Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

Generation YouTube: a challenge to MSM?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
When asked where they get their news from, an increasing number of people are likely to surprise you. Rather than reaching for a paper or turning on the television, a recent study found that YouTube reaches more people aged 18 to 49 than all linear TV networks combined. The success of cult figures like Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan, who use long-form podcasts and videos on the site to explore contemporary political issues, seems to point to a desire for a different kind of media.
Some suggest that this trend goes beyond style, pointing to bigger questions about censorship and bias in the so-called ‘mainstream media’. Rows about failures of objectivity, started among those in both Left and Right camps, have become the norm. And yet, a YouGov poll conducted during the height of lockdown measures seemed to show resilience among viewers, with 47 per cent of people expressing ‘trust in BBC News journalists to tell the truth’. Although mainstream news outlets such as Sky News, CNN and ABC enjoy their services being included on YouTube, it is in fact individual YouTubers who outreach them in viewership, subscribers and overall content. Extolling the virtues of free speech and open debate seems to be popular, with many punters arguing that the need to search for alternative media is fuelled by a stifling conformity among traditional channels.
How long will the YouTube boom last? With a focus on misinformation and calls for regulation now a key feature of the modern news landscape, can a truly independent media survive? Could the snobbishness around sites like YouTube be challenged by a new and exciting mode of political engagement? Or is this all just a storm in an online teacup?
SPEAKERS
Callum Breesefreelance writer
Baroness Stowellchair, Communications & Digital Select Committee
Mahyar Tousipolitical YouTuber, MT Media
CHAIROli Fosterbroadcast journalist, GB News

For frack’s sake: how do we solve the energy crisis?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Right across Europe, energy supplies are under enormous pressure. A combination of pandemic inflation, lockdown disruptions and Russia’s war on Ukraine has sent energy prices soaring, with reserves running low as we head into winter. Over half a century has passed since Britain opened its first nuclear power station – so why today are we still struggling to meet our energy needs?
Environmentalists argue that the blame lies with our reliance on fossil fuels – and so demand a rapid switch to renewables like wind power. Yet, critics of Net Zero policies argue that renewables are unreliable and still require on the flexible backup of fossil-fuel energy. Even worse, those policies – and long-standing environmentalist opposition – have diverted attention from proven clean energy sources like nuclear. At the same time, arguments continue over whether the UK should exploit its significant reserves of shale gas.
As energy prices skyrocket, most debates focus on the financial support that households might need to pay their bills. But how can we stop such rises in the first place, and provide affordable, reliable energy today and in the future? Is reducing greenhouse-gas emissions still the primary goal, even if energy becomes more expensive? Are new technologies on the horizon, like nuclear fusion, that can save the day?
SPEAKERSTom Heapenvironment broadcaster, Countryfile, Panorama, Costing the Earth; presenter, The Climate Show with Tom Heap; author,  39 Ways to Save the Planet
Dr Caspar Hewettlecturer and degree programme director, Water Group, EuroAquae+, School of Engineering, Newcastle University; director, The Great Debate
Laurie Laybournresearcher; writer; associate fellow, Institute for Public Policy Research; co-author, Planet on Fire: A manifesto for the age of environmental breakdown
Jordan Tyldesleyjournalist and commentator
James Woudhuysenvisiting professor, forecasting and innovation, London South Bank University
CHAIRJacob Reynoldspartnerships manager, Academy of Ideas

Dick pics and Tinderella: are dating apps the end of romance?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Once online dating carried a taboo. But now you cannot move for a new innovative app – like Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, Thursday and Grindr – catering for every possible niche. Over the past five years, dating apps have exploded. Now, an estimated 323million people worldwide use them, while stories of fairy-tale romances and horrific first dates abound.
Are dating apps a good thing? Many exalt the liberating effect of online dating. Whereas previously a singleton could only talk to two or three people in a bar on any particular night, now you can interact with hundreds of potential partners, from around the world, from the comfort of your own home. Others are more critical, claiming dating apps create the mindset that there is always something better at the next swipe. Critics argue that such an ephemeral approach means people are less willing to commit and work on relationships for the long-term, ultimately contributing to an increasingly atomised world.
Are dating apps ushering in a new, dystopian romantic landscape in which sex is the result of an algorithm? Or is the increased choice a boon for the individual? Are we swiping right for a new age of sexual liberation or swiping left on a technological innovation that is pulling us further apart?
SPEAKERSNick Dixoncomedian; presenter, GB News; host, The Weekly Sceptic; co-host, The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
Madeline Grantcolumnist, assistant comment editor and parliamentary sketchwriter, Telegraph; former editorial manager, Institute of Economic Affairs
Dr Zoe Strimpelhistorian; British Academy research fellow, University of Warwick; columnist, Sunday Telegraph; author, What the Hell Is He Thinking?, The Man Diet and Seeking Love in Modern Britain
Dr Keith TeareCEO, Signalrank Corporation; Silicon-Valley-based serial entrepreneur
CHAIRAdam Rawcliffedirector of partnerships, Spectator; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Climate emergency: catastrophe or catastrophising?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Our contemporary period is often portrayed as a smorgasbord of crises – from Covid to energy, the cost of living to mental health. Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said earlier this year: ‘To put it simply, we are facing a crisis on top of a crisis.’ But one crisis seems to trump them all: the environmental crisis.
Today, droughts and floods are equally described as ‘biblical’, scientists warn that we are approaching an ‘ecological catastrophe’, and the UN secretary-general claims that we are facing ‘collective suicide’. Greta Thunberg demands that we panic.
Are we really entering the ‘end of days’? Others worry that this focus on environmental catastrophe is creating new crises. While Extinction Rebellion youth activists continue to fret about the end of the world, the American Psychological Association has identified a condition in young people that represents ‘a chronic fear of environmental doom’. And if changing weather events, such as heatwaves and lack of rain result in demands to adopt New Normal restrictions on economic activity, how can we escape cost of living and energy crises we face today?
Many environmentalists insist that the crisis is one of over-consumption, over-production and over-development at the expense of Mother Nature. Yet arguably, the developing world is in crisis because of a lack of those things. Are environmental concerns a response to a crisis or the cause of one?
SPEAKERSDr Shahrar Aliformer deputy leader, Green Party; author, Why Vote Green 2015
Orsolya Kovács-MagosiPhD student and junior researcher, Corvinus University of Budapest; researcher, Climate Policy Institute (CPI)
Martin Powellhead of sustainability, Siemens Inc; former mayoral advisor on the environment; editor, The Climate City
Dr Nikos Sotirakopoulosvisiting fellow, Ayn Rand Institute; instructor, Ayn Rand University; author, Identity Politics and Tribalism: the new culture wars
CHAIRAustin Williamssenior lecturer, Dept of Architecture, Kingston University, London; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution: understanding Chinese eco-cities

Biometrics and facial recognition

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Biometrics is used by a wide range of institutions and organisations – from police forces and building access to bank security and airport customs. Unlocking your smartphone with your face uses biometric facial recognition technology. Many of us now willingly trade the convenience of a world without passwords, fobs, or endless security checks by giving up a degree of our personal data.
Ever since the police started using fingerprint technology, biometrics has undergone many advances. Yet each innovation causes more privacy concerns. For example, surveillance cameras can now easily identify someone using just the shape of their face or the gait of their walk, often with no prior consent or knowledge. While both private and public organisations that use such technology argue that they are keeping us safe, how this vast amount of data is stored and shared between different agencies (or used again in different contexts) is seldom done with any degree of public accountability.
Critics also point out that biometric technology isn’t always reliable – make-up, a hoodie or a Covid mask can throw it off. Some of the data can be biased. For example, people with darker skin tones and young females can be disadvantaged, while the datasets that are used to ‘train’ the technology can often be unrepresentative of the population.
But are these problems to do with the technology itself, or rather how it is being used? Are opponents of such tech simply luddites – after all, the pandemic gave biometrics an added boost, with fewer reasons to touch or handle things. Is the issue about accountability, and how much privacy we will give up for more security in an uncertain world? And if things like facial recognition technology might make everyone more secure, is it worth the costs?
SPEAKERSSilkie Carlodirector, Big Brother Watch
Donald Clarklearning tech entrepreneur; investor; professor; author; founder, Epic plc; CEO, WildFire
Simon Evanscomedian; regular host, Headliners; presenter, BBC Radio 4's Simon Evans Goes to Market
Robin TombsCEO and co-founder, Yoti; co-founder and former finance director, Gamesys; co-founder, ZING
Dr Stuart Waitonsenior lecturer, sociology and criminology, Abertay University; author, Scared of the Kids: curfews crime and the regulation of young people
CHAIRMartyn Perksdigital business consultant and writer; former Islington by-election independent candidate; co-author, Big Potatoes: the London manifesto for innovation

Ulysses at 100: Have we lost in faith modernist man?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
James Joyce’s Ulysses was first published in Paris on 2 February 1922. At the time, it was seen as the most infamously obscene book in ancient or modern literature. It was the novel of modernism – an artistic period that was the break between the nineteenth century and the bridge to the barbarism of the 1930s.
What was the modernist man? Above all, he embraced freedom – he dared to know. He was free of the social conformities, the conventional morality, the control over human feelings that he saw as part of nineteenth-century European culture. The modernist man was in the search for truth about himself. There was no communication with others – every human being was imprisoned by a unique consciousness understood only by themselves. In the early twentieth century, the disregard for the old and the investigation of the new and the self was explosive and created different ways of looking and exploring man.
TS Eliot wrote in The Wasteland: ‘The awful daring of a moment’s surrender / Which an age of prudence can never retract / By this, and only this, we have existed.’ Is this the only thing that gives us meaning?
But did Ulysses burn all before it? Did the modernists’ agenda of critiquing and distancing themselves from every traditional idea that had been held sacred by Western civilisation mean that the post-modernist man has nothing to hold onto? What happens when the subjective is all? When the modernist agenda of no control or no connection to the past, is the mainstream not the marginal?
SPEAKERSMary Kennyjournalist; playwright; author, The Way We Were: Catholic Ireland since 1922 and Something of Myself - and Others; columnist, Irish Independent Magazine
Mark Ryancompany director; performer, The Godot Company; performer of one-man-monologue, Finnegans Wake; author, War and Peace in Ireland
Helen Searlschief operating officer, Feature Story News; founder, Washington Hyenas book club; Ulysses enthusiast
Justin Smythtranslator; tour-guide of Joycean Dublin; head of library service, Saint John of God Research Foundation; co-founder, Dublin Salon
CHAIRJane Sandemanchief operating officer, The Passage; convenor, AoI Parents Forum; contributor, Standing up to Supernanny

Too fat, too thin, are we too obsessed with calories?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
From 1 April 2022, new regulations were introduced forcing businesses with 250 or more employees to display calories on their menus, including children’s menus. The government says this will help people make healthier, informed choices when ordering food. Obesity is one of the greatest long-term health challenges this country has faced, according to the government, with 28 per cent of adults classified as obese.
However, others argue that calorie counts, along with children being weighed at school from the age of five, encourage an unhealthy mindset towards food which could lead to and worsen eating disorders – already a serious health problem. In March, for example, the NHS reported treating record numbers of children and young people for eating disorders.
In a world where people are constantly told that if they are not attractive, they are not valuable, why would we make it easier for them to obsess over their diets and bodies? Are such rules valuable help when making food choices or are we heading towards a future where we eat by number, not for flavour and fuel? Will these policies improve health or encourage obsession?
SPEAKERSKatie Axepaediatric nursing student, University of Leeds
Emma Burnellfounder and political consultant, Political Human; journalist; playwright, No Cure For Love and Triggered
Dr Jennifer Cunninghamretired community paediatrician
CHAIRDr Ruth Mieschbuehlersenior lecturer in education studies, Institute of Education, University of Derby; author, The Racialisation of Campus Relations

Sanitised or modernised: staging Shakespeare today

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
How should we approach Shakespeare today? Challenging the reverence many hold for Britain’s greatest writer, some have argued that staging the Bard today is a tricky issue. For example, actress Juliet Stevenson stated that the alleged anti-Semitism in The Merchant of Venice meant that it could not be made ‘acceptable’. Some Shakespeare plays, she said, ‘where history has overtaken them, should just be buried’.
Others have taken the approach that the way to make Shakespeare ‘acceptable’ is to encourage his plays to meet the political sensitivities of a modern audience. The Globe in London hosted a series of educational workshops on how to teach ‘anti-racist Shakespeare’, looking at Othello and The Tempest in particular. Under the artistic directorship of Michelle Terry, The Globe also focused on ‘inclusivity’ in Shakespeare, with colour and gender-blind casting. Off stage, others have argued that teaching Shakespeare in schools should be met with caution, as his works contain ‘problematic, outdated ideas’ like ‘misogynoir’ and ‘homophobia’.
Purists might gasp at such meddling, and defend the progressive sensibilities of a genius writing in politically contentious times. After all, if The Merchant of Venice is so anti-Semitic, why is Shylock given the most meaningful speech in the play? But others argue that without reinterpretation, any work of great literature would languish. If it is the nature of great art to able to be speak across the ages, what is wrong with ‘decolonising’ Shakespeare in 2022? Should we be relaxed about moves to ‘modernise’ art from over 400 years ago? Or are we in danger of dumbing down these classics to suit contemporary political ends?
SPEAKERSProfessor Aaqil Ahmeddirector, Amplify Consulting Ltd; professor of media, University of Bolton; former head of religion, Channel 4 and BBC
Lindsay Johnswriter and broadcaster, BBC TV and radio arts and history documentaries; patron, Shakespeare Schools Foundation;
Tomiwa Owoladewriter and critic; contributing writer, New Statesman
Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbertdirector, Don't Divide Us; author, What should schools teach? Disciplines, subjects and the pursuit of truth
Daniel Smithteacher of English; second in department, Reigate School, Surrey; author, Macbeth: 25 key quotations for GCSE
CHAIRGregor Claudeart teacher, Coopers Company and Coborn School

Parenting problems and the future of the family

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
From delinquent teenagers to free-love hippies, the family has often appeared to be in crisis. Today, many seem to be eschewing the traditional arrangement: millennials, now the largest generation, are less likely to live with a spouse and child than any of their elders. Likewise, rather than beginning the journey of starting their own families, record proportions of young people are still living with their parents. Among those who do form family groups, rates of marriage and children are lower and fewer people care for, or stay close to, elderly relatives.
Some argue that this might be down to the fact that the family is often cast as an outdated institution, even a relic of the post-war era and a bastion of white supremacy and homophobia. The recent liberalisation of divorce law, with the introduction of ‘no-fault divorce’, was celebrated by some as a step forward for choice and freedom. However, others bemoaned the potential for individuals to simply ‘give up’ on family commitments. Many commentators have observed that it is no coincidence that virtues long associated with family life – duty, stability, selflessness and thrift – are also in decline.
In her new book, The Problem with Parenting: how raising children is changing across America, Nancy McDermott investigates the changing nature of childrearing from the 1970s onwards, making the case for a renewal of a societal commitment to children and the rising generation. Given the mountain of evidence to show that stable, two-parent families are best for children, is family, for all its flaws, worth defending? Does family life make life more meaningful? On the other hand, can discussions about family life become too narrow, sidelining the many successful families that don’t adhere to a traditional heterosexual framework? Is the traditional family worth defending, or is there a better way to live?
SPEAKERSNeil Davenportcultural critic; head of faculty of social sciences, JFS Sixth Form Centre
Nancy McDermottauthor, The Problem with Parenting: how raising children is changing across America; chapter leader, Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR)
Matthew Pattenpolitical and communications director, Centre for Social Justice; former charity CEO; former member, European Parliament
CHAIREllie Leeprofessor of family and parenting research, University of Kent, Canterbury; director, Centre for Parenting Culture Studies

Is opera just for toffs?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Last July, the deputy prime minister, Dominic Raab, accused Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, of ‘champagne socialism’ because she went to the Glyndebourne music festival to watch opera and drink champagne instead of joining colleagues on RMT picket lines. Raab’s comment was unfortunate, but it highlights the prevailing sentiment: opera is the preserve of the rich and upper-class people.
Is it because of this perception of elitism that young and new audiences don’t go to opera? After all, it’s not just right-wing politicians who hold this view; many within the left-leaning arts sector also seem to regard elitism as a problem for opera – a phenomenon neatly encapsulated by the Stormzy vs Mozart controversy.
In fact, opera houses around the world have undertaken numerous initiatives aimed at widening access to their shows. The Royal Opera House even hired an outside expert to tackle imperialism and orientalism in Puccini’s Madama Butterfly and cast its first black lead in Verdi’s Otello. Nevertheless, all sort of people attended the Arena di Verona Opera Festival in Italy last June to see the 1913 historical production of Verdi’s Aida where the white soprano Anna Netrebko sang with her face painted in black.
So how does opera stay relevant and attract new audiences? Do opera houses have to decolonise opera? Or do they simply have to stage truly exciting productions?
SPEAKERSHenrietta Bredindeputy editor, Opera magazine; author, Labour of Love
Dolan Cummingsauthor, Gehenna: a novel of Hell and Earth; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas; co-founder, Manifesto Club
Peter Hankeconductor and artistic director, Voces Academy; associate fellow, Oxford University
Michael Hollicksub-editor; opera lover
CHAIRElisabetta Gasparonilinguist; teacher; founder, Aesthetic Study Group

Infantilisation: the collapse of adult authority?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Millennials have become infamous for having been brought up by overprotective parents, who shield them from physical and emotional harm. It’s said this has created a risk-averse, over-dependent generation of ‘snowflakes’. Such over-protection has continued as children become adults: some parents even attend their offspring’s job interviews.
In policy circles, this expansion of childhood has led to demands that we should raise the age for selling cigarettes, drinking alcohol and more. Yet this trend exists alongside demands for votes at 16. We seem unable to distinguish between dependent children and independent young adults, or how to exert adult authority.
Children are also frequently imbued with grown-up motives and understanding, a trend dubbed by sociologists as ‘adultification’. Sex education lessons are full of adult concepts; toddlers are encouraged to read by sexualised drag queens. School-yard bullying incidents have been transformed into ‘hate crimes’ that must be reported to outside authorities. In August, it was reported the Metropolitan Police had strip searched 650 children between 2018 and 2020. The Met has since conceded that they have ‘given officers advice around dealing with schools, ensuring that children are treated as children’. We might be worried that they needed reminding.
Conversely, once the line between adults and children is erased, appropriate adult authority – for example, in terms of disciplining children’s poor behaviour – can be demonised as authoritarian. Newspapers are full of stories of youth rampaging, out-of-control, with adults refusing to intervene, often fearing that they will be punished. Indeed, recently Ofsted downgraded the rating of one Kent school from ‘good’ to ‘inadequate’ because it was too strict, noting that ‘many pupils find this oppressive’, while their parents slammed the enforcing of ‘militaristic’ school rules such as mandatory morning smiles, compulsory eye contact with staff, and calling teachers ‘Sir’ or ‘Miss’.
Where do we draw the line between protecting children and giving them responsibility? Is it right to use state authority to criminalise childish behaviour? What does being a child or being an adult mean today?
SPEAKERSJessica Butcher MBEtech entrepreneur; co-founder, Tick.; co-founder, Blippar; commissioner, Equality and Human Rights Commission
Professor Frank Furedisociologist and social commentator; author, The Road to Ukraine: how the West lost its way and 100 Years of Identity Crisis: culture war over socialisation
Jacob Phillipsdirector, Institute of Theology and Liberal Arts, St Mary’s University, Twickenham; author, Obedience is Freedom
Barry Smithfreelance education consultant; former headmaster, Great Yarmouth Charter Academy; former founding deputy head, Michaela School; former regional director, Hackney New School
Don Watkinsauthor, Free Market Revolution, Equal Is Unfair and I Am Justice
CHAIRSally Millarddirector of finance; co-founder, AoI Parents Forum

From grooming gangs to child abuse: is social work working?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The high-profile murders during lockdown of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson, killed by those supposed to care for them, shocked the country. A national review into their murders and an independent review of children’s social care have called for an overhaul of child protection, earlier and more decisive intervention, and improved workforce skills and knowledge.
The government’s Care Review highlighted the rise in killed and injured children, during the lockdown periods between April and September 2020, and some agencies have predicted that, within the next decade, 100,000 children could be in care. The former education secretary, Nadhim Zahawi, promised ‘system change on a national scale’ – but will it make any difference?
Is the system skewed to crisis intervention? Are social workers under- or over-intervening? Does the system need to address underlying issues, such as child poverty, domestic abuse and mental health? Or has a society-wide preoccupation with safety culture distracted agencies from protecting those children most at risk from abuse and neglect?
SPEAKERSTom Bewickchief executive, Federation of Awarding Bodies; presenter, Skills World Live; co-founder and chair, board of directors and trustees, BEYOND
Dave Clementspolicy advisor; writer; co-editor, The Future of Community
Dr Rakib Ehsanauthor, Beyond Grievance: what the Left gets wrong about ethnic minorities
Susie Hawkessenior lecturer in social work, University of Wolverhampton
CHAIRDr Ken McLaughlinformer social worker; academic; author, Social Work Politics and Society: from radicalism to orthodoxy and Stigma, and its discontents

From boozing to obesity: the new health tyranny?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
It seems that governments can’t get enough of meddling in our lifestyle choices, especially since the turn of the century. We’ve seen a widespread ban on smoking in public spaces and workplaces. In Scotland and Wales, there is now a minimum unit price for alcohol. Across the UK, sugary drinks are now taxed, forcing most manufacturers to reformulate to keep prices down while depriving their customers of choice. Debate is raging on whether to ban ‘buy one, get one free’ deals in supermarkets.
For politicians, these are vital steps in protecting the health of the nation when diseases related to smoking, boozing and obesity are leading causes of ill-health and mortality. Proponents argue that individual choice must be set aside to protect others and to reduce the strain on health services. But critics see these as attacks on personal autonomy, often with little impact on the problems they are supposed to solve.
But it’s not just governments: the moral imperative to live a healthy life has become all-encompassing. Day after day, we are bombarded with advice from all quarters about what we eat and drink, how much exercise we should do, and the latest fads about ‘superfoods’, supplements and alternative therapies.
Have we become too obsessed with health, and if so, why? Should our habits be a matter of personal choice or is it right to place restrictions on them? Is making food and booze more expensive in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis a good idea? Grab the breakfast of your choice, ‘healthy’ or otherwise, and join us for some lively banter on living longer.
SPEAKERSJustine Briandirector, Civitas Schools; commentator on food issues
Christopher Snowdonhead of lifestyle economics, Institute of Economic Affairs; editor, Nanny State Index; author, Killjoys
John Vincentco-founder, LEON; creator, FeedNHS; co-author, 2013 government School Food Plan; founder, The Longhouse
CHAIRDr Mo Lovattnational coordinator, Debating Matters; programme coordinator, Academy of Ideas

Bye bye, baby: the birth-rate debate

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Governments, environmental campaigners and social planners used to worry about excessive population growth. Even today, some environmentalists insist that having fewer children is the moral thing to do. Yet more and more are changing their tune, and are beginning to worry about the effects of collapsing birth rates.
Shrinking birth rates mean fewer working-age adults who generate the wealth needed to support pensioners – declining populations directly hit the economy. At the extreme end, birth rates below replacement levels suggest the end of humanity itself.
Many insist, at least in the UK, that children are simply unaffordable for a generation facing spiralling housing costs, poor job prospects and expensive childcare. Others note that even in periods of historical poverty, people have found ways and means to support children. Could lifestyle factors, individual choice and widely accessible birth control be behind the baby slump? Some conservative commentators insist that a flight from responsibility (and young couples avoiding growing up) are to blame, while others argue that many women are simply choosing to have children later in life in order to enjoy the freedoms of work and leisure for longer.
Should we care about the birth rate at all? Is a strong birth rate a sign of a society confident about the future? Should anything be done to address it, or should governments steer clear of trying to influence reproductive choices?
SPEAKERSEllie Leeprofessor of family and parenting research, University of Kent, Canterbury; director, Centre for Parenting Culture Studies
Dr Paul Morlanddemographer; business consultant; author, Tomorrow's People: the future of humanity in ten numbers
Louise Perrycolumnist, New Statesman; features writer, Daily Mail; author, The Case Against the Sexual Revolution; co-founder, The Other Half
Sandy Starrdeputy director, Progress Educational Trust
CHAIRJacob Reynoldspartnerships manager, Academy of Ideas

Work shy and retiring: have we fallen out of love with work?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Is our attitude to work changing? UK job vacancies remain high, but many people are opting for early retirement, part-time or ‘flexibilised’ working. In addition, low morale, stress and burnout are increasingly cited as the main reasons for people leaving or wanting to leave their job.
Professional bodies have complained that their members – such as doctors, nurses and teachers – are threatening to quit due to the mental-health impact of their work. Last summer, one of the main reasons cited for the HGV driver shortage was that the job had become too ‘tough’, discouraging young people from taking it up. Recent reports and general, widespread opinion seems to be that jobs just aren’t good for us.
Many jobs are renowned for being monotonous and boring, but ‘earning your keep’ used to be a source of pride and self-respect. Is this no longer the case? One of the reasons cited for the post-pandemic labour shortage was the record number of workers choosing not to return to work by voluntarily removing themselves from the official ‘seeking employment’ statistics.
Has work really become too much to put up with? Will our desire for an easier life, more family and leisure time make us feel as good about ourselves the way a job ‘well done’ used to do? Is the nature of jobs to blame? Or have we simply fallen out of love with work?
SPEAKERSBrian Dennytrade-union journalist, Rebuild Britain; author, Rebuild Britain’s Fishing Industry; curator, Working River: songs and music of the Thames project
Simon Hoppepartnerships success director
Linda Murdochformer director of careers, University of Glasgow
Angelica Walker-Werthwriter, editor and programmes manager, Objective Standard Institute
Dr Glynne Williamsassociate professor, school of business, University of Leicester
CHAIRPara Mullanformer operations director, EY-Seren; fellow, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development