductor of an orchestra in Berlin and masterclass tutor at Julliard, suggests students should focus on the music instead of immutable characteristics. Edited phone footage of her comments becomes a contributing factor in Tár’s eventual cancellation from the heights of classical music fame. The scene seems entirely plausible.
In recent years, other composers of Western classical music have also faced hostile investigation. From claims that music theory is a racial ideology to be dismantled, to suggestions that studying white European music causes students of colour distress, it has become almost impossible in classrooms and peer-reviewed journals to assert the intrinsic value of classical music. In a bid to ‘decolonise’ the music curriculum, an Oxford professor branded musical notation itself ‘colonialist’. Beyond academia, efforts to popularise classical repertoire to new generations have been denigrated as the white supremacist project of an imperial society.
While some fight back by asserting that Bach and his companions in the canon are unassailable accomplishments of Western civilisation, is it enough to treat classical works with uncritical reverence? How can we judge an exemplary work like his St John Passion? Need we defend Bach the man to celebrate his music? Can we champion the transcendental quality of Western classical music against politicised opposition, indifference or claims of irrelevance?
SPEAKERSIvan Hewettwriter and broadcaster; chief music critic, Telegraph; professor, Royal College of Music; author, Music: healing the rift
Dr Lola Salemlecturer in French and music, University of Oxford; author; professional singer, Maîtrise de Radio France; critic
CHAIRElisabetta Gasparonilinguist; teacher; founder, Aesthetic Study Group

What’s the endgame for Ukraine?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Over two and a half years into Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, an end to the conflict seems as elusive as ever. Yet in many circles, the conversation has begun to turn towards the question of ending the war.
Certainly, the possible election of Donald Trump adds impetus to the debate. Trump has promised to end the war in 24 hours if elected, and his vice-presidential pick, JD Vance, has made no secret of his desire to end the war at any costs, nor his dislike for Ukraine’s president Zelensky. More broadly, international support for Ukraine seems at something of an impasse: countries like Germany have announced they are winding back support and the US seems unwilling to budge on its reluctance to let Ukraine use Western weapons to strike Russian targets on Russian soil.
Yet, Ukraine’s gamble in invading the Russian region of Kursk has suggested that, as much as Ukraine remains outnumbered and outgunned, it is still capable of surprises. But can it change what seems to be the direction the war is taking? Indeed, even many friends of Ukraine are wondering if now is the time for peace. After months of steady gains for Russia, Western outlets are now full of stories about Ukraine’s struggles with manpower, conscription, and war-weariness. All this raises the question: how long can Ukraine hold out?
In Ukraine itself, there seems some thawing to the ‘no negotiations’ spirit that had previously united society. Polls track an increased willingness to talk to Russia. But the same polls show little if any appetite for concessions on the crucial issues of territory, military size or NATO membership. Indeed, the fundamental dynamics which prompted the war – Ukraine’s existential difficulty in living next to a revanchist, belligerent and larger country – have not gone away.
If the debate about supporting Ukraine has thus far been confined to lies and platitudes about ‘whatever it takes’ –  is it not time to discuss what the strategy for supporting Ukraine should be? Does the outcome of war simply hinge on who enters the White House, or are broader dynamics at play? What should be the aim in supporting Ukraine – total victory or a better negotiating position? Does it play into Putin’s hands to talk about an end to the war, or is clarity a vital part of supporting Ukraine’s independence?
SPEAKERSMary Dejevskyformer foreign correspondent in Moscow, Paris and Washington; special correspondent in China; writer and broadcaster
Tom Mutchfreelance journalist and war reporter
Jacob Reynoldshead of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas
CHAIRBruno WaterfieldBrussels correspondent, The Times

What is great art?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
If you want to know a quick answer to what is considered ‘great’ in the canon of art history, look no further than those targeted by contemporary climate activists: Vincent van Gogh, John Constable, Sandro Botticelli. Paintings by these artists are prized within national collections and treasured by the public because they are considered some of the best ever created.
Notions of greatness imply a hierarchy which, today, many see as a problem. For some, it is critics who are to blame – rightly or wrongly – for influencing this hierarchy. Austrian art critic EH Gombrich curated a narrative of art history using ‘welcome landmarks’ in his text The Story of Art, arguing that ‘the most famous works [of art] are really often the greatest by many standards’. In other words, great art is well-known by the public because it is great, and being guided by these standards is a means to make art history more accessible for those who might not know where to begin.
Scholars have long puzzled over the standards for artistic greatness. Should artists strive to achieve a good resemblance? What about trickery? Writing in ancient Greece, Pliny the Elder described how Parrhasius was crowned the greatest artist because he was able to fool his rival with an optical illusion. And what about aesthetics, from symmetry, perspective to colour theory? Or is there something more intangible to great art – the pain you feel standing in front of Picasso’s Guernica, or the or the joy of Klimt’s The Kiss? Should great art contain a magic that can only come from true genius, no matter how skilled the brushstrokes or carefully trained the sculpting knife?
Post-modern theories critique the notion of ‘great’ altogether, for representing an elite Western viewpoint. For these critics, the socially-constructed nature of ‘greatness’ as a standard of artistic value is a deception of objectivity that lionises the white male ‘genius’ while cloaking his scandalous behaviour. They ask why others – often black or female – have been given less attention, from Georgia O’Keeffe to Henry Ossawa Tanner. These debates have real-world implications. Today, curators may privilege certain works of art by putting them on (or off) display based on the artist’s identity, rather than the value of their work.
What are the standards for ‘great’ art? Has the drive to include diverse artists created a new hierarchy, one in which the public is led by identity rather than excellence? Should we scrap the canon altogether, and embrace the notion that art is a subjective experience? And if standards are still useful in art appreciation and the education of a new generation of artists, what should they be, and who should decide them?
SPEAKERSElla Nixoncurator; writer; PhD student, Northumbria University; fellow, Common Sense Caledonia; 2023 fellow, Roger Scruton
Dido Powellpainter; lecturer and tutor in art history and painting
Angelica Walker-Werthwriter, editor and programmes manager, Objective Standard Institute
CHAIRDr Wendy Earleconvenor, Arts and Society Forum; co-host, Arts First podcast

What do women need to be free?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The fight for women’s freedom has taken many forms – legal battles, policy wars, grassroots campaigns, stunts and setbacks. The difference in women’s experiences and opportunities from the postwar generation to today’s Gen Zers is stark. Women’s equality with men is now almost totally enshrined in law, but social norms regarding a woman’s place in public life have also become much more liberal. And yet, after all the waves of feminism – complete with allies and t-shirts – many argue that women still aren’t free in 2024.
Some point to remaining issues with women’s legal position in society. It might be formally illegal to pay women different wages to men for the same work, but expectations around motherhood, and eye-watering childcare costs, mean that many women don’t get the opportunity to reach as high or earn as much as their male peers. Pro-choice campaigners point to centuries-old law relating to abortion, which forbids women from making decisions about their own bodies, or restrictive healthcare policy relating to contraception, which likewise hampers women’s independence.
For others, the barriers to women’s freedom are more visceral – relating to fears about women’s safety in the face of male violence. Poor rates of rape convictions, high numbers of sexual-assault complaints and many women reporting everyday general harassment – from catcalling to flashing – all paint a picture of fear and uncertainty for women’s safety. Campaigners say the solution to this is greater state protections, from criminalising misogyny to tougher jail sentences for sexist crimes. Others point to old arguments from past women’s liberation movements, which rejected state paternalism as a solution to male violence.
And then there are some who make a more existential point about women’s freedom – that the experiences and expectations of the two sexes remain unequal. The idea that men aren’t as good as women at cooking, cleaning and watching the kids might seem cliché, but for many it remains true. Likewise, from beauty standards and teenage girls’ obsession with their weight to yummy mummies, trad wives and girl bosses, many women say they feel they’re constantly being held to a higher standard than their male friends.
What do women need to be free, and why does it seem so hard to achieve? Should we accept that the remaining hurdles will simply take time to iron out naturally? Is a new feminism, often focused on women’s feelings, getting in the way of talking about the nuts and bolts of women’s liberation? Is there a difference between women’s safety and women’s freedom – is one impossible without the other? And what changes could be made, from free childcare to decriminalising abortion, that might cement a future of freedom for women?
SPEAKERSFelice Basbøllproject assistant, Ideas Matter; student, Trinity College Dublin
Julie Bindeljournalist; author, Feminism for Women: the real route to liberation; feminist campaigner; podcast host, Julie in Genderland
Heather Binningfounding director, Women’s Rights Network
Dr Ashley Frawleysociologist; author, Significant Emotions and Semiotics of Happiness
David Goodharthead of demography unit, Policy Exchange; author The Care Dilemma: Caring enough in the age of sex equality and The Road to Somewhere
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want
 

Battle of Ideas 2024 Welcome Address

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
The nineteenth annual Battle of Ideas festival opened with a Welcome Address.
SPEAKERSBen Deloentrepreneur, mathematician and philanthropist
Claire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

War and civilisation: a brief history

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In August 2024, it emerged that the US was preparing for the possibility of a nuclear attack coordinated between China, Russia and North Korea. Add in the support of Iran, and we might ask: is this an alliance of four rather different civilisations ranged against the Western sort? The 100million-strong Chinese Communist Party, Russian nationalism, North Korean Stalinism and Shia Islamism have little in common with each other. But all of these forces share the feeling that the West has lost its grip. Is that true?
In this lecture, Professor James Woudhuysen takes us swiftly through over 200 years of history to look at the way war has changed the world, from forging the nation state – a powerful force for civilisation – to the way it has been used not just to defeat external opponents, but internal opponents, too. While the 80th anniversary of D-Day reminds us that great, global ‘hot wars’ have been absent for decades, wars in Ukraine and Gaza are a reminder that conflict is never far away – with ramifications far beyond the particular battlefields on which it is fought.
With historical perspective on our side, what should we make of the various threats to the West today? Are we facing an existential threat from without or is the sabre-rattling merely bluster? If Western nation-states were shaped by war, do the same tendencies make future wars inevitable? Is the real problem that the West itself has lost confidence in Western civilisation?
SPEAKERJames Woudhuysenvisiting professor, forecasting and innovation, London South Bank University
CHAIRJean Smithfounder member, Our Fight UK; co-founder and director, NY Salon

The women who wouldn’t wheesht

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
For more than a decade, gender ideology seemed to enjoy unstoppable momentum across the Western world, establishing itself in the corridors of power, the faculty of universities, the HR departments of institutions and the boardrooms of corporations. As a consequence, from swimming-pool changing rooms to prison cells, woman’s refuges to political meetings, the ability of women to exercise sex-based rights has been under attack.
However, many now recognise that a shift has taken place in the sex and gender wars, with slithers of space opening up for women to speak about their views on gender ideology without being silenced. High-profile cases relating to equality law, parliamentary rows, and scandals within the healthcare system from the Cass Review to the WPATH files have empowered many silent but supportive people to come forward and say, enough is enough.
What is clear is that the influence of gender ideology would have continued unchallenged without ordinary and extraordinary women speaking up. The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht is a Sunday Times bestseller that captures an important moment in contemporary history: how a grassroots women’s movement, harking back to the Suffragettes and second-wave feminism, took on the political establishment and changed the course of history.
Through a collection of essays and photographs, some of the women involved tell the story of their five-year campaign to protect women’s sex-based rights. Including JK Rowling, former MP Joanna Cherry KC and those – like Jenny Lindsay, Gillian Philip and Professor Kathleen Stock, who lost careers or opportunities – the book also features anonymous women who fought for their rights as survivors of sexual abuse in the face of hostility from politicians. In a moving introduction, the woman who coined the phrase ‘Women Won’t Wheesht’ explains how she was motivated to fight for the right of her profoundly disabled daughter to have female-only care.
Join some of the contributors to the book to discuss the causes and consequences of this political upheaval of women’s rights. How did it take years of women risking losing jobs, families and friends to challenge a previously fringe ideology? And while some battles have been won – from the resignation of Nicola Sturgeon to widespread coverage of the injustices in sport – are the sex and gender wars still raging?
SPEAKERSJoanna Cherry KCKing’s Counsel at Scottish Bar; former SNP MP for Edinburgh South West; former chair, Joint Committee on Human Rights
Gillian Philipwriter and haulage worker
Susan Smithco-director, For Women Scotland; director, Beira’s Place; contributor, The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht
CHAIRMarion Calderco-director, For Women Scotland

The wellbeing industry: is it doing us any good?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Wellbeing is big business and the ‘wellness’ industry is booming. Since the inaugural Global Wellness Day in 2012, annual worldwide spending on wellness has ballooned to $5.6tn dollars, considerably more than the GDP of Germany, the world’s third-largest economy. In the US, the number of professional therapists is growing faster than any other occupation. In the UK, as wellness programmes and wellbeing champions become prominent in the workplace, 290,000 therapists are now employed, double that of a decade ago.
Nowhere is the wellness industry thriving more than amongst the young. In line with government-sponsored initiatives like the University Mental Health Charter Programme, and supported by enterprises such as Student Minds, expansive counselling and welfare services cater to staff and students, who are urged to ‘develop insight, understanding and skills’ to manage and maintain wellbeing. Another burgeoning growth area is in new mental-health apps, popular tools to cultivate and tend your wellbeing.
The booming wellness industry coincides with an apparent nationwide deterioration of mental health, including rapidly rising levels of depression, anxiety and behavioural disorders.  Some put this down to ‘intensification’ of work, tighter deadlines, managers ill-equipped to look after employees or anxieties over the rising cost of living.  But others say the problems are more social and cultural, for example reflecting post-pandemic blues or toxic workplace culture, where employees are stressed from microaggressions, racism or homophobia.
With record absenteeism and debilitating impacts in terms of people’s ability to manage their lives, one question is whether the wellness industry is helping people. With growing mental-health problems seemingly outpacing the increased resources devoted to wellness, is there a need for more investment in professionals and an expanded remit, such as employers advising on life beyond work, from financial budgeting to exercise and eating regimes? But others warn society risks relying on professional ‘help’ that will undermine resilience to deal with the challenges of everyday life for ourselves.
The former secretary of state for work and pensions, Mel Stride, argues that we have ‘gone too far’ in medicalising the ‘normal anxieties of life’ and some worry the growth of wellness has a debilitating effect on wider society. Post-pandemic worklessness is rife as monthly numbers signing on long-term sick have doubled – with mental health the biggest single complaint. In universities, increasingly students cite wellbeing problems as mitigating or extenuating circumstances ahead of exams.
What is driving the growth of the wellness industry? Is it a necessary service helping those in need or unnecessarily encouraging us to declare we are ill? How can we strike the right balance between treating those who need help and avoiding causing problems for individuals and society? And how should we respond to the cultural ascension of the wellness industry and its politically imposed ideals?
SPEAKERSRachel Bosenterferhigher-education professional; women's rights activist
Amy Gallagherpsychiatric nurse and psychotherapist
Roy Lilleyhealth-policy analyst; writer; broadcaster and commentator; co-author, Wellness: why can’t we stop people getting sick in the first place?
Para Mullanformer operations director, EY-Seren; fellow, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development
CHAIRRosamund Cuckstonsenior HR professional; co-organiser, Birmingham Salon

The War Against the Past: looking to the future

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Whether through toppling statues, decolonising curricula and institutions – or even erasing terms from our vocabulary – Western civilisation, and its past, is now regularly portrayed as a story of shame. Where once society boasted of its history, marking anniversaries and celebrating great achievements, today a bleaker and more apologetic view often prevails.
For Professor Frank Furedi, this assault on our cultural heritage is a problem. In his latest book, The War Against the Past: Why the West must fight for its history, he writes that ‘a society that loses touch with its past will face a permanent crisis of identity’. To be able to understand where we are today, and where we might move in the future, he writes, is impossible without an appreciation of how we got here.
Some worry that a detachment from a sense of a collective past might hamper a sense of social solidarity – preventing people from identifying as members of a common community. They argue that when human accomplishments – from Greek philosophy or the intellectual revolution of the Enlightenment to the scientific achievements of modernity – are indicted for association with exploitation and oppression, we risk removing the building blocks that give us confidence to progress further.
If we deny a dialogue with history, despite how repugnant we now find experiences of slavery, religious dogma or colonialism, do we risk robbing society of an understanding of how to move forward? On the contrary, some argue a re-writing of Western history is necessary to forge a fairer future. As Jonathan Sumption put it in his review of Furedi’s book in the Spectator, those who argue for decolonisation don’t see slavery or colonialism as ‘just historical phenomena but symptoms of underlying attitudes whose persistence is held to be the main obstacle to the proper recognition of marginalised groups’.
What complicates matters is that history has never been a settled story. From a conservative orientation to tradition to a left-leaning belief in the future, including a modernist confidence in breaking from the past, how society relates to its history has long been contested. Are critics right to say that the defence of the past today simply amounts to a new generation of nostalgics taking refuge in their version of the past?
What is the role of our historical inheritance? Is a war against that past that devalues our ancestors and erodes humanity’s past achievements a fatal blow to the pursuit of political change today? Or should we be less concerned with the past and more about how to make the case for progress in the here and now?
SPEAKERSProfessor Frank Furedisociologist and social commentator; executive director, MCC Brussels
Dr James Orrassociate professor of philosophy of religion, University of Cambridge
Emma Webbwriter, broadcaster and presenter at GB News; fellow, New Culture Forum
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

The turn against (over)tourism

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Holiday lets, overpriced bars and trinket shops – many of the world’s most beautiful destinations rely on tourism to stay afloat. Tourism is also a serious economic consideration for many countries – in 2023, the worldwide travel and tourism market recovered from a Covid-era slump and bounced back to a figure of around £7.6 trillion, making up 9.1 per cent of the global GDP. But not everyone is thrilled about the return of happy campers. Over the past few years, once-welcoming tourist destinations have now become verboten for visitors.
Last year, Amsterdam discouraged unruly British visitors with their ‘stay away’ advertising campaigns, warning against drinking to excess, urinating in canals and taking illegal drugs. In Barcelona, a growing housing crisis has brought scrutiny to the short-term rental economy propped up by apps like AirBnB. Anti-tourism graffiti has been spotted all over the city, and members of a ‘tourism degrowth’ organisation have been filmed squirting tourists with water pistols and blocking hotel doors with tape, revealing the tensions between local Barcelonians and the customers much of the city’s industry relies on. The city’s mayor has pledged to suspend short-term lets by 2029, taking pressure off the shrinking residential sector. But some argue these measures will simply force landlords underground, creating a black market for unruly tourists.
Some areas have introduced levies to soften the impact of overtourism. In 2023, Unesco threatened to move Venice onto their world heritage danger list following a rise in avoidable damage by tourists to the city’s fragile structures. While a €5 visitor levy introduced this summer has raised around £1million for the city’s council, it has seemingly done nothing to curb visitor numbers or to lessen nuisances for locals. This May, Wales proposed its own visitor tax for tourists staying in overnight accommodation, arguing that it is ‘fair and reasonable to ask visitors to make a contribution towards the wider costs of tourism’. But critics, like the Taxpayers’ Alliance, have argued that this charge will be detrimental to Wales’s ‘competitive edge’, harming small businesses and Welsh residents in the hospitality and tourism sectors as prospective visitors decide to go elsewhere.
We all love a holiday – indeed, the aspiration of ‘seeing the world’ is something many of us still hold as an essential human experience. With cheap flights, social norms more accustomed to international travel and more people seeking out the same destinations, how should we balance the lives of locals with the desires of out-of-towners? What effect did the pandemic have – why did many locals, accustomed to the solitude brought by Covid-19 on their beaches and beauty spots, suddenly become so hostile to tourists? Is there a bigger question of management, with states failing to control overtourism in attractive locations, while other parts of the nation decay and see less revenue? Is it up to the state to resolve this, or should local decision-making play a more significant factor?
SPEAKERSDr Jim Butcherlecturer; researcher; co-author, Volunteer Tourism: the lifestyle politics of international development
Katie Glasscolumnist, feature writer and travel journalist
Emma Zaoliinternational relations and French student, Durham University
CHAIRAustin Williamsdirector, Future Cities Project; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution; series editor, Five Critical Essays.