Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

US midterms: can America survive the culture wars?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
With FBI raids on a former president’s home and accusations from the current president that the conduct of his predecessor’s ‘extreme right’ supporters amounts to ‘semi-fascism’ – what the hell is happening in America? As outsiders look at the toxic domestic state of US politics, it seems difficult to see how the US will rise to its traditional leadership role on the world stage. In an unstable world, wracked by major economic challenges and a war at the heart of Europe adding to destabilising geopolitical tensions, the health of US democracy is of interest beyond its own borders.
Despite Joe Biden beginning his presidency in 2021 by declaring that ‘America is back’ – and that he’d reverse the previous administration’s efforts to put ‘America First’ – the present midterm campaign-trail is not focusing on international issues. Instead, November’s congressional election is being posed by some as a battle for the ‘soul of the nation’. Biden has ratcheted up his rhetoric against the former president Donald Trump and his allies in recent speeches, casting the modern Republican Party as a threat to America itself. MAGA Republicans, disparagingly dubbed ‘Trumpies’, stand accused of threatening ‘the very foundations of our republic’. Meanwhile, Trump claims this is a slur against the 74million who voted for him in 2020, while his supporters claim the government is guilty of egregious persecution – including hyperbolic accusations of high treason used to justify the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, or the labelling of the 6 January Capitol riot as an organised insurrection. It certainly seems that within America, politicians behave as though the enemy is at home, while world economic and political matters are a distant concern.
But even if the political campaigns ignore foreign policy, electoral outcomes will shape America’s place in the world. Outside of the US, global leaders are questioning whether America is fit to ‘lead the world’, exemplified by its messy exit from the 20-year war in Afghanistan. When first elected, Biden promised a new Cold-War narrative that would return America to its global activist role. However, nearly two years later, the US has struggled to influence any events regarding the war in Ukraine decisively. Meanwhile, China’s Belt and Road Initiative is beginning to challenge the economic influence of the US in some parts of the world. Despite these negative trends, the US remains the world’s largest economy, with a global influence far beyond that of China, and many US weapons are proving effective against Russia in Ukraine. So, to what extent is America really declining?
Perhaps, more pertinently, do Americans themselves even care about remaining the preeminent power when midterm debates focus so much on internal fights over divisive cultural questions like school choice, abortion, and voting issues? Much of the mainstream political discussion in the US is caught up in the culture wars, with rows over race, gender ideology and so-called ‘woke’ politics seeming to divide communities. Will the upcoming midterms, which crucially set the stage for the 2024 presidential elections, hasten or hinder America’s apparent international decline? Will an electoral challenge resolve or exacerbate internal divisions? What is happening in America, and what consequences will it have for the rest of the world?
SPEAKERSYaron Brookchairman of the board, Ayn Rand Institute; host, The Yaron Brook Show; co-author, In Pursuit of Wealth: the moral case for finance
Jack Garlandstudent, University of California, Los Angeles; writer and editor, Bruin Political Review
Dr Richard Johnsonwriter; lecturer in US politics, Queen Mary, University of London; author, The End of the Second Reconstruction: Obama, Trump, and the crisis of civil rights
Helen Searlschief operating officer, Feature Story News; founder, Washington Hyenas book club; Ulysses enthusiast
CHAIRFraser Myersdeputy editor, spiked; host, The spiked podcast

Rwanda or bust? The future of immigration

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The UK government’s Rwanda policy has been met with widespread criticism. The process of deporting migrants from the UK to Rwanda was challenged by human-rights lawyers and organisations as a continuation of the ‘hostile environment’ policy, and a dangerous display of Home Office racism. Even moderate critics complained about the government using avoidance tactics, by effectively shipping its immigration problems overseas.
But while some bemoaned the Rwanda policy as either unsustainable or immoral, there are many in the UK who support the idea of a government taking action in regards to its borders. Concerns about people traffickers are shared by those with both liberal and conservative views on immigration, and many still believe in the Brexit promise that a sovereign nation should be able to control its own borders. It doesn’t help that discussions about levels of immigration are often reduced to caricatures of luvvie liberals and little Englanders, with more nuanced concerns about resources or solutions pushed to the wayside.
Different ideas about how to tackle illegal immigration have been tested – from wave machines to tense negotiations with France. But are such short-term measures missing a broader problem with immigration policy in the UK? While the government was quick to open its arms to Ukrainian refugees, the process of accepting thousands of people soon ground to a halt under creaking British bureaucracy. And with shortages of labour post-pandemic, some have argued that much of the problem of illegal migration could be solved by taking a fresh look at the Home Office’s stringent points-based system.
Is it time we had an honest discussion about immigration? Is it fair that immigrants often get used to explain a lack of resources in education, housing or GP appointments? Should government be tougher on illegal immigration? And how can we tell the national mood when it comes to immigration policy, when so much of the debate ends in finger pointing?
SPEAKERSPeymana AssadObama Leader of Europe; councillor, London Borough of Harrow; first person of Afghan origin elected to UK public office; founder, Labour Foreign Policy Group
Dr Jim Butcherlecturer; researcher; co-author, Volunteer Tourism: the lifestyle politics of international development
William Cloustonparty leader, Social Democratic Party
Matthew Leshhead of public policy, Institute of Economic Affairs
Professor Patrick Vernon OBEindependent non-executive director, Birmingham and Solihull ICS; social commentator; co-author, 100 Great Black Britons; creator, Every Generation Game: Windrush Edition; fellow, Clore and Winston Churchill
CHAIRJustine Briandirector, Civitas Schools; commentator on food issues

From Indyref2 to a border poll: are we afraid of democracy?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
For the first time in Northern Ireland’s existence, the leader of a nationalist party is in line to become first minister. In May’s elections, Sinn Fein won the most seats – leading some to argue that the prospect of a united Ireland is closer than ever. In a recent poll conducted by the University of Liverpool and Irish News, 43 per cent of respondents answered that they would ‘vote for a united Ireland tomorrow’ if a border poll were called, compared to 39.5 per cent who said they would not.
Since elections last year, Scotland has been governed by a pro-independence coalition of the SNP and Greens, who now want to hold a new referendum on Scotland’s future. Although a clear majority voted to stay in the Union in 2014, pro-independence campaigners and politicians argue that Brexit has changed the political landscape and ‘IndyRef2′ is the only way to resolve the matter.
While calls for border polls and referendums in Northern Ireland and Scotland differ in historical and political context, they share one similarity: Westminster seems desperate to prevent them. In both cases, a vote would require the agreement of the UK government – which is currently implacably opposed. Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has been forced to refer plans to hold a second referendum to the Supreme Court after the UK government refused to grant permission for a legally binding vote.
Should we be concerned that the relationship between the UK and its constituent nations seems to be tipping into one of coercion rather than consent? Are attempts to block independence referendums a sign of the weakness of the Union? When opinion polls suggest voters are, at best, ambivalent about constitutional change, should these issues take a back seat in favour of more immediate matters, like the cost-of-living crisis? Or is denying an Irish border poll, or a Scottish Indyref2 the kind of retreat from democracy that should worry all democrats?
SPEAKERSBen Collinswriter; communications consultant; former chief executive, The Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations; author, Irish Unity: time to prepare
Dolan Cummingsauthor, Gehenna: a novel of Hell and Earth; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas; co-founder, Manifesto Club
Ewan Gurrcharity pioneer; consultant; columnist, Dundee Evening Telegraph; co-founder, Sovereignty
Lord Moylanconservative peer
CHAIRKevin Rooneyhistory and politics teacher; editor, irishborderpoll.com; convenor, AoI Education Forum; co-author, The Blood Stained Poppy

Europe today: storm clouds over the continent?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Across Europe, politicians are braced for a febrile winter. In the Netherlands, farmers continue to protest against new measures to reduce nitrogen that require a huge reduction in the number of farms. In Germany, awkward questions are being raised about the country’s reliance on Russian gas. In Italy, technocrat extraordinaire Mario Draghi resigned as prime minister, with a coalition of parties led by Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy – and including Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia – set to replace him. In France, Macron, still haunted by the gilet jaunes protests and bruised by recent elections and the enduring threat of Le Pen, contends with droughts, which have threatened harvests and food production. And Greece is racked by a series of scandals and talks of renewed tensions with Turkey. All the while, tensions continue to play out about the correct response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with Eastern European and Baltic countries demanding ever tougher measures such as tourist and visa bans, whilst leading EU powers like Germany and France worry about the long-term consequences of slowing gas supplies to Europe.
Whilst the shocks and crises vary from country-to-country, almost all European countries are dealing with populist revolts of some shape or form, and a shared economic struggle in times of inflation and energy shortages. What are the roots of this continent-wide malaise?
Why does European politics feel more unstable and unpredictable than ever? Are old certainties, such as Germany’s economic power or Holland or France’s agricultural economy, being put into question? And where is the EU in all of this? In the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, many forecast a new renaissance for the idea of Europe, and the institution of the EU. Such predictions seem now to have been optimistic at best. How can the continent, its politicians and institutions, survive the current storms? What Europe lies at the other side?
SPEAKERSIvar Arpijournalist; publisher and podcaster, Rak höger; co-author, Så blev vi alla rasister and Genusdoktrinen
Sabine Beppler-Spahlchair, Freiblickinstitut e.V; CEO, Sprachkunst36; author, Off-centre: how party consensus undermines our democracy; Germany correspondent, spiked
Thomas Fazijournalist and writer; author, The Battle for Europe: how an elite hijacked a continent - and how we can take it back and The Covid Consensus: the global assault on democracy and the poor - a critique from the Left
David Goodharthead of demography unit, Policy Exchange; author Head, Hand, Heart: The Struggle for Dignity and Status in in the 21st Century and The Road to Somewhere
Stepan Hobzajournalist; staff writer, Lidové Noviny; creator, Kulturní války (Culture Wars) podcast
CHAIRBruno WaterfieldBrussels correspondent, The Times

The political image: in conversation with Stuart Mitchell

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Stuart Mitchell has photographed many of the leading political and cultural figures of the past decade, including Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Benjamin Netanyahu, Michel Barnier, Donald Trump, Douglas Murray and Tom Stoppard. He also had a front-row seat as Britain left the EU in his role as the Brexit Party’s official photographer and witnessed, up close, the 2020 US Presidential election.
‘As a photographer with privileged access one is able to ghost around the room at key historical moments. This has allowed me to gain an insight into the personalities behind the political projection. I look forward to sharing some of these insights with everyone.’
This will be a unique chance to look through many of Stuart’s most important shots with the photographer himself and ask any questions regarding their role in broader political events. What is the role of photography and imagery in political history?
SPEAKERSStuart Mitchellphotojournalist
CHAIREve Kayexecutive producer; international, primetime and creative arts Emmy winner; Realscreen and Critics Choice TV award winner; RTS winner and Grierson, Broadcast, Banff and PGA award nominee

Letters on Liberty: Translation as Liberation

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
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 21st century.
In her Letter – Translation as Liberation – author and senior lecturer Vanessa Pupavac argues that translation is the truest form of altruism – a process through which we express our human sociability across language borders. Finding creativity in the difficulties of communication across language and time barriers, she argues that the layers of meaning provided by different types of translation give freedom and life to a work.
Vanessa and respondents explore the world of translation. Is translating a text more than simply copying meaning into another language? How have different translations and methods changed the way we view key texts and ideas throughout the ages? How does modern translation fit into contemporary concerns about cultural appropriation – should white translators be trusted with black authors’ texts, for example? And in a climate of suspicion around free speech, does communication matter more than ever?
SPEAKERSDr Marie Kawthar Daoudalecturer in French language and literature, Oriel College, University of Oxford; author, L’Anti-Salomé
Dr Shirley Lawesresearcher; consultant and university teacher, specialising in teacher education and modern foreign languages; Chevalier dans l'ordre des Palmes Académiques awarded
Dr Vanessa Pupavactranslator; associate professor, School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham; author, Translation as Liberation
CHAIRSabine Beppler-Spahlchair, Freiblickinstitut e.V; CEO, Sprachkunst36; author, Off-centre: how party consensus undermines our democracy; Germany correspondent, spiked

Letters on Liberty: Risking it all - the freedom to gamble

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
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 21st century.
In his Letter – Risking it all: the freedom to gamble – writer and poker player Jon Bryan argues that we should all be concerned about the introduction of more restrictions on gambling. Almost every proposal on gambling regulation today is about limiting what we can do, he argues, often taking away both our privacy and basic freedoms. The narrative behind concerns about gambling is the idea that the state should step in and control our finances, as we cannot be trusted with them. The consequences of accepting controls and restrictions in this area of life, he argues, sets a precedent for their introduction elsewhere.
Jon and respondents discuss why being free to risk it all is something worth protecting. How do we deal with problem gambling – tragic stories of people who have become destitute – if not through restrictions? Is there a class element to the way in which gambling is often discussed, with words like feckless playing into existing prejudices about how working-class people manage their lives? And from drinking and smoking to gambling and enjoying extreme sports, why do we seem so keen on controlling the personal decisions citizens are allowed to make about their own lives?
SPEAKERSJon Bryangambling writer and poker player
Mark Littlewooddirector general, Institute of Economic Affairs; broadcaster and columnist, The Times
Ed RennieCatholic writer; political analyst
Brigid Simmonds OBEchair, Betting and Gaming Council
CHAIRHilary Salt FIA, FPMI, FRSAactuary; founder, First Actuarial

Letters on Liberty: Rethinking Anti-Semitism

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
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 21st century.
In his Letter – Rethinking Anti-Semitism – author and commentator Daniel Ben-Ami argues that a misunderstanding of the causes of modern anti-Semitism is stopping us from waging a serious battle to defeat it. He argues that a future free from Jew-hatred can only be achieved through a commitment to free and open debate.
Join Daniel and respondents to try to untangle the different forms of anti-Semitism today, and understand their origins. How much of a role does the far-right play, when contemporary problems of anti-Semitism have often come from the far-left and from Islamist groups? Why is the knee-jerk response to anti-Semitism always linked to bans and censorship, instead of discussion? And why has something colloquially known as the ‘oldest hatred’ seemed to have made such a comeback – if indeed it ever went away?
SPEAKERSDaniel Ben-Amijournalist; creator, Radicalism of Fools; author, Ferraris for All: in defence of economic progress and Cowardly Capitalism
Nathalie Rothschildfreelance journalist; producer and reporter for Sweden's public service radio; producer, Antisemitism Today
Wasiq Wasiqcounter terrorism analyst; founding trustee, Muslims Against Antisemitism
CHAIRJacob Furedideputy editor, UnHerd; former associate features editor, Daily Mail

In the wake of terror: anti-Semitism today

Recorded at Buxton Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 25 November at Devonshire Dome, Buxton.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The first weekend of October was the darkest in Israel’s history. A murderous Hamas attack on southern Israel killed at least 1,400 and wounded about 3,000. Over 200 were captured and taken to Gaza.
If the barbaric slaughter was not bad enough, many have sought to justify Hamas’ attacks. Significant numbers at protests across the Western world have shown open support for Hamas – an organisation that makes no secret of its intention to kill Jews.
Meanwhile, Jews across Europe live in fear of attacks. Some Jewish schools have decided to close temporarily or have advised pupils not to wear blazers with school badges while travelling to and from school. Weekly protests have caused alarm at the vociferous nature of some of the chants. Posters depicting hostages are frequently torn down. Students in elite universities take sides against Israel.
Yet many complain that any criticism of Israel’s actions is being shut down by the complaint of anti-Semitism. While many criticisms of Israel do seem to slide into anti-Semitic territory, how do we avoid the weaponisation of the term?
What explains the open expression of anti-Semitism on the streets of London and other Western countries? Should the UK emulate France’s ban of pro-Palestine demos or do such illiberal responses fuel anti-Israel, indeed anti-Jewish sentiment? How do those with genuine criticisms of Israel express their qualms at present? Or in the wake of Hamas’ butchery, is that an issue for another day? How could anti-Semitism, an ideology that many considered had been consigned to the past, come to reassert itself?
SPEAKERSDaniel Ben-Amijournalist; creator, Radicalism of Fools; author, Ferraris for All: in defence of economic progress and Cowardly Capitalism
Ike Ijehauthor; architect; founder, London Architecture Walks; founding signatory, Don't Divide Us
Lesley Klaffsenior lecturer in Law; editor-in-chief, Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism
Stephen Knightreporter and podcaster; host, The Knight Tube
CHAIRJacob Reynoldshead of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

What are the limits of AI?

Recorded at Buxton Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 25 November at Devonshire Dome, Buxton.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The hopes and fears that surround AI are so far-reaching, they are almost impossible to exaggerate. The AI-driven scenarios now discussed seriously by policymakers range from utopia, to dystopia, to the complete extermination of humanity. Tech entrepreneur Ian Hogarth, who has been appointed by the UK government to spearhead its efforts ensuring that AI is ‘safe and reliable’, has warned that ‘God-like AI could be a force beyond our control or understanding, and one that could usher in the obsolescence or destruction of the human race’.
The idea of machines emulating human thought has a long history, but AI as we know it dates back to the 1950s, when the term ‘artificial intelligence’ was first coined by American researchers to distinguish their work from approaches such as cybernetics. Since then, AI has been through various peaks and troughs, with periods of unfashionability known as ‘AI winters’ punctuating waves of hype. Recent advances – in particular, powerful approaches known as ‘foundation models’ and related tools known as ‘generative’ AI, which include AI chatbots such as ChatGPT – have attracted unprecedented attention, advocacy and investment.
New possibilities in mechanisation and automation, and related concerns about the impact on people’s jobs and livelihoods, are now seen through an AI prism. Fields of endeavour ranging from robotics to genomics to the arts are increasingly discussed in terms of how AI could transform them, or is already transforming them. Philosophies and intellectual movements that have long sought to redefine humanity, including ‘transhumanism’ and the promotion of ‘human enhancement’, are hitching their wagon to the latest developments in AI. Running alongside all of this are heated debates about how, and by whom, AI should be regulated.
Are prevailing views of today’s AI – and tomorrow’s – justified and realistic? If our machines are as powerful as claimed, where does this leave human agency? If ‘AI winter’ is truly a thing of the past, should we be making hay while the sun shines? Or should we be more sceptical?
SPEAKERSRob Bashforthhead of Computer Science, Salendine Nook High School Academy
Eleanor Kavanagh-Brownuser-centred designer; project assistant, Academy of Ideas
Dr Wajahat Ali Khanassociate professor of Artificial Intelligence, University of Derby
CHAIRSandy Starrdeputy director, Progress Educational Trust; author, AI: Separating Man from Machine

Buxton Battle of Ideas festival 2023: welcome address

Recorded at Buxton Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 25 November at Devonshire Dome, Buxton.
SPEAKERSDennis Hayesprofessor of education, University of Derby; founder and director, Academics For Academic Freedom (AFAF); author, The Death of Academic Freedom? Free speech and censorship
Mo Lovattnational coordinator, Debating Matters; programme coordinator, Academy of Ideas
Ella Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want
CHAIRJacob Reynoldshead of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Letters on Liberty: Risking it All: the freedom to gamble

Recorded at Buxton Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 25 November at Devonshire Dome, Buxton.
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 21st century.
In his Letter – Risking it all: the freedom to gamble – writer and poker player Jon Bryan argues that we should all be concerned about the introduction of more restrictions on gambling. Almost every proposal on gambling regulation today is about limiting what we can do, he argues, often taking away both our privacy and basic freedoms. The narrative behind concerns about gambling is the idea that the state should step in and control our finances, as we cannot be trusted with them. The consequences of accepting controls and restrictions in this area of life, he argues, sets a precedent for their introduction elsewhere.
Join Jon and respondents to try to discuss why being free to risk it all is something worth protecting. How do we deal with problem gambling – tragic stories of people who have become destitute – if not through restrictions? Is there a class element to the way in which gambling is often discussed, with words like feckless playing into existing prejudices about how working-class people manage their lives? And from drinking and smoking to gambling and enjoying extreme sports, why do we seem so keen on controlling the personal decisions citizens are allowed to make about their own lives?
SPEAKERSJon Bryangambling writer and poker player
Niall Clarkemember of East Midlands Salon and Politics in Pubs Sheffield
Dr Ken McLaughlinformer social worker; academic; author, Surviving Identity: Vulnerability and the psychology of recognition and Stigma, and its discontents
CHAIRSimon Beltmanaged IT provider; founder, Simply Better IT; founder, Manchester Salon

Politics of hate: is everyone a bigot but me?

Recorded at Buxton Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 25 November at Devonshire Dome, Buxton.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The self-image of Western societies as cosmopolitan, liberal and tolerant has rapidly collapsed recently as a darker view has taken hold of people as extreme, hate-filled and hurtful. Accordingly, controlling ‘hate speech’ has become a major focus for critics and campaigners, and increasingly for legislators and regulators. They proceed in the belief that, as one Guardian commentator put it: ‘Words of hate create an ethos of hate, an atmosphere of hate, a political, social Petri dish of hate. Eventually, spoken words become deeds.’
Campaigners say escalating incidences of hate justify interventions. The most recent published data show 155,841 offences recorded in the year to March, up 26 per cent from the previous year – with recorded hate crimes against transgender people seeing the biggest increase, jumping by 56 per cent since last year. Meanwhile in the past five years the number of recorded non-crime hate incidents has grown to 120,000.
But critics say the nebulous definition and subjective interpretation of hate – which is largely in the eye of the victim or reporter – is trivialising such ‘crimes’. Yet is there more to this issue than definitional disarray? Some say the problem is being inflated by ‘fishing’ exercises. The Citizen’s Advice Bureau, for example, says ‘it is always best’ to ‘act early’ and report incidents even if ‘unsure whether the incident is a criminal offence… or serious enough to be reported’. But critics say the nebulous definition and subjective interpretation of hate – which is largely in the eye of the victim or reporter – is trivialising such ‘crimes’. Greater Manchester Police now recognise ‘alternative sub-culture’ hate incidents based on criticism of someone’s appearance such as Goths, Emos or Punks.
Others say hate speech is increasingly being weaponised to silence opponents and narrow viewpoint diversity. Groups such as Stop Funding Hate aim to persuade advertisers to pull support from broadcasters and publications on the grounds that the views aired spread hate and division. More broadly, fuelled by identity politics, competing groups too often accuse other identities of hate and bigotry. The demonising of those we disagree with is used on all sides of politics. On the one side people are labelled as hateful TERFs, gammon, alt-right, xenophobic; on the other as hate-driven snowflakes, misogynists, Remoaners, pinko commies, cry-bullies and more.
What are the prospects of making political exchange less toxic and productive if labelling those we disagree with as hate-mongers continues to escalate? How should defenders of freedom best make the case for free speech over hate speech? What should we understand by hate speech and how do we account for its rise to become a central to how Western societies are organising their legal systems and public life?
SPEAKERSDennis Hayesprofessor of education, University of Derby; founder and director, Academics For Academic Freedom (AFAF); author, The Death of Academic Freedom? Free speech and censorship
Ike Ijehauthor; architect; founder, London Architecture Walks; founding signatory, Don't Divide Us
Liz Kershawbroadcaster and writer
Andy Shawco-founder, Comedy Unleashed
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Net Zero and the great energy debate

Recorded at Buxton Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 25 November at Devonshire Dome, Buxton.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The UN secretary general has declared that we are now in an era of ‘global boiling’. Every leading politician talks about reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to ‘net zero’ – with the few emissions the economy does produce balanced by some method to soak them up, from planting trees to carbon capture and storage. As a result, a timetable has been created to eliminate emissions, step by step, between now and 2050.
Proponents of net zero argue that the process could be a creative one, leading to the development of new technologies and millions of well-paid ‘green’ jobs. Moreover, they point to opinion polls which suggest that the idea is popular with the public.
But is net zero even achievable? The main area for decarbonisation is the energy sector. Proponents argue that renewables like wind and solar are cheaper and cleaner than fossil fuels. Moreover, with energy prices rising globally, they have the advantage of being secure because the energy is produced in the UK.
However, opponents argue that the reality is very different. Where countries have embraced renewables, energy costs have risen. Because wind and solar are unreliable, they must be backed up with other energy sources. Given that storage is hugely expensive at the moment, the backup is gas and coal – effectively meaning paying twice for energy. Already, firms are shutting down or relocating because of high energy prices – in particular, to the US, where the exploitation of shale gas through fracking has kept prices low.
While net zero seems popular in the abstract, the policies designed to make it happen – like bans on gas boilers and petrol cars – are much less so. Moreover, with unanimity among the major parties in the UK that net zero is an inviolable policy, there is no electoral route to push back against such policies, except to vote for smaller parties with little hope of winning seats in the near future. Indeed, for some environmentalists, there can be no choice in the matter: if necessary, democracy must be sacrificed to the need to cut emissions.
That said, the Uxbridge by-election – which became something of a referendum on Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ policy – seems to have caused consternation among the major parties. Even though net zero itself wasn’t in question, a major environmental initiative seemed to be resoundingly rejected at the ballot box as a war on motorists. Politicians are now reassessing their assumptions about a wide range of green policies.
Is net zero an unpleasant necessity or, more positively, the start of a new industrial revolution? Or is it a policy that is being pursued without the technical means of achieving it in an affordable fashion? Do we need more investment in reliable low-carbon energy like nuclear? Will the backlash against net zero increase – and will it even matter if governments are determined to pursue it, whether we like it or not?
SPEAKERSJoanna CollinsGreen Party councillor, High Peak Borough Council
Dr Caspar Hewettlecturer and degree programme director, Water Group, EuroAquae+, School of Engineering, Newcastle University; director, The Great Debate
Mark Hillaccountant; coordinator, Green Leaves; Green Party member
Rick Moorebusiness owner, InControl; electronic engineer; deputy chair political, Blackburn Conservative Association
CHAIRAustin Williamsdirector, Future Cities Project; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution; convenor, Critical Subjects Architecture School

Is the NHS fit for purpose?

Recorded at Buxton Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 25 November at Devonshire Dome, Buxton.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Since the Covid-19 pandemic hit the UK in March 2020, the NHS has been under incredible strain. While staff coped magnificently with the pressures, the diversion of resources, restrictions on capacity due to infection control and staff forced to stay at home due to sickness and self-isolation rules has led to a backlog building up of other untreated patients.
Figures for July 2023, published in September, show that 7.68million people were waiting to start treatment. These delays could lead to people suffering unnecessarily, and many people will die because opportunities to catch health problems early have been missed. The number of people turning to the private sector for treatment has increased dramatically.
Yet problems with the NHS are not new. Almost every year there is a crisis during winter as a variety of pressures combine to stretch healthcare resources. Long waiting lists for treatment seem ever present. While reports for the Commonwealth Fund have frequently suggested the NHS is one of the top health services in the world, when it comes to patient outcomes, the NHS lags behind most other wealthy economies. Moreover, the UK population is ageing, leading to ever-greater demands over time – particularly when it comes to social care.
The NHS has also had to face a variety of scandals over the years – from Bristol to Stafford and beyond – where poor-quality care has led to patient deaths. A recent report into a maternity scandal in the Shrewsbury and Telford NHS trust revealed hundreds of mothers and babies had been harmed over decades of mistreatment – including multiple deaths. Since then, other trusts have been investigated, with many deemed unfit to safely care for women giving birth.
But the biggest story recently has been the conviction of a paediatric nurse, Lucy Letby, for murdering babies in the intensive care unit where she worked. Many have been shocked, not only by the killings themselves, but by the way hospital managers dismissed the concerns of consultants at the hospital.
Is it time to look again at the way we organise healthcare? The UK is relatively unusual among wealthier nations in having a health service that is mostly financed and provided by the state. Is this near-monopoly of provision a strength or a weakness? Moreover, the NHS has been subject to multiple reorganisations over the years, with a panoply of oversight boards, commissioning groups, health authorities and other bodies now overseeing different aspects of the system. For some critics, the pandemic has simply highlighted the diffusion of responsibility between different parts of the NHS, leading to an inability to hold any part of the system accountable for its failings.
How can we solve the problems of the NHS? Is it simply a matter of providing extra resources – for example, giving striking workers the pay increases they demand – or is the way resources are used within the NHS a problem, too? Do we expect too much from the NHS? And with some observers likening it to a national religion, are politicians brave enough to have a proper debate about reform?
SPEAKERSEmily BarleyMaternity safety campaigner
Nicky Drurygenetic counsellor, Nottingham Department of Clinical Genetics; former member, United Kingdom Human Genetics Commission
Susie Hawkessenior lecturer in social work, University of Wolverhampton
Rob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want