Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

The political image: in conversation with Stuart Mitchell

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Stuart Mitchell has photographed many of the leading political and cultural figures of the past decade, including Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Benjamin Netanyahu, Michel Barnier, Donald Trump, Douglas Murray and Tom Stoppard. He also had a front-row seat as Britain left the EU in his role as the Brexit Party’s official photographer and witnessed, up close, the 2020 US Presidential election.
‘As a photographer with privileged access one is able to ghost around the room at key historical moments. This has allowed me to gain an insight into the personalities behind the political projection. I look forward to sharing some of these insights with everyone.’
This will be a unique chance to look through many of Stuart’s most important shots with the photographer himself and ask any questions regarding their role in broader political events. What is the role of photography and imagery in political history?
SPEAKERSStuart Mitchellphotojournalist
CHAIREve Kayexecutive producer; international, primetime and creative arts Emmy winner; Realscreen and Critics Choice TV award winner; RTS winner and Grierson, Broadcast, Banff and PGA award nominee

Letters on Liberty: Translation as Liberation

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Open debate has been suffocated by today’s censorious climate and there is little cultural support for freedom as a foundational value. What we need is rowdy, good-natured disagreement and people prepared to experiment with what freedom might mean today. Faced with this challenge, the Academy of Ideas decided to launch Letters on Liberty – a radical public pamphleteering campaign aimed at reimagining arguments for freedom in the 21st century.
In her Letter – Translation as Liberation – author and senior lecturer Vanessa Pupavac argues that translation is the truest form of altruism – a process through which we express our human sociability across language borders. Finding creativity in the difficulties of communication across language and time barriers, she argues that the layers of meaning provided by different types of translation give freedom and life to a work.
Vanessa and respondents explore the world of translation. Is translating a text more than simply copying meaning into another language? How have different translations and methods changed the way we view key texts and ideas throughout the ages? How does modern translation fit into contemporary concerns about cultural appropriation – should white translators be trusted with black authors’ texts, for example? And in a climate of suspicion around free speech, does communication matter more than ever?
SPEAKERSDr Marie Kawthar Daoudalecturer in French language and literature, Oriel College, University of Oxford; author, L’Anti-Salomé
Dr Shirley Lawesresearcher; consultant and university teacher, specialising in teacher education and modern foreign languages; Chevalier dans l'ordre des Palmes Académiques awarded
Dr Vanessa Pupavactranslator; associate professor, School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham; author, Translation as Liberation
CHAIRSabine Beppler-Spahlchair, Freiblickinstitut e.V; CEO, Sprachkunst36; author, Off-centre: how party consensus undermines our democracy; Germany correspondent, spiked

Letters on Liberty: Risking it all - the freedom to gamble

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Open debate has been suffocated by today’s censorious climate and there is little cultural support for freedom as a foundational value. What we need is rowdy, good-natured disagreement and people prepared to experiment with what freedom might mean today. Faced with this challenge, the Academy of Ideas decided to launch Letters on Liberty – a radical public pamphleteering campaign aimed at reimagining arguments for freedom in the 21st century.
In his Letter – Risking it all: the freedom to gamble – writer and poker player Jon Bryan argues that we should all be concerned about the introduction of more restrictions on gambling. Almost every proposal on gambling regulation today is about limiting what we can do, he argues, often taking away both our privacy and basic freedoms. The narrative behind concerns about gambling is the idea that the state should step in and control our finances, as we cannot be trusted with them. The consequences of accepting controls and restrictions in this area of life, he argues, sets a precedent for their introduction elsewhere.
Jon and respondents discuss why being free to risk it all is something worth protecting. How do we deal with problem gambling – tragic stories of people who have become destitute – if not through restrictions? Is there a class element to the way in which gambling is often discussed, with words like feckless playing into existing prejudices about how working-class people manage their lives? And from drinking and smoking to gambling and enjoying extreme sports, why do we seem so keen on controlling the personal decisions citizens are allowed to make about their own lives?
SPEAKERSJon Bryangambling writer and poker player
Mark Littlewooddirector general, Institute of Economic Affairs; broadcaster and columnist, The Times
Ed RennieCatholic writer; political analyst
Brigid Simmonds OBEchair, Betting and Gaming Council
CHAIRHilary Salt FIA, FPMI, FRSAactuary; founder, First Actuarial

Letters on Liberty: Rethinking Anti-Semitism

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Open debate has been suffocated by today’s censorious climate and there is little cultural support for freedom as a foundational value. What we need is rowdy, good-natured disagreement and people prepared to experiment with what freedom might mean today. Faced with this challenge, the Academy of Ideas decided to launch Letters on Liberty – a radical public pamphleteering campaign aimed at reimagining arguments for freedom in the 21st century.
In his Letter – Rethinking Anti-Semitism – author and commentator Daniel Ben-Ami argues that a misunderstanding of the causes of modern anti-Semitism is stopping us from waging a serious battle to defeat it. He argues that a future free from Jew-hatred can only be achieved through a commitment to free and open debate.
Join Daniel and respondents to try to untangle the different forms of anti-Semitism today, and understand their origins. How much of a role does the far-right play, when contemporary problems of anti-Semitism have often come from the far-left and from Islamist groups? Why is the knee-jerk response to anti-Semitism always linked to bans and censorship, instead of discussion? And why has something colloquially known as the ‘oldest hatred’ seemed to have made such a comeback – if indeed it ever went away?
SPEAKERSDaniel Ben-Amijournalist; creator, Radicalism of Fools; author, Ferraris for All: in defence of economic progress and Cowardly Capitalism
Nathalie Rothschildfreelance journalist; producer and reporter for Sweden's public service radio; producer, Antisemitism Today
Wasiq Wasiqcounter terrorism analyst; founding trustee, Muslims Against Antisemitism
CHAIRJacob Furedideputy editor, UnHerd; former associate features editor, Daily Mail

In the wake of terror: anti-Semitism today

Recorded at Buxton Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 25 November at Devonshire Dome, Buxton.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The first weekend of October was the darkest in Israel’s history. A murderous Hamas attack on southern Israel killed at least 1,400 and wounded about 3,000. Over 200 were captured and taken to Gaza.
If the barbaric slaughter was not bad enough, many have sought to justify Hamas’ attacks. Significant numbers at protests across the Western world have shown open support for Hamas – an organisation that makes no secret of its intention to kill Jews.
Meanwhile, Jews across Europe live in fear of attacks. Some Jewish schools have decided to close temporarily or have advised pupils not to wear blazers with school badges while travelling to and from school. Weekly protests have caused alarm at the vociferous nature of some of the chants. Posters depicting hostages are frequently torn down. Students in elite universities take sides against Israel.
Yet many complain that any criticism of Israel’s actions is being shut down by the complaint of anti-Semitism. While many criticisms of Israel do seem to slide into anti-Semitic territory, how do we avoid the weaponisation of the term?
What explains the open expression of anti-Semitism on the streets of London and other Western countries? Should the UK emulate France’s ban of pro-Palestine demos or do such illiberal responses fuel anti-Israel, indeed anti-Jewish sentiment? How do those with genuine criticisms of Israel express their qualms at present? Or in the wake of Hamas’ butchery, is that an issue for another day? How could anti-Semitism, an ideology that many considered had been consigned to the past, come to reassert itself?
SPEAKERSDaniel Ben-Amijournalist; creator, Radicalism of Fools; author, Ferraris for All: in defence of economic progress and Cowardly Capitalism
Ike Ijehauthor; architect; founder, London Architecture Walks; founding signatory, Don't Divide Us
Lesley Klaffsenior lecturer in Law; editor-in-chief, Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism
Stephen Knightreporter and podcaster; host, The Knight Tube
CHAIRJacob Reynoldshead of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

What are the limits of AI?

Recorded at Buxton Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 25 November at Devonshire Dome, Buxton.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The hopes and fears that surround AI are so far-reaching, they are almost impossible to exaggerate. The AI-driven scenarios now discussed seriously by policymakers range from utopia, to dystopia, to the complete extermination of humanity. Tech entrepreneur Ian Hogarth, who has been appointed by the UK government to spearhead its efforts ensuring that AI is ‘safe and reliable’, has warned that ‘God-like AI could be a force beyond our control or understanding, and one that could usher in the obsolescence or destruction of the human race’.
The idea of machines emulating human thought has a long history, but AI as we know it dates back to the 1950s, when the term ‘artificial intelligence’ was first coined by American researchers to distinguish their work from approaches such as cybernetics. Since then, AI has been through various peaks and troughs, with periods of unfashionability known as ‘AI winters’ punctuating waves of hype. Recent advances – in particular, powerful approaches known as ‘foundation models’ and related tools known as ‘generative’ AI, which include AI chatbots such as ChatGPT – have attracted unprecedented attention, advocacy and investment.
New possibilities in mechanisation and automation, and related concerns about the impact on people’s jobs and livelihoods, are now seen through an AI prism. Fields of endeavour ranging from robotics to genomics to the arts are increasingly discussed in terms of how AI could transform them, or is already transforming them. Philosophies and intellectual movements that have long sought to redefine humanity, including ‘transhumanism’ and the promotion of ‘human enhancement’, are hitching their wagon to the latest developments in AI. Running alongside all of this are heated debates about how, and by whom, AI should be regulated.
Are prevailing views of today’s AI – and tomorrow’s – justified and realistic? If our machines are as powerful as claimed, where does this leave human agency? If ‘AI winter’ is truly a thing of the past, should we be making hay while the sun shines? Or should we be more sceptical?
SPEAKERSRob Bashforthhead of Computer Science, Salendine Nook High School Academy
Eleanor Kavanagh-Brownuser-centred designer; project assistant, Academy of Ideas
Dr Wajahat Ali Khanassociate professor of Artificial Intelligence, University of Derby
CHAIRSandy Starrdeputy director, Progress Educational Trust; author, AI: Separating Man from Machine

Buxton Battle of Ideas festival 2023: welcome address

Recorded at Buxton Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 25 November at Devonshire Dome, Buxton.
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
Mo Lovattnational coordinator, Debating Matters; programme coordinator, Academy of Ideas
Ella Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want
CHAIRJacob Reynoldshead of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Letters on Liberty: Risking it All: the freedom to gamble

Recorded at Buxton Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 25 November at Devonshire Dome, Buxton.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Open debate has been suffocated by today’s censorious climate and there is little cultural support for freedom as a foundational value. What we need is rowdy, good-natured disagreement and people prepared to experiment with what freedom might mean today. Faced with this challenge, the Academy of Ideas decided to launch Letters on Liberty – a radical public pamphleteering campaign aimed at reimagining arguments for freedom in the 21st century.
In his Letter – Risking it all: the freedom to gamble – writer and poker player Jon Bryan argues that we should all be concerned about the introduction of more restrictions on gambling. Almost every proposal on gambling regulation today is about limiting what we can do, he argues, often taking away both our privacy and basic freedoms. The narrative behind concerns about gambling is the idea that the state should step in and control our finances, as we cannot be trusted with them. The consequences of accepting controls and restrictions in this area of life, he argues, sets a precedent for their introduction elsewhere.
Join Jon and respondents to try to discuss why being free to risk it all is something worth protecting. How do we deal with problem gambling – tragic stories of people who have become destitute – if not through restrictions? Is there a class element to the way in which gambling is often discussed, with words like feckless playing into existing prejudices about how working-class people manage their lives? And from drinking and smoking to gambling and enjoying extreme sports, why do we seem so keen on controlling the personal decisions citizens are allowed to make about their own lives?
SPEAKERSJon Bryangambling writer and poker player
Niall Clarkemember of East Midlands Salon and Politics in Pubs Sheffield
Dr Ken McLaughlinformer social worker; academic; author, Surviving Identity: Vulnerability and the psychology of recognition and Stigma, and its discontents
CHAIRSimon Beltmanaged IT provider; founder, Simply Better IT; founder, Manchester Salon

Politics of hate: is everyone a bigot but me?

Recorded at Buxton Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 25 November at Devonshire Dome, Buxton.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The self-image of Western societies as cosmopolitan, liberal and tolerant has rapidly collapsed recently as a darker view has taken hold of people as extreme, hate-filled and hurtful. Accordingly, controlling ‘hate speech’ has become a major focus for critics and campaigners, and increasingly for 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 data show 155,841 offences recorded in the year to March, up 26 per cent from the previous year – with recorded 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 has grown to 120,000.
But 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’. Yet 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’. But 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’. Greater Manchester Police now recognise ‘alternative sub-culture’ hate incidents based on criticism of someone’s appearance such as Goths, Emos or Punks.
Others say 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 the views aired spread hate and division. More broadly, fuelled by identity politics, competing groups too often accuse other identities of hate and bigotry. The demonising of those we disagree with is used on all sides of politics. On the one side people are labelled as hateful TERFs, gammon, alt-right, xenophobic; on the other as hate-driven snowflakes, misogynists, Remoaners, pinko commies, cry-bullies and more.
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? What should we understand by hate speech and how do we account for its rise to become a central to how Western societies are organising their legal systems and public life?
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
Ike Ijehauthor; architect; founder, London Architecture Walks; founding signatory, Don't Divide Us
Liz Kershawbroadcaster and writer
Andy Shawco-founder, Comedy Unleashed
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Net Zero and the great energy debate

Recorded at Buxton Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 25 November at Devonshire Dome, Buxton.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The UN secretary general has declared 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 is net zero even achievable? The main area for decarbonisation is the energy sector. Proponents argue that renewables like wind and solar are cheaper and cleaner than fossil fuels. Moreover, with energy prices rising globally, they have the advantage of being secure because the energy is produced in the UK.
However, opponents argue that the reality is very different. Where countries have embraced renewables, energy costs have risen. Because wind and solar are unreliable, they must be backed up with other energy sources. Given that storage is hugely expensive at the moment, the backup is gas and coal – effectively meaning paying twice for energy. Already, firms are shutting down or relocating because of high energy prices – in particular, to the US, where the exploitation of shale gas through fracking has kept prices low.
While net zero seems popular in the abstract, the policies designed to make it happen – like bans on gas boilers and petrol cars – 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 as a war on motorists. Politicians are now reassessing their assumptions about a wide range of green policies.
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? Do we need more investment in reliable low-carbon energy like nuclear? Will the backlash against net zero increase – and will it even matter if governments are determined to pursue it, whether we like it or not?
SPEAKERSJoanna CollinsGreen Party councillor, High Peak Borough Council
Dr Caspar Hewettlecturer and degree programme director, Water Group, EuroAquae+, School of Engineering, Newcastle University; director, The Great Debate
Mark Hillaccountant; coordinator, Green Leaves; Green Party member
Rick Moorebusiness owner, InControl; electronic engineer; deputy chair political, Blackburn Conservative Association
CHAIRAustin Williamsdirector, Future Cities Project; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution; convenor, Critical Subjects Architecture School

Is the NHS fit for purpose?

Recorded at Buxton Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 25 November at Devonshire Dome, Buxton.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Since the Covid-19 pandemic hit the UK in March 2020, the NHS has been under incredible strain. While staff coped magnificently with the pressures, the diversion of resources, restrictions on capacity due to infection control and staff forced to stay at home due to sickness and self-isolation rules has led to a backlog building up of other untreated patients.
Figures for July 2023, published in September, show that 7.68million people were waiting to start treatment. These delays could lead to people suffering unnecessarily, and many people will die because opportunities to catch health problems early have been missed. The number of people turning to the private sector for treatment has increased dramatically.
Yet problems with the NHS are not new. Almost every year there is a crisis during winter as a variety of pressures combine to stretch healthcare resources. Long waiting lists for treatment seem ever present. While reports for the Commonwealth Fund have frequently suggested the NHS is one of the top health services in the world, when it comes to patient outcomes, the NHS lags behind most other wealthy economies. Moreover, the UK population is ageing, leading to ever-greater demands over time – particularly when it comes to social care.
The NHS has also had to face a variety of scandals over the years – from Bristol to Stafford and beyond – where poor-quality care has led to patient deaths. A recent report into a maternity scandal in the Shrewsbury and Telford NHS trust revealed hundreds of mothers and babies had been harmed over decades of mistreatment – including multiple deaths. Since then, other trusts have been investigated, with many deemed unfit to safely care for women giving birth.
But the biggest story recently has been the conviction of a paediatric nurse, Lucy Letby, for murdering babies in the intensive care unit where she worked. Many have been shocked, not only by the killings themselves, but by the way hospital managers dismissed the concerns of consultants at the hospital.
Is it time to look again at the way we organise healthcare? The UK is relatively unusual among wealthier nations in having a health service that is mostly financed and provided by the state. Is this near-monopoly of provision a strength or a weakness? Moreover, the NHS has been subject to multiple reorganisations over the years, with a panoply of oversight boards, commissioning groups, health authorities and other bodies now overseeing different aspects of the system. For some critics, the pandemic has simply highlighted the diffusion of responsibility between different parts of the NHS, leading to an inability to hold any part of the system accountable for its failings.
How can we solve the problems of the NHS? Is it simply a matter of providing extra resources – for example, giving striking workers the pay increases they demand – or is the way resources are used within the NHS a problem, too? Do we expect too much from the NHS? And with some observers likening it to a national religion, are politicians brave enough to have a proper debate about reform?
SPEAKERSEmily BarleyMaternity safety campaigner
Nicky Drurygenetic counsellor, Nottingham Department of Clinical Genetics; former member, United Kingdom Human Genetics Commission
Susie Hawkessenior lecturer in social work, University of Wolverhampton
Rob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want
 

From debanking to Bud Light: the rights and wrongs of ESG

Recorded at Buxton Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 25 November at Devonshire Dome, Buxton.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In July, NatWest’s CEO Alison Rose became the latest casualty of the turn to environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) in big business. Rose resigned after the furore over the closure of Nigel Farage’s Coutts account, in part because his political views did not ‘align’ with the company’s values. From Nike annoying women by embracing trans ‘influencer’ Dylan Mulvaney to Gillette annoying men by piggy-backing on the #MeToo movement, there have been numerous high-profile corporate mis-steps in the name of projecting a ‘progressive’ image.
The traditional image of a big business is one of an organisation single-mindedly focused on generating profits for shareholders. But in recent years, there has been a drive to introduce other aims into corporate practice and mission statements, from tackling climate change to promoting ethnic and gender diversity. Given the strong position of big corporations in society, changing the way they conduct business could be a powerful force for good, in the eyes of many.
But there have been concerns that the promotion of such values could be at odds with the views of customers. In April, the backlash against Bud Light’s use of Mulvaney in their advertising led to a boycott of Budweiser products and a decline in the company’s share price. Alissa Heinerscheid, Anheuser-Busch’s vice-president for marketing, had earlier declared that the brand needed to increase its ‘inclusivity’, but she was later reported to have been fired by the company.
Moreover, the rise of debanking and the withdrawal of online payments services is a serious threat to the ability of individuals and organisations to operate in modern society. In July, the Guardian reported that a thousand accounts per day are being closed. While most people would accept that banks have the right to reject customers on commercial grounds, the idea that expressing the ‘wrong’ ideas could make it impossible to send and receive payments is worrying. Moreover, banks are seemingly under no obligation to explain why accounts are being closed.
What is the best role for big firms in improving society? Should they focus solely on producing the best products and services at the keenest prices? Or given their influence, should they be promoting social change, too? Is the turn to ESG, as many claim, merely ‘wokewashing’ or have top executives really bought into pursuing these aims? Is ESG really progressive or does the debanking trends point to illiberal outcomes?
SPEAKERSJoan Mulvennasemi-retired garden designer; founding member, Politics In Pubs
Professor David Patonprofessor of Industrial Economics, Nottingham University Business School
Hilary Salt FIA, FPMI, FRSAactuary; founder, First Actuarial
Barry Wallcourse director, Edileaditandliveit.co.uk
CHAIRSam ParkerEuropean financial regulation specialist; former parliamentary assistant, European Parliament and House of Lords

Boxing: Don't Count it Out

Recorded at Buxton Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 25 November at Devonshire Dome, Buxton.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Open debate has been suffocated by today’s censorious climate and there is little cultural support for freedom as a foundational value. What we need is rowdy, good-natured disagreement and people prepared to experiment with what freedom might mean today. Faced with this challenge, the Academy of Ideas decided to launch Letters on Liberty – a radical public pamphleteering campaign aimed at reimagining arguments for freedom in the twenty-first century.
In his Letter – Boxing: don’t count it out – writer and boxing enthusiast Chris Akers argues that boxing, more than any sport, has a unique way of tapping into the consciousness of the poor, the disgruntled and the forgotten. For all its flaws, he writes, boxing has been the vehicle by which people in poverty have escaped to better surroundings. From Muhammad Ali to Lovemore N’dou, boxing’s greats have often used the sport to highlight political injustices and social issues.
Join Chris and respondents to look at boxing’s contemporary challenges – with new scientific research around head injuries and ‘punch drunk’ fighters calling for greater safety measures in the ring. From rules on gloves to ever-decreasing limits on bouts, should boxing modernise to protect its heroes? Or will we lose the glory of the knockout by introducing more red tape? Does boxing ‘save lives’ – teaching ex-offenders and troubled teens discipline and strength? Or is the commercialisation of violence producing bad role models for young people? And if grown men and women want to go toe-to-toe, who are we to stop them?
SPEAKERSChris Akerssports writer; ghost writer, King of the Journeymen: the life of Peter Buckley; podcaster, The 286 Project
Rob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum
Dr Vanessa Pupavactranslator; senior lecturer, School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham; author, Translation as Liberation
CHAIRGeoff Kidderdirector, membership and events, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Book Club

Battle for the classroom: education or indoctrination?

Recorded at Buxton Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 25 November at Devonshire Dome, Buxton.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
School has a key role in encouraging pupils to become engaged, independent thinkers. But this task has become highly contentious as newspapers reflect many parents’ concerns that classrooms are becoming as concerned with political activism as passing on ‘the best which has been thought and said’.
In the Policy Exchange research report The Politics of the Culture Wars in Contemporary Britain, academic Eric Kaufmann suggests that activist teaching is now widespread in the UK and beginning to have an impact on the views of young people. Six out of 10 school leavers say they were either taught about ideas associated with critical race theory – such as white privilege, systemic racism and unconscious bias – or they heard about them from an adult at their school. Sixty-five per cent say they either encountered the concept of patriarchy or the idea that there are multiple genders from adults at school. What’s more, the government has become embroiled in widespread concerns that parents are being sidelined by schools when it comes to gender transitioning that often takes place with the encouragement of schools but without parents’ consent or even knowledge.
However, some argue this narrative of politicised teaching is a caricature, itself a political act of dragging schools into the Culture Wars. Dr Mary Bousted, general secretary of the National Education Union (NEU), 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. Furthermore, political matters – such as teaching ‘British values’ – have always informed school curricula.
Do accusations of indoctrination simply reflect political disagreement with a new ‘woke’ emphasis? Should schools go beyond narrow academic goals and teach our children how to combat racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, poverty and promote environmentalism? 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? Can contested political ideas be dealt with in classrooms by allowing a range of views to be discussed or should schools steer clear of tackling political controversies altogether? Have education and indoctrination become blurred?
SPEAKERSPenny Lewislecturer, University of Dundee; author, Architecture and Collective Life
Agnes Snowart foundation student, Manchester Metropolitan University
Ruth Warehamlecturer in Philosophy of Education, University of Birmingham; education policy researcher, Humanists UK
Clive Wrightheadteacher, St Martin's Catholic Academy
CHAIRDr Ruth Mieschbuehlersenior lecturer in education studies, Institute of Education, University of Derby; author, The Racialisation of Campus Relations

Are the Culture Wars a distraction?

Recorded at Buxton Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 25 November at Devonshire Dome, Buxton.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The reaction in the UK to the Israel-Hamas conflict is just the latest expression of culture-war divisions. The gap between those defending Israel’s right to defend itself and those demanding a ceasefire or even victory for Hamas seems insurmountable, while the role of major institutions, from the police to the BBC, is constantly questioned.
Yet compared with issues like the cost-of-living crisis, climate change or the war in Ukraine and the return of global conflict to Europe, many view the culture war as a peripheral issue. At a time when developments such as AI threaten mankind’s progress and, in the minds of some, could lead to our extinction, one commentator argues: ‘The culture wars may be seen not as genuine debates but as a form of Freudian displacement. The woke and anti-woke need each other to engage in piffling spats as a diversion from realities they both find too psychologically threatening to confront.’
Do they have a point? Are we effectively fiddling while Rome burns? Whether it’s fights over vegan sausage rolls or galleries flying rainbow flags, culture-war debates certainly generate a lot of heat. But when economic realities mean, for example, that hospitals are under strain and many cannot access vital health treatment, not surprisingly identitarian wars over language codes can be viewed as an artificial attempt to distract us from the problems that really matter – at a time when few politicians seem capable of offering genuine solutions.
For others, the UK culture wars are an American import – an alt-right, Christian fundamentalist assault on stability and the body politic. Given that even the most strident culture warriors on the conservative side are at pains to insist they are not racist, sexist or transphobic, why get so agitated about different degrees of enthusiasm for a worldview we all basically share? Or is there more to it than is admitted?
While today’s cultural divides may not straightforwardly map onto historic Left-Right splits, some say that, in essence, they do reflect significant contemporary class and political divides. Given that how we see the world, and what we value and want out of life, is mediated through culture, today’s battles around historic figures’ links to slavery, or institutions ‘virtue signalling’ over toilets and pronouns can have the capacity to fundamentally influence how we understand ourselves and negotiate change.
If no one, from the National Trust to the British Library, will uphold the traditional values and the legacy of the past, will we lose our sense of who we are and where we’ve come from? Are the culture wars simply a Twitter sideshow to the more serious concerns of everyday life? Or is the way we relate to each other, and to our shared values, fundamental to how we plan for a future together? Given that dissent from so-called ‘woke’ ideas – whether on race, gender or culture itself – has become impossible without being demonised as stirring up toxic, divisive and dangerous trends, is there any choice but to engage in the culture wars? Will it have to be reckoned with if we are to have a serious discussion about anything else? And if, as some argue, today’s culture war is a continuation of the age-old conflict between liberty and authoritarianism, does the claim that the culture war is a ‘distraction’ not in itself become a distraction from the issues that matter?
SPEAKERSDr Remi Adekoyalecturer of politics, University of York; author It’s Not About Whiteness, It’s About Wealth and Biracial Britain
Simon Calvertdeputy director (Public Affairs), The Christian Institute
Dr Cheryl Hudsonlecturer in US political history, University of Liverpool; author, Citizenship in Chicago: race, culture and the remaking of American identity
Stephen Knightreporter and podcaster; host, The Knight Tube
Bruno WaterfieldBrussels correspondent, The Times
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!