Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

Demographic change: will we run out of workers?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Population ageing is rapidly becoming a prominent issue in many countries. Whether resulting from falling fertility rates, declining mortality, or increased longevity, older populations are thought to be another huge challenge facing the modern world. When declining birth-rates portend smaller populations, demographic fears amplify.
The World Bank explains that, more often than not, ageing populations are a source of concern, given the potential for higher health care and pension costs, unsustainable fiscal deficits, and intergenerational tensions. Most think tanks seem to concur that ageing is bad for economic growth. Older populations are believed to be less innovative, representing another barrier to reviving productivity growth in the advanced industrialised countries.
Meanwhile it is thought the shrinking proportion of the population that is working will be unable to sustain growing numbers of retired dependent people in reasonable comfort. Other commentators go further to claim that shrinking populations herald societal collapse.
One solution is to bring in workers from overseas. But immigration raises issues of its own, from strains on housing supply and public services to the potential for future liabilities as immigrants themselves grow old. Alongside rising immigration, however, is a rise in worklessness, with millions of working-age people unable to work through ill-health or because they are unable, or perhaps unwilling, to take on paid work. Some have suggested that the government should focus on pro-natal policies, making it easier for people to start families and have more children.
Contemporary demographic trends are frequently viewed as unstoppable and as an inevitable cause of increasing economic costs. Yet, the steady rise in life expectancy can also be viewed as one of the great human success stories. Just 120 years ago, half the population did not live beyond 32 years. Today, half the population is expected to live beyond 70.
How should we approach the consequences of demographic ageing? Is it an inexorable economic and social burden that we need to find ways of adapting to? What is the connection between population structure and size, and a country’s growth potential? Would it help if more policies focused on supporting healthy and active ageing? Can societies survive a decline in their population?
SPEAKERSDominic Frisbywriter; comedian; author, Bitcoin: the future of money?
Phil Mullanwriter, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents
Hilary Salt FIA, FPMI, FRSAdeputy leader SDP; actuary; partner, First Actuarial
Charlie Winstanleypublic and social policy specialist; author, Bricking it (forthcoming) on the UK’s housing crisis
Chair
Rob Lyons
science and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate

Defending the West in a dangerous world

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The world in 2024 is undeniably more conflict-prone than in recent memory. While the post-Cold War era saw various localised conflicts, today’s geopolitical landscape is marked by escalating tensions that could potentially lead to widespread regional or even global disorder. According to many reports, Russia’s war on Ukraine threatens European security, Israel’s conflict with Hamas risks igniting broader Middle Eastern unrest, and growing US-China tensions could spark a new global confrontation, whether hot or cold.
This new era of conflict has highlighted serious deficiencies in Western military readiness. Reports indicate that only the US and Poland are in a tolerable position, while other Western nations struggle. For instance, the UK might deplete its artillery shells within days of a major conflict, Germany faces severe personnel and equipment shortages that prevent it from fielding a full division, and France is grappling with significant logistical and equipment issues. These problems are compounded by widespread recruitment challenges and soaring costs for modernizing equipment, exacerbated by military support to Ukraine stretching many Western arsenals thin.
For years, the end of the Cold War and NATO’s reliance on American military might led many to believe that large military forces were unnecessary. However, despite some unity over Ukraine, NATO faces divisions, with concerns about the US’s shifting focus to China potentially undermining its commitment to deterring Russia. Additionally, trends towards smaller forces where new technology would replace traditional soldiering have been questioned as wars in Ukraine and Gaza reaffirm the need for substantial manpower and weaponry to sustain prolonged conflicts.
Critics argue that a renewed arms race and higher military spending divert resources from other essential public needs and increase global conflict risks. They advocate for diplomacy and understanding of major powers’ interests as the path to peace. On the other hand, traditionalists argue that only robust military strength can effectively deter aggression. And, at a time when world leaders are more likely to speak off-the-cuff on Twitter or to the press rather than embrace the art of diplomacy, international relations can often take on a tense and unpredictable atmosphere.
But amid the familiar debates about military size, military spending and the risks of arms races, some analysts identify a new problem for Western militaries: a worrying lack of willingness on behalf of Western citizens to want to fight if it came to it. Perhaps the problems with recruitment reflect not just a concern about pay, conditions or glamour, but a broader issue whereby few see the need to defend one’s country at all. According to surveys carried out in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, in countries like Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, only about a quarter to a third of people said they’d be willing to fight if their country asked them.
Does the West need to rethink its approach to military preparedness? At a time of sluggish economic performance, are Western countries faced with tough choices on spending? Do we have to ask a more fundamental question: what is the West, and is it worth fighting for?
SPEAKERSDr Tim Blackbooks and essays editor, spiked
Sherelle Jacobscolumnist, Daily Telegraph
Sir Simon Mayallconsultant and writer; former assistant chief of the Army; author, The House of War, the Struggle between Christendom and the Caliphate
Tim Scottexecutive director, The Freedom Association
CHAIRTony Gillandchief of staff, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Decolonised or patriotic curriculum?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
When it comes to fixing Britain’s internal divisions, would you prefer a decolonised or a patriotic curriculum? The National Education Union (NEU) argues that a decolonised school curriculum would ‘remove biases of the current system and provide a sense of belonging for black people’. Examining British imperialism, racism and the historical perspectives of the colonised from around the world, the NEU contends, allows us to better understand the colonial legacies of inequality and racism today.
In contrast, the Reform Party advocates a ‘patriotic curriculum that ensures people are proud of Britain’. Any lessons about an example of British or European imperialism or slavery ‘must be paired with the teaching of a non-European occurrence of the same to ensure balance’. Reform wants to ‘clamp down on woke ideology in schools’, from ‘BLM indoctrination to transgender’ ideology.
Some commentators suggest that the summer riots confirmed that we are now two nations, with the battle over the curriculum a symptom of this division. If people are living alongside others with radically different values and identities, some believe a solution is to use the school curriculum to provide some commonality of meaning.
Should education reflect one’s identity – be it British, black or gay – or be a means to moving beyond it? Is it socialisation or indoctrination to promote a decolonised or patriotic curriculum? Can schools be kept out of divisive politics and domestic culture wars, or should curriculum matters be left to the academic experts? Who should decide what schools teach?
SPEAKERSLouise Burtonhistory teacher
Dia Chakravartycontributing editor, Daily Telegraph
Andre Ediagbonya-Daviesdigital marketing officer; speaker, Academy of Ideas Education Forum
Ben Habibfounder and CEO, First Property Group plc; former deputy leader, Reform UK; former Brexit Party member, European Parliament
CHAIRKevin Rooneyhistory and politics teacher; editor, irishborderpoll.com; convenor, AoI Education Forum; co-author, The Blood Stained Poppy

Declare your pronouns: EDI and compelled speech

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI, or DEI in America) measures have become an important organisational framework for governments, universities, quangos and businesses across the English-speaking world. While some believe our institutions have an important role to play in shaping public opinion and leading the conversation around issues of ‘social justice’, others argue such agendas play an unhelpful role in fuelling the culture wars. For many people, these three letters (in whatever order) signify illiberalism – and a dread of being compelled to repeat EDI mantras on pain of ostracism, re-education or even job loss.
Institutions from corporate banks to galleries, from streaming networks like Netflix to the most prestigious universities, now organise around EDI targets. Everything from employment practices – such as recruitment and promotion, advertising, branding and customer relations – are getting the EDI treatment. Advocates argue that these policies ensure progressive language and an inclusive civility that allows everyone to feel part of organisations. Opponents complain that they are a top-down imposition of political criteria or language codes – such as using ‘preferred pronouns’ – on our speech and behaviour.
Some in higher education worry that EDI policies not only impact on free speech, but also distort academic judgement. In the US, materials from the University of Colorado Boulder’s DEI programme have come under fire for suggesting ethnic-minority students are failing because of a ‘white supremacy culture’ that includes ‘individualism, perfectionism, a sense of urgency’ and ‘worship of the written word’. St Andrews University in Scotland requires all matriculating students to sign a form confessing their privilege and promising to address their ‘unconscious bias’.
Those who favour such measures, suggest that EDI policies can right historical wrongs and encourage greater representation across many sectors. Advocates are determined to fight prejudice in the present by righting the wrongs of the past and enhancing opportunities for those groups who have been historically marginalised. However, critics claim that the opposite is true, pointing out, for example, that ethnic minorities are subjected to the ‘bigotry of low expectations’. They also argue that promotion of group identity fosters division, rather than inclusion, and undermines a social contract that depends on equality of opportunity and universal treatment. In workplaces, there are concerns that hiring practices are no longer equal but differential, treating people according to their skin colour, impeding meritocracy and reinforcing racial thinking.
What is the impact of EDI on our institutions? Do such policies promote social justice and enhance opportunities for underrepresented groups? Or are these policies playing a divisive role in public life, to the detriment of free speech and free inquiry – imposing values on students, employees and customers by compelling the majority to think and speak only in officially approved ways? Is EDI/DEI here to stay or might it DIE in the future under the weight of popular revolt?
SPEAKERSDr John Armstrongreader in financial mathematics, King’s College London; founding member, London Universities’ Council for Academic Freedom
Eric Kaufmannprofessor of politics, University of Buckingham; advisory council member, Free Speech Union; author, Taboo: How Making Race Sacred Led to a Cultural Revolution
Connor Murnanecampus advocacy chief of staff, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
Dr Joanna Williamsauthor, How Woke Won and Women vs Feminism
CHAIRJacob Reynoldshead of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas
 

From social media to AI: a tech moral panic?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Smartphones have become almost ubiquitous in modern society. The rise of social-media services, which have billions of users worldwide, has gone hand in hand with the use of smartphones. Few technologies have seen such rapid adoption. With concerns about several social problems coming to the fore in recent years, a variety of commentators have pointed to this new technology as an important cause. But in this case, does correlation really equal causation?
One problem is how we discuss social and political issues. Social media has democratised political debate. But that debate seems increasingly polarised and toxic, with social media being blamed by many for the summer riots in the UK and Elon Musk being the target of hatred from some for his relatively liberal approach to posts on X/Twitter. The rise of AI, particularly the ease of making ‘deep fakes’, has complicated matters further, making it harder for voters to figure out what candidates really believe or potentially stirring up conflict – as illustrated by fake audio of London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, earlier this year.
There are also worries – most prominently expressed by Professor Jonathan Haidt – that spending so much time looking at devices has damaged children’s mental health, sense of independence and concentration spans. High-profile head teacher Katherine Birbalsingh has caused controversy by banning smartphones from the classrooms at Michaela School in London, a trend now mirrored in state-wide bans on smartphones in schools in some parts of America.
But do such concerns over-inflate the importance of technology? For example, one worry is the decline of children’s independent play and travel – but this has been a trend for decades in much of the West, leading to debates about ‘cotton wool’ kids. Haidt himself has pointed to this as part of the problem. Declining mental health, for children and adults, has also been a concern for many years, but how much of it is new and how much is a result of expanding definitions of mental illness is unclear.
Is new technology really responsible for these social trends – or is it mere coincidence? What else might explain these changes – and what should we do about to tackle such problems?
SPEAKERSLord James Bethellformer health minister; member, House of Lords
Andrew Doylepresenter, Free Speech Nation, GB News; writer and comedian; author, The New Puritans and Free Speech and Why It Matters
Timandra Harknessjournalist, writer and broadcaster; author, Technology is Not the Problem and Big Data: does size matter?; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree
Sandy Starrdeputy director, Progress Educational Trust; author, AI: Separating Man from Machine
CHAIRRob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate

Debating Matters: ‘Smartphones should be banned in the classroom’

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Debating Matters is a sixth-form debating competition that has become renowned for its rigorous and intellectually challenging format – one that values substance over style and getting to grips with real-world issues. This is a one-off showcase debate for the Battle of Ideas festival between students whose challenge is to think through the thorny moral issues at the heart of the motion and the audience is sure to enjoy the high standard of debate.
The use of smartphones by children has become the subject of widespread debate – both in Parliament and within society more broadly. Their use has been linked to a range of poor educational outcomes and mental-health problems, leading many to call for an outright ban for those under 16 years old, particularly in school.
Jonathan Haidt, an American sociologist, has been influential in the discussion, arguing that the ‘between 2010 and 2015, there was a profound shift in the mental health of children and young people’. He ascribes this phenomenon to an increase in time spent online and a subsequent decrease in face-to-face socialising and play.  However, other sociologists have argued that just because the decline in mental health in the young coincides with the advent of the smartphone, doesn’t mean the latter is causing the former. In addition, by focusing specifically on smartphone use, to the exclusion of other factors, we may fail to address the real problems faced by young people today.
However, as many point out, the use of smartphones is a new phenomenon and one which should be studied and debated more widely. So, with that in mind, should smartphones be banned in the classroom?
DEBATE TEAMS:
Proposing the motion: The Burgate School
Debaters:
Lizzie Camfield – upper-sixth student studying A level Maths, Further Maths, Biology, and Philosophy and Ethics, hoping to study conservation at university.
Mollie Gennard – upper-sixth student currently studying History, Philosophy, and Ethics and Psychology, hoping to study Philosophy, Religion & Ethics at university.
Teacher: Mr Evan BaileyEvan has taught maths and further maths at his current school for 23 years. He is also numeracy coordinator, Key Stage Five coordinator and Aim Higher coordinator. He is a keen music lover, crate digger and Manchester United fan.
Opposing the motion: Oakwood Park Grammar School
Debaters:
Ifan Bambury – lower-sixth student studying A-Level Politics, Religious Studies and English Literature, intending to study Politics at university. Ifan is starring in the Christmas pantomime at Maidstone Hazlitt Theatre.
Arthur Pavey – lower-sixth student studying A-level History, Politics and Religious Studies, planning to study Law at university. Arthur is an expert on the AV Referendum of 2011.
Teacher: Ms Abbie HernAbbie is head of sixth form and senior leader at Oakwood Park Grammar School (OPGS) in Kent. She teaches Politics and Sociology and holds an MA in History from Edinburgh University. Abbie has had the pleasure of seeing her OPGS teams take part in Debating Matters since 2015. After being a visitor to the Battle of Ideas in past years, she is delighted to see her students take part.
JUDGESMurray Hancockco-founder and convenor, The Brisbane Dialogues
Professor Ellie Leeprofessor of family and parenting research, University of Kent, Canterbury; director, Centre for Parenting Culture Studies
Stan Swimchief program officer, Bill of Rights Institute
CHAIRDr Mo Lovattnational coordinator, Debating Matters; programme coordinator, Academy of Ideas

Could citizens’ assemblies save democracy?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
This year’s General Election saw the lowest voter turnout in the UK since 1928, leading many to suggest we have become disillusioned with democracy. Some blame voter apathy, while others worry that giving civil servants and bureaucrats too much power has alienated the electorate.
If faith in the political process is indeed so low, could citizens’ assemblies offer an alluring way to entice the electorate back into the voting booth by giving them a stake in the decision-making process?
Downing Street chief of staff, Sue Gray, has revealed she is considering the use of citizens’ assemblies, arguing they would break the deadlock on divisive issues such as reforming the House of Lords, implementing new housebuilding plans and granting more power to elected mayors. The health secretary, Wes Streeting, has also advocated for their use over contentious issues such as assisted dying.
Citizens’ assemblies have been used worldwide for some time. The most cited success story is their use in 2016, in Ireland, which led to the legalisation of abortion.  They are seen as an important tool in reconnecting citizens with politics and directly challenging increasing levels of political disenfranchisement. In addition, many advocates argue that citizens’ assemblies provide a strong bulwark against the rise of populist parties.
Critics of citizens’ assemblies, however, claim that rather than increasing democratic engagement, they actually limit genuine engagement by setting the parameters of the debate – sometimes in quite narrow ways. Very often, opponents argue, they are simply a ‘consensus laundering’ exercise. Critics also point out that the organisations who facilitate these assemblies are unelected and unaccountable – and so are the bodies who fund and oversee their work. This means that those setting the questions and presenting a range of views on the issue have no democratic mandate.
Yet, with trust in politicians and our political processes so low (recent ONS polling shows that only 27 per cent of us trust the government), democratic renewal is an important topic. Could citizens’ assemblies be a way to address this issue and help us build a new democracy? Or are they simply an attempt to exorcise the ‘democratic deficit’ on policies those in power want to implement, but for which there is little popular support?
SPEAKERSDr Roslyn Fullermanaging director, Solonian Democracy Institute; author, In Defence of Democracy
Sophie Harbornefounder, DemocraFest; senior parliamentary researcher
Rich WilsonCEO, Iswe Foundation
CHAIRDr Mo Lovattnational coordinator, Debating Matters; programme coordinator, Academy of Ideas

Could AI break the productivity impasse?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
UK productivity – output per hour worked – in many Western economies has stagnated in recent years, particularly in the UK. A House of Commons Library paper notes: ‘Historically, UK labour productivity has grown by around two per cent per year but since the 2008/2009 recession it has risen more slowly’. In fact, productivity has barely improved at all for a decade and a half. But might artificial intelligence (AI) technologies change all that – particularly in the services sector?
Author and academic Erik Brynjolfsson found that AI assistance could improve productivity by 14 per cent in white-collar occupations. Goldman Sachs has estimated that a quarter of work tasks could be automated by AI, particularly office and administrative work. Other analysts predict a big role for AI in data analysis and content creation. These are mostly predictions or estimates based on specific scenarios. But AI is still in its infancy and there is plenty of scope for systems to improve and for them to be used both more effectively in existing applications and in new ways, too.
However, there are plenty of concerns with AI at the moment, including accuracy of output, data security and issues over copyright in relation to the materials that AI systems learn from. There are also a lot of areas where it is hard to see where AI could make a big difference, such as one-to-one personal services like nursing or hairdressing. There is also the question of how the massive data centres will be powered at a time when Net Zero policies mean cutting energy production rather than raising it is the order of the day. Old-fashioned investment, from better roads to cheaper energy, would seem more obvious ways to reduce costs and labour requirements. Big Tech firms are pouring money into AI – but the returns have been meagre so far.
What will be the impact of AI on the economy? If many jobs in the future will be automated, what happens to the redundant workers? Is this just the latest tech hype that will blow over when rose-tinted expectations aren’t fulfilled – or are we simply at the start of a workplace revolution that will provide new impetus to the economy?
SPEAKERSTom Bewickvisiting professor of skills and workforce policy, Staffordshire University; fellow, Royal Society of Arts
Donald Clarklearning tech entrepreneur; investor; professor; author, Learning and the Metaverse; founder, Epic plc; CEO, WildFire
Dr Norman Lewisvisiting research fellow, MCC Brussels; co-author, Big Potatoes: the London manifesto for innovation
Andrew Orlowskiwriter and critic; business columnist, Daily Telegraph
CHAIRTimandra Harknessjournalist, writer and broadcaster; author, Technology is Not the Problem and Big Data: does size matter?; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree

Climate lawfare: saving the planet or subverting democracy?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In April this year, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in favour of a group of elderly Swiss women who want to sue their government for not doing enough to prevent climate change from damaging their health. For climate campaigners, this was a welcome victory for vulnerable citizens against irresponsible politicians. For critics of the decision, it was perverse, given that Swiss people have among the highest life expectancies in the world. The decision has been loudly ignored by the Swiss government, but nonetheless seems to set an important precedent.
The ECHR case is far from the only example of climate lawfare. For example, in February 2020, the Court of Appeal blocked plans for a third runway at Heathrow Airport, although the decision was reversed on appeal to the Supreme Court. In July 2022, ClientEarth and other environmental groups won a court case to force the UK government to revise its climate-change strategy – and won another case in February 2024 after arguing the revised strategy still wasn’t good enough. There have been frequent attempts to use the courts to block new infrastructure projects or challenge government policy on the grounds that climate commitments have not been taken into account.
The door for such cases has been opened by the UK’s commitment, through the Climate Change Act, to decarbonise the economy by 2050. But a growing number of commentators have denounced the Net Zero target as ill-thought-out, unworkable and too expensive. The Labour government seems still to be committed to spending more on renewables while restricting oil and gas production. But such enthusiasm for Net Zero may falter if the economy continues to struggle as a result of such measures.
Have the courts been too willing to side with environmentalists, sparking accusations of judicial activism and undermining democracy? Or are they simply forcing governments to follow through on their commitments to tackle climate change?
SPEAKERSDr Shahrar Aliformer deputy leader, Green Party
Jon Holbrookbarrister; writer, spiked, Critic, Conservative Woman
Alastair Melloncivil engineer; PPC candidate, SDP, Coventry South
Tina Louise Rotheryco-founder, UK Nanas (Against Fracking)
Stuart Smithactivist, Future Cities Project; co-organiser, What the Papers Say debates
CHAIRRob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate
 

Can schools fix ‘Broken Britain’?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Labour’s initial response to the summer riots was police-led. It used 6,000 specialist police and swift trials, while also condemning the rioters and denying that they had any legitimate concerns. It has also promised a harsh clampdown on online disinformation, with some already imprisoned for social-media posts. Now schools are being charged with sorting out such contentious issues, in part at least because seemingly some of those rioting were themselves school-age.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has said she is launching a review of the curriculum in primary and secondary schools to ‘embed critical skills in lessons to arm our children against the disinformation, fake news and putrid conspiracy theories awash on social media’ and children will be taught how to spot extremist content. However, without any clear guidelines about what is considered extremist, who will determine what to spot? How will refocusing the curriculum (again) deal with wildly differing opinions far beyond the classroom on what constitutes fake news and conspiracies?
More broadly, there is also attention being paid to underlining questions of what has fractured society so badly. How can we tackle a lack of community cohesion, and the undeniable feelings of alienation felt by many citizens? Inevitably, yet again, it’s argued that teachers have an important role to play in healing our social wounds, post-riots.  The Chartered College of Teaching has pointed out that schools shouldn’t be expected to ‘solve all the problems of society’. But the general secretary of the National Education Union, Daniel Kebede, urged the government to use its National Curriculum review to ‘investigate how to build an anti-racist curriculum that boosts engagement, self-esteem and a sense of belonging for every child’ insisting that ‘divisive, hateful language and negative, racist stereotypes have a real and immediate impact on classrooms and on the wellbeing of students and educators’.
But haven’t we been here before, charging education with creating a sense of belonging? Since 2014, all teachers in English schools have been required by law to ‘actively promote’ the shared British values of democracy, mutual respect and tolerance for those with different faiths and beliefs, as well as the rule of law and individual liberty. They are also required to report any pupil that they judge to be at risk of becoming a political extremist. As is now patently clear, these strategies have not had the outcomes policymakers hoped for.
What’s more, in today’s febrile climate, doesn’t this approach risk dragging schools into a one-sided explanation for the recent civil unrest? Will pupils who express concern over contentious issues such as mass migration, identity politics’ failings, two-tier policing and other contested viewpoints be accused of extremism? Might an activist approach encourage classroom interactions to ape the very polarised divisions it seeks to counter? Is there a danger that in assuming such a directly political role, teachers risk becoming indoctrinators? Can such an approach succeed, or is it doomed to fail?
SPEAKERSPamela Dowchief operating officer, Civic Future
Dr Rakib Ehsanauthor, Beyond Grievance: what the Left gets wrong about ethnic minorities
Michael Merrickdirector of schools, Diocese of Lancaster; former teacher; education and social commentator
Ian MitchellEnglish literature and psychology teacher; writer, Teachwire; member, AoI Education Forum
CHAIRToby Marshallfilm studies teacher; member, AoI Education Forum

Britain isn’t working: the rise of joblessness

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In the UK, there are currently around 9.4 million people aged between 16 and 64 years old who are economically inactive – neither in work, nor looking for work. Yet official unemployment stands at a relatively low rate of 4.4 per cent. Although part of this high figure for economic inactivity is put down to more older workers retiring early and large numbers of students, it is widely acknowledged that the UK has a worklessness problem.
Some critics argue that the cause is a combination of a lack of well-paid, quality jobs in poorer parts of the country coupled with a benefits system that tops up the lowest wages. This is supported by the fact that many of the sectors with the most acute labour shortages, such as social care and hospitality, are those that pay the least, though some better-paid jobs are facing worker shortages, too.
Ill-health is another factor that is widely cited. There are more than 2.8million people who say they are too sick to work, the highest number since records were first collected by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The biggest rises are not only among those who can’t work because of mental-health issues, but also among 18– to 24-year-olds, whereas in the past it was mainly older workers who cited sickness as a reason for inactivity.
Some point to ‘long Covid’ and long NHS waiting lists, suggesting there is a real problem of ill health. Others suggest that many may have lost – or never gained – the ‘habit’ of working. Whatever the cause, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility (OBR) noted in 2023 that the UK has been the worst affected out of the G7 countries since the pandemic.
It seems the UK’s employers need to get inactive people to take up jobs or they will have to rely on high rates of immigration to get things done – with all the attendant political controversy. That said, vacancies – which were well over one million in the aftermath of the lockdowns – have fallen every month for two years, and now stand at just under 900,000; official unemployment levels have been rising, too.
Are the shortages of workers a temporary, post-pandemic blip or a sign of a structural problem? Is it mainly due to the structure of our labour market and the kinds of jobs available, or are there other factors at play? Will the economy suffer if a minority never work? What can be done to get the UK back to work?
SPEAKERSJulia Hobsbawm OBEhost, The Nowhere Office; founder, Workathon; author, Working Assumptions; commentator and columnist, Bloomberg
Dr Linda Murdochresearcher on wellbeing and work ethic; former director of careers, University of Glasgow; citizens advice volunteer
Professor Vicky Prycechief economic adviser and board member, Centre for Economics and Business Research; author, Women vs Capitalism
Andy Twelvesspokesperson, British Computer Society and The Chartered Institute for IT; trade unionist; founder, OrganiseLab; broadcaster
CHAIRPhil Mullanwriter, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

Breaking through Britain’s innovation barrier

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Britain has famously been a nation of inventors and innovators. From the breakthroughs of the Industrial Revolution through huge inventions like television and the telephone to designing cool consumer products like the iPhone and cutting-edge microchips, British ingenuity has been world-leading.
Yet it seems as if innovation has slowed down in recent years, and particularly so in the UK. It feels like there has been little or nothing that could be called ‘revolutionary’ since the rise of the smartphone. High-profile US tech investor, Peter Thiel, has claimed that innovation in America is ‘somewhere between dire straits and dead’.
One prominent American economist, Robert Gordon, has argued that the burst of innovation from the Second Industrial Revolution – from 1870 to 1900, and encompassing everything from electricity to chemicals, petroleum to communications – provided a sustained period of rising living standards through most of the twentieth century. Since then, the impact of the more modest innovations of the information-technology revolution has already petered out.
If innovation has slowed down, why? For some commentators, put simply, all the really important stuff has been invented – all we can do is tweak and improve. We’ve already learned to fly, communicate almost instantly over huge distances, create and manipulate materials, and so on. Other factors might be the time lag before a new technology really comes into its own and whether globalisation – and the availability of cheap labour elsewhere in the world – has dampened the drive to innovate. Some point to excessive regulation, a ‘safety first’ culture and the obsession with the environment over human progress as other potential factors.
And perhaps such pessimism is overblown. We don’t need to travel across the world now to meet people – we can do it online very well for a fraction of the cost in time and money. We may still travel in metal boxes with four wheels, but our cars increasingly do much of the hard work for us, even if the truly driverless car is still a long way off. If we want to enjoy nicotine, we now have a plethora of different ways to do so – from vaping to heat-not-burn technology – that means there are finally satisfying and safer alternatives to the tobacco cigarette.
Is innovation really in the doldrums? To the extent that that is true, how can we realise the potential of human ingenuity today?
SPEAKERSDuncan CunninghamUK and Ireland external affairs director, Philip Morris Limited
Kevin McCullaghfounder, Plan; innovation strategist and writer
Mercy Murokicolumnist, the Sun; former policy fellow to minister for women and equalities and business and trade secretary
Dr Nikos Sotirakopoulosvisiting fellow, Ayn Rand Institute; instructor, Ayn Rand University; author, Identity Politics and Tribalism: the new culture wars
CHAIRTimandra Harknessjournalist, writer and broadcaster; author, Technology is Not the Problem and Big Data: does size matter?; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree

Boomers vs Zoomers: bridging the generational divide

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
TV design celebrity Laurence Llewelyn- Bowen recently bought a large house in the Cotswolds where three generations of his family live together, noting that in the past, families stayed together, working on the farm or in the shop. This contemporary experiment in intergenerational living is posited as an antidote to a toxic generational divide between Baby Boomers and Gen Z, or Zoomers.
In popular debate. negative stereotypes abound as the older and younger generations are pitted against each other. To many, Boomers (born 1946 to 1964) are regarded as the luckiest generation in history. They benefited from economic prosperity, secure homeownership, and never had to fight in a war. This has made them selfish and greedy, according to their critics, having bequeathed a terrible legacy on the young – from economic instability and an inaccessible housing ladder to catastrophic environmental damage.
On the other hand, Zoomers (born roughly 1997 to 2012) are sometimes perceived to be narcissistic, entitled, lazy and listless. Many argue they have little desire to work, are obsessed with their mental health, spend all of their time online and have no sense of duty or obligation to society. Unable to buy property, put down roots and start a family, Zoomers hit back, arguing it was their generation that was forced to study online, work remotely and stay home to protect the elderly during the pandemic. Of course we are listless, they say. What did you expect?
Is there any truth to such stereotypes, and are they helpful? Some researchers argue there is little evidence to back up this so-called generational divide. They argue where differences in preference and values do exist, they are actually quite small. Furthermore, the idea of a clearly demarcated divide obscures huge differences within generations, from property wealth to political affiliations.
Moreover, is such divisive language unnecessarily driving these generations apart when, in fact, they share a problem with loneliness and disconnection, and have a wealth of shared experiences that can bring them together? Older people and younger people, for example, have been shown to suffer isolation in the highest numbers, according to multiple studies.
There is also strong evidence to support the benefits of intergenerational bonds. The Japan Society for Intergenerational Studies has trialled ‘intergenerational contact events’. Global Intergenerational Week has been set up to promote intergenerational initiatives and policies around the world, and studies have shown how contact between old and young can benefit both parties’ well-being in the short and long term.
Are generations really a useful, definable category and are they a helpful way to understand the challenges that we face today? How real is this generational divide, and what should we do to bridge it?
SPEAKERSFelice Basbøllproject assistant, Ideas Matter; student, Trinity College Dublin
Jennie Bristowreader in sociology, Canterbury Christ Church University; author, The Corona Generation: coming of age in a crisis and Growing up in Lockdown
Dr Eliza Filbyhistorian of generations and contemporary values; author, Inheritocracy: Why we Should Talk about the Bank of Mum and Dad
Natalie Turnerdeputy director of localities, Centre for Ageing Better
CHAIRJane Sandemanchief operating officer, The Passage; convenor, AoI Parents Forum; contributor, Standing up to Supernanny

Bookshop Barnie: Why the World Needs More Children by Paul Morland

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Paul Morland is an author and broadcaster who writes and speaks about population and the big demographic trends across the world. His latest book, No-One Left: Why the world needs more children, opens with the line: ‘We are seeing the birth pangs of a new epoch, but it’s an epoch without birth pangs.’
Over 250 pages, Moreland argues that there is a demographic calamity awaiting us. He says that unless we radically change our attitudes towards parenthood, have more children and embrace a new progressive pro-natalism, we face disaster. Maybe JD Vance could get off the couch, come along, and get a few tips.
The Financial Times says that it is a ‘a highly readable book’ whereas The Times says that Morland ‘shows an infuriating lack of sensitivity to women’s concerns’. The Daily Telegraph‘s Camilla Tominey called it a ‘brilliant book’, while the Independent said that is was ‘simplistic, misguided, sexist, racist and entirely irrational answer to the wrong question’.
You don’t have to have read the book to join the discussion about whether the world is overcrowded, or whether we need more people on the planet. Is the rise of replacement theory a cause for concern? Are we, as Morland says ‘running out of people’? How might a push for a pro-natalist politics effect women’s freedom? Or is this all a storm in a teacup – as machines fill the productivity gap? 
SPEAKERDr Paul Morlanddemographer; business consultant; author, No One Left: Why the World Needs More Children
HOSTAustin Williamsdirector, Future Cities Project; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution; series editor, Five Critical Essays.

Book launch: The Power of Nuclear: The rise, fall and return of our mightiest energy source

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
From the pilot’s seat in the B-29 that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, to Chernobyl’s exclusion zone, to the site in Finland where highly radioactive waste will be buried, Marco Visscher’s new book, The Power of Nuclear: The rise, fall and return of our mightiest energy source, tells the incredible story of nuclear power.
Providing a vivid account of the characters and events that have shaped the world’s most controversial energy source and our thinking around it, The Power of Nuclear weaves politics, culture and technology, to explore nuclear power’s past and future.
Join Visscher to discuss some of the key questions surrounding nuclear energy. How dangerous is radiation, and what should you do after a nuclear accident? Have nuclear weapons really made the world less safe? With all the focus on renewable energy, from wind farms to solar panels, should we bring the focus back to nuclear as the only viable way of producing the energy we need to power the world? Why do some still reject the evidence showing the atom can provide unlimited clean energy, free countries of their dependence on fossil fuels and combat climate change? Or in these unstable times, can we trust states and politicians to implement plans for nuclear energy properly?
SPEAKERMarco Visscherjournalist; author, The Power of Nuclear: The rise, fall and return of our mightiest energy source
CHAIRDr Dominic Standishwriter and commentator on energy; professor, University of Iowa; author, Venice in Environmental Peril? Myth and reality