Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

The rise and fall of the ivory tower

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The UK’s higher-education sector is in crisis, with 40 per cent of universities and other higher-education institutions expected to run a loss this financial year. Fewer 18-year-olds are electing to go to university. Courses are closing, academic redundancies are on the rise, students are dissatisfied, staff are demoralised, bureaucracy is increasing, and, if you believe the hype, standards are falling. More universities are at risk of bankruptcy.
Should we be bovvered?
Figures produced on behalf of Universities UK claim the sector is worth £116 billion to the economy, supporting more than three quarters of a million jobs, of which nearly half (382,500) are indirect, through businesses that benefit from the economic stimulus universities create. The fallout of a financial meltdown could be considerable.
But some commentators think it may be time for a shake-out of a bloated sector in order to move to a slimmed-down educational offering. University for the brightest and best, but not for the rest?
What is causing the perceived imminent collapse of the UK’s educational establishment? One factor may be students voting with their feet as a post-Covid reaction to the way that they were treated: locked down, online and isolated. Another concern is the high cost of higher education – with students paying £9,250 per year, but some only receiving one or two lectures a week. Then there’s the thorny issue of ‘useless’ degrees. Students have long been promised better paid jobs by getting a vocational degree. But is it a myth that unis can solve the skills crisis, while undermining the academic purpose of higher education as an outcome?
Perhaps the cause is that lecturers’ wages are too high because of trade unions’ excessive demands – or maybe it is the exorbitant salaries paid to vice-chancellors and their army of functionaries. And there is disquiet with standards, either from curricula that are now perceived as more concerned with expounding political viewpoints than teaching critically neutral subject matter, or because grade inflation has brought universities into disrepute. Inevitably, some point to Brexit as the problem. After all, foreign students have long been encouraged to come and fill the funding gap, paying upwards of £30,000 in annual fees.
Will the new Labour government be able to turn things around? Is this an inevitable corrective for a sector that expanded too far – or are we in danger of losing valuable departments, institutions and educational opportunities? And what about the impact on local economies if student numbers fall?
SPEAKERSJennie Bristowreader in sociology, Canterbury Christ Church University; author, The Corona Generation: coming of age in a crisis and Growing up in Lockdown
Maeve Halliganstudent; musician; member, The Hooligans; student representative, Academic for Academic Freedom (AFAF)
Dr Neil Thinauthor; honorary research fellow, social and political science, University of Edinburgh; former director of teaching, SPS Undergraduate School
CHAIRAustin Williamsdirector, Future Cities Project; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution; series editor, Five Critical Essays.

The queering of society

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The word ‘queer’ has had many iterations. First it meant ‘strange’, ‘odd’ or even ‘eccentric’ – think of the expression, ‘there’s nowt so queer as folk’. During the trial of Oscar Wilde, a letter by the Marquis of Queensberry described Wilde and other gay men as ‘snob queers’. Indeed, for many, the term still produces a wince, as it took on the form of a homophobic slur.
Today, however, ‘queer’ has been adopted positively, falling under the LGBTQ+ umbrella representing those whose ‘gender identity’ or sexuality does not fit into ‘cisgender’ norms. No longer just a word, the concept of ‘queering’ has now emerged – a technique to challenge binaries, boundaries and ‘heteronormativity’ across society as a whole. While originally associated with the takeover of Pride events by queer activism, queering is now visible in everyday life – it is impossible to walk down a UK high street and not see ‘queer’ symbolism in the shape of flags or traffic signs.
Applying a queering methodology is inevitably pervasive in academia, but increasing numbers of artistic or cinematic works now incorporate ‘non-binary’ or ‘queer’ figures. This can involve re-writing history – for example, the recent Paris Olympics opening ceremony, which portrayed what seemed to be the Last Supper complete with drag queens and men sporting thongs. Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre queered Joan of Arc (they/them) in its production of I, Joan. Even items recovered in the sixteenth-century shipwreck, Mary Rose, from nit combs to gold rings, have been reassessed through a ‘queer lens’.
Queering can also apply to thinking about the future – a recent report published by Queen’s University Belfast encouraged a gender-inclusive approach to discussion of the Northern Irish border by ‘queering the peace process’. Queers for Palestine are a regular feature on Gaza protests, arguing that we should ‘unpack the multiple intersections of queer politics and the Palestinian struggle’. Likewise, there are calls to queer the education system and curriculum to ‘encourage intersectional ways of thinking’ among primary-age children; to allow them to appreciate the tyranny of boundaries.
Critics of queering argue that this clashes with the reality of most people’s lived experiences in which rules, boundaries and norms are, well, normal. For example, referring to the debate about transwomen’s access to women-only spaces, tennis legend Martina Navratilova tweeted: ‘All our lives we are taught about boundaries, we teach our children about boundaries and now we women are supposed to give them all up for males?’
What is behind this complete shifting of language and the attempt to re-write the past, present and future through a ‘queer lens’? Is queering simply a new way of looking at the world, one which we should embrace with an attitude of ‘live and let live’? Or is there something to be defended in our understanding of binaries and boundaries, that help our understanding of each other rather than harm?
SPEAKERSJames Essesbarrister; social commentator; co-founder, Thoughtful Therapists
Professor Frank Furedisociologist and social commentator; executive director, MCC Brussels
Kate Harrisco-founder and trustee, LGB Alliance; formerly Brighton Women’s Centre and Brighton Women’s Aid
Graham Linehancreator and co-creator, Father Ted, Black Books and The IT Crowd; comedy writer, Count Arthur Strong, Brass Eye and The Fast Show; author, Tough Crowd: How I Made and Lost a Career in Comedy
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

The politicisation of maternity

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Having a baby is a joy, but it’s also no easy task. Aside from the pains every woman has had to go through – from months of indigestion to hours of labour – women bringing a baby into the modern world are now faced with a set of extra challenges. From moral panics about feeding practices to endless books and podcasts on parenting styles, being pregnant and giving birth has become a political act.
Even the medical services women rely on to have children safely have been politicised. As Sirin Kale revealed in the Guardian, midwifery and maternity services have long been influenced by external groups like the Natural Childbirth Trust (NCT), which advocates for unmedicated, ‘natural’ births, using hypnobirthing and aromatherapy. As a result, many women have expressed guilt or shame about asking for pain relief during labour. What used to be common sense – loving your newborn – has now become a studied science, with lessons on skin-to-skin bonding and oxytocin production encouraged by NHS staff across the country.
Likewise, the practical question of how to feed a baby is now a hotly contested topic of debate – one which can often get nasty on social media. Breastfeeding advocacy has won over governments and international NGOs, who have, through legislation and health policy, imposed a ‘breast is best’ narrative. Likewise, the ramping up of efforts to monitor women’s alcohol consumption both before and during pregnancy aims to protect women from the ‘unhealthy choice’ of a glass of wine in pregnancy.
For some, motherhood is political. In the 1960s, woman’s campaigners railed against the over-medicalisation of pregnancy and birth, and contested the benefit of the singularly powerful influence of doctors. Intrusive medical practices and a disregard for women’s bodily autonomy inspired a reclaiming of maternity as an expression of womanhood. But for others, this politicisation of pregnancy created a sense of pressure to do things the ‘right way’, leaving some women feeling like they have failed a test if they do not.
The dark backdrop to all of this is that maternity services are in crisis – with the Care Quality Commission finding in 2023 that two thirds of the maternity units it examined were ‘inadequate’ or required improvement, declaring ‘many are still not receiving the safe, high-quality care that they deserve’. From preventable maternal and infant deaths to extreme birth trauma becoming commonplace, has the move towards a natural, politicised birth come at the cost of safety?
Has all this talk about the right way to be pregnant and give birth scared some women off completely, with birth rates consistently dropping? Or are these new practices in maternity a necessary correction to a lack of woman-centred care that was characteristic of previous generations? Should the NHS be involved in political campaigns from La Leche League to the NCT, or are these external organisations merely providing guidance to women who want it? Can, and should, we aim to take the politics out of maternity?
SPEAKERSEmily BarleyMaternity safety campaigner
Dr Ruth Ann Harpurclinical psychologist; co-founder, Infant Feeding Alliance
Professor Ellie Leeprofessor of family and parenting research, University of Kent, Canterbury; director, Centre for Parenting Culture Studies
Clare Murphyco-director, Feed; former chief executive, British Pregnancy Advisory Service; former health reporter, BBC
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

The polarisation problem: can we speak across the divide?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
It is almost a cliché to note how ‘bitterly divided’ and polarised politics and culture has become. The UK’s summer riots revealed a deeply troubled society, with different groups in our towns and cities seeming to live parallel lives. Meanwhile, polarised abuse is ubiquitous on social media. No doubt algorithms keep us trapped in ‘echo chambers’, but the sense that there’s less willingness to engage with, or even hear, the views from the ‘other side’ is pervasive. Straw men are the order of the day, rather than steel-manning arguments.
Indeed, we don’t agree on what problems we face, let alone the solutions. In fact, we often presume the problem is each other. We even seem to speak different languages – sure, we communicate in the same native tongue, but we can’t agree on the basic meaning of words. For example, what does ‘far-right’ mean when it is promiscuously applied? Likewise, many who run institutions seem fluent in Equality, Diversity and Inclusion lingo, while millions become tongue-tied when faced with acronyms such as LGBTQI+, or trip-over linguistic hurdles thrown up by prescriptive language codes.
Beyond describing this polarisation, what’s to be done? Calling for more civility and a better standard of debating is undoubtedly a positive initial step. Yet often those who claim they want to make exchanges less toxic, preaching a kumbaya ‘be kind’ approach, advocate for censorship which, in turn, only creates more polarisation.
Consider the core message from Labour culture secretary Lisa Nandy when she declared that the ‘era of culture wars is over’. ‘In recent years we’ve found multiple ways to divide ourselves from one another’, she told her new staff at DCMS, ‘changing that is the mission of this department’. For many, this ‘nothing to see here’ approach read as an order to ‘shut up’. Indeed, Nandy’s colleague, the education secretary Bridget Phillipson, dumped the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act for similar reasons, arguing that it was an example of the Conservatives’ ongoing ‘culture war’ against Britain’s institutions. For technocrats, polarisation is merely a nuisance that gets in the way of efficient governance. Labour may be desperate to draw a line under all those tetchy debates about trans rights, racial identity politics and free speech, but isn’t that asking one side to accept defeat rather than achieving genuine peace?
Is it possible to encourage genuine pluralistic debate without sacrificing your principles and ideals? After all, it’s no good pretending to get along if our political divisions represent real problems that need solving. Can we transcend our acrimonious personalised differences in an era of individual and group tribalism? Is identity politics the problem, rather than polarisation? And if the culture wars aren’t over, can we argue our way out of them?
SPEAKERSDr Calum TM Nicholsondirector of research, Danube Institute
Max Sandersonassistant managing editor, Guardian
Tom Slatereditor, spiked; co-host, spiked podcast and Last Orders
Dr Kathleen Stockcolumnist, UnHerd; co-director, The Lesbian Project; author, Material Girls: why reality matters for feminism
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

The Great British Energy crisis

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The Labour government has set out an ambitious goal to decarbonise the UK’s electricity supply by 2030. Labour’s plan includes prioritising renewable energy sources like wind and solar power while reducing the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels. In line with this, the government has indicated it may halt new licences for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. The government also announced the creation of Great British Energy, a publicly funded body to invest in renewable energy. The energy secretary, Ed Miliband, claims these measures will make the UK’s electricity supply greener, more secure and cheaper.
However, there are plenty of commentators warning about the feasibility and impact of this strategy. Renewable energy, while crucial to achieving decarbonisation, is notoriously unpredictable. The sun doesn’t always shine, and the wind doesn’t always blow, leading to concerns about the reliability of the energy supply – unless renewables are backed up in some way, whether by gas-powered plants, rising imports or expensive storage. Far from being cheaper than fossil fuels, critics note, renewable energy continues to need substantial subsidies, which are even more glaring as the price of gas has returned to more normal levels following the energy-price crisis of recent years.
Moreover, most of the UK’s nuclear power stations, which have long provided a steady and reliable source of low-carbon electricity, are set to close between 2026 and 2030. Replacements for them are still a long way off, with Hinkley Point C years behind target and Sizewell C still tied up in paperwork and court cases. The previous government’s plan to produce 24 gigawatts (GW) of power from nuclear sources by 2050 – up from 6 GW now – seems increasingly over-optimistic. Indeed, Labour already seems to be getting cold feet on a proposed nuclear-power plant in north Wales.
Will Labour’s energy strategy lead to a cheaper, more secure electricity supply, as it claims? Or are we on the brink of an energy crisis, with higher costs and increased vulnerability to blackouts? Are higher bills a price worth paying to tackle climate change or, when global emissions are still climbing, a pointless sacrifice of British jobs and living standards?
SPEAKERSDr Shahrar Aliformer deputy leader, Green Party
Lord David Frostmember of the House of Lords
Prof Dr Michaela KendallCEO, Adelan; UK Hydrogen Champion for Mission Innovation, UK Government
James Woudhuysenvisiting professor, forecasting and innovation, London South Bank University
CHAIRRob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate

Reclaim the high street

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
When Lloyds Banking Group recently revealed it will close 190 branches from October and 47 next year – following on from similar announcements by NatWest Group and Barclays – it was heralded by some commentators as yet more evidence of the long-term decline of once-vibrant town centres. Research suggests 33 parliamentary constituencies could be left without a local bank branch by the end of 2024.
The bank closures come on top of the widespread closure of local post offices. We are left with images of boarded-up shops, myriad charity pop-ups and precincts than bustling centres full of communal spirit and thriving businesses. The decay of town centres and high streets is considered by many to explain an increasingly profound disconnect from people and place, a growing feeling that many towns are neglected, left behind, hostile to forging social ties. Some have even suggested that the riots are proof that residents no longer respect their local areas.
The demise of the high street means fewer and fewer physical spots where, during the mundane daily tasks we all must do, there is the potential for chance meetings and physical interaction to happen. Older people, who often rely on bank and postal services and the interactions involved in using them, are often the first to notice. But both older and younger people – the latter, in particular, still feeling the effects of the pandemic – are also noticing the demise of places to socialise. The traditional pub, where different generations often mix together, is in long-term decline, while nightclubs and cafés have also suffered. For example, one group estimates that over 3,000 pubs, bars and nightclubs have shut down since March 2020. Over time, the fabric of local communities can be eroded and all generations impacted.
So, should the government intervene and regulate so that some physical services are required to remain on the high streets? The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), for example, recently proposed new rules ‘to maintain reasonable access’ to cash and deposit facilities, and committed to working with the banks to roll out 350 banking hubs over the next five years.
What is to be done? Can measures that involve local communities be put in place to stop the rise of boarded-up high streets and help them reinvigorate their own streets and locales?
SPEAKERSSam Bidwelldirector, Next Generation Centre, Adam Smith Insitute
Neil Davenportcultural critic; head of faculty of social sciences, JFS Sixth Form Centre
Paul Finch OBEprogramme director, World Architecture Festival
Lord MoylanConservative peer; chair, Lords Built Environment Select Committee
Deb Nagandirector, Deb Nagan Studio
CHAIRNiall Crowleydesigner; writer; former East End pub landlord; co-producer and co-editor, Arts First podcast

Putting your life on (meno)pause

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Menopause is the permanent cessation of periods and the ability to bear children. In the UK today, there are around 13million women who are peri- or post-menopausal – about a third of the female population. According to recent research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 67 per cent of working women state that menopausal symptoms have had a ‘mostly negative’ effect on their ability to carry out their job, including hot flushes, mood swings and heart palpitations to brain fog and an inability to sleep.
In response, some argue that workplaces should change to accommodate menopausal women. In 2022, the Women and Equalities Committee issued a report recommending that the menopause becomes ‘a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010’. In February, the Labour Party promised to make large firms implement and publish menopause action plans. Measures could include uniform alterations, temperature-controlled areas in the office and even paid time off. A recent report from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) even suggested that the menopause could be regarded as a disability, leaving employers open to legal action and having to pay damages to women negatively affected at work.
Formerly something of a taboo, campaigners, such as TV presenter Davina McCall, have called for open discussions about the problems women face during the menopause. But the changes being proposed in the workplace remain contentious. Some critics argue a change in legislation could lead to employers being reluctant to hire or promote women. Some also argue that these measures could actually perpetuate the stigma around menopause by framing it as a condition that incapacitates women – a regressive step in the hard-fought for battle for women to be treated as equal to men in the workplace.
Is the menopause a debilitating condition that workplaces should recognise? Or is it simply a natural process that many of us have to endure, unpleasant though it may be? Could menopausal leave simply open the door to male menopausal leave, a position already being advocated by some local councils in the UK? Until recently, some healthcare professionals have been reluctant to put women on HRT, but many women now swear by it as a life-changing solution. Are we in danger of rehabilitating the old-fashioned notion that women are mentally and physically inferior to men? Or should modern workplaces fit the needs of their staff?
SPEAKERSAnn Furediauthor, The Moral Case for Abortion; former chief executive, BPAS
Victoria Smithfeminist writer; author, Hags: The demonization of middle-aged women
CHAIRDr Mo Lovattnational coordinator, Debating Matters; programme coordinator, Academy of Ideas

Populism: a response to two-tier rule?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Despite constant reassurances from international commentators that the ‘grown ups are now back in charge’, populist sentiment continues to assert itself throughout Europe. Populist parties have made serious headway, whether in the European elections, the rise of France’s RN or the election of five Reform UK MPs in the UK (despite the first-past-the-post voting system). There have been large and widespread farmers’ protests against the consequences of Net Zero targets and demonstrations on the streets against illegal migration in too many countries to mention. This all suggests that populist discontent is by no means quelled.
What’s more, some argue that hostile responses from those who run society could stir up further populist feeling. Rather than pausing to ask why so many millions of citizens are revolting, sometimes even rioting, elites seem wedded to doubling down on existing policies. Instead of changing course, politicians across the spectrum determinedly pursue strategies designed to correct the behaviour of the people who voted the ‘wrong way’ or won’t get in line, to destroy expressions of populism in all its manifestations.
In frustration at an inability to defeat populism either electorally or by political persuasion, some worry about policies that could lead to even greater polarisation. A worrying ‘Us versus Them’ narrative is becoming the norm, and with it, two-tier governance. There seems a concerted effort to manufacture consensus around metropolitan opinion as being ‘on the right side of history’. Anyone not signed up to this consensus is ‘the other’, an enemy within, an idea targeting largely working-class people who, it is alleged, have been radicalised by wrong-think.
The ideological demonisation of populism is expressed in increasingly politicised and toxic language wars. Certain opinions or outlooks – from the blandest expressions of national patriotism to hostility to non-consensual mass immigration, from worries about a lack of integration by certain migrant groups to fear of Islamism – are being routinely dubbed hateful, and in turn conflated with speech that incites violence. Labelled as far-right, even neo-Nazi, accused of whipping up bigotry and racism, populism is being consciously associated with the malignant authoritarianism of the 1930s – and deemed unacceptable in mainstream public life.
This is mirrored by a new tactic: quarantining dissent – attempts at insulating a supposedly healthy political population from being infected with the dangerous disease of populism. Former spin doctor Alastair Campbell complained in 2019 that ‘what we have at the moment is a populist virus’. Within the EU, such an approach has been institutionalised. Mainstream centrist and leftish political parties have recently agreed to shut out the Patriots for Europe and the Europe of Sovereign Nations party fractions in the European Parliament, which will prevent any of these populist groupings’ MEPs from gaining any influence over the running of institutions or committees in the EU.
Will fear of being socially isolated deflate the present populist dynamism? In the long term, can the mere invocation of the threat of the far-right really discredit populist political parties or quell the concerns that have driven them forward? As citizens increasingly start to see through the narrative that seeks to demonise their aspirations, does this drive a greater wedge between the state and the people? How will new political ideas – so crucial for any political project of transformative change – emerge, if the establishment remains so rigid, tone-deaf and hostile in the face of bottom-up dissatisfaction with the status quo?
SPEAKERSSabine Beppler-Spahlchair, Freiblickinstitut e.V; CEO, Sprachkunst36; Germany correspondent, spiked
Thomas Fazijournalist and writer; author, Reclaiming the State: A progressive vision of sovereignty for a post-neoliberal world; columnist, UnHerd; contributing editor, Compact
Dr Roslyn Fullermanaging director, Solonian Democracy Institute; author, In Defence of Democracy
Winston Marshallpolitical commentator; musician; host, The Winston Marshall Show
Bruno WaterfieldBrussels correspondent, The Times
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Podcast live: The Booking Club with Jack Aldane – Geoff Norcott on the British Bloke Decoded

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The Booking Club is the podcast where leading authors and commentators discuss their latest books and breakthroughs at their favourite places to eat and drink.
Guest authors on the series so far have included David Baddiel, Michael Rosen, Rory Sutherland, Tom Holland, Helen Lewis, Grace Blakeley, Will Self and Louise Perry. For this special live podcast, Jack will be joined by Geoff Norcott.
Jack’s podcast channel can be found on his Substack, where you can catch up on all the latest episodes, as well as dive into My Martin Amis, a second series that delves into the life and legacy of the late English novelist through the writers, critics and publicists on whom he left his mark.
GUESTGeoff Norcottcomedian
HOSTJack Aldanehost and producer, The Booking Club
ProducerAlastair Donald
co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Podcast Live: Chinese Whispers – China in decline?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Chinese Whispers is a fortnightly podcast from the Spectator on the latest in Chinese politics, society, and more. From Huawei to Hong Kong, Cindy Yu talks to experts, journalists, and long time China-watchers on what you need to know about China.
GUESTSIsabel Hilton OBEwriter and broadcaster; founder, China Dialogue Trust; contributing editor, Prospect Magazine; chair, Centre for Investigative Journalism
Tom Millersenior analyst, Gavekal Research; affiliate, Lau China Institute, King’s College London; author, China's Asian Dream and China's Urban Billion
Austin Williamsdirector, Future Cities Project; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution; series editor, Five Critical Essays.
HOSTCindy Yuassistant editor (broadcast), Spectator; host, Chinese Whispers

Podcast live: Last Orders – the latest nanny state news

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
A special live recording of Last Orders, the spiked podcast all about freedom and the nanny state.
This is the show where Christopher Snowdon, from the Institute of Economic Affairs, and Tom Slater, editor of spiked, discuss the latest in modern-day puritanism – from killjoy attempts to clamp down on smoking, drinking, ‘junk food’ and assorted other vices to the never-ending campaign to cleanse speech and culture of anything the least bit offensive.
GUESTSKate Andrewseconomics editor, Spectator; columnist, Daily Telegraph
Simon Evanscomedian; regular host, Headliners; presenter, BBC Radio 4's Simon Evans Goes to Market
Julia Hartley-BrewerTalk presenter and Sun columnist
HOSTSTom Slatereditor, spiked; co-host, spiked podcast and Last Orders
Christopher Snowdonhead of lifestyle economics, Institute of Economic Affairs; author, You Do Not Exist: An Introduction to Nineteen Eighty-Four, co-host, Last Orders

Podcast live: Americano – Trump vs Harris eve-of-election talk

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
American politics is ever more divisive and the Spectator’s Americano podcast delivers in-depth discussions with the best American pundits to keep you in the loop. Presented by Freddy Gray.
GUESTSKate Andrewseconomics editor, Spectator; columnist, Daily Telegraph
Dr Richard Johnsonwriter; senior lecturer in politics, Queen Mary, University of London; co-author, Keeping the Red Flag Flying: The Labour Party in Opposition since 1922
HOSTFreddy Graydeputy editor, Spectator; host, Americano podcast

Passes for glasses: is cronyism undermining democracy?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
When in opposition, the Labour Party made great political capital out of accusing the Tories of ‘cronyism’ and of a ‘chumocracy’. Keir Starmer issued a pledge to ‘clean up our politics’, promising to restore ‘standards in public life with a total crackdown on cronyism’.
That was then. Within weeks of gaining power, the Labour government has itself become embroiled in controversy – unashamedly handing out special roles, privileges and Civil Service jobs to supporters, chums and donors. Labour peer Lord Alli’s financial donation to ‘work clothing’ and ‘multiple pairs of glasses’ (while being given an official pass to No 10) has made the headlines, alongside his £10,000 donation to help the son of Sue Gray, Starmer’s chief of staff, in a successful bid to become a Labour MP. Likewise, a growing list of controversial appointees has caused concern, like the shuffling of Jess Sargeant to a deputy director position in the Cabinet Office’s Propriety and Constitution Group from her previous sinecure at Starmerite group Labour Together.
When the prime minister was challenged by journalists about the growing concerns about jobs-for-mates, he tetchily replied that ‘most of these allegations and accusations are coming from the very people that dragged our country down in the first place’. For many, the principle of Civil Service impartiality still matters – it was certainly important enough for the last Labour government to put it on a statutory footing in 2010. Its aim then was to ensure Civil Service positions are filled through a fair and open application process, overseen by an independent selection panel. Some suggest that legislation has become an unrealistic burden to the smooth running of government. Indeed, legislation or not, there seems to be a problem of bias within the Civil Service – from inactivity and feet-dragging during the Brexit years to pushing back at everything from the Rwanda Bill to any hint of leaving the European Convention on Human Rights.
Starmer might be being hoist by his own virtuous petard, but perhaps this exposé of self-righteous double standards is little more than tit-for-tat partisanship. After all, arguments to Get Something Done in government are nothing new – even if that means putting your own people in. Dominic Cummings promised to march through the institutions to get results. He might have failed, but is Starmer merely marching his own band? Should secretaries of state have greater powers of appointment to ensure their democratic mandate is not thwarted by The Blob? Or must we insist that civil servants serve the government of the day, whatever its politics or policies? And is this all a Westminster Bubble story that is not cutting through with the public in the same way that Partygate did?
SPEAKERSDr Tim Blackbooks and essays editor, spiked
Brendan Chiltoncouncillor, Stanhope Ward; chief executive, Ashford Borough council; independent business network director, Institute for Prosperity
Pamela Dowchief operating officer, Civic Future
Henry Newmanformer special adviser, director, The Whitehall Project
CHAIRJon Holbrookbarrister; writer, spiked, Critic, Conservative Woman

October 7, one year on: new world (dis)order?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The barbaric terrorism of Hamas fighters against Israel on 7 October 2023 seemed to once again upend geopolitics. Just as analysts were getting their heads around the ‘new order’ inaugurated by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the attack in Israel, and Israel’s ensuing war in Gaza to destroy Hamas, seemed to open a new chapter in geopolitical history. Perhaps most notably, the war has seen widespread condemnation of Israel by many erstwhile Western allies. Depending on who you asked, this either displayed Hamas’s Islamist savagery for all to see, or Israel’s utter abandonment of the rules of war. Either way, immediately a new dynamic emerged.
In the past year, the prosecution of the war has seemed to repeatedly escalate tensions in the Middle East. Many talk of Israel and Iran as being on the verge of war as the two countries trade attacks. Israel also faces a conflict with Hezbollah, even as many question how well it has succeeded in its attempt to destroy Hamas in Gaza. It has thrown up economic issues across the Middle East, too.
The war has also had global consequences: it seems to have strained Israel’s relationships with many Western allies as so many line up to denounce a so-called ‘genocide’ in Gaza. Across the West, the war has also been accompanied by a surge in anti-Semitism.
But perhaps the broader consequence of the war in Gaza has been the globalisation of the culture war. Over the past year, Western societies have seen the emergence of a relatively small but very vocal anti-Israel / pro-Palestine coalition. What is most notable about this is less the sympathy for those suffering in Gaza, but the sense that this coalition unites previously disparate groups – from hardcore Islamists to LGBTQ activists. At times, it seems that the war in Gaza is less about Gaza and more about pre-existing cultural conflicts like identity politics or the battle over Western history.
Looming over these conflicts is also the question of China. Many American military planners insist that a major conflict with China is inevitable while some in the West try to paint a new ‘global resistance’ to American power, spearheaded by China, Russia and Iran. Yet, aside from the odd foray into the culture war or guarded support for Putin, China has tried to position itself as above the fray.
Where does this leave the global balance of power in 2024? What have wars in Ukraine and in Gaza exposed about the global order? Are we witnessing a re-ordering of the world amid American decline and Chinese ascendence? Perhaps the dynamic is more one of a fracturing of the globe into different regional centre – or something else entirely? Are we on the verge of a new cold war, or is the culture war becoming globalised?
SPEAKERSNick Busvine OBEconsultant; founding partner, Herminius Holdings Ltd; advisory board member, Briefings for Britain; former diplomat, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Melissa Chenmanaging director, Strategy Risks; co-founder, Ideas Beyond Borders; contributing editor, Spectator World
Professor Bill Durodiéchair of International Relations, department of politics, languages and international studies, University of Bath
Ashley Rindsberginvestigative journalist; author, The Gray Lady Winked: How the New York Times' misreporting, distortions and fabrications radically alter history
Dr Ralph Schoellhammercommentator and podcaster; assistant professor of International Relations, Webster University Vienna
CHAIRJacob Reynoldshead of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

OBR: independent oversight or anti-democratic quango?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Established in 2010 by the then-chancellor George Osborne, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility (OBR)  was created in the wake of the global financial crisis to provide independent and transparent analysis of the UK’s public finances. The idea was to take political bias out of economic forecasting and restore credibility to the government’s fiscal policies. The OBR was tasked with producing economic and fiscal forecasts, assessing the government’s performance against its fiscal targets, and evaluating the long-term sustainability of public finances.
However, more than a decade on from its founding, the OBR’s role and effectiveness have come under scrutiny. Critics argue that the OBR, while independent, often struggles with the inherent unpredictability of economic forecasting, leading to projections that can be wildly off the mark. Some believe that its forecasts are treated with undue reverence, shaping fiscal policy in ways that may not always be beneficial. Others suggest that the existence of the OBR undermines democratic accountability by placing too much power in the hands of unelected technocrats.
On the other hand, defenders of the OBR argue that its independent oversight is crucial in preventing governments from manipulating economic data to suit political agendas. They contend that, while no economic forecast can be perfect, the OBR provides a necessary check on government spending and borrowing, contributing to fiscal discipline. In response to the chaos of the short-lived Liz Truss premiership, Labour has now passed the Budget Responsibility Act, which makes OBR assessment of any ‘fiscally significant’ measures mandatory.
Is the OBR an essential institution that safeguards economic stability, or is it an obstacle to democratic governance that should be reconsidered?
SPEAKERSCatherine McBrideeconomist; fellow, Centre for Brexit Policy
Professor Vicky Prycechief economic adviser and board member, Centre for Economics and Business Research; author, Women vs Capitalism
CHAIRRob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate