Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

Reclaim the high street

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

Putting your life on (meno)pause

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

Populism: a response to two-tier rule?

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

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

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

Podcast Live: Chinese Whispers – China in decline?

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

Podcast live: Last Orders – the latest nanny state news

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

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

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

Passes for glasses: is cronyism undermining democracy?

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

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

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

OBR: independent oversight or anti-democratic quango?

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

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