Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

Is nuclear the future of energy… again?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The Fukushima nuclear incident of 2011 drew a decade-long shadow over the future use of nuclear energy. In Germany, then chancellor Angela Merkel agreed to phase out nuclear power, under pressure from the Green Party and large public demonstrations. The final reactor closed in April 2023, with decommissioning recently symbolised by the demolition of the cooling towers at Grafenrheinfeld. Ironically, Japan itself has actually restarted many of its reactors and has two plants under construction.
For the rest of the world, the use of nuclear fission – the only commercially available form of nuclear power generation – has seen a slight renaissance in its planned use after flat-lining for years. In the USA and Europe, the lifetime of reactors has mostly just been extended to meet Net Zero targets while keeping the lights on, but new plants have been built or are under construction in the UK, France and Finland. Meanwhile, China is racing ahead with nuclear and India has ambitious plans, using both existing technology and developing new technology based on thorium, which India has in abundance.
The UK is among a group of countries working on the commercial development of so-called small modular reactors (SMRs) which promise to be safe, with simpler designs that can be produced off site, in the hope that they can avoid many of the cost overruns of the large-scale designs. Nuclear fusion, the alternative to nuclear fission, has yet to reach commercial levels of electricity production, although several commercial companies with alternative approaches have found investment.
Many leading environmentalists have accepted that nuclear must be part of the drive to Net Zero. But there are often confusing claims made over the economics of nuclear versus renewables such as wind and solar.
Is nuclear power the grand solution to our problems or just one part of the energy mix? Is nuclear just too slow and too expensive to build – or are the costs of renewables being understated? How will we cope with all the extra demands for electricity in the future, from heating to transport? Is the aim of generating unlimited energy that is ‘too cheap to meter’ – as we were promised in the Fifties – now off the agenda completely?
SPEAKERSEmma Batemanenvironmental campaigner; founding member, Together Against Sizewell C; organiser, Green Women's Declaration for Sex Based Rights
Robert Reidpolicy development officer, ALBA Party
Dr Dominic Standishwriter and commentator on energy; professor, University of Iowa; author, Venice in Environmental Peril? Myth and reality
CHAIRDr Paul Reevesdeveloper of manufacturing simulation technology

Is it time to kick VAR out of football?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In 2018, the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) was introduced at the World Cup in Russia – and the arguments about it haven’t stopped since, with complaints that decisions are still often wrong while lengthy reviews cause confusion and frustration.
Using technology to help referees get important decisions right seemed like such a good idea. For example, in 2010, England midfielder Frank Lampard famously had a goal against Germany in the World Cup disallowed, despite the ball clearly crossing the goal line. One result was the introduction of technology that can tell the referee instantly if the ball has crossed the goal-line. However, goal-line technology can only assist with one source of refereeing error. VAR enables a wider range of decisions to be reviewed.
One criticism is that VAR is still subject to human subjectivity and fallibility, as it depends on how referees view and apply the rules, with incorrect decisions still being made and with inconsistency between matches. The most high-profile VAR error occurred last autumn, when confused communication between the on-pitch referee and the VAR meant a goal by Liverpool against Tottenham Hotspur was erroneously disallowed – despite the VAR making the correct decision. Representatives of one Premier League club, Wolves, were so incensed by a string of bad decisions that they put forward a motion to scrap VAR altogether.
Secondly, VAR slows down the game as goals or penalty decisions are subject to laborious reviews, playing havoc with the emotions of players and spectators. One former England player, Paul Scholes, has complained that the ‘VAR experience is poor, the in-stadium experience for the supporter. It’s nowhere near good enough.’
However, the football authorities believe that VAR has made the game fairer by improving both decision accuracy and transparency as fans can see the video replays. Responding to the Wolves motion, the Premier League pointed out that VAR has substantially improved decision making overall, while acknowledging that decisions currently take too long.
Has VAR ruined football? Why has video technology been so controversial in football when it has been much more successful in other sports, like cricket and tennis? How can we remove human error, or is human error an inevitable part of the game? Can VAR be fixed, or should it be given the red card?
SPEAKERSDuleep Allirajahfootball writer; longterm spiked contributor; co-founder, Libero! network; season-ticket holder, Crystal Palace
Jonny GouldTV and radio presenter; journalist; host, Jonny Gould's Jewish State
Omar Mohamedstudent, Royal Holloway University
Sally Taplinbusiness consultant, Businessfourzero; visiting MBA lecturer, Bayes Business School; former board member, Lewes FC
CHAIRGeoff Kidderdirector, membership and events, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Book Club

Is anti-extremism a threat to liberty?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
‘Misogyny to be treated as extremism by UK government’, declared a recent BBC News headline. There was a time when such headlines during the parliamentary recess ‘silly season’ would be mocked. But these days, news that the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, plans to crack down on ‘extreme misogyny’ in a manner akin to countering terrorism is to be taken seriously. It fits with a newly established political script on tackling extremism on many different fronts. Whether Islamophobia or Islamism, ‘far-right’ rioters or Antifa, incels or eco-warriors, extremism ‘both online and on our streets’ is charged with fraying ‘the very fabric of our communities and our democracy’.
When historians categorised the twentieth century as ‘The Age of Extremes’, this reflected historically important and clearly identifiable ideologies of fascism and communism. But when it comes to twenty-first century ‘extremism’, there seems less agreement as to what it is, and who are the extremists. A post-riots BBC report says that right-wing extremism is a ‘spectrum’ ranging from ‘genocidal neo-Nazis…to people who stand in democratic elections, engage in public campaigns and put forward policy platforms’. Lord Walney, an independent adviser on political violence and disruption, worries that we do not understand the extreme left who ‘seek to undermine faith in our parliamentary democracy and the rule of law’.
Labelling opponents as extremists is now ubiquitous. Many say populists are extremists. Others, such as pollster and campaigner Matthew Goodwin, point to ‘radicalisation of the elite class’ who impose their values on society. Liberals say the main threat is from the ‘far right’. Those of a conservative disposition are more likely to point the finger at eco-warriors or pro-Palestinian activists.
Whatever the definitional disarray, many believe that extremism – and anti-extremism – are important factors when it comes to the future of liberty. A new review commissioned by the Home Office aims to identify how to ‘crack down’ on extremists who push ‘harmful and hateful beliefs’ creating fears over the future of wider free speech. There are calls to add growing numbers of organisations such as Just Stop Oil or the defunct English Defence Leage (EDL) to proscribed lists.  Calls to clamp down on and criminalise  ‘extremist’ speech or protest, whether labelled Islamophobic, anti-Semitic or misogynistic, are widespread across political divides.
At a time when groups such as Jews or Muslims feel under threat, and when MPs and democratic representatives and their families and homes are targeted, should we be open to new constraints on extremist behaviour?  Or is the bigger worry that ‘extremism’ is being weaponised and risks undermining our freedoms and civil liberties?  Where do the boundaries lie between resisting intolerance and tolerating all views and ideas? How best do we make the case for liberty when society understands so many trends in current affairs through the lens of extremism? And if almost everything and anyone can be labelled extremist, is it a useful concept?
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
Silkie Carlodirector, Big Brother Watch; author, Information Security for Journalists
Luke Gittoscriminal lawyer; author, Human Rights – Illusory Freedom; director, Freedom Law Clinic
Munira Mirzachief executive, Civic Future
Eli Vieirajournalist; editor, Gazeta do Povo; writer, Twitter Files - Brazil
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Ireland's new populism

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In the past year, Irish streets have erupted in angry protest and riots. The issue of immigration – particularly the housing of asylum seekers – has caused mass unrest, catching Ireland’s political elite unawares. With the next election in the Republic expected before March 2025, many are discussing the rise of ‘Irish populism’ as the future of politics.
Immigration, and the crisis in housing, might be the biggest issue dividing Ireland’s politicians and the public, but it’s not the only one. The shock result of the double referendum in March – in which voters rejected changes to the constitution to reframe the role of women and the family – revealed an anger with political parties that had been brewing for some time. While the usual arguments were made about voters being ‘confused’, many saw the bungled referendums as an example of how out of touch the Irish elites had become, particularly on issues of gender.
Until recently, Sinn Féin had been talked up as the populist insurgent in any upcoming election in the Republic – having won its best result since 1923 in the 2020 election. But even their relative successes in the north haven’t inspired voters south of the border, with the party collapsing in local and European elections down to 12 per cent of the vote. Caught flat-footed by the spiraling immigration crisis, many working-class voters abandoned the party, accusing it of not taking a tough enough line on immigration, flip-flopping on its EU-critical approach, for originally supporting the draconian hate-crime legislation (while withdrawing support pre-election) and backing the unpopular family referendums. Sinn Féin is also losing votes to a new left-leaning republican party – Aontú – which claims to ‘have the backbone to stand up, without fear’ for ‘respectful opposition’.
Upheaval is certainly the order of the day in Irish politics – with commentators decrying ‘toxic’ populism, ‘penal populism’ and ‘fiscal populism’. But who are the new populists?
A number of new parties have risen to prominence, including the Eurosceptic Irish Freedom Party and the anti-immigration National Party. Both are right wing, immigration-critical, anti-woke but not, as yet, receiving large-scale support. Then there’s the Farmers Alliance, in opposition to Ireland’s proposed green policies squeezing agriculture – including plans to cull 200,000 cows.
Individuals have also stood on independent tickets – in one EU constituency alone, there were 10 different anti-immigration candidates. But despite a lack of support electorally, Irish headlines have been dominated by discussion – and panic – about the rise of Irish populism.
Websites like Gript have likewise captured a dissident sentiment, expressing the disquiet with issues, from free speech to the gender wars, housing and immigration to alleged corruption during the Lockdown years. While some are keen to differentiate political protest from the riots and arson attempts outside asylum housing, others use the p-word to paint all populist expression with the same brush.
Are we witnessing the rise of populism in Ireland? Or are things more complicated? Who are the Irish populists and, with little electoral success, just how popular are they?
SPEAKERSDr Ray Bassettwriter and commentator; author, The Road to Good Friday and Ireland and the EU, Post Brexit; former Irish ambassador; Poynter fellow in Journalism, Yale University
Fatima Gunningreporter, Gript Media
Kevin Meaghercolumnist, Irish Post; author, A United Ireland: Why unification is inevitable and how it will come about; former ministerial special adviser, Labour
John O’Brienhead of communications, MCC Brussels
CHAIRKevin Rooneyhistory and politics teacher; editor, irishborderpoll.com; convenor, AoI Education Forum; co-author, The Blood Stained Poppy

Integration into what? Immigration and multiculturalism

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Throughout Europe, the issue of historically high levels of immigration has become a lightning rod for political polarisation. While some sing the praises of multiculturalism, there are growing concerns about the impact of mass migration on national social cohesion. With a more ethnically diverse UK emerging in the past two decades, and the ‘white British’ population falling to 74 per cent in 2021, surveys suggest two thirds of people now believe immigration is too high.
The issue is not confined to numbers, but a sense that newcomers are resistant to integrating into British social norms. Today, many seem sympathetic to the view that naïve mass-migration policies can foster values antithetical to British democracy, such as Islamist extremism. The summer riots in English towns and cities, and the simmering tensions they revealed, pose uncomfortable questions: what, if anything, binds society together?
But are critics of mass migration too eager to blame foreign migrants while overlooking problems closer to home? There seems little agreement about what constitutes the core British values that migrants should integrate into. Some jokingly note that, aside from an appreciation of fish and chips or warm beer, few have come up with a satisfying answer. Back in 2016, the government-commissioned Casey Review damningly described UK integration policy as ‘little more than saris, samosas and steel drums for the already well-intentioned’. In response, the then communities secretary, Sajid Javid, promised an ‘oath of allegiance to British values’ for those in public office – but failed to outline what those values might be.
Yet historically, the UK successfully integrated swathes of new migrants who were happy to see themselves as British citizens, while the US successfully promoted the ideal of assimilating generations of immigrants into the American dream, promising lives of liberty and happiness for all. Whether myth or reality, that aspiration inspired a positive orientation to immigration per se.
Some argue that the culprit is multiculturalism, a policy which emphasises diversity and group identity over association with a common nation. Twenty years ago, David Goodhart’s seminal essay, Too Diverse?, caused uproar with its warning that mass migration threatened a healthy society of common values. Now evident in all walks of life – school curricula, corporate DEI policies and the funding criteria of public institutions – perhaps a multiculturalist ethos is indeed anathema to a conception of national values and a common citizenship.
What pulls a nation together? Is it time to consider whether celebrating diversity amounts to embracing the self-separation of communities? Has a hyper-individualistic online culture or narcissistic age hampered the creation of collective identity? Can Labour politicians rise to the challenge of integration in what can often feel like a disunited Britain? Or will their remaining allegiance to identity politics, and the current disdain for British history and traditions, pose problems? And is there a way of discussing the problem of mass migration without scapegoating migrants themselves, or resorting to racist antagonism to migrants per se?
SPEAKERSWilliam Cloustonparty leader, Social Democratic Party
Paul Emberyfirefighter; trade unionist; author, Despised: why the modern Left loathes the working class; broadcaster
Inaya Folarin Imanbroadcaster and columnist; founder and director, The Equiano Project
John McGuirkeditor, Gript Media
Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbertdirector, Don't Divide Us; author, What Should Schools Teach? Disciplines, subjects and the pursuit of truth
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Identity politics and the rise of ethnic conflict

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The government has chosen to use the umbrella phrase ‘far right’ to explain recent civil unrest. Indeed, the orthodox response from Stand Up to Racism supporters implies that increased hostility to different ethnicities is at the heart of social tensions. This, they argue, explains broader concerns, for example, about mass immigration. But how true are these assertions?
It is true that initial false rumours that the Southport killer was a Muslim refugee led to attacks on mosques and ugly violence aimed at migrants. While this may have been aggravated by pre-existing fears – the grooming-gangs scandal, mass-casualty jihadist terrorism and headline stories of crimes committed by asylum seekers – it nonetheless brought to the fore unpleasant divisions in society. In turn, some armed Muslim gangs took to the streets to deal with these ‘far-right’ thugs, a spectacle which prompted speculation that the country was witnessing a new era of race wars and ethnic conflict.
Some blame official policy for these tensions, which, in recent decades, attempted to reshape Britain as ‘a community of communities’. Ethnic and religious minorities have been engaged with as minorities, treated as homogenous identity ‘blocs’ and even pitted against one another in competition for state recognition and support. Combined with contemporary identitarian policy initiatives, this in turn is said to have created new forms of racial thinking – for example, public institutions now seem fixated on amplifying racial differences. While the now dropped ‘BAME’ label grouped various unconnected ethnic groups together solely by virtue of their non-European origin or skin colour, fashionable critical theory now lumps ethnic British and other Europeans together as white.
Perhaps inevitably, there has been a backlash against the unfairness of blame or virtue attached to skin colour. Unhelpfully, too many right-wing commentators – both those responding in good faith as well as more malevolent ethno-nationalist opportunists – now ape the most divisive aspects of identitarian grievance-mongering. It is increasingly common to hear complaints of ‘systemic anti-white racism’ and even displacement of the white majority population. To confuse things further, imported grievances from identity groups have caused conflict, such as when Hindu and Muslim youths fought violent inter-communal street battles in Leicester two years ago.
Some believe that a more full and frank national conversation about difficult topics, such as the impact of mass immigration or the long-standing failure to integrate certain ethnic and faith groups, would help diffuse racial animosities. After all, most British people, of all ethnicities, are concerned about Britain’s fraying social fabric and polling suggests that ethnic-minority Brits also want immigration to be reduced. Others point to the fact that class is rarely mentioned, despite the fact that what often unites identity communities is that they face similar social and economic challenges in dealing with crumbling public services, lack of housing or the cost of living.
Is such a debate feasible today, when diversity dogma often ring-fences identity politics or multiculturalism from any criticism or challenge, dismissing it as far right or racist? Conversely, can we untangle real reactionary racial thinking from what gets lumped in with catch-all claims of ‘abuse’? Is it possible to conceive of a civic conception of Britishness that can transcend divisive ethnic identities?
SPEAKERSDr Rakib Ehsanauthor, Beyond Grievance: what the Left gets wrong about ethnic minorities
James Heartfieldlecturer and author
Khadija Khanjournalist and broadcaster; editor, A Further Inquiry; co-host, A Further Inquiry podcast
Kunle Olulodedirector, Voice4Change England; author, A New Era of Trust: Trust, politics, race and civil society; co-opted commissioner, Commission of Race and Ethnic Disparities
Charlie PetersGB News national reporter
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

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

Iconoclasm: a new weapon in the Culture Wars?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Climate-change activists have targeted iconic artistic masterpieces, such as Van Gogh’s ‘Sunflowers’ at the National Gallery, to draw attention to their cause. In 2023, between May and November alone, at least 18 iconic works of art in European galleries were attacked. Earlier this year, two icons of British history, Stonehenge and Magna Carta, were also targeted. Defending their actions, one protester said: ‘Do we want to go extinct like the dinosaurs, or do we want to survive?’
Historically, iconoclasm has been used by artists to challenge artistic conventions and alter the direction of art history. But in recent years, iconoclasm has become a political weapon, turning artistic icons into levers of political change. What risk does this pose for museums?
Sadly, iconoclasm is not limited to militant activists. Curators and caretakers of arts and heritage have engaged in more subtle forms of icon bashing. The National Gallery’s 200th anniversary programme includes a special exhibition centred around John Constable’s iconic masterpiece, ‘The Hay Wain’, painted in 1821. In 2022, it was the focus of a Just Stop Oil stunt. But, perhaps more shocking, the exhibition presents the painting as a ‘contested’ landscape because Constable failed to depict the ravages of poverty and exploitation on the landscape of his time.
Toppling icons seem to have become a commonplace feature of the Culture Wars. In London, Camden People’s Museum has added a QR code to a bust of the iconic novelist Virginia Woolf, exposing her racism and anti-Semitism. They plan to do the same to other statues in the borough. A Royal Parks website blurb has commented on the racist and colonial ideology of the internationally admired Albert Memorial in Hyde Park. Meanwhile, the Museum of London is rebranding itself with a ‘pigeon and splat’ logo, an undignified icon for the supposedly authoritative guardian of London’s heritage.
Is nothing sacred anymore? Are iconic works of art legitimate targets of protest when they draw attention to the potential destruction of our planet? Why do even self-professed art lovers feel it is necessary to denigrate great artworks or undermine the legitimacy of their creators? Should museums defend the traditions underpinning their collections or join the critics in weaponising them for the contemporary Culture Wars?
SPEAKERSAlexander Adamsartist, writer and art critic; author, Culture War and Artivism: the battle for museums in the era of postmodernism
Lara Brownpolicy researcher specialising in culture and identity; former president, Cambridge Union
Dr JJ Charlesworthart critic; editor, ArtReview
Claudia Clareartist; author, Subversive Ceramics
Rosie Kaydancer; choreographer; CEO and artistic director, K2CO LTD; founder, Freedom in the Arts
CHAIRDr Wendy Earleconvenor, Arts and Society Forum; co-host, Arts First podcast

Housing: does renting make us rootless?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Fewer people now own their own homes; more people now live in less secure, privately rented housing. The average age of first-time buyers has risen to 33 years old – its highest-ever point. Politicians and commentators have often disagreed about whether the roof over our heads should be one that we own. The ‘home-owning democracy’ still matters to some, but millions are just desperate to find a secure place to call home. No wonder the UK’s housing crisis is a top priority for the new Labour government. Sir Keir Starmer has promised to build 1.5million new homes and to help more people become home-owners under his promise to ‘get Britain building.’
While it is widely accepted that more homes are needed, the reality is that building them takes time, lags behind population changes like migration and does not always result in more affordable places to live. Reducing housing to a technical set of building targets can miss broader questions, particularly around the social costs of the housing crisis.
Viral campaigners like Kwajo Tweneboa have highlighted how housing impacts people’s quality of life. Writers like Nick Gallent, a professor at UCL, have argued that housing’s social purpose has been relegated behind its economic function as an asset. Undoubtedly, ‘place’ is an essential part of belonging and social connection. The Belonging Forum and Opinium polled 10,000 people last year, and renters were more likely than the general population to feel lonely (40 per cent vs 29 per cent).
How can short-term renters become more settled and feel they belong within communities? In turn, not knowing if they will ever be able to afford to buy can create a sense of insecurity; dependent on landlords, victims of huge rent increases and insecure tenancies, the young especially can feel rootless rather than fancy-free. Houses become transactional places to stay rather than homes. Many retreat back to their family homes rather than forging their own way; couples defer having families; and why bother trying to belong to a neighbourhood if you might end up being forced to move house?
One message of the previous government’s ‘levelling up’ agenda was the idea that you don’t need to leave an area to get on. Now that levelling up has been abandoned as an idea by Labour, what is the message to the next generation when it comes to finding homes and economic opportunity? How can people settle down and forge relationships in communities in the midst of such flux? Or is there a danger of romanticising permanence at the expense of a more dynamic and optimistic view of changes in one’s housing status? What is the connection between housing and cohesive community that the government needs to keep front of mind as it builds new housing?
SPEAKERSAlex Cameroneditorial designer; design and cultural critic
Liam Halligancolumnist, Sunday Telegraph; author, Home Truths: the UK's chronic housing shortage
Sheila Lewisretired consultant; housing association chair
James Yucelhead of external affairs, PricedOut
CHAIRJoel Cohenassociate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Genocide: what it is and what it isn’t

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The concept of ‘genocide’ is back in the news after a case in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), brought by the South African government, accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza. But where did the concept come from and what does it mean?
In the shadow of the Second World War, and as the realities of the Holocaust unfolded, a new understanding began to take hold: that the slaughter of millions of people in the industrial death camps organised by the Nazis and their allies was unprecedented. During the war, Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin created a new word to describe this barbarity: genocide. And in the years that followed, Lemkin pressed for a new international law against genocide to be established at the United Nations. In 1950, the Genocide Convention was adopted.
In the years since, other acts of mass slaughter that seem to lie beyond our comprehension have been recognised as falling under this law – in Rwanda, Srebrenica and Cambodia. Yet there are many other massacres and slaughters that seem of similar scale, and are not covered by the UN definition. Is the Convention defined too narrowly? For example, the scale of the killings in Darfur and Myanmar are deemed by many academics to be genocides. Similarly, the death-marching of Armenians during the First World War, which may have claimed over a million lives, was the very slaughter that first provoked Lemkin to pursue his campaign – yet the claim of genocide remains bitterly controversial in some quarters.
Equally, there is perhaps as much of a case to be made for saying that the definition is too broad, given the uniqueness of the Holocaust. The scale, the industrialisation and the involvement of all levels of society together seem to place the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis on another level. But equally, the idea of uniqueness may risk blinding us to the possibility that there may be yet more genocides in the future.
Is South Africa right to bring its accusation of genocide to the ICJ, particularly as many other nations have supported it? Or are the defenders of Israel’s war in Gaza right to see the use of the word ‘genocide’ against the world’s only Jewish state as a cynical case of ‘Holocaust inversion’? How useful is the idea of ‘genocide’ today?
SPEAKERSNatasha Hausdorffbarrister; commentator; legal director, UK Lawyers for Israel
Lesley Klaffsenior lecturer in Law; editor-in-chief, Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism
Jonathan Sacerdotibroadcaster, writer, commentator
CHAIRMark Birbeckfounder, Our Fight

Gender wars: no end in sight?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
On entering government in July, the new Labour culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, pledged the ‘era of culture wars’ to be over. And yet, from the BMA challenging the ban on puberty blockers to whispers about changes to the gender-transition process, it seems that culture-war stories aren’t just Tory generated or confected political stunts.
Despite this, on ‘Terf Island’ at least, gender-critical feminists have made serious gains in claiming back sex-based rights in the past year. A number of legal victories have ensured that a sex-realist view is protected, campaigns for the UK government to block Scotland’s Gender Recognition Reform Bill proved successful and Dr Hilary Cass’s groundbreaking assessment of services for gender-distressed children has made the UK a leading example in how to deal with the influx of children presenting as trans. During the General Election campaign, it seemed as though Labour were quietly backtracking on their previous support for gender-identity beliefs. Indeed, Labour has even claimed there are no plans to make misgendering a hate crime. In office as the new health secretary, Wes Streeting has made a point of backing the Cass Review, as well as pledging to uphold a puberty blocker ban for under-16s. Even Trans Activists seem disorientated by the shift in tone – the internal civil war at Pink News is a case in point, with former editor Benjamin Cohen now labelled a transphobe by his own staff.
It seems a little early to break out the champagne, however, with challenges on the horizon. Barely a few weeks into being elected, Labour announced it was introducing a fully trans-inclusive conversion-therapy ban (originally introduced by the previous Conservative government) and dropped the Higher Education (Free Speech) Act, considered an indispensable weapon against the cancel-culture trend for silencing debate on campus by accusations of transphobia. Internationally, in the Tickle versus Giggle case – which essentially asked the Australian law to decide ‘what is a woman?’ – the Federal Court declared that people can literally change sex. Meanwhile, sports bodies continue to get in a mess over protecting women’s sports. Perhaps more prosaically, the broad-church gender critical movement itself seems to be exhibiting political strains, potentially threatening a united-front approach. Is this precisely because the big public fights have essentially been won, revealing the more nuanced tensions between factions?
What to make of the current status quo? And what next for the gender wars? While legal victories are important, will this change a culture of censorship around gender issues in workplaces, schools and public institutions? Has the fight largely been won, or will internal Labour Party tensions and an identitarian base mean even more gender ideology infecting public life, whatever Kier Starmer’s more pragmatic intention?
SPEAKERSSimon Calvertdeputy director, The Christian Institute
Bev Jacksonco-founder and trustee, LGB Alliance
Stephen Knightreporter and podcaster; host, The Knight Tube
Fiona McAnenadirector of campaigns, Sex Matters; former director of sport, Fair Play For Women
Professor Jo Phoenixprofessor of Criminology, and deputy head of the School of Law, University of Reading
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Gen Z: how to become a dissenter

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In times of social, political and cultural malaise, dissenting voices are vital to clarify issues and invigorate public life. Young people, especially, have often been thought of as the source of counter-cultural ideas and been counted upon to express forthright opposition to prevailing opinion.
But has this changed? Some fear that young people are today more likely to follow the zeitgeist and conform to received wisdom. For example, in universities, amidst the rise of campus ‘safe spaces’, oppositional ideas seems less in evidence than intellectual conformity, built around impregnable ‘truths’ of sustainability, critical race theories, wellbeing or gender.
Recent surveys suggest that even dissenting students are often reluctant to speak out, based on a dread of being labelled bigots. It may well be understandable that Jewish students fear speaking out in the face of a real and present danger of anti-Semitic intimidation. But other threats of harm to dissenters seem more nebulous. Never mind Gaza – even when asked in academic seminars to discuss controversial issues such as colonialism, concerned dons bemoan that students either lack confidence to think for themselves or readily self-censor for fear of being ostracised by peers. This hardly inspires confidence they will man the free speech barricades any time soon.
With the government ‘pausing’ implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, citing ‘concerns from vulnerable groups’ and impact on ‘student welfare’, is there a danger that institutions and students are utilising concerns on harm and wellbeing as justification for quelling dissent? Where are the boundaries of free speech in such situations? In times when free speech is often thought as harmful, how can we best make the case for dissenting voices – on all sides?
Or are concerns that young dissenters are not making their voices heard perhaps over-egged? Faced by protesting students at the Oxford Union, gender-critical academic Kathleen Stock noted many in the chamber were quite prepared to push back against the tired and hyperbolic clichés wielded to shut them up. Others note an anti-conformist spirit is still alive and kicking, from ‘transgressive’ new subcultures to alternative ways of living. What is the new militant activist group Youth Demand, and the followers of youth champion Greta Thunberg, if not dissenters?
Then there is the claim than many Gen Zers are kicking back against their generation’s reputation for being woke ‘snowflakes’. Such followers of the new ‘online right’ often portray themselves as slayers of progressive liberal shibboleths. Are these groups best labelled dissenters, or contrarians?
What is dissent and why is it important? Is there a danger that what is said to be self-censorship is more accurately understood as a self-imposed opting out of debates? How can Gen Z make their dissenting opinions heard without losing friends, degrees and employment? In a world that craves moral certainty – and where dissenting voices are commonly viewed as upsetting or hurtful and a danger to fostering consensus and solidarity – how best can we make the case for speaking our minds?
SPEAKERSEmma Gillandpolitics student, University of Birmingham; co-author, The Corona Generation: coming of age in a crisis; editor, Redbrick
Vinay Kapoorpolitics student, University of Warwick; president, Warwick Speak Easy; events and Mactaggart assistant, Free Speech Union
Ralph Leonardauthor, Unshackling Intimacy: Letters on Liberty; contributor, UnHerd, Quillette, New Statesman and Sublation Magazine
Tyler Robinsonindependent researcher; alumnus, Living Freedom
Samuel Rubinsteinpostgraduate historian and writer
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

From WPATH to the Cass Review: the crisis in medical ethics

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The long-awaited Cass Review – an independent review of NHS gender-identity services for children and young people – revealed that life-altering medical treatments like puberty blockers had been prescribed to children based on ‘remarkably low-quality evidence’. It also found that there had been inadequate follow-up with patients, with widespread general failures in care. The review was damning, recommending a halt to medicalised gender treatment for children until thorough research had been conducted.
Alongside the Cass Review came the revelation of the ‘WPATH files’ – leaked correspondence from members of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. The files revealed deeply concerning practices within gender treatment, including professionals admitting that it was hard to get ‘informed consent’ from minors, and that the organisation was aware of patients who ‘regretted’ treatment, having not understood the long-term consequences of medicines like puberty blockers on their sexual life or fertility. For many, this blasé approach to children’s medicine proved that something had gone deeply wrong with medical ethics.
Why has this been allowed to happen? In addition to problems like the breakdown of a system of peer review, some argue that a simple lack of resources is to blame, with doctors forced to see more patients in a shorter amount of time. In the US, staff have bonuses tied to ‘patient experience scores’. Some argue that this has had a negative effect on care. For example, the liberal prescription of addictive painkillers has led to the misuse of both prescription and non-prescription opioids and at least 70,000 deaths from overdose. Competition for ‘excellence’ can also be a contributing factor – the now closed Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service in the UK sought to become the number one clinic for gender services, viewing an increase in treatment as a sign of success. As a result, referrals and prescriptions skyrocketed.
Others argue that a politicisation of healthcare is to blame. The condemnation of a gender-critical view – that biological sex cannot be changed – has imbued medical practices with political controversy. The idea that drugs or surgery can solve questions of identity is a view that many doctors now feel pressured into affirming, ignoring other avenues like mental-health treatment or autism diagnoses. Whistleblowing staff who raised qualms about the number of children being sent down medicalised pathways were often ignored at the Tavistock clinic, one of the reasons why it was shut down earlier this year.
Has a central idea of medicine – ‘first, do no harm’ – been lost in pursuit of what is politically correct? Have we given up on the cool-headed pursuit of medical ethics? And what do we need to do to restore trust in doctors?
SPEAKERSStephanie Davies-Araidirector, Transgender Trend; author, Communicating with Kids
Susan Evanspsychoanalytic psychotherapist; co-author, Gender Dysphoria: A therapeutic model for working with children, adolescents and young adults
Jennifer Lahlfounder, Center for Bioethics and Culture; program director, Genspect USA
Dr Margaret McCartneyGP, writer and broadcaster; academic, University of St Andrews
Stella O'Malleypsychotherapist; director, Genspect; author, What Your Teen is Trying to Tell You
CHAIRNancy McDermottauthor, The Problem with Parenting: how raising children is changing across America; US editor, Inspecting Gender

From smoking bans to junk-food restrictions: where’s the evidence?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
One of the Labour government’s first big policy announcements was to float the idea of an outdoor smoking ban in pubs, restaurants and children’s play areas. Sir Keir Starmer justified the idea, saying; ‘80,000 people lose their lives every year because of smoking. That’s a preventable death that’s a huge burden on the NHS,’ The idea comes on top of the Conservative government’s plan to ban anyone born after 1 January 2009 from purchasing tobacco products, which Labour has announced it will legislate for. But are such ‘nanny state’ policies justified by the evidence?
No one can be under any illusions that smoking is good for your health. The link between smoking and lung cancer, for example, became known in the mid-1950s and governments have been warning us about the health risks for over 60 years. But while there is some evidence of risks from ‘second-hand smoke’ to justify the indoor smoking bans passed in the Noughties, that doesn’t seem to justify bans outdoors. The justification for bans on smoking and even buying tobacco seems to be to make it ever harder to smoke anywhere, encouraging smokers to quit, and thus protecting the NHS.
Government intervention and even legislation to protect the nation’s health has multiplied in recent decades. Both Scotland and Wales have imposed minimum unit prices on alcohol – with the minimum price increasing in Scotland from 30 September. Prior to the general election, Labour also promised to consider bans of ‘junk food’ advertising, inspired by Transport for London’s network-wide ban. More and more councils are introducing bans on takeaways near schools.
Critics have pointed out that these measures seem to have little impact on health. Smoking has been in decline for decades. Even with minimum pricing, alcohol deaths in Scotland are at a 15-year high. Advertising bans and other restrictions on ‘junk food’ have not seen the nation’s waistlines shrink. If smokers did quit en masse and live longer, opponents point out, the effect would be more pressure on government finances – from extra pension payments, social care and lost taxation – not less.
Where is the evidence for these interventionist measures? Are the risks from heart disease, cancer and obesity so strong that we must do everything possible to change people’s lifestyles? Or should we emphasise providing well-evidence advice and let adults choose for themselves?
SPEAKERSDr Carlton Bricklecturer in sociology, University of the West of Scotland; author, Contesting County Lines: Case studies in drug crime & deviant entrepreneurship
Reem Ibrahimacting director of communications and Linda Whetstone Scholar, Institute of Economic Affairs
Molly Kingsleyco-founder, UsForThem; co-author, The Children’s Inquiry and The Accountability Deficit
Professor David Patonprofessor of Industrial Economics, Nottingham University Business School
CHAIRAlan Millerco-founder and chair, Together Association

From riots to shoplifting: dealing with lawlessness

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
‘Lawless Britain is out of control’, screamed a recent headline, capturing the sentiment that the UK has descended into a ‘Wild West’ country where there is a general disregard for the law. That was before the recent riots, which both added to the mood of a lack of respect for authority, but also arguably reflected a general feeling of insecurity in local areas. Where are the police on our streets when daily news is filled with reports of stabbings, anti-social behaviour, drug-related crimes, vehicle theft and more?
This anxiety may reflect a broader societal concern about the erosion of trust in public institutions such as the police and courts. Long predating the summer’s public disorder, and perhaps one of its catalysts, scandals involving police misconduct, two-tier policing and failures in the justice system seemed to undermine public confidence in the very institutions that were created to uphold the law. Last year, half of the phone thefts in London were not investigated by the Met, and 130,000 incidents of criminal damage in 2023 were not attended by the police. Burglary is viewed by many as a virtually unpunishable crime. The state seems unable or unwilling to keep citizens or property safe.
Is the perceived ineffectiveness of the legal system to blame for the seeming rise of lawlessness? One commentator on the criminal justice system complained that even when offenders are brought before the courts, far too much consideration is given to their human rights rather than to the victims of their crimes. Others think that even when criminals are convicted of a crime, they are not adequately punished, leading offenders to think it’s OK to break law. This summer, the Ministry of Justice announced that in an effort to address prison overcrowding, some offenders will be released after completing only 40 per cent of their sentences.
However, other commentators suggest that fear of lawlessness is itself a misdiagnosis, a new moral panic driven by more existential anxieties about the state of society. There are fears that the demands to lock more people up for longer, often in the name of victims, can lead to an atmosphere of punitive, subjective retribution rather than justice. And what of possible drivers towards criminal activity, such as increasing poverty, neglected local communities with decrepit amenities and declining services? And perhaps perceptions of increased crime are amplified by politicians making laws that deem more and more activities as crimes.
Or is there a broader problem of authority shaping individuals’ values and behaviours, such as the seeming lack of respect for teachers and school discipline? Is social media – which amplifies voices that challenge traditional authority – to blame? Are today’s cultural attitudes towards authority and the law influencing levels of lawlessness?
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
Shaun BaileyLord Bailey of Paddington; London Assembly member; youth worker; co-founder, My Generation
Richard Garsidedirector, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies; lead author, Criminal Justice Systems in the UK
Lisa McKenzieworking-class academic; author, Getting By: estates class and culture in austerity Britain and Working Class Lockdown Diaries
Alan Millerco-founder and chair, Together Association;
CHAIRSimon McKeonfounder member, Our Fight UK; QPR season ticket holder; archivist