Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

Letters on Liberty: The Dangers of the New Anti-Racism

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
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 her Letter – The Dangers of the New Anti-Racism – Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbert argues that we need to break free of the new ideology of anti-racism, which differs dramatically from the anti-racism of the past. Contemporary anti-racist thinkers, such as Ibram X Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, have emerged from niches of academic critical theory into the mainstream. Their work focuses on the historical grievances of colonialism and the slave trade, she argues, with the assumption that white and black people are fundamentally unable to relate to one another. Alka argues that we should shun this ideology, and instead adopt a universalist point of view when discussing race.
Join Alka and respondents as they ask what went wrong with our society’s treatment of race relations? What separates the speeches of Martin Luther King from the modern writing of anti-racist academics? Why did the American BLM resurgence of 2020 have such a visible impact on British institutions? Do schools and workplaces have an obligation to tackle race relations? And are DEI incentives an effective equaliser, or do they contribute to racial division?
SPEAKERSBen Cobleyauthor, The Tribe: the liberal-left and the system of diversity and The Progress Trap (forthcoming); former Labour Party activist
Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbertdirector, Don't Divide Us; author, What Should Schools Teach? Disciplines, subjects and the pursuit of truth
Sunil Sharmafounder and CEO, Global Conservative Coalition
CHAIRJosephine Husseyschool teacher, AoI Education Forum

Letters on Liberty: In Defence of Parental Authority

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
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 her Letter – In Defence of Parental Authority – author and campaigner Nancy McDermott argues that Western society has started to put the state before the family – and this is a problem. From US pro-trans policies that allow teachers to withhold information from parents, to television shows depicting Mum and Dad as malicious, children are starting to get the message that their family won’t always operate in their best interest. Nancy argues that parents should no longer be undermined. The nuclear family, she writes, forms the bedrock of a healthy society, and has been given a bad rap. She argues that children who trust in the hierarchy of parenthood learn to become responsible citizens of a democratic country. Governments, instead of interfering, should leave parents alone.
Join Nancy and respondents to discuss the status of parents in contemporary society. Is our current ‘therapeutic’ focus on childrearing linked to a growing lack of confidence in parents? How can pro-family ideals filter back into our popular culture while embracing the progressive changes in many social norms – particularly women’s freedom? What happens when a family’s system of morals counteract those of the mainstream – do Mum and Dad know best? And how can we protect children from real abuse while preserving the rights of their families?
SPEAKERSDr Kate Colemancampaigner on safeguarding, single-sex provision, accurate data collection and medical ethics
Nancy McDermottauthor, The Problem with Parenting: how raising children is changing across America; US editor, Inspecting Gender
Lottie Moorewriter and thinktanker, author; Boys and the burden of labels
Dr Stuart Waitonsenior lecturer, sociology and criminology, Abertay University; author, Scared of the Kids: curfews, crime and the regulation of young people; chair, Scottish Union for Education,
CHAIRAnn Furediauthor, The Moral Case for Abortion; former chief executive, BPAS

Letters on Liberty: In Defence of a New Suburbia

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
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 – In Defence of a New Suburbia – retired councillor and housing expert Simon Cooke writes a defence of suburbia, challenging the sneering elitism of NIMBYs and city dwellers alike. Suburbia represented the triumph of the middle-class, he argues – a place built in their image, containing the things that made their lives good. A good suburb has soft edges – it provides for community and allows space for football, dog walks and throwing frisbees. If we are to sort out our housing crisis and provide the homes people want, he writes, we need to win the argument for why suburbia isn’t simply second best to city living, but the sought-after ideal for most families in search of freedom.
Join Simon and respondents to discuss the future potential of a new suburbia. Does the discussion about housing neglect a consideration for what kind of community people seek when looking for a home? Do the ULEZ or low-traffic neighbourhoods pose a new threat to the car-dependent suburb? Is it better to raise families in the quiet of suburbia, or does the hubbub of the city offer opportunities that are absent further out? And should we overcome our snobbery towards suburbia, if we’re to build decent homes for the millions of people who need them?
SPEAKERSSimon Cookeurbanist; former regeneration portfolio holder and leader of the Conservative group, Bradford City Council; author, In Defence of  a New Suburbia
Helen MacNeilconsultant architect, shedkm; founder, Honest Architecture (HA!) free-speech dinners
Shelagh McNerneyhead of regeneration, Manchester City Council
Lord Kulveer Rangermember, House of Lords; former director for transport policy, Mayor of London
CHAIRDr Michael Owensurban planning consultant and lecturer; author, Play the Game

Letters on Liberty: Freeing Sex from Libertines and Puritans

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
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 her Letter – Freeing Sex From Libertines and Puritans – journalist and speechwriter Jenny Holland argues that the liberal adjustments of the Sexual Revolution might no longer be fit for purpose. The internet, with its small group of ‘sexual radicals’, regularly exposes the masses to new, desensitising levels of exposure to explicit acts. Meanwhile, she argues, young people are having less sex than ever, and chasms are widening between men and women. Sexual freedom is not without its consequences, Jenny writes, and while excessive promiscuity can be physically and mentally harmful, extreme reactions from modern-day puritans don’t help, either. Instead, Jenny urges us to restore healthy levels of sexual inhibition, freeing the sexual landscape from either extreme.
Join Jenny and respondents to discuss whether modern society has a sex problem. Has our explicit online culture forced us into a sterile social scene, or are people simply redirecting desires that would never have been fulfilled? Could we make material change – should pornography be protected under the banner of free speech, or regulated to prevent real-world harm? What separates the Victorian libertine from the modern sex-positive activist? And with all this adult material floating about, do we all need to grow up?
SPEAKERSJenny Hollandwriter and critic; former assistant, New York Times; author, Saving Culture (from itself) Substack
Fraser Myersdeputy editor, spiked; host, the spiked podcast
Nina Powerwriter and philosopher; author, What Do Men Want? Masculinity and its Discontents
CHAIREve Kayaward-winning factual TV producer
 

Letters on Liberty: Escaping the Straitjacket of Mental Health

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
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 – Escaping the Straitjacket of Mental Health – lecturer and mental-health professional Dr Ken McLaughlin argues that failing to distinguish between mental distress, which requires serious help, and the more mundane, albeit painful, times when we might feel low or anxious, is a problem. Many within the mental-health industry have inadvertently led more people to view themselves through the prism of mental illness, he argues. Ken writes that if we care about helping those in mental distress, and want to protect our freedoms, we need to ensure that we do not swap the literal straitjacket for its metaphorical equivalent.
Join Ken and respondents to ask whether our current approach to mental health risks failing the people who need it most. Is normalising mental health by talking about it as something everyone shares a good thing? Or does the relativisation of mental stresses as mental illness risk trivialising the more serious cases of mental ill health? Do recent examples, like that of Valdo Calocane, point to wider issues in mental healthcare of neglect or under resourcing? And should lovers of liberty come to terms with the fact that, as JS Mill argued, there are times in which it is necessary to remove someone’s freedom?
SPEAKERSDr Ashley Frawleysociologist; author, Significant Emotions and Semiotics of Happiness
Matilda Goslingsocial researcher; author, Evidence-Based Parenting and Teenagers – The Evidence Base (forthcoming)
Dr Ken McLaughlinformer social worker; academic; author, Surviving Identity: Vulnerability and the psychology of recognition and Stigma, and its discontents
Dr Carole Sherwoodclinical psychologist; co-director, Critical Therapy Antidote; founder, Save Mental Health; co-author Cynical Therapies and The Politicisation of Clinical Psychology Training Courses in the UK
CHAIRBríd Hehirwriter, researcher and blogger; retired nurse and fundraiser
 

Labour’s curriculum review: what can we learn from Scotland?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The Labour government has launched a new Curriculum and Assessment Review. Some observers are pointing to Scotland as a potential blueprint for the kind of ‘progressive’ curriculum that Labour’s review may want to embrace. But should Scotland be a cautionary tale, rather than a model?
In Scotland, the Curriculum for Excellence (CfE), is a system developed in the early 2000s under a Labour administration in Holyrood, but implemented by the SNP in 2010-11. The philosophy behind it is a challenge to the liberal education system, but it has also arguably embedded the politicisation of the curriculum into the schools system.
The CfE adopted a ‘child centred’ and ‘therapeutic philosophy’, and its ambition was to move away from a focus on imparting knowledge towards creating ‘Successful learners, Confident individuals, Responsible citizens and Effective contributors’. Despite the fact that the CfE has led to a decline in Scotland’s performance in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and in the annual Scottish Survey of Literacy and Numeracy, all the major political parties in Scotland continue to support it.
The fact that Scotland’s curriculum is not based on a solid and agreed body of knowledge and understanding has made it particularly vulnerable to politicisation. So, for example, following the recent riots, government advisers have demanded that anti-racism should be embedded into all subject areas.
This follows on from initiatives to ‘queer’ many aspects of the curriculum. Across Scotland, parents, grandparents and teachers have become increasingly concerned about a growing trend to use inappropriate and sexually explicit material in the classroom. On investigation, it has become clear that this ’sex education’ is not the outcome of maverick activists, but conforms to government policy and guidance. Similarly, the General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS) has set out new professional criteria for teachers, which demands that teachers and schools adopt ‘social justice’ as their central ethos.
The Scottish Union for Education (SUE) was formed last year to mobilise opposition to this increasing politicisation of Scotland’s schools. In this session, campaigners will offer insights into the dangers of any contemporary curriculum reform.
Have standards really fallen in Scotland and, if so, to what extent is the CfE responsible? Should parents get more say in what is taught, or is that best left to education experts? Are fears about the UK government’s review reasonable or is a review a useful exercise for a new administration to undertake?
SPEAKERSKate Deemingparent and supporters coordinator, Scottish Union for Education
Julie Sandilandsteacher; education commentator, Scottish Union for Education
Dr Stuart Waitonsenior lecturer, sociology and criminology, Abertay University; author, Scared of the Kids: curfews, crime and the regulation of young people; chair, Scottish Union for Education,
CHAIRPenny Lewiseditor, Scottish Union for Education

Kamalamania, Trump and the vibes election

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Within days of being announced as the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris went from the most unpopular vice president in 50 years – a figure whose unpopularity reportedly led to the former president, Barack Obama, scrambling to find an alternative – to a viable presidential candidate. After slumping under Biden, polling now indicates that the Democrats have a real chance of retaining the White House.
Kamala has been rebranded – the ‘brat’ candidate memifying what had previously been seen as gaffs as the imperfections of millennial women. Kamala is posed as a cross between Obama and Bridget Jones. Kamala, it seems, has been embraced as a figure of fun.
Harris has made no unscripted appearances since taking up the candidacy. The Harris strategy seems to be is entirely based on Kamala the person – with the least amount of policy focus in her campaign material of any presidential candidate in history by far. It seems the Democrats hope Kamala can be entertaining enough to distract the American public for a hundred days, avoiding any real scrutiny.
At the same time, the Trump campaign seems slightly at odds as to how to counter Kamala the meme. Trump has returned to X/Twitter, but doesn’t seem to have his usual talent for lampooning the opposition. Instead, he has been focused on appearing on a range of podcasts. Trump, too, seems light on policy and big ideas.
Has the election then turned purely into a competition of ‘vibes’? Or are there still substantive differences between the main candidates? What does the memification of politics mean for democracy? Is Kamalamania a sincere phenomenon, an exercise in how people can change their mind out of convenience, or a complete fiction produced by the Democratic Party machine? Has Trump lost his populist touch? What does the election hold for America?
SPEAKERSNick Dixoncomedian; presenter, GB News; host, The Current Thing
Dr Cheryl Hudsonlecturer in US political history, University of Liverpool; author, Citizenship in Chicago: race, culture and the remaking of American identity
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
Stan Swimchief program officer, Bill of Rights Institute
CHAIRJacob Reynoldshead of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Islam vs Islamism vs Islamophobia

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Despite a broader decline in religious belief across Britain, Islam is the fastest-growing religion, largely due to relatively recent waves of migration from predominantly Muslim countries. Yet, discussions about Islam are often clouded by censorship and taboo, tip-toeing through concerns about criticism of a religion (Islam), a political ideology (Islamism) and anti-Muslim prejudice (Islamophobia).
The debate about Islam in Britain has been significantly shaped by the Salman Rushdie affair in 1988. Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, seen as blasphemous by some Muslims, led to widespread protests that brought questions about free speech and religious sensitivity to the forefront of public debate.
There have been other controversies since. For example, during the ‘Trojan Horse’ affair in Birmingham in 2014, hardline Islamists were alleged to have tried to take over schools. In 2021, there were protests by local Muslims when a teacher at Batley Grammar School showed a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad during a lesson, with the teacher forced to go into hiding. Such furores underscore the sensitivity and anxieties over Islamist influence over sections of British life.
This year’s recent general election saw some MPs elected on a pro-Palestine platform, raising fears of sectarianism. Some claim these fears are motivated by Islamophobia and racism. The recent race riots suggest that some are indeed hostile, even to Muslims per se, leading to violence and genuine fear for ordinary Muslims in Northern towns. Meanwhile, scenes of Muslims shouting ‘Allahu Akbar!’ while wielding weapons have also raised alarm at growing divisions.
However, there are still worries that the accusation of Islamophobia is used to blur the line between legitimate criticism of Islam as religion and attacks on Muslims. Concerns also exist that what is perceived as prejudice against Muslims may actually be legitimate criticism of Islamism, which seeks an Islamic state under Sharia law. For instance, during the 2024 general election, the justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood – who is Muslim – described facing intimidation during the campaign and even being called an ‘infidel’, but this did not lead to a broader public debate on Islamist tactics.
The challenge lies in disentangling Islam from discussions about Islamism, which are often labelled as Islamophobic. As Muslims are an integral part of British society, it is essential to have open discussions about all aspects of Muslim life. Some argue that Islam cannot integrate into Western society, but this perspective risks marginalising British Muslims from the liberal democratic project.
If Muslims are citizens, don’t they have the right to influence society, even if that includes Islamist perspectives? Or is this a sign of a worrying trend towards illiberalism within society? How do we combat anti-Muslim bigotry while preserving the freedom to discuss and critique all religions?
SPEAKERSProfessor Aaqil Ahmeddirector, Amplify Consulting Ltd; professor of media, University of Bolton; former head of religion, Channel 4 and BBC
Mohammed Amin MBEco-chair, Muslim Jewish Forum of Greater Manchester
Peymana AssadObama Leader of Europe; councillor, London Borough of Harrow; first person of Afghan origin elected to UK public office; founder, Labour Foreign Policy Group
Dolan Cummingswriter and novelist; co-director, Manifesto Club
Dr Taj Hargeyprovost, Oxford Institute for British Islam
CHAIRInaya Folarin Imanbroadcaster and columnist; founder and director, The Equiano Project

Is Western civilisation under siege?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
We seem to have a new adjective when discussing big social and political problems today: civilisational. Issues as varied as artificial intelligence, immigration, demographic change, wars or even anti-social behaviour are all described as ‘civilisational’ challenges. Emmanuel Macron, describing the war in Ukraine and the challenges facing the European Union, declared in 2024 that ‘our civilisation is under threat’.
But what is the threat to Western civilisation? Some focus on the threat posed by radical Islamism – Hamas or ISIS seem intent on engaging in particularly barbaric attacks on what they see as the ungodliness of Western civilisation. Others point to alternative civilisation states like Russia or China, which position themselves against Western civilisational ideas like tolerance, democracy or free speech.
But sometimes the threat seems much closer to home. A constellation of trends – from seeing the West as tainted by colonialism to an identity politics which prioritises non-Western identities – seem to have coalesced into a powerful mood of hostility to the West within a portion of the West itself. As an anti-Israel student group from Columbia University in the US put it: ‘We are Westerners fighting for the total eradication of Western civilisation.’
Others point to more street-level issues. In the abstract, an easy-going sense of civility is what Western societies pride as their distinctive self-image. But in recent years, anti-social behaviour has seemed to capture a sense of moral panic. Street brawls, phone-snatchings, people relieving themselves in public – all of these are posted to social media with the caption ‘the West has fallen’. Perhaps linked is the fact that the economic picture is hardly rosy, either. A sense of stagnation and complacency defines many Western economies. Extreme Green protesters – often guilty of anti-social behaviour themselves – may want to deindustrialise the West, but high-energy prices and endless regulations might be doing it anyway.
It’s not uncommon to hear people describe things as ‘falling apart’ in Western civilisations. Fundamentally, is this an issue of self-belief? In Kenneth Clark’s famous documentary, Civilisation: A personal view, he suggests that ‘it is lack of confidence, more than anything else, that kills a civilisation’. Amid falling birth-rates or ritual apologies for Western history, has Western society itself lost confidence in its ideals, history and values?
Perhaps the threat of civilisational challenge is what is needed to kickstart a new renaissance in the West. When some mention Russia, China or even Islamism as civilisational competitors, are they pointing to a real threat or displaying their own uneasiness about the West? And does the West need to return to its legacy – Homer, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Proust, Cézanne or Joyce – to find something to inspire?
SPEAKERSProfessor Bill Durodiéchair of International Relations, department of politics, languages and international studies, University of Bath
Dr Tiffany Jenkinswriter and broadcaster; author, Strangers and Intimates (forthcoming) and Keeping Their Marbles
Dr Sean Langvisiting fellow, Anglia Ruskin University; author, First World War for Dummies and What History Do We Need?; fellow, Historical Association; artistic director, BOATS Theatre
Jacob Phillipsprofessor of systematic theology, St Mary’s University, Twickenham; author, Obedience is Freedom
Peter Whittlefounder and director, New Culture Forum; host, NCF YouTube channel
CHAIRJacob Reynoldshead of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Is nuclear the future of energy… again?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The Fukushima nuclear incident of 2011 drew a decade-long shadow over the future use of nuclear energy. In Germany, then chancellor Angela Merkel agreed to phase out nuclear power, under pressure from the Green Party and large public demonstrations. The final reactor closed in April 2023, with decommissioning recently symbolised by the demolition of the cooling towers at Grafenrheinfeld. Ironically, Japan itself has actually restarted many of its reactors and has two plants under construction.
For the rest of the world, the use of nuclear fission – the only commercially available form of nuclear power generation – has seen a slight renaissance in its planned use after flat-lining for years. In the USA and Europe, the lifetime of reactors has mostly just been extended to meet Net Zero targets while keeping the lights on, but new plants have been built or are under construction in the UK, France and Finland. Meanwhile, China is racing ahead with nuclear and India has ambitious plans, using both existing technology and developing new technology based on thorium, which India has in abundance.
The UK is among a group of countries working on the commercial development of so-called small modular reactors (SMRs) which promise to be safe, with simpler designs that can be produced off site, in the hope that they can avoid many of the cost overruns of the large-scale designs. Nuclear fusion, the alternative to nuclear fission, has yet to reach commercial levels of electricity production, although several commercial companies with alternative approaches have found investment.
Many leading environmentalists have accepted that nuclear must be part of the drive to Net Zero. But there are often confusing claims made over the economics of nuclear versus renewables such as wind and solar.
Is nuclear power the grand solution to our problems or just one part of the energy mix? Is nuclear just too slow and too expensive to build – or are the costs of renewables being understated? How will we cope with all the extra demands for electricity in the future, from heating to transport? Is the aim of generating unlimited energy that is ‘too cheap to meter’ – as we were promised in the Fifties – now off the agenda completely?
SPEAKERSEmma Batemanenvironmental campaigner; founding member, Together Against Sizewell C; organiser, Green Women's Declaration for Sex Based Rights
Robert Reidpolicy development officer, ALBA Party
Dr Dominic Standishwriter and commentator on energy; professor, University of Iowa; author, Venice in Environmental Peril? Myth and reality
CHAIRDr Paul Reevesdeveloper of manufacturing simulation technology

Is it time to kick VAR out of football?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In 2018, the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) was introduced at the World Cup in Russia – and the arguments about it haven’t stopped since, with complaints that decisions are still often wrong while lengthy reviews cause confusion and frustration.
Using technology to help referees get important decisions right seemed like such a good idea. For example, in 2010, England midfielder Frank Lampard famously had a goal against Germany in the World Cup disallowed, despite the ball clearly crossing the goal line. One result was the introduction of technology that can tell the referee instantly if the ball has crossed the goal-line. However, goal-line technology can only assist with one source of refereeing error. VAR enables a wider range of decisions to be reviewed.
One criticism is that VAR is still subject to human subjectivity and fallibility, as it depends on how referees view and apply the rules, with incorrect decisions still being made and with inconsistency between matches. The most high-profile VAR error occurred last autumn, when confused communication between the on-pitch referee and the VAR meant a goal by Liverpool against Tottenham Hotspur was erroneously disallowed – despite the VAR making the correct decision. Representatives of one Premier League club, Wolves, were so incensed by a string of bad decisions that they put forward a motion to scrap VAR altogether.
Secondly, VAR slows down the game as goals or penalty decisions are subject to laborious reviews, playing havoc with the emotions of players and spectators. One former England player, Paul Scholes, has complained that the ‘VAR experience is poor, the in-stadium experience for the supporter. It’s nowhere near good enough.’
However, the football authorities believe that VAR has made the game fairer by improving both decision accuracy and transparency as fans can see the video replays. Responding to the Wolves motion, the Premier League pointed out that VAR has substantially improved decision making overall, while acknowledging that decisions currently take too long.
Has VAR ruined football? Why has video technology been so controversial in football when it has been much more successful in other sports, like cricket and tennis? How can we remove human error, or is human error an inevitable part of the game? Can VAR be fixed, or should it be given the red card?
SPEAKERSDuleep Allirajahfootball writer; longterm spiked contributor; co-founder, Libero! network; season-ticket holder, Crystal Palace
Jonny GouldTV and radio presenter; journalist; host, Jonny Gould's Jewish State
Omar Mohamedstudent, Royal Holloway University
Sally Taplinbusiness consultant, Businessfourzero; visiting MBA lecturer, Bayes Business School; former board member, Lewes FC
CHAIRGeoff Kidderdirector, membership and events, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Book Club

Is anti-extremism a threat to liberty?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
‘Misogyny to be treated as extremism by UK government’, declared a recent BBC News headline. There was a time when such headlines during the parliamentary recess ‘silly season’ would be mocked. But these days, news that the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, plans to crack down on ‘extreme misogyny’ in a manner akin to countering terrorism is to be taken seriously. It fits with a newly established political script on tackling extremism on many different fronts. Whether Islamophobia or Islamism, ‘far-right’ rioters or Antifa, incels or eco-warriors, extremism ‘both online and on our streets’ is charged with fraying ‘the very fabric of our communities and our democracy’.
When historians categorised the twentieth century as ‘The Age of Extremes’, this reflected historically important and clearly identifiable ideologies of fascism and communism. But when it comes to twenty-first century ‘extremism’, there seems less agreement as to what it is, and who are the extremists. A post-riots BBC report says that right-wing extremism is a ‘spectrum’ ranging from ‘genocidal neo-Nazis…to people who stand in democratic elections, engage in public campaigns and put forward policy platforms’. Lord Walney, an independent adviser on political violence and disruption, worries that we do not understand the extreme left who ‘seek to undermine faith in our parliamentary democracy and the rule of law’.
Labelling opponents as extremists is now ubiquitous. Many say populists are extremists. Others, such as pollster and campaigner Matthew Goodwin, point to ‘radicalisation of the elite class’ who impose their values on society. Liberals say the main threat is from the ‘far right’. Those of a conservative disposition are more likely to point the finger at eco-warriors or pro-Palestinian activists.
Whatever the definitional disarray, many believe that extremism – and anti-extremism – are important factors when it comes to the future of liberty. A new review commissioned by the Home Office aims to identify how to ‘crack down’ on extremists who push ‘harmful and hateful beliefs’ creating fears over the future of wider free speech. There are calls to add growing numbers of organisations such as Just Stop Oil or the defunct English Defence Leage (EDL) to proscribed lists.  Calls to clamp down on and criminalise  ‘extremist’ speech or protest, whether labelled Islamophobic, anti-Semitic or misogynistic, are widespread across political divides.
At a time when groups such as Jews or Muslims feel under threat, and when MPs and democratic representatives and their families and homes are targeted, should we be open to new constraints on extremist behaviour?  Or is the bigger worry that ‘extremism’ is being weaponised and risks undermining our freedoms and civil liberties?  Where do the boundaries lie between resisting intolerance and tolerating all views and ideas? How best do we make the case for liberty when society understands so many trends in current affairs through the lens of extremism? And if almost everything and anyone can be labelled extremist, is it a useful concept?
SPEAKERSProfessor Ian Achesonsenior advisor, Counter Extremism Project; visiting professor, school of law, policing and forensics, University of Staffordshire; author, Screwed: Britain’s prison crisis and how to escape it
Silkie Carlodirector, Big Brother Watch; author, Information Security for Journalists
Luke Gittoscriminal lawyer; author, Human Rights – Illusory Freedom; director, Freedom Law Clinic
Munira Mirzachief executive, Civic Future
Eli Vieirajournalist; editor, Gazeta do Povo; writer, Twitter Files - Brazil
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Ireland's new populism

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In the past year, Irish streets have erupted in angry protest and riots. The issue of immigration – particularly the housing of asylum seekers – has caused mass unrest, catching Ireland’s political elite unawares. With the next election in the Republic expected before March 2025, many are discussing the rise of ‘Irish populism’ as the future of politics.
Immigration, and the crisis in housing, might be the biggest issue dividing Ireland’s politicians and the public, but it’s not the only one. The shock result of the double referendum in March – in which voters rejected changes to the constitution to reframe the role of women and the family – revealed an anger with political parties that had been brewing for some time. While the usual arguments were made about voters being ‘confused’, many saw the bungled referendums as an example of how out of touch the Irish elites had become, particularly on issues of gender.
Until recently, Sinn Féin had been talked up as the populist insurgent in any upcoming election in the Republic – having won its best result since 1923 in the 2020 election. But even their relative successes in the north haven’t inspired voters south of the border, with the party collapsing in local and European elections down to 12 per cent of the vote. Caught flat-footed by the spiraling immigration crisis, many working-class voters abandoned the party, accusing it of not taking a tough enough line on immigration, flip-flopping on its EU-critical approach, for originally supporting the draconian hate-crime legislation (while withdrawing support pre-election) and backing the unpopular family referendums. Sinn Féin is also losing votes to a new left-leaning republican party – Aontú – which claims to ‘have the backbone to stand up, without fear’ for ‘respectful opposition’.
Upheaval is certainly the order of the day in Irish politics – with commentators decrying ‘toxic’ populism, ‘penal populism’ and ‘fiscal populism’. But who are the new populists?
A number of new parties have risen to prominence, including the Eurosceptic Irish Freedom Party and the anti-immigration National Party. Both are right wing, immigration-critical, anti-woke but not, as yet, receiving large-scale support. Then there’s the Farmers Alliance, in opposition to Ireland’s proposed green policies squeezing agriculture – including plans to cull 200,000 cows.
Individuals have also stood on independent tickets – in one EU constituency alone, there were 10 different anti-immigration candidates. But despite a lack of support electorally, Irish headlines have been dominated by discussion – and panic – about the rise of Irish populism.
Websites like Gript have likewise captured a dissident sentiment, expressing the disquiet with issues, from free speech to the gender wars, housing and immigration to alleged corruption during the Lockdown years. While some are keen to differentiate political protest from the riots and arson attempts outside asylum housing, others use the p-word to paint all populist expression with the same brush.
Are we witnessing the rise of populism in Ireland? Or are things more complicated? Who are the Irish populists and, with little electoral success, just how popular are they?
SPEAKERSDr Ray Bassettwriter and commentator; author, The Road to Good Friday and Ireland and the EU, Post Brexit; former Irish ambassador; Poynter fellow in Journalism, Yale University
Fatima Gunningreporter, Gript Media
Kevin Meaghercolumnist, Irish Post; author, A United Ireland: Why unification is inevitable and how it will come about; former ministerial special adviser, Labour
John O’Brienhead of communications, MCC Brussels
CHAIRKevin Rooneyhistory and politics teacher; editor, irishborderpoll.com; convenor, AoI Education Forum; co-author, The Blood Stained Poppy

Integration into what? Immigration and multiculturalism

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Throughout Europe, the issue of historically high levels of immigration has become a lightning rod for political polarisation. While some sing the praises of multiculturalism, there are growing concerns about the impact of mass migration on national social cohesion. With a more ethnically diverse UK emerging in the past two decades, and the ‘white British’ population falling to 74 per cent in 2021, surveys suggest two thirds of people now believe immigration is too high.
The issue is not confined to numbers, but a sense that newcomers are resistant to integrating into British social norms. Today, many seem sympathetic to the view that naïve mass-migration policies can foster values antithetical to British democracy, such as Islamist extremism. The summer riots in English towns and cities, and the simmering tensions they revealed, pose uncomfortable questions: what, if anything, binds society together?
But are critics of mass migration too eager to blame foreign migrants while overlooking problems closer to home? There seems little agreement about what constitutes the core British values that migrants should integrate into. Some jokingly note that, aside from an appreciation of fish and chips or warm beer, few have come up with a satisfying answer. Back in 2016, the government-commissioned Casey Review damningly described UK integration policy as ‘little more than saris, samosas and steel drums for the already well-intentioned’. In response, the then communities secretary, Sajid Javid, promised an ‘oath of allegiance to British values’ for those in public office – but failed to outline what those values might be.
Yet historically, the UK successfully integrated swathes of new migrants who were happy to see themselves as British citizens, while the US successfully promoted the ideal of assimilating generations of immigrants into the American dream, promising lives of liberty and happiness for all. Whether myth or reality, that aspiration inspired a positive orientation to immigration per se.
Some argue that the culprit is multiculturalism, a policy which emphasises diversity and group identity over association with a common nation. Twenty years ago, David Goodhart’s seminal essay, Too Diverse?, caused uproar with its warning that mass migration threatened a healthy society of common values. Now evident in all walks of life – school curricula, corporate DEI policies and the funding criteria of public institutions – perhaps a multiculturalist ethos is indeed anathema to a conception of national values and a common citizenship.
What pulls a nation together? Is it time to consider whether celebrating diversity amounts to embracing the self-separation of communities? Has a hyper-individualistic online culture or narcissistic age hampered the creation of collective identity? Can Labour politicians rise to the challenge of integration in what can often feel like a disunited Britain? Or will their remaining allegiance to identity politics, and the current disdain for British history and traditions, pose problems? And is there a way of discussing the problem of mass migration without scapegoating migrants themselves, or resorting to racist antagonism to migrants per se?
SPEAKERSWilliam Cloustonparty leader, Social Democratic Party
Paul Emberyfirefighter; trade unionist; author, Despised: why the modern Left loathes the working class; broadcaster
Inaya Folarin Imanbroadcaster and columnist; founder and director, The Equiano Project
John McGuirkeditor, Gript Media
Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbertdirector, Don't Divide Us; author, What Should Schools Teach? Disciplines, subjects and the pursuit of truth
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Identity politics and the rise of ethnic conflict

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The government has chosen to use the umbrella phrase ‘far right’ to explain recent civil unrest. Indeed, the orthodox response from Stand Up to Racism supporters implies that increased hostility to different ethnicities is at the heart of social tensions. This, they argue, explains broader concerns, for example, about mass immigration. But how true are these assertions?
It is true that initial false rumours that the Southport killer was a Muslim refugee led to attacks on mosques and ugly violence aimed at migrants. While this may have been aggravated by pre-existing fears – the grooming-gangs scandal, mass-casualty jihadist terrorism and headline stories of crimes committed by asylum seekers – it nonetheless brought to the fore unpleasant divisions in society. In turn, some armed Muslim gangs took to the streets to deal with these ‘far-right’ thugs, a spectacle which prompted speculation that the country was witnessing a new era of race wars and ethnic conflict.
Some blame official policy for these tensions, which, in recent decades, attempted to reshape Britain as ‘a community of communities’. Ethnic and religious minorities have been engaged with as minorities, treated as homogenous identity ‘blocs’ and even pitted against one another in competition for state recognition and support. Combined with contemporary identitarian policy initiatives, this in turn is said to have created new forms of racial thinking – for example, public institutions now seem fixated on amplifying racial differences. While the now dropped ‘BAME’ label grouped various unconnected ethnic groups together solely by virtue of their non-European origin or skin colour, fashionable critical theory now lumps ethnic British and other Europeans together as white.
Perhaps inevitably, there has been a backlash against the unfairness of blame or virtue attached to skin colour. Unhelpfully, too many right-wing commentators – both those responding in good faith as well as more malevolent ethno-nationalist opportunists – now ape the most divisive aspects of identitarian grievance-mongering. It is increasingly common to hear complaints of ‘systemic anti-white racism’ and even displacement of the white majority population. To confuse things further, imported grievances from identity groups have caused conflict, such as when Hindu and Muslim youths fought violent inter-communal street battles in Leicester two years ago.
Some believe that a more full and frank national conversation about difficult topics, such as the impact of mass immigration or the long-standing failure to integrate certain ethnic and faith groups, would help diffuse racial animosities. After all, most British people, of all ethnicities, are concerned about Britain’s fraying social fabric and polling suggests that ethnic-minority Brits also want immigration to be reduced. Others point to the fact that class is rarely mentioned, despite the fact that what often unites identity communities is that they face similar social and economic challenges in dealing with crumbling public services, lack of housing or the cost of living.
Is such a debate feasible today, when diversity dogma often ring-fences identity politics or multiculturalism from any criticism or challenge, dismissing it as far right or racist? Conversely, can we untangle real reactionary racial thinking from what gets lumped in with catch-all claims of ‘abuse’? Is it possible to conceive of a civic conception of Britishness that can transcend divisive ethnic identities?
SPEAKERSDr Rakib Ehsanauthor, Beyond Grievance: what the Left gets wrong about ethnic minorities
James Heartfieldlecturer and author
Khadija Khanjournalist and broadcaster; editor, A Further Inquiry; co-host, A Further Inquiry podcast
Kunle Olulodedirector, Voice4Change England; author, A New Era of Trust: Trust, politics, race and civil society; co-opted commissioner, Commission of Race and Ethnic Disparities
Charlie PetersGB News national reporter
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want