Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

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

Ballots betrayed? The crisis of political representation

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In recent years, it has become common to hear people describe themselves as ‘politically homeless’. Many traditional Labour and Conservative voters have expressed a disaffection with their parties, claiming they no longer represent their interests and values. In 2019, many talked of a political realignment – one which could see the major parties reform along class lines, at least in part inspired by Brexit. But, as this realignment failed to emerge, it is perhaps unsurprising that just 59.9 per cent of people voted in the 2024 General Election – the second-lowest election turnout since 1918.
The election results themselves have highlighted what many call a ‘crisis of political representation’. The Labour Party won nearly two thirds of parliamentary seats with just a third of the popular vote. Conversely, the vote shares of both the Green Party and newcomers Reform UK were not matched by a representative number of seats in parliament. For example, Reform UK won 14.3 per cent of the overall vote share, with only five of their candidates elected. This represents one MP per 821,322 votes, while the Labour victory amounted to one Labour MP per 23,615 votes.
Many argue that the larger and more established parties have the resources and data to make their campaigns more efficient than new and emerging parties. This fact alone is likely to see the dominance of the two-party system left intact, at a time when more independent candidates and smaller parties have emerged to meet voters’ lack of representation. Some commentators went as far as to describe the 2024 election as ‘the most distorted election result in UK history’, with many asking if it is time for the UK to abandon its ‘first past the post’ (FPTP) electoral system in favour of some form of proportional representation (PR).
While FPTP was once celebrated as delivering clear results and a stable government, the past decade of political turmoil in the UK may have weakened this argument. Many FPTP advocates point to countries like France, where the recent election returned a hung parliament and has led to a crisis in governance. However, PR advocates can also pick European examples, pointing to the rise of the BBB (Farmer-Citizen Party) in the Netherlands, which emerged to represent farmers’ interests and has grown to become a governing party.
Would simply changing the voting system solve the problem of political representation? Some have argued for more referendums – on everything from immigration law to Net Zero policies. Did the backlash to Brexit show that referendums are doomed to divide, or a necessary boost to democratic participation? Could other electoral tweaks be implemented, such as smaller constituencies? Would PR simply lead to a situation where coalitions must be formed, forcing parties to surrender their principles to ensure legislation is passed? And are we in danger of forgetting the importance of ideas in political engagement, when getting hung up on the technicalities of voting?
SPEAKERSSteven Barrettbarrister; broadcaster; writer on law, Spectator
Dr Richard Johnsonwriter; senior lecturer in politics, Queen Mary, University of London; co-author, Keeping the Red Flag Flying: The Labour Party in Opposition since 1922
Dr Mo Lovattnational coordinator, Debating Matters; programme coordinator, Academy of Ideas
Jo-Anne Nadlerpolitical commentator and writer; campaigner, Don't Divide Us
Richard Tice MPmember of parliament for Boston and Skegness; deputy leader, Reform UK; businessman
CHAIRDr James Pantondeputy head welfare, St Edwards School, Oxford; associate lecturer in philosophy, The Open University

Balloon debate: who is the world’s greatest comic?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
his year’s Balloon Debate will see top comedians competing with each other to convince you why their choice of ‘best comic genius ever’ is right. Could it be the iconoclastic honesty of Lenny Bruce or the surreal word play of Les Dawson? Do you like your stand-up from Billy Connolly or Bill Burr, Dave Allen or Dave Chappelle? Maybe it’s a writer and performer like Ronnie Barker, Victoria Wood or Larry David? Do you like your comedy in pairs, from Laurel & Hardy to French & Saunders – or even teams, like Monty Python? Or should the gong go to people rarely seen on screen, like Galton & Simpson or John Sullivan? With so many potential worthy winners, there will be much to muse upon – and laugh about.
The participants will argue for their choice in a light-hearted debate with deeply held passion. They each have five minutes to put their case and they can choose any person living or dead – it may be a comic writer, a stand-up comedian, a politician, or someone they know in their local pub.
Audience participation is encouraged and you will be invited to agree, disagree, challenge and dispute the cases put forward.
The audience then votes to chuck half the contenders out of the virtual balloon before the remaining candidates make a final plea for your vote. Get your Saturday night off to an hilarious start as we our panelists kid about to find the GOAT.
SPEAKERSPaul Coxcomedian, writer and broadcaster
Nick Dixoncomedian; presenter, GB News; host, The Current Thing
Simon Evanscomedian; regular host, Headliners; presenter, BBC Radio 4's Simon Evans Goes to Market
Dominic Frisbywriter; comedian; author, Bitcoin: the future of money?
Ethan Greenresearcher, Ideas Matter; scriptwriter, Stilicho's Last Rite: Eulogy To Rome; videographer, Pharos Foundation
Cressida Wettoncomedian; panellist, Headliners, GB News
HOSTAndy Shawco-founder and organiser, Comedy Unleashed

Assisted dying on the NHS?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
This autumn, Parliament will debate the issue of assisted dying, thanks to a private member’s bill introduced by the former justice secretary and Labour peer, Lord Falconer. This would allow terminally ill adults with six months or less to live to get medical help to end their lives. Keir Starmer is reported to be in favour and has confirmed he will allow a free vote in the Commons on the issue.
Legalising assisted suicide in the UK has gained support recently, including from celebrities like Esther Rantzen and Miriam Margolyes. The actress Diana Rigg recorded a death-bed message arguing a law would give ‘human beings true agency over their own bodies at the end of life’. There is polling evidence to show that the UK public now overwhelmingly thinks terminally ill adults should be allowed to make that choice – but those polled also have qualms. Law changes would mean asking NHS doctors to hand a patient lethal drugs so they could end their life, effectively allowing assisted dying on the NHS. No wonder the health secretary, Wes Streeting, has said that it is ‘a debate I will wrestle with. I’m uncharacteristically undecided on this issue’, although conceding ‘it is a debate whose time has come’.
A survey for the think tank Living and Dying found that 43 per cent feared a change in the law could incentivise health professionals to encourage some patients to take their lives, given the pressures on the NHS. Such fears seemed to be confirmed by a column in The Times by Matthew Parris earlier this year, which provoked outrage by arguing that it would benefit the economy if we allowed assisted dying to help avoid ‘the ruinously expensive overhang’ of ‘old age and infirmity’. Meanwhile, 60 per cent said they felt that giving GPs the power to help patients take their own life would fundamentally change the doctor-patient relationship, given that the current prime responsibility of medics is to save and protect life.
The Law Society, which is adamant that it does not have a moral or ethical position on a similar bill under consideration in Scotland, has also noted that the proposed role for medical professionals is a concern. That bill’s provisions, the Law Society notes, have not considered key questions, such as who can provide a medical assessment and what happens if a doctor does not believe the requirements for assisted dying have been met. A British Medical Association survey in 2021 found that those working in clinical oncology, general practice, geriatric medicine and palliative care were all more likely to be against decriminalisation than in favour.
Is such opposition to assisted dying a case of medical professionals riding roughshod over patients’ wishes? Is assisted dying a reasonable extension of bodily autonomy – a key facet of medical ethics? Or are opponents of the legislation right to claim it would mean NHS doctors, however well-motivated, being licensed by the state to commit premeditated killing of human beings? Should we be concerned that legalisation of assisted dying in other countries has soon moved beyond the terminally ill to other groups? Who should have the final power to decide who lives and who dies, and should the NHS be involved?
SPEAKERSDr Piers Bennphilosopher, author and lecturer
Baroness Ilora Finlay of Llandaffpresident, Chartered Society for Physiotherapy; professor, palliative medicine; co-editor, The Reality of Assisted Dying: Understanding the Issues
Rev Canon Rosie Harperbishop’s adviser in women’s ministry and bishop’s chaplain
Professor Kevin Yuillemeritus professor of history, University of Sunderland; author, Assisted Suicide: the liberal, humanist case against legalization
CHAIRGareth Sturdyeducation and science writer; co-organiser, AoI Education Forum

Are we making a meal of GM foods?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Twenty years ago, there was widespread anxiety about genetically modified (GM) foods. Newspapers referred to them as ‘Frankenfoods’ and consumers were suspicious of them, in part because of a vociferous campaign against them by some environmentalists. This campaign continues, most notably in the case of ‘golden rice’.
Yet, while the EU and UK have been tied up in knots about the wisdom of growing GM crops, the rest of the world has embraced them. According to the Royal Society: ‘In 1996, just 1.7 million hectares (MHa) were planted with GM crops globally but by 2015, 179.7 million hectares of GM crops were grown, accounting for over 10 per cent of the world’s arable land.’ By 2023, that had increased further to 206 million hectares.
The Royal Society notes the kinds of GM crops being grown and where, including ‘potato (USA), squash/pumpkin (USA), alfalfa (USA), aubergine (Bangladesh), sugar beet (USA, Canada), papaya (USA and China), oilseed rape (four countries), maize (corn) (17 countries), soya beans (11 countries) and cotton (15 countries)’.
Yet concerns remain about the long-term consequences for health and the environment. Greenpeace argues that GM crops ‘encourage corporate control of the food chain and pesticide-heavy industrial farming. GM plants can also contaminate other crops and lead to “super weeds”. This technology must be strictly controlled to protect our environment, farmers and independent science.’ Furthermore, as influencers turn to sourdough and home-grown vegetables, the organic movement opposes GM-food along with anything else ‘highly processed’.
Most controversially, perhaps, the anti-GM campaign has held back the development and application of ‘golden rice’, which contains a modification that means that rice plants produce beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A. Lack of vitamin A is a widespread cause of blindness and diminished immunity in developing countries, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Being able to get vitamin A via a staple food could be very beneficial. Yet environmentalist protesters have trashed test fields and, earlier this year, the Filipino Court of Appeals revoked the biosafety permits for golden rice, with the case brought in part by Greenpeace.
Are GM foods safe, both for health and the environment? Why has there been such resistance to them in some parts of the world while they flourish elsewhere? Is it time for the UK and Europe to fully embrace GM? Do we need to utilise every means to increase food production when the world’s population is heading towards 10 billion?
SPEAKERSAdam Hibbertchair of the south east, Social Democratic Party; author and journalist; corporate communications leader
Zion Lightsscience communicator
Ed Renniefounder and co-director, Climate Debate UK; political strategist
Harry Wilkinsonhead of policy, Global Warming Policy Foundation
CHAIRRob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate

Are the arts being expelled from education?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
A recent report from the Cultural Learning Alliance (CLA) gives proof of a trend we all knew was there – cultural education in the UK is in steep decline. Confirming received wisdom that arts education has suffered since austerity, the report reveals a deliberate de-prioritising of the arts in England’s state schools since the arts-free English Baccalaureate was introduced in 2010. Since then, creative GCSEs, the number of arts teachers and the hours they teach have all been in steep decline.
The impression of official disdain for the arts is further cemented at university level. In 2021, funding for creative courses was halved to ‘target taxpayers’ money’ toward ‘science, technology and engineering’. In 2024 alone, several universities, including Goldsmiths, Queen Mary University of London and the University of Surrey, have announced major cuts to their arts departments.
Many arguments against this decline focus on social concerns – the CLA report highlights a stark increase in the gap between wealthier and poorer students’ engagement in the arts. Likewise, defenders of the arts highlight how children benefit in terms of transferrable skills and mental wellbeing. Participation in the arts at school increases the chances of low-income students getting a degree, volunteering, and voting, they argue. They also draw links to improved reading and maths scores – and even better health.
Within the creative industries, concerns are expressed about reduced opportunities leading to a shrinking future generations of artists, a reduction in the diversity and quality of creative output and a reinforcing of the idea that the arts are only for the middle-classes. Arguing that the creative sector is one of the UK’s major exports, many are also worried that reduced competitiveness would be of economic concern. It doesn’t have to be this way – some of the world’s best arts education programmes are based in poorer, often authoritarian countries and yet produce some of today’s biggest names. Conductor Gustavo Dudamel trained in Venezuela’s much-imitated El Sistema programme; Royal Ballet director Carlos Acosta CBE at the renowned Cuban National Ballet School. China’s conservatories have produced numerous world-famous musicians. Can we learn from these countries’ decision to prioritise arts funding amid economic and political challenges?
Are these even the right ways to value education in the arts? Or do such arguments imply that an arts education exists solely to facilitate social or economic ends? Schools are asked to prepare pupils for an uncertain economic future while navigating time and budget constraints. Against this backdrop, is it possible to justify dedicating scarce resources to the arts, which many deem ‘non-essential’? Is an instrumental approach the only way to save the arts, or is it time to reignite the case for art for art’s sake?
SPEAKERSDr Oliver Doylemusicologist and lecturer
Manick Govindaindependent writer, commentator, mentor/arts adviser and curator
Dr Lola Salemlecturer in French and music, University of Oxford; author; professional singer, Maîtrise de Radio France; critic
Gabriella Swallowaward-winning cellist
CHAIREleanor Kavanagh-Brownevent producer, Academy of Ideas; musician; trustee

Are cultural boycotts killing artistic freedom?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Boycotting as a political strategy is fashionable again, and this time round the arts are centre stage. This year a slew of campaigns supported by authors, musicians and artists have targeted festivals, galleries and theatres. Bands Boycott Barclays encouraged a third of performers to quit Brighton’s Great Escape festival while Fossil Free Books organised author boycotts of the Hay Literary Festival to oust investment-management firm Baillie Gifford. The ramifications – including financial costs to organisers and artists – have been significant. Both these high-profile sponsors subsequently suspending support for festivals and others are considering their future involvement.
Some recent boycotts have been specifically focused on opposition to the war in Gaza. Calls from Queers for Palestine and Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) to boycott Eurovision 2024 due to inclusion of Israel led to ugly protests in Malmö. Some UK cinemas refused to screen Eurovision and venues that persisted with plans faced a backlash, including the iconic LGBT venue, the Royal Vauxhall Tavern. One worry is that boycotts fuel wider anti-Jewish prejudice. A leading agent claims ‘much of literary London is now a no-go zone for Jews’, while a survey by Artists Against Antisemitism UK reveals less awareness in the cultural industries of anti-Semitism than other forms of racism. Moreover, pro-Palestine artists have also been on the receiving end. For example, the Royal Academy removed works from its Young Artists’ Summer Show after an open letter from the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
On ditching Baillie Gifford, Hay’s chief executive, Julie Finch, said that the priority is ‘our audience and our artists’. Above all else, she added, ‘we must preserve the freedom of our stages and spaces for open debate and discussion, where audiences can hear a range of perspectives’. Elsewhere, some boycotters have resisted attacks on artists. Home Theatre in Manchester and Bristol’s Arnolfini arts centre backed out of hosting events featuring Palestinian artists or speakers, before u-turning or apologising after sustained pressure from campaigners.
Yet given that boycotts and the resultant loss of sponsorship money appears more likely to significantly limit opportunities for artists to show, speak to and debate their work, can we really say they’re likely to work in artists’ favour? Indeed, one danger is that art becomes but a footnote to the political battles. And notably a tit-for-tat mentality has developed, for example encouraging the demand that ‘If you care about Gaza, Boycott Glastonbury’ and elsewhere that anti-Zionist artists should lose funding due to accusations of anti-Semitism. Some worry that we risk normalising censorship, as in Berlin, where artists receiving public funding must now contractually commit not to express some views deemed abhorrent.
Are boycotts best understood as artists and audiences exercising a freedom to act politically, or actions that undermine artistic freedom? Do boycotts amount to simply another form of virtue-signalling, or an admirable way of standing up for one’s beliefs? Why do those artists and festival organisers with little sympathy with campaigners’ causes seem unable to stand up for artistic freedom? Can artistic freedom survive an era of cultural boycotts?
SPEAKERSProfessor Aaqil Ahmeddirector, Amplify Consulting Ltd; professor of media, University of Bolton; former head of religion, Channel 4 and BBC
Jonny Bestarts producer; festival director; musician
Denise Fahmydirector, Freedom in the Arts
Josh Howiecomedian; writer and star, Josh Howie’s Losing It, BBC Radio 4; actor, Hapless; columnist, Jewish Chronicle
Liat Rosenthalhead of creative programme, Woolwich Works
CHAIRDr Tiffany Jenkinswriter and broadcaster; author, Strangers and Intimates (forthcoming) and Keeping Their Marbles

Anti-Semitism on campus: ban it or tolerate it?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
With ‘Gaza solidarity’ camps becoming a prominent feature of university life in the aftermath of the 7 October attacks, many worry that support for the Palestinian cause often mutates into expressions of anti-Semitism. As many Jewish students, especially those supporting Israel, face an intimidatory atmosphere, there are important questions to ask about where the boundaries lie in terms of supporting free speech. At what point does political hostility to Israel and to Zionism, or calls for an Intifada and support for proscribed organisations such as Hamas, cross the line into Jew hatred? And where it does, how should those keen to promote toleration of different views and eager to defend free speech respond to demands to introduce restrictions on the expression of anti-Semitic views among academics and students?
These tensions are evident in the responses of universities and police. When a survey by UK Lawyers for Israel found students had been left scared to be ‘visibly Jewish’ on UK campuses, the education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, asserted that universities should work with the police to ‘stamp out’ anti-Semitism on campuses. In the US, however, after trying to navigate a path ‘upholding academic principles and treating everyone with fairness and compassion’, Columbia University’s president, Minouche Shafik, resigned after authorising police officers to swarm the campus and arrest around 100 students who were occupying a university building.
Some say that banning anti-Semitic speech is the only option to create a safe campus environment for Jewish students. The UK government went further, citing potential harms to Jewish students as the reason to ‘pause’ implementation of a recent act aimed at securing free speech on campus.
However, others argue that charges of anti- Semitism are increasingly used to shut down criticism of the Israeli government and the state of Israel. In the US, where an Anti-Semitism Awareness Act threatens to broaden out the definition to encompass a wide range of hitherto acceptable speech, free-speech campaigners FIRE worry about the suffocating threat to speech on campus for pro-Palestine students. While social-justice calls to ‘protect safety’ have become a standard means to silence speech, is there a danger that the pro-Israeli side is adopting the same tactics to silence views they disagree with?
Are increasing efforts to ban anti-Semitism on campus a threat to free debate, or an imperative for creating a civil atmosphere in universities? In terms of protests and free speech, where do the boundaries lie in terms of actions and speech that should be defended? What are the new issues that the Gaza-solidarity protests raise, compared to the campus demonstrations against the Vietnam War during the 1970s? Should anti-Semitism be banned on campus, or should it be tolerated in the belief that sunlight is the best disinfectant?
SPEAKERSProfessor David Abulafiaprofessor emeritus of Mediterranean history, University of Cambridge; associate editor, History Reclaimed; president and trustee, Pharos Foundation
Daniel Ben-Amijournalist; creator, Radicalism of Fools project on rethinking anti-Semitism; author, Ferraris for All: in defence of economic progress
Baroness Ruth Deechcrossbench peer, House of Lords
Greg Lukianoffpresident and CEO, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
Edward Skidelskysenior lecturer in Philosophy, University of Exeter; director, Committee for Academic Freedom
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

Academic freedom: (still) under threat?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTIONOnly three weeks after taking office, Labour Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson quietly kiboshed the protections for free speech promised by the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. If implemented, this much-debated legislation – that eventually achieved cross-party support – would have given sharper teeth to universities’ existing free speech duties. HE institutions would become dutybound to actively promote free speech on campus and academics, students and visiting speakers would gain recourse to the law should they have invitations to speak on campuses overturned. A ‘free speech czar’ within the Office for Students was to be granted powers to investigate breaches of these free speech protections.
All this has been thrown up in the air with the announcement that the Act has been ‘paused’ and may well be repealed. The Free Speech Union has threatened the government with Judicial Review, claiming that overturning legislation by ministerial fiat is unlawful. We must wait to see if this forces the government to account for its decision – and even creates the impetus for the Act to be implemented. But what should we make of the decision to renege on a democratically established law to pursue free speech in universities?
One stated reason for halting the act was relieving universities of a ‘burdensome’ duty to protect free speech. As even supporters of the law change were concerned at it being reduced to an overly bureaucratic time-consuming exercise by half-hearted Vice chancellors and administrators, does this objection ring true?
Announcing the act would be paused, Phillipson said that if continued it would ‘expose students to harm and appalling hate speech on campuses’. How can we counter that point given that the legislation was designed to work within existing law on hate and harms, which themselves are often subjective and contested categories. Was it only a matter of time before the free speech act unravelled, leading to tit for tat accusations of harm and hate and endless lawfare?
More sinisterly, some say that in the context of many universities struggling financially, powerful college managements successfully lobbied Government to protect partnerships with countries like China, which are hostile to free speech and require appeasing in order to secure overseas campus developments, lucrative research partnerships and permissions to send international students to the UK. Is free speech on campus being sacrificed to create cosy relationships with authoritarian regimes?
Regardless, while few believed the free speech law by itself would turn the tide of cancellations, conformity and intolerance that has plagued academic life, the political push for intellectual openness alerted many to the free speech crisis in UK universities. How can this momentum be built upon further? What now for those who are concerned about securing intellectual diversity and heterogeneous opinion on campus?
SPEAKERSDr Bryn HarrisChief Legal Counsel, Free Speech Union
Helen Joycedirector of advocacy, Sex Matters; author, TRANS: when ideology meets reality
Akua Reindorf KCbarrister, Cloisters Chambers
Michelle Shipworthassociate professor, UCL Energy Institute, University College London
Graham Stringer MPmember of parliament, Blackley and Middleton South; select committee member, Science and Technology Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee
CHAIRDr Jan Macvarisheducation and events director, Free Speech Union; author, Neuroparenting: the expert invasion of family life

A sense of place: how to create community in a fractured world

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Research by The Belonging Forum has identified a widespread crisis of loneliness and social isolation in the UK. One in 10 people in the UK say they have no close friends. And friendship appears to matter: just 34 per cent of those who are not satisfied with the quality of their friendships are satisfied with their life, half the level for those satisfied with their friendships.
Newspapers frequently run headlines about the problem and dangers of loneliness,.  However, this new research reveals that the problem goes beyond loneliness, with people losing their connection to places, struggling to find a purpose, and losing trust in systems of power. The challenge, in short, is a deficit of belonging.
The groups most affected were perhaps surprising, with young women, renters, people with disabilities standing out alongside older people. For example, nearly half (48 per cent) of young people aged 18 to 34 reported feeling anxious the day before, with this figure halving for those over 55 (25 per cent).
Geographically, the research found people in neighbourhoods in UK cities reported experiencing loneliness, in spite of appearing to be surrounded by all that a city offers. Social isolation and generational tensions, as well as debates over inadequate housing and decaying high streets, are a persistent feature of our national conversation. High levels of immigration and the nature of transient urban communities, with people moving long distances for work, require us to redouble our commitments to building and maintaining community bonds and social fabric. But is this happening?
While sharing the same local geographic space, many age, identity and demographic cohorts seem to live parallel lives that can undermine shared outlooks and values. Increasingly, local and international tensions – defined more by differences than by a sense of belonging – have been an increasing feature of some communities’ experience.
How can we transcend such fragmentation and regain a sense of belonging and cohesion? Big events like Glastonbury, the King’s Coronation and the Euros tapped into a sense that people still want to be a part of something bigger than themselves, and to share collective moments – however fleeting.
Have we stopped identifying with the places in which we live, whether that be our local town or village, or with the country itself and its values? Does social media and online algorithms result in communities based on interests and ideologies? Do we lack the institutions – such as churches, trades unions, pubs and social clubs – that, in the past, played a big role in socialising the young and bringing people together? How can we avoid community being replaced by communities, to view ourselves and others as equal citizens rather than as members of cultural tribes or isolated individuals? Or should we be more optimistic about the forging of new solidarities as communities change and join together in new ways?
SPEAKERSDave Clementswriter and policy advisor; contributing co-editor The Future of Community
William Cloustonparty leader, Social Democratic Party
Abbot Christopher JamisonAbbot President, English Benedictine Congregation; author, Finding the Language of Grace: rediscovering transcendence
Michael Merrickdirector of schools, Diocese of Lancaster; former teacher; education and social commentator
Kim Samuelfounder, the Belonging Forum; author, On Belonging: Finding Connection in an Age of Isolation; educator; activist
CHAIRDr Tiffany Jenkinswriter and broadcaster; author, Strangers and Intimates (forthcoming) and Keeping Their Marbles

(Mis)information: the battle for free speech online

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
There’s no doubt that the growth of social media, online self-publishing and, now, AI, poses challenges for public discussion. It can be hard to tell what is true or false when claptrap, unfounded assertions or falsified narratives can be spread with ease online – sometimes by tinfoil-bedecked conspiracy proponents and bad-faith actors, sometimes by well-meaning, if naïve, individuals.
The worry is that our digital culture fuels hate speech, online harms, fake news, identity-driven polarisation and even violence. Elon Musk, owner of X, the social-media company most associated with free speech, is attacked by Big Tech critics who accuse him of stirring up tensions and violence by retweeting the claims of questionable individuals. Others worry about harmful or illegal material circulated on encrypted messaging services such as WhatsApp and Telegram. In a year of global elections, hyper-realistic videos and audio recordings created by Generative AI have fuelled fears of deep-fake threats to democracy.
Free speech does not mean unbridled licence because, as free speech critics regularly assert, you cannot falsely shout ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre. But working out where the boundaries of acceptability lie is seldom easy. Many might baulk at the arrest of Pavel Durov, the Russian billionaire founder of Telegram, but also question if platforms accused of supporting child pornographers and people traffickers should operate unchecked by officials. Was the UK home secretary, Yvette Cooper, right to hold social-media companies responsible for ‘shocking misinformation’ that escalated the riots and ‘the deliberate organisation of violence’ on these platforms? And what should we make of Prime Minister Kier Starmer’s comments that ‘social media companies have a responsibility for ensuring that there is no safe place for hatred and illegality on their platforms’?
Others worry that democracy itself is under threat when the charge of spreading misinformation becomes a go-to justification for restrictions in public life. In Brazil, a notoriously activist judge supported by the Supreme Court has banned X/Twitter for 22million users there, X’s fourth largest market. In America, First Amendment free-speech protection proved no barrier to Facebook being strong-armed into taking down posts after the Biden administration accused it of spreading misinformation on Covid vaccines and facemasks.
Do the public need protection from untruths and, if so, what legal controls should there be? Is there a problem of political bias when it comes to assessing misinformation, with authorities picking and choosing which untruths they go after? How can we tackle the actual problems of misinformation, while resisting cancellations and bans? Or should we simply tolerate the free dissemination of all ideas, in order to avoid the development of a broader censorious culture?
SPEAKERSTimandra 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
Fraser Myersdeputy editor, spiked; host, the spiked podcast
Nico Perrinoexecutive vice president, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
Eli Vieirajournalist; editor, Gazeta do Povo; writer, Twitter Files - Brazil
Dr Daniel Williamslecturer in Philosophy, University of Sussex
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

(De)socialised on YouTube?

Recording of a debate at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Young people are increasingly growing up online. To some, this conjures up images of anti-social boys spending hours on YouTube in their bedrooms or Mum’s basement. It has sinister connotations of incels and rabbit-hole radicalisation. But for some GenZers, YouTube offers a renaissance of online public intellectuals prepared to challenge woke orthodoxies.
For example, increasing numbers of students feel let down by traditional education, dominated by DEI priorities and activist professors, so have embraced the online world as a source of alternative education. They are reacting by identifying with high-profile, often right-wing dissidents who provide an alternative worldview and crucially a wider range of facts and information than the fashionable, but prescriptive cultural theories they are exposed to on campus.
Since the explosion of what the then New York Times opinion editor Bari Weiss dubbed the Intellectual Dark Web and the viral embrace of the New Atheists online, long-form podcasts and personality-led interview shows, along with YouTube history and science videos, are increasingly filling a void. And while both young and old are turning to the internet, it plays an increasing role in young people’s view of how to get educated. From personal development and wellbeing to politics, history, philosophy, science and more, there’s something on the internet for everyone’s interest.
Some welcome this as a new era of autodidacts, arguing that it democratises knowledge, makes education more readily available, and provides a way of escaping the ideological capture of institutions. And with crippling tuition fees and an alleged collapse of academic standards at universities, online alternatives can provide the excitement about learning that traditional institutions lack and may put some much-needed pressure on the old guard.
However, others worry about a new ‘Wild West’ online. Yes, YouTube may have popularised Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens. But it has also spawned the likes of Andrew Tate, Candace Owens, Bronze Age Pervert and a proliferation of ill-informed conspiracy theorists and false prophets.
What’s more, educational commentators note that a life full of YouTube gurus may be implicitly anti-intellectual. Why even read books when you can listen to a podcast or watch a video that is much more engaging? And while viewers may feel in control of curating what content they are exposed to, algorithmic choices may create echo chambers just as narrow as those bastions of Diversity and Inclusion dogma that users are trying to escape.
But while ‘concerned adults’ may find this world anti-social and worryingly alienating, its adherents praise a sense of a solidarity that comes from this novel shared virtual public sphere just when the offline community seems to be fracturing.
Is the problem with grown-ups who just don’t get it? Can the online world provide a robust virtual intellectual community and genuine knowledge-building, or is it an illusion? Is the online intellectual world the future, or are we throwing the baby out with the bath water by disregarding traditional education?
SPEAKERSAda Akpalawriter and commentator; head of content, The Equiano Project
Elliot Bewickhost, The Next Generation; former producer, TRIGGERnometry
Andrew GoldYouTuber; host, Heretics
Fraser Myersdeputy editor, spiked; host, the spiked podcast
CHAIRMax Sandersonassistant managing editor, Guardian