Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

Neurodiversity to gender dysphoria: a problem of over-diagnosis?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In many areas of life, an explosion of diagnostic labels seem to have expanded far beyond straightforward medical prognosis. Medicine seems to have become tangled up with fashionable identities, and a zeitgeist that stresses vulnerability and victimhood. How do such trends affect medical ethics, let alone reliable medical interventions?
One such example is the jokey aphorism ‘we’re all neurodiverse now’ – from the lawyer of the QAnon Shaman blaming his client’s behaviour on his autism to rising diagnoses among students. In workplaces and university campuses, neurodiversity awareness is ubiquitous, with more and more people identifying as ‘on the spectrum’. According to some estimates, as many as 20 per cent of the global population are neurodivergent, spanning everything from severe autism to dyslexia and ADHD. Particularly among women, there has been a sharp increase in ADHD diagnoses in the last year, with record numbers of prescriptions for ADHD medicine in 2024 – the UK is in fact suffering from an ADHD medicine shortage because of increased demand.
Elsewhere, there is contention over the explosion of young people who self-identity as gender dysphoric. A readiness to accept social transitioning in what has been described as social contagion amongst teenage girls has led to the conclusion that anyone declaring themselves gender-confused is in need of medical intervention, whether psychotherapeutic, biomedical or surgical. Advocates of transgender medicine argue against medical ‘gatekeeping’, demanding access to hormones and surgery as part of a patient’s bodily autonomy. However, some mental-health practitioners in the UK and US have testified that they face ideological pressure to put dysphoric patients on a medical pathway. In a 2021 study, 55 detransitioners of a group of 100 stated that they were not given an adequate professional evaluation before receiving clearance for medical transition. What’s more, some gender-critical commentators suggest that there is pressure to misdiagnose the confusions of puberty, same-sex attraction and broader mental-health issues as simply gender dysphoria.
Central to the debate is the premise that doctors, nurses and therapists are obliged to act in a patient’s best interests. But is it always clear what these interests are? Should individuals and their families get the final say? Is the rise in diagnoses due to an actual rise in numbers, expanding definitions, or clinicians and therapists getting better at identifying symptoms? Or are we over-diagnosing the likes of neurodiversity and gender-dysphoria, even pathologising behaviour which in the past may have been described as shy, socially awkward or perhaps a bit quirky? Do medical diagnoses help people understand their difficulties in interacting with the world by giving them a vocabulary and practical accommodations that help manage and alleviate debilitating discomforts? And what are the implications for medical ethics and health policy, when diagnoses have become so closely linked to understanding our identities?
SPEAKERSDave Clementswriter and policy advisor; contributing co-editor The Future of Community
Dr Jennifer Cunninghamretired community paediatrician; board member, Scottish Union for Education (SUE)
Dr Az Hakeemconsulting psychiatrist; author, Trans and Detrans
Sophie Spitalspeaker; writer; former editor, Triggernometry
CHAIRSally Millarddirector of finance; co-founder, AoI Parents Forum

Meet the author: Jon Moynihan on Return to Growth: How to fix the economy

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The UK has, in recent years, been suffering from what is nothing short of an economic crisis. Growth has now completely stalled in those Western democracies, the UK included, where high government spending and high taxes have steadily grown, decade after decade. Free-market economies now threaten to leave us behind in terms of wealth, opportunity and standards of living.
At the end of Rishi Sunak’s 2024 government, expenditure was at 45 per cent of GDP and taxes were 36 per cent of GDP and rising – yet still nowhere near sufficient to cover public expenditure. The government’s net annual borrowing is now a completely unsustainable 4.4 per cent of GDP, with our overall national debt growing rapidly and alarmingly.
In his new book, Return to Growth Volume One: How to Fix the Economy, Jon Moynihan analyses the UK’s decades-long stagnant economy and looks at what can be done to resuscitate it, exploring the key dynamics affecting economic growth – ranging from government borrowing, expenditure, tax and regulation to the way national resources are deployed on non-productive and futile, growth-stifling endeavours.
But how can we practically reverse this decline and restructure the economy to stimulate growth and improve living standards? As everyone, from the new Labour Government to Liz Truss, loves to emphasise the need for growth, how can we ensure this isn’t just a rhetorical slogan and becomes a reality?
SPEAKERJon Moynihanbusinessman; former chair, Vote Leave; Conservative peer
CHAIRPhil Mullanwriter, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

Meet the author: Ian Acheson on Screwed: Britain’s prison crisis and how to escape it

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Threats to lock up anyone involved in the summer riots are likely to lead to a surge in inmates in the UK’s already severely stretched and chaotic jails. How will our prisons cope when the Labour government inherited an overcrowding crisis, with the estate said to be at ‘operational breaking point’? According to figures published by the Ministry of Justice on 2 August, the prison population stood at 87,362 in England and Wales. Capacity, already stretched by the practice of assigning two prisoners to the same cell, was 88,818.
Under emergency plans, thousands of prisoners are due to get early release. Indeed, more broadly, the criminal-justice system has been under intense strain for more than a decade. Court backlogs have raised the number of prisoners on remand. The parlous state of probation services has led officials to claim understaffing is undermining probation workers’ efforts to keep the public safe – and has even been used as an excuse by Labour to refuse the release of prisoners serving imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentences, a punishment sentence abolished over 10 years ago.
This has all come as no surprise to Ian Acheson, who had spent years warning of the disasters to come. In his book Screwed, he tells the inside story of the collapse of His Majesty’s Prison Service, told from a front-row seat to it all. Acheson went from officer to governor in less than a decade, and during that time he witnessed the uniformed organisation he was proud to serve crumble into lethal disarray.
His uncompromisingly brutal account exposes the politics and operational decisions that have driven our prisons to a state where rats roam freely, prisoners are forced to use slop buckets, violence and intimidation are normalised and it is easier to get a bag of heroin than a bar of soap. Concluding that the crisis is not unfixable, however, Acheson gives solutions which deserve the widest public discussion.
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
Jonathan Floyddirector, Inside Job
Faith Spearlead author, The Criminal Justice Blog; prison-reform advocate; criminal-justice system commentator; criminologist
CHAIRGeoff Kidderdirector, membership and events, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Book Club

Meet the author: Greg Lukianoff on The Canceling of the American Mind

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
From universities to public office, schools to social clubs, the pernicious reach of cancel culture seems to know no bounds. While ‘cancellation’ may once have been reserved for high-profile celebrities, now everyone – from charity directors to porters, activists to comedians – is vulnerable to being censored and punished for holding the ‘wrong’ opinions. Social ostracisation, career derailment and even jail sentences are a genuine threat to those who seek to speak freely.
However, critics of the very idea of ‘cancel culture’ argue that a changing attitude to public discourse is a good thing – with protective measures and accountability providing safe spaces for historically marginalised communities. Cancel culture, they say, is merely ‘consequence culture’ – an overdue course correction to rein in old-fashioned bigotry. Social media and the internet have presented new challenges – from fake news to trolling – with many now arguing that free speech is simply too rife with dangers to be allowed.
In The Canceling of the American Mind, the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), Greg Lukianoff, and his co-author Rikki Schlott explore how workplaces and universities across all domains – including science, medicine, media, academia, finance and law – have internalised a culture of fear about expressing dissenting views. Moreover, they have adopted the practice of strategically quelling speech unpopular among the elite (by which the authors effectively mean ‘the ruling class’). Meticulously documenting cancel culture as a pervasive force that has taken over American institutions, Lukianoff and Schlott point out that Britain has not been immune to cancel culture either, from the firing of Kathleen Stock and cancellation campaigns against JK Rowling to the suspension of Cambridge’s Nathan Cofnas.
Building upon his groundbreaking text, The Coddling of the American Mind – which has influenced much of the understanding of the roots of cancel culture – Lukianoff articulates the dire problems present in political engagement across the English-speaking world. Should we resist the pessimism underlying ‘You Can’t Say That!’ culture, and try to figure out concrete solutions to reclaim a culture of free speech? Or are sceptics right, that free speech is too dangerous in a febrile public square – particularly online? And, as Lukianoff suggests, are the problems with cancel culture both external in our institutions and bureaucracies, and internal – with the ever-present need to check our own inclinations to cancel our adversaries and stand up to the policemen in our own heads?
SPEAKERGreg Lukianoffpresident and CEO, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
CHAIRDennis Hayesfounder and director, Academics For Academic Freedom (AFAF); author, The Death of Academic Freedom? Free speech and censorship

Meet the author: Dr Az Hakeem on Detrans: When transition is not the solution

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Increasing numbers of people are identifying as belonging to a gender different to that of their biological sex. There’s a commonly held assumption that some people are ‘trans’ and ‘born into the wrong body’. Until the Cass Review at least, the presumption seemed to be for healthcare interventions to ‘affirm’ the person’s preferred gender and help them to transition, often in a physically irreversible way. But what if someone who makes a gender transition later changes their mind? What if they regret making irreversible physical changes to their body?
Dr Az Hakeem is one of the first clinicians to write about the modern explosion in trans identification from outside the ‘gender affirmative’ paradigm. In his new book, DETRANS: When transition is not the solution, he uses his background in providing psychiatry and psychotherapy services to adults who experience gender dysphoria to explore and give voice to the first-hand experiences of those detransitioners and desisters for whom gender transition was not the hoped-for solution or panacea.
A recent wave of high-profile detransitioners has given some public exposure to the fallibility of institutionally approved pathways to transition. The reality is that many can and do regret hormones and surgery. But this is still a largely hidden story, with too little public attention paid to those living with the consequences of irreversible medical interventions – including infertility, bone damage and loss of sexual sensation. Too often, such regrets and detransitioning itself are not even officially acknowledged. A reluctance to provide and collect post-operative statistics, and a lack of follow-up by the gender clinics that facilitate gender transition, has created a black hole in research and a lack of public understanding about any negative effects of gender medicine. Additionally, abuse and hostility aimed at those detransitioners brave enough to ‘come out’ has added to a silencing of these stories.
Critics of Dr Hakeem have accused him of everything from transphobic conversion therapy to exploiting a small number of harrowing stories for partisan ideological reasons. Others suggest such bleak stories are designed to create a climate of fear that will put off those seeking positive medical support for their dysphoria. In his defence, the book has been welcomed as bringing solace to anyone who has been harmed by medical transition.
Can offering such positive and practical approaches give patients, indeed their families, hope? More broadly, can public discussion of such taboo issues herald a more rational and less toxic climate in which to assess the pros and cons of medical gender controversies?
SPEAKERSDr Az Hakeemconsulting psychiatrist; author, Trans and Detrans
Ritchie Herronwriter, activist and advocate
Jennifer Lahlfounder, Center for Bioethics and Culture; program director, Genspect USA
CHAIRCeri Dingledirector, WORLDwrite and WORLDbytes
 

Meet the author: Christopher Snowdon on You Do Not Exist: An Introduction to Nineteen Eighty-Four

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four was a prescient warning about how a small group could use technology, manipulate language and rewrite history to impose a totalitarian regime on society. It feels like the novel for 2024. Regularly quoted, turned into endless memes, sometimes so ubiquitous it feels clichéd, what more is there to say?
To celebrate the 75th anniversary of the UK publication of Orwell’s classic dystopia, the Institute of Economic Affairs has republished the novel with a new introduction by Christopher Snowdon.
Snowdon’s You Do Not Exist: An Introduction to Nineteen Eighty-Four is not an introduction in the classic sense, more a companion. Nor is this a biography of Eric Arthur Blair. Instead, Snowdon delves into the Orwell archives to show that the seeds of the roots, inspiration, economics of the novel were sown many years before it was written and to present a fresh political perspective on the masterpiece.
Snowdon argues – contentiously – that Orwell had misconceptions about economics that made him too gloomy about the postwar world, believing in the inevitable demise of liberal capitalism and making him pessimistic about the rise of totalitarianism. Why did he believe all this and – as liberalism and capitalism seemed to thrive after the war – was he wrong? However, as liberalism is now – in 2024 – under huge strain, capitalism on the defensive to the point of eating itself, and totalitarian policies embraced by liberal democracies, perhaps his pessimism was merited? Or is it too easy to draw definitive political conclusions from Orwell’s work?
Over the years since his death, conservatives, socialists and libertarians have all been keen to claim Orwell as one of their own. Perhaps he speaks for all of us. Does he speak for you?
Free copies of You Do Not Exist: An Introduction to Nineteen Eighty-Four will be available on the day, or it can be downloaded as a PDF here.
SPEAKERSChristopher Snowdonhead of lifestyle economics, Institute of Economic Affairs; author, You Do Not Exist: An Introduction to Nineteen Eighty-Four, co-host, Last Orders
CHAIRBruno WaterfieldBrussels correspondent, The Times

Mainstream media and the crisis of trust

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
‘Don’t believe a word!’ ‘Biased!’ ‘Fake news!’ How many of us shout at the TV, have stopped reading newspapers and get our news from social media? The news as presented by the major broadcasters and national newspapers – historically a bedrock of any functioning democracy and a symbol of vibrant civic engagement – has rarely been so despised. General distrust in the mainstream media (MSM) seems more intense than ever. There are even disputes over the very terminology with which reporting is done – who gets dubbed a terrorist, far-right, extremist, even a woman.
Such deep ideological battles obstruct any meaningful examination of reporting on what is happening in the world. Suspicion of partisan reporting, what is reported and what is not, mean deeply cynical attitudes are commonplace. Whether it’s stories about the Israel / Gaza conflict, the grooming scandal, the fallout from the riots, or gender ideology – there’s a plethora of accusatory finger-pointing. Whether it is social-justice activists on one side or populist forces on the other, there seems agreement that much mainstream news output must be taken with a pinch of salt.
In reaction to the mistrust of what is sneeringly dismissed as the MSM, we have seen a growing alternative media ecosystem: online TV channels, e-magazines, podcasts, live-streamed discussions, often with huge audiences. But rather than being welcomed as proof of an appetite for current affairs, mainstream journalists and editors accuse such outlets of irresponsible, unsourced rumourmongering, one-sided propaganda and even issue calls to close down new insurgent media players like GB News. The rows about which media to trust are almost as polarised as the toxic disputes they are reporting on. Similarly, while MSM outlets are awash with fact-checkers and a plethora of unofficial bodies seeking to eradicate misinformation, in now-classic ‘post-truth’ style, these supposed impartial fact-checkers get dragged into politics, too.
So, who should we trust to find out about what’s happening in the world? Can we afford to dispense with regulated, reputable journalism that at least aspires to impartiality? Or does widespread distrust in the media indicate a healthily sceptical public, reluctant to make do with a narrow range of elite narratives? With distrust in any single news source prevalent, should we encourage the use of multiple sources, even if it risks some individuals going down disinformation rabbit holes? Or do we need to be careful of those who urge us to believe outlandish conspiracies and unverified tall tales? Can we build a new media landscape that – regardless of our political opinions – we can call upon for facts and reasoned analysis? Is the media an important democratic corrective or partially the cause of our polarised responses to the news events it reports and comments on?
SPEAKERSTessa Clarkejournalist; author; documentary reporter; board member, Academics for Academic Freedom (AFAF)
Jonny GouldTV and radio presenter; journalist; host, Jonny Gould's Jewish State
Darren Grimespresenter, The Saturday Five, GB News
Jenny Hollandwriter and critic; former assistant, New York Times; author, Saving Culture (from itself) Substack
Jo Phillipsjournalist; co-author, Why Vote? and Why Join a Trade Union?; former political advisor; fellow, Radix
CHAIRTom Collyerexecutive, Pagefield; writer; alumnus, Debating Matters

Literary wars: the betrayal of Rushdie and artistic freedom

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Few areas of society are as riven with free-speech battles as the arts – particularly the world of literature. From sensitivity readers to trigger warnings, banned books and banished authors, censorship has long been an issue for writers and readers alike.
But in the aftermath of the brutal assault on author Salman Rushdie – who was stabbed on stage in 2022 by an Islamist attacker – the literary wars took a vicious turn. While many deemed solidarity with Rushdie in the face of attempted murder to be the bare minimum, some officials in the world of literature disagreed. Penguin, Rushdie’s publisher, was alone in its statement of support: ‘Standing up for the rights of free expression, particularly in the face of threats to one’s life, requires immense – and unimaginable – commitment and courage.’ In contrast, the president of the Royal Society of Literature, Bernadine Evaristo, penned an article stating that the institution ‘cannot take sides in writers’ controversies and issues, but must remain impartial’. Rushdie duly replied on X, ‘just wondering if the Royal Society of Literature is “impartial” about attempted murder’.
The lack of solidarity for Rushdie is symbolic of what many feel is a growing cowardice in literary circles. But he is in no way the only author facing hostility for daring to write what they want. Kate Clanchy was depublished by Picador after accusations of racism in her award-winning book went viral. Such is the cliquey attitude of the literature world that Philip Pullman was forced to resign as president of the Society of Authors after his comments in support of Clanchy’s artistic freedom caused a backlash from the institution.
Even when books do survive the publishing process unscathed by rewrites against the author’s will, the challenges don’t stop there. A recent row broke out in Waterstones, which fired one of its employees for threatening to ‘throw away’ the books of an author she disagreed with on X. A recent report by Index on Censorship revealed that ‘53 per cent of school librarians had been asked to remove books from their shelves… largely around LGBT+ content’. While some have pointed out that censorship in school libraries is not an LGBT+ issue – having affected classics from To Kill a Mockingbird to Huckleberry Finn – the point remains that a defence of the freedom to read seems sorely lacking.
Defenders of literature’s new culture war say that protective measures are needed to shield minority or vulnerable authors and readers from content that might harm. For a long time, the charge against the literary world was that it was too elitist – a fact that doesn’t seem to have changed with a new penchant for finding ‘problems’ with authors’ work.
Is it possible to argue for artistic freedom in literature in a world where authors are literally stabbed for daring to write the ‘wrong thing’? Do we as readers need to argue for a more open and hands-off approach from publishers and printers? And in all the rowing about who and what is allowed to be published, is anything good getting through?
SPEAKERSRalph Leonardauthor, Unshackling Intimacy: Letters on Liberty; contributor, UnHerd, Quillette, New Statesman and Sublation Magazine
Jenny Lindsaywriter; award-winning performance poet; essayist; contributor, The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht; author, Hounded: Women, harms and the gender wars
Joe Nutteducational consultant; author, including John Donne: The Poems and An Introduction to Shakespeare’s Late Plays
Gillian Philipwriter and haulage worker
Martin Robinsondirector, Trivium 21c Ltd; education consultancy; author, Trivium 21c, Curriculum Revolutions and Curriculum: Athena versus the machine
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

Letters on Liberty: Why Cash Keeps Us Free

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 – Why Cash Keeps Us Free – author and comedian Dominic Frisby writes in defence of notes and change. In an economy propped up by tracked transactions, you’re always at risk from the whims of financial institutions and governments, he argues, where banks are free to confiscate your funds to save their own heads. The price for free speech becomes more severe when governments are able to identify and cut dissenters out of the financial system. He writes that Big Tech companies are within their rights to keep an eye on what you buy and sell, making a profit on any data they retain. Cash, Dominic argues, is a pro-liberty, pro-privacy solution to the growing problem of authoritarian intervention.
Join Dominic and respondents to discuss the potential pitfalls and triumphs of a cash economy. Does a younger generation simply view cash as outdated, savouring the ease of plastic and online transactions? Does a cash-in-hand focus leave the economy vulnerable to tax evasion? How can those who depend on cash preserve their ability to rent property, or to invest in the stock market? Are cash savings really the best way to protect yourself in the event of a market crash? And is there something cultural to a love of cash – friend of the market-stall trader, scorned by the city slicker?
SPEAKERSDavid Axecareer in financial services; political campaigner; democracy chair, Together
Dominic Frisbywriter; comedian; author, Bitcoin: the future of money?
Nico Macdonaldadjunct professor of entrepreneurship and innovation, University of California Education Abroad Program; co-author, BIG POTATOES: The London Manifesto for Innovation
Simon Nashenvironmentalist; speaker; activist and founder, Green Oil bicycle lubes; chair, Green Drinks London
CHAIRJustine Briandirector, Civitas Schools; commentator on food issues

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