Academy of Ideas

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe SQUARE-EYED SCREENAGERS: ARE PHONES CORRUPTING OUR KIDS? Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London. Digital devices are so omnipresent that sociologists call today’s children ‘Generation Glass’. Our pre-teens have never known a world without tablets and apps. The ubiquity of technology during their formative years risks turning them into ‘screenagers’ with high digital literacy but low socialisation and focus. In education, devices are routinely distributed to pupils and the gamification of learning is well-established. Yet pushback is mounting. The controversial Online Safety Bill proposes reams of radical measures drafted specifically to quell fears over children’s internet safety. Meanwhile increasing numbers of schools are adopting mobile-phone bans, claiming they improve concentration and mental health while reducing cheating and cyberbullying. Parents’ lobby group UsForThem is even pressing for a total ban on phones for all under-16s and grim tobacco-style health warnings on devices. The campaign is endorsed by Katharine Birbalsingh, headteacher and former social mobility tsar, who has equated the threat to youth of mobile phones to that of heroin addiction. But is this all merely a re-heat of the ‘square eyes’ moral panic which once beset television? The BBC thinks so: its high-profile Square-Eyed Boy campaign seeks to reassure parents that screens can be a force for good for children. After all, isn’t greater literacy, be it via screens or paper pages, something to be encouraged? Some teachers argue that phones can enhance schoolwork while others insist banning them is draconian, impractical and futile. Should we take phones away from kids for their own good, or should the very idea be dismissed as screen-shaming? SPEAKERS Elliot Bewick producer, TRIGGERnometry Josephine Hussey school teacher, AoI Education Forum Molly Kingsley co-founder, UsForThem; co-author, The Children’s Inquiry Joe Nutt international educational consultant; author, The Point of Poetry, An Introduction to Shakespeare’s Late Plays and A Guidebook to Paradise Lost Professor Sir Simon Wessely interim dean, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neurosciences; regius professor of psychiatry, King’s College London CHAIR Gareth Sturdy physics adviser, Up Learn; education and science writer

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2021 on Sunday 10 October at Church House, London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION According to many political commentators, the break-up of the UK is becoming inevitable. When devolution was implemented in the 1990s, one of the aims of its supporters was to head off rising support for separation. But the opposite has happened, with support for Scottish independence and greater Welsh autonomy growing even stronger. In Scotland, for example, the pro-independence SNP has now won four elections on the trot and has renewed calls for another referendum. Some commentators now believe that a politicised sense of Englishness is on the rise, too. One factor is the differential impact of the Brexit referendum. People in England and Wales voted to leave the EU while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain. The situation is full of contradictions and complications. For example, people emphasising a British national identity were more likely to vote Leave in Scotland and Wales but Remain in England. Those supporting the cause of ‘independence’ in Scotland and Wales want to remain within the EU, proclaiming the importance of free movement, yet their borders were imposed during the Covid crisis. The devolved government in Scotland favours rejoining the EU, yet others wonder how that fits with the desire for self-government. On all sides, there has been a problem of legitimacy. Those who favour keeping the Union have struggled to espouse a convincing sense of what it means to be British. The result has often been a crude attempt to manufacture a sense of Britishness. For example, the Westminster government recently announced plans are being drawn up to protect ‘distinctively British’ television programming and asked Ofcom to provide a definition of Britishness for public-service broadcasters. Meanwhile, contrary to the tradition that the push for statehood means demanding more democracy and freedom, the devolved assemblies appear to have amplified the illiberal impulses of twenty-first-century politics. In Scotland, for example, the government has devoted much of its energy to devising new ways to monitor, control and restrict people’s day-to-day lives: criminalising football supporters, attempting to impose a ‘named person’ to monitor children’s upbringing and passing a Hate Crime Bill that opponents regard as an attack on free speech. Forty years ago, writer Tom Nairn said that the break-up of Britain would come, not because of the strength of the independence cause in any particular part of Britain, but because of a more general fading of support for the Union. Has Nairn been proved correct? Is the real issue not a democratic surge to independence but gradual separation by attrition? That said, there are signs that perhaps the break-up of the Union is not a foregone conclusion. In recent months, for example, opinion polls have suggested that support for Scottish independence has weakened. Perhaps the real nail in the coffin is if the English lose interest in the Union. In his book How Britain Ends, journalist Gavin Esler argues that the UK could survive Scottish and Welsh nationalism, but English nationalism is the force that will break up the Union. Is he right? With Brexit divisions and the impact of Covid, are we witnessing the fragmentation of the Union and a new sovereignty by stealth? How substantial are the differences between the UK and devolved governments’ approaches? Do those arguing for independence or more devolution offer the genuine possibility of a democratic future? Or does this trajectory risk creating a Union based on anomalies and a patchwork of competencies, in the process undermining the viability of UK democracy? SPEAKERS Dr Richard Johnson writer; lecturer in US politics, Queen Mary, University of London; author, The End of the Second Reconstruction: Obama, Trump, and the crisis of civil rights Penny Lewis lecturer, University of Dundee; author, Architecture and...

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION The worlds of art and entertainment are wrestling with, and reeling from, the opportunities and challenges posed by ‘generative’ AI – tools that can generate seemingly unique, bespoke creations in response to ‘prompts’ submitted in plain language. Such technology is now having a dramatic impact on almost every profession or art form that involves static or moving images, written or spoken words, sound, music or programming code. Everything from the fantastical to the photorealistic is affected. AI can generate convincing ‘photos’ of people who have never actually existed, and can create ‘deepfakes’ so good that public figures – whether living or long deceased – can now be ‘filmed’ saying and doing completely invented things. Indeed, a key concern behind this year’s high-profile Hollywood strikes is actors fearing that they will be imitated and replaced by AI creations – losing control of their likenesses not just during their lifetimes, but also after their deaths. Otherworldly images are no less affected by AI. Polish illustrator Greg Rutkowski – who has made a career out of depicting dragons and fantastical battles – recently found himself demoted (or promoted, depending on one’s perspective) from popular artist to one of the world’s most popular AI prompts, beating Michelangelo and Picasso. The internet is now swamped with AI recreations of Rutkowski’s once distinctive style, while the artist’s own livelihood – and recognition for work that is genuinely his – are in jeopardy. There are many such examples, spanning different forms of creativity. Some are trying to take a stand against these trends, but solidarity between professions is wanting. Major publishers, including Bloomsbury Books, have recently issued apologies, when it was discovered that they were using AI-generated art on their book covers. Some soundtrack composers – who were already complaining about being reduced to poorly paid, interchangeable and uncredited ‘ghost composers’ in the content-hungry age of streaming – now fear being replaced by machines altogether. Some creators insist that their consent should have been sought before their work was included in the vast datasets on which AI has been trained. Some are seeking the removal of their work from such datasets even now, although the path from machine learning to AI creations is so intricate that this may be the practical equivalent of trying to unbake a cake. Others, by contrast, revel in the new creative possibilities arising from AI, and approach the technology as an enormous and exciting artistic toolkit. Who will prevail? And what will be the consequences? SPEAKERS Dr JJ Charlesworth art critic; editor, ArtReview Vivek Haria composer, London Symphony Orchestra, Birmingham Contemporary Music Group and Piatti Quartet; writer on art, technology and culture Rosie Kay dancer; choreographer; CEO and artistic director, K2CO LTD; founder, Freedom in the Arts Dr Hamish Todd mathematician; videogame programmer; creator, Virus, the Beauty of the Beast CHAIR Sandy Starr deputy director, Progress Educational Trust; author, AI: Separating Man from Machine

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION The self-image of Western societies as cosmopolitan, liberal and tolerant has collapsed of late, with a darker view taking hold of people as extreme, hate-filled and hurtful. For example, in the wake of the Hamas attacks on Israel, anti-Semitism – ‘the oldest hatred’ – has come forcefully into public view. Accordingly, controlling ‘hate speech’ has become a major focus for critics and campaigners, as well as legislators and regulators. They proceed in the belief that, as one Guardian commentator put it: ‘Words of hate create an ethos of hate, an atmosphere of hate, a political, social Petri dish of hate. Eventually, spoken words become deeds.’ Campaigners say escalating incidences of hate justify interventions. The most recent published date show 155,841 offences recorded in the year to March – up 26 per cent from the previous year – with hate crimes against transgender people seeing the biggest increase, jumping by 56 per cent since last year. Meanwhile, in the past five years, the number of recorded non-crime hate incidents (NCHI) has grown to 120,000. Critics say the nebulous definition and subjective interpretation of hate, which is largely in the eye of the victim or reporter, is trivialising such ‘crimes’. But is there more to this issue than definitional disarray? Some say the problem is being inflated by ‘fishing’ exercises. The Citizen’s Advice Bureau, for example, says ‘it is always best’ to ‘act early’ and report incidents even if ‘unsure whether the incident is a criminal offence… or serious enough to be reported’. Meanwhile, Police Scotland has promised to set up a new unit to tackle ‘hate crimes’ such as misgendering and denying men access to ladies’ toilets. Some say that what is labelled ‘hate speech’ is increasingly being weaponised to silence opponents and narrow viewpoint diversity. Groups such as Stop Funding Hate aim to persuade advertisers to pull support from broadcasters and publications on the grounds that views aired spread hate and division. More broadly, fuelled by identity politics, competing groups too often accuse other identities of hate and bigotry – demonising those we disagree with is a tactic used across the political spectrum. On one side, people are labeled hateful TERFs, gammon, alt-right or xenophobic, while the other side are hate-driven snowflakes, misogynists, Remoaners, pinko commies and cry-bullies. What are the prospects of making political exchange less toxic and productive, if labelling those we disagree with as hate-mongers continues to escalate? How should defenders of freedom best make the case for free speech over hate speech? How should we understand what counts as hate speech, and how do we account for its rise to become central to how Western societies are organising their legal systems and public life? SPEAKERS Kate Harris co-founder and trustee, LGB Alliance; formerly Brighton Women’s Centre and Brighton Women’s Aid Eve Kay executive producer unscripted; International Emmy winner; Realscreen and Critics Choice Award winner; Creative Arts Emmy winner Winston Marshall musician; writer; podcast host, Marshall Matters; founding member, Mumford & Sons Faisal Saeed Al Mutar founder and president, Ideas Beyond Borders Martin Wright director, Positive News; formerly editor-in-chief, Green Futures; former director, Forum for the Future CHAIR Alastair Donald co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION Most people acknowledge that there is an issue with Britain’s borders. The question is: who or what is to blame? For many, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and its courts in Strasbourg, has become the focus – either as the bulwark against anti-refugee sentiment, or the block on democratic process. With deportations being halted on the grounds of ‘human rights’, one’s view on membership of the ECHR has become shorthand for where you stand on the issue of refugees, asylum seekers and illegal migrants. Rows over the ECHR have been brewing for some time. In 2000, the Human Rights Act made the Convention an integral part of domestic law, that individuals could enforce in British courts. Since then, many, particularly on the Right, have questioned the wisdom of what they increasingly refer to as Labour’s Human Rights Act. In recent years, the Conservative Party has been committed to reforming human rights by replacing the HRA with a British Bill of Rights. But no such legislation is forthcoming – and many have pointed out that, as long as Britain remains signed-up to the ECHR, a British Bill of Rights would be superfluous. Much like the European Union, the ECHR seems to have split the Tories. Some MPs hope to cut ties completely – nearly 70 Tory MPs, many from Red Wall seats, backed quitting the ECHR in a vote on a Private Member’s Bill last year. Others – like Tom Tugendhat’s Tory Reform Group – remain concerned about what a Brexit-style exit might do to the UK’s international reputation. In the aftermath of the Second World War the European Convention on Human Rights was seen as a protection against the tyranny and oppression that some European nations had recently endured. Nowadays, those who support it stress the importance of human rights as setting a minimum standard which democracies should guarantee. Is the problem therefore simply one of European judicial overreach, or is it essentially about the very notion of ‘human rights’ themselves? Are human rights and democratic, collective action doomed to forever be at loggerheads? With courts in Strasbourg and London ruling to impede government plans to stop small boats crossing the Channel, are human rights making popular government impossible? Or is the ECHR being scapegoated for inadequacies in our own backyard? SPEAKERS Steven Barrett barrister, Radcliffe Chambers; writer on law, Spectator Jamie Burton founder and chair, Just Fair; barrister (KC), Doughty Street Chambers; author Three Times Failed: why we need enforceable socio-economic rights Luke Gittos criminal lawyer; author, Human Rights – Illusory Freedom; director, Freedom Law Clinic John Oxley writer, New Statesman, Spectator,and UnHerd; consultant; barrister Angelica Walker-Werth writer, editor and programmes manager, Objective Standard Institute CHAIR Jon Holbrook barrister; writer, spiked, Critic, Conservative Woman

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION ‘Take back control’, the central demand from the Leave campaign’s case for Brexit, posed the question: who should rule? However, today, when frontpage headlines frequently ask why nothing works in ‘Broken Britain’ and politicians blame myriad forces for thwarting democratically decided policies, one increasingly debated issue is: who is really in charge of society? In his recent book, Values, Voice and Virtue, British political scientist Matthew Goodwin argues that the ‘people who really run Britain’ are ‘a new dominant class’, that imposes its ‘radically progressive cultural values’ on the rest of the nation. The Spectator magazine recently devoted its cover to this ‘new elite’ and how ‘the woke aristocracy’ is on a ‘march through the institutions’. Former government equality tsar Trevor Phillips has written that ‘the political and media elite’ have achieved ‘institutional capture’ across swathes of the UK’s governing apparatus. But is it as simple as a changing of the guard, a new elite grabbing the reins of power? One confusion is a disavowal of responsibility. Goodwin’s thesis has caused international controversy, with many labelled as the ‘new elite’ denying they have any power. Once upon a time, it would have been easy to see who was in charge: from the Industrial Revolution onwards, barons of the old aristocracy were gradually replaced by ‘business barons’ owning big companies, aided and abetted by the clergy, among others. During the years of the postwar consensus, the ‘trade union barons’ played a major role, too. And, at its core, was a state apparatus presided over by an elite of politicians. Yet today’s governing classes have increasingly dispersed and outsourced their authority to third parties – such as consultants, the judiciary, international bodies, public inquiries, stakeholder bodies, diversity specialists, scientific experts, NGOs, charities, political advisers and the ‘Whitehall Blob’. When things go wrong, the blame game sees fingers pointed in all directions. In this context, some voters are increasingly disillusioned with democracy and conspiratorial thinking thrives. Who is pulling the ideological strings of this new generation of impotent, technocratic politicians? When the Labour leader, Keir Starmer, was asked whether he’d prefer to be in Davos or Westminster, he responded, without missing a beat: ‘Davos’. In other words, the likely next prime minister of the UK prefers the networking opportunities of the World Economy Forum to the mother of parliaments. Is it any wonder so many blame globalist forces for seemingly imposing unpopular policies on nation states with no democratic mandate, whether related to ‘net zero’ or gender identity? So, who is directing society in 2023, and what binds them together? Why do our elected politicians lack authority today, or are they simply unwilling to exercise their authority? Are the ‘new elite’ as powerful as many would argue or are they simply the public face of the changing interests of the wealthy? Is the intellectual conformity at the helm of society proof of coherence or a lack of ideas and vision? Is it possible to reclaim power for The People? SPEAKERS Pamela Dow chief operating officer, Civic Future Professor Frank Furedi sociologist and social commentator; executive director, MCC Brussels; author, 100 Years of Identity Crisis: culture war over socialisation Matthew Goodwin professor of politics, University of Kent; author, Values Voice and Virtue: The New British Politics , National Populism: the revolt against liberal democracy and Revolt on the Right Harry Lambert staff writer, New Statesman; editor, New Statesman Saturday Read Professor Anand Menon director, UK in a Changing Europe CHAIR Claire Fox director, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Recording of a debate at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October, at Church House, London. Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe INTRODUCTION At the 2023 Edinburgh Festival Fringe, Comedy Unleashed’s show, featuring Graham Linehan, was cancelled because the venue did not ‘support his views’ and his presence would ‘violate their space’. The edgy spirit that used to characterise the Edinburgh Festival Fringe specifically, and stand-up comedy more generally, seems to have evaporated. There was no outcry from comedians attending the festival and very few publicly expressed even the mildest of support for free expression in the arts. Earlier that year, Nigel Farage was debanked by Coutts, for expressing views that go against the bank’s ‘values’. Despite the bankers themselves having admitted fault, comedian Omid Djalili publicly sided with the elite bank. When comedians see no problem with using the denial of banking services as a form of punishment for holding certain views, how can they claim that they are ‘punching up’? Why do comedians increasingly side with the Establishment? How can comics say that they are ‘punching up’ when they support the people being ‘cancelled’ by corporations? As society becomes more authoritarian, where is the satirical response and creative backlash? SPEAKERS Miriam Elia satirical conceptual artist; author, We See the Sights, We Go To The Gallery and We Do Lockdown; creator, A Series Of Psychotic Episodes Dominic Frisby writer; comedian; author, Bitcoin: the future of money? Graham Linehan creator and co-creator, Father Ted, Black Books and The IT Crowd; comedy writer, Count Arthur Strong, Brass Eye and The Fast Show; author, Tough Crowd: How I Made and Lost a Career in Comedy Chair: Andy Shaw co-founder, Comedy Unleashed

In our latest Podcast of Ideas discussion, Ella Whelan is joined by regulars Claire Fox, Alastair Donald and Geoff Kidder, plus guest Mark Birkbeck from the campaign group Our Fight. They discuss events in the House of Commons this week as an SNP-led debate on the Israel-Hamas conflict descended into farce, leading for calls for the speaker of the house, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, to resign. They also take a step back to look at the wider picture. What is to be done to counter the rise of anti-Semitism? What are the implications for democracy if parliamentary procedures are subverted in the name of protecting MPs? What might happen next in the war itself? Can Israel rely on support in the West for much longer? To keep up with our podcasts, events, analysis and publications, subscribe to this Substack here. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Not only will you be supporting our work but you will receive discounts on tickets for our events, including the Battle of Ideas festival on 19 & 20 October in London.

With the UK officially in recession, what should governments be doing? This debate was recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION With the Conservatives doing badly in the polls and Labour riding high, the UK could have a new party in government in the next year or so. How will this change the relationship between the state and the private sector – and will it boost economic performance and living standards? During the Corbyn years and even beyond, Labour has talked up the possibility of nationalising important parts of the UK economy – such as water and energy supplies and the railways. But more recently, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves appear to have rowed back on such pledges, with Starmer saying he would not be ‘ideological’ about state control. Many commentators have pointed out that houses are not being built fast enough. While unemployment is relatively low, the quality of jobs is too often poor. Many argue that what it is needed is more state intervention, greater funding for healthcare, a return to state-provided housing and a proper industrial strategy to boost sectors that can be world-leading, especially in supporting the drive to Net Zero. Others argue that for all the talk of free markets, we actually have too much state intervention and control. Businesses are bound up in regulation. Government expenditure is getting close to the equivalent of 50% of GDP. Planning rules make building anything almost impossible. Far from a free market, we have everyone from civil servants to central bankers determining how the economy develops, with little room for private initiative or democratic control. But is the state vs market debate moot – because the ability of the state to change things is becoming exhausted? Increasing state spending even further would have relatively little impact, but government debt is already enormous in any event. ‘Cheap money’ policies of low interest rates and quantitative easing have had to be reversed to tackle inflation. Whoever wins the next election, what is the best way forward for the UK economy? SPEAKERS Paul Embery firefighter; trade unionist; columnist; author, Despised: why the modern Left loathes the working class; broadcaster Matthew Lesh director of public policy and communications, Institute of Economic Affairs Ali Miraj broadcaster; founder, the Contrarian Prize; infrastructure financier; DJ Hilary Salt FIA, FPMI, FRSA actuary; founder, First Actuarial CHAIR Phil Mullan writer, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

Recording of the debate at Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION Being ‘diverse’ is no longer simply about shaking things up. Today, diversity is considered a core value of any civilised society and its institutions. Diversity strategies are a must for businesses, small or big – diversity is good for the planet, good for politics, good for social mobility and good for our sense of self. Diversity is no longer a means to a better future, but an end in and of itself. For many, this is a no brainer – having different people from different backgrounds in your work or social environment can only be a good thing. They argue that cultural melting pots provide border horizons on everything from what food we enjoy to our appreciation of different beliefs and world views. In contrast, homogeneity is a sign of a moribund system. The idea that similar groups of people might apply for the same job – from nursing to plumbing – is a sign of discrimination or closed mindedness, and must be challenged. But not everyone is so keen on the prioritisation of diversity over all else. The home secretary, Suella Braverman, caused uproar with a speech in Washington in which she described multiculturalism as a failed ‘misguided dogma’, adding that ‘the consequences of that failure are evident on the streets of cities all over Europe’. Some say the scenes of celebrations in Western cities at Hamas’s actions in Israel seem to prove her point. Critics point to the way in which it has been institutionalised via policies in the workplace or education, with contentious political topics on everything from the climate to transgender ideology being repackaged as mandatory ‘diversity training’. They argue that a ‘fetishisation’ of diversity has led to its opposite – atomisation and tribalism. Many argue that the push for multiculturalism as a political policy objective has led to a confusion of social norms. Instead of a utopia of rich cultural fusion, neighbourhoods are often defined by national identities, with hostility between groups commonplace. If we don’t ask for shared values in some key areas of life, critics ask, how will we ever hope to get along? For some, diversity is a necessary strategy to help break open closed areas of public life for groups previously discriminated against. For others, it is too focused on the things we can’t control – like race or sex – and too disregarding of diversity of thought and feeling. Has the d-word taken over as our new deity? Variety is certainly the spice of life, but is our love of diversity at risk of creating its opposite? And how do we talk about shared social values in a world where difference is king? SPEAKERS Simon Fanshawe OBE consultant and writer; author The Power of Difference ; co-founder, Diversity by Design Maya Forstater executive director, Sex Matters Mercy Muroki policy fellow to minister for women and equalities and business and trade secretary Tomiwa Owolade writer and critic; contributing writer, New Statesman; author, This is Not America: Why Black Lives in Britain Matter Dr Joanna Williams founder and director, Cieo; author, How Woke Won and Women vs Feminism CHAIR Alastair Donald co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle of Ideas festival and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe WHAT WOULD A LABOUR GOVERNMENT LOOK LIKE? Recording of the debate at Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION After Labour’s catastrophic haemorrhaging of Red Wall voters in 2019, and widespread disillusion among working-class Brexit voters, Labour seems to be back in contention. For some time, Labour has been way ahead of the Conservatives in the opinion polls. But the gap between the parties became a chasm after the resignation of Boris Johnson and the debacle of Liz Truss’s short-lived premiership. Now, with Labour running roughly 20 points ahead in the polls, a substantial majority at the next election – which must happen no later than January 2025 – seems highly likely. But assuming Labour does win power, what would Keir Starmer actually do? The answer is, perhaps: who knows? Yes, there has been some headline-grabbing radical proposals such as abolishing the House of Lords and replacing it with an elected chamber of regions and nations. When he won the leadership vote in April 2020, Starmer had stood on a platform of 10 pledges – from increasing income tax for the rich and abolishing universal credit to ‘support’ for ‘common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water’ and a ‘green new deal’. Since then, Starmer and his shadow ministers have moved away from many of these pledges. For example, plans to abolish university tuition fees have been scrapped, and universal credit looks like it will be ‘reformed’ – but with the two-child limit for benefits left in place. Nationalisation plans have been replaced with the idea of greater regulation. Plans to introduce self-ID for transgender people have been shelved (despite having voted for the SNP’s infamous Gender Recognition Reform Bill, and with no apology forthcoming to its much maligned gender-critical MP Rosie Duffield) as has the idea of reintroducing free movement for EU nationals. Inevitably, the Corbynista wing of the party shout betrayal. With Blair and Mandelson back in the mix, some on the Left dread New Labour Mark 2, without the charisma or vision. Despite its uber-technocratic pragmatism, many fear Labour has fundamentally changed – emptied of its working-class credentials, instead assuming the garb of identitarian social justice. It seems most comfortable arguing for laws against misogyny, condemning institutional racism or celebrating Pride than either full-throttled support for picket-line strikers or taking up the cause of free speech when under assault from progressive ideologues. It’s true that Labour’s centrepiece policy of a ‘green prosperity plan’ has been watered down from £28 billion per year to an aspiration to be achieved at some point in a Labour administration. But its championing of eco policies – such as heat-pump boilers, anti-driver measures such as ULEZ and LTNs or its financial entanglement with the funder of Just Stop Oil – means that many fear Labour is tin-eared when voters are sceptical of its right-on, illiberal and expensive zealous approach to net-zero targets. SPEAKERS Dr Tim Black books and essays editor, spiked Dr Richard Johnson writer; senior lecturer in US politics, Queen Mary, University of London; co-author, Keeping the Red Flag Flying: The Labour Party in Opposition since 1922 (forthcoming) Mark Seddon director, Centre for UN Studies, University of Buckingham; board member, Foreign Correspondents Association, New York; co-author, Jeremy Corbyn and the Strange Rebirth of Labour England James Smith host, The Popular Show podcast; writer; academic Joan Smith author & columnist CHAIR Paddy Hannam researcher, House of Commons; writer and commentator

From the furore over PMQs and jibes about gender ideology to surveillance of football fans, international farming protests and Labour's latest U-turn, tune in to the latest Podcast of Ideas. Featuring the AOI team: Claire Fox, Rob Lyons, Geoff Kidder, Jacob Reynolds and Ella Whelan. Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack here: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

With Nicola Sturgeon the latest politician to be lambasted over WhatsApp messages - or the lack of them - listen to this debate from the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House in London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION From intimate selfies to leaking of personal messages, the digital age seems to relentlessly blur the boundaries between private and public. Not only are we encouraged to bare it all for social media, but the idea of private or secret communication is increasingly seen as a cover for all kinds of ‘online harms’. While the UK has backed off (for now) from enforcing Online Safety Bill provisions to remove end-to-end encryption, the widespread suspicion by government of encrypted services remains. What goes on in private group chats or messengers is said to be the site of danger, exploitation and threats to health and security. But it is not just social media or new laws that seem to threaten privacy. Indeed, official bodies are subject to endless leaks, baring the details of this or that supposedly private meeting or conversation. But perhaps this is no bad thing: debate about crucial issues has been widely informed by the leak of previously private correspondence, such as the over 100,000 messages between former health secretary Matt Hancock and others at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. The leak revealed important information about the decisions surrounding lockdowns. But even if much valuable information was gleaned from the leak, should we be worried about the wider implications of removing the assumption of privacy? For example, many worry that recent charges against former police officers for sharing racist messages in a private WhatsApp group chat upend the principle that what we say ‘behind closed doors’ is a private matter. In a similar vein, the Scottish Government’s recent removal of a ‘dwelling defence’ to a landmark hate-crime bill explicitly invites the courts to police what is said in private. Likewise, many campaigners point to the fact that Britain is one of the most surveilled countries in the world, with the previous privacy of walking the street or meeting friends in a pub now subject to the glare of Big Brother. But what is so valuable about privacy – and what is at risk if we lose too much of it? Should we welcome the tendency to make everything public, especially if it roots out backward attitudes or exposes those who misuse power? What’s the relationship between the public and private, and where does the balance lie? SPEAKERS Josie Appleton director, civil liberties group, Manifesto Club; author, Officious: Rise of the Busybody State; writer, Notes on Freedom David Davis member of parliament, Conservative Party Dr Tiffany Jenkins writer and broadcaster; author, Strangers and Intimates (forthcoming) and Keeping Their Marbles Tim Stanley columnist and leader writer, Daily Telegraph; author, Whatever Happened to Tradition? History, Belonging and the Future of the West CHAIR Ella Whelan co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

Recording of a debate at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION Too often, talking about race feels fraught with difficulty, leaving us walking on eggshells to avoid offence. However, this can mean that important questions and queries go unanswered, and grievances can fester. Luckily, more and more authors are taking up the challenge – and this session features three of them in conversation. Rakib Ehsan’s Beyond Grievance: What the Left Gets Wrong About Ethnic Minorities argues that the left too often buys into toxic, imported ideologies around identity politics. Left-wingers are also complacent, he argues, assuming they can depend upon a traditional support base among ethnic minorities. As a result, they fail to engage with the small-c conservative values around family, faith and flag that many of these communities support. Yet these values could create a fairer multi-ethnic society based upon equal opportunity, social cohesion and a national sense of belonging. Remi Adekoya’s book It’s Not About Whiteness, It’s About Wealth notes that Western conversations on race and racism often revolve around the holy trinity of the race debate: colonialism, the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the ideology of white supremacism. However, Adekoya argues that it is socioeconomic realities which play the leading role in sustaining racial hierarchies in everyday life. He looks at the global big picture, regularly overlooked in the current debate. Finally, in Against Decolonisation: Campus Culture Wars and the Decline of the West, Doug Stokes challenges the theories and arguments deployed by ‘decolonisers’ in a university system now characterised by garbled leadership and illiberal groupthink. More broadly, Stokes examines the threat posed by Critical Theory to wider society and critiques the desire to question the West’s sense of itself, deconstruct its narratives and overthrow its institutional order. SPEAKERS Dr Remi Adekoya lecturer of politics, University of York; author It’s Not About Whiteness, It’s About Wealth and Biracial Britain Dr Rakib Ehsan author, Beyond Grievance: what the Left gets wrong about ethnic minorities Professor Doug Stokes professor in international security and director of the Strategy and Security Institute, University of Exeter; senior adviser, Legatum Institute; author, The Geopolitics of the Culture Wars CHAIR Dr Jim Butcher lecturer; researcher; co-author, Volunteer Tourism: the lifestyle politics of international development

Recording of the debate at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION Trump is perhaps the most widely vilified political leader of modern times – yet he retains a huge measure of support. So seemingly assured of securing the Republican nomination that he can forgo the candidates’ televised debates, he also transformed his arrest for interfering with the 2020 election into a world-shaking media opportunity, with his mugshot reverberating across the globe. But what underpins his appeal? For some, it is precisely the relentless demonisation of Trump that generates the appeal – whatever Trumpists think of some of his policies or personal conduct, they identify with his vilification by the same liberal, coastal elites who denounce them as ‘deplorables’. Others insist that Trump invents and exploits animosities against immigrants and evokes a ‘paranoid’ vein in American politics. Or perhaps Trump simply appeals to voters fed up the stale consensus that has dominated American politics – or maybe he just livens things up. What explains Trumps’ enduring appeal, and how should liberals, conservatives and populists alike respond? SPEAKERS Mary Dejevsky former foreign correspondent in Moscow, Paris and Washington; special correspondent in China; writer and broadcaster Matthew Feeney writer; head of technology and innovation, Centre for Policy Studies; former director, Cato Institute’s Project on Emerging Technologies Michael Goldfarb journalist and historian, creator, FRDH Podcast; documentary maker, Evangelical or Political Christianity?; author, The Martyrdom of Ahmad Shawkat Dr Cheryl Hudson lecturer in US political history, University of Liverpool; author, Citizenship in Chicago: race, culture and the remaking of American identity CHAIR Jacob Reynolds head of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Recording of the debate at Battle of Ideas festival on Sunday 29 October 2023. The wildfire in Hawaii in August is just one example of extreme weather and natural disasters in recent months. Southern Europe has baked in record temperatures. Indeed, July was reportedly the hottest month globally since records began. Earlier this year, wildfires in Canada covered much of the north-eastern US with smoke. There have also been major floods and landslides this year in Sweden, Slovenia and the Czech Republic. Last year, devastating floods affected Pakistan, leaving over 1,700 people dead. Environmental campaigners, experts and many politicians argue that climate change is already making such events more likely. Disasters aside, extreme weather events make life much more unpleasant and costly. Extreme weather will continue to become more common unless we phase out fossil fuels and cut emissions. But others note that the data on extreme weather does not, in the main, support the idea that these events are becoming more common. Moreover, they argue that economic development allows societies to be better prepared and more resilient when disaster strikes. Diverting vast resources to reducing emissions could actually lead to more deaths in the future, particularly in poorer countries. Should we spend trillions on reducing our greenhouse-gas emissions? Given that economic losses from such events can be enormous, even if lives are saved, isn’t prevention better than cure? Or would that money be better spent on making societies more resilient to extreme weather? Does the narrative of climate-change catastrophe get in the way of less dramatic measures that can protect people and property? SPEAKERS Timandra Harkness journalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree; author, Big Data: does size matter? Laurie Laybourn researcher; writer; associate fellow, Institute for Public Policy Research; co-author, Planet on Fire: A manifesto for the age of environmental breakdown Harry Wilkinson head of policy, Global Warming Policy Foundation Martin Wright director, Positive News; formerly editor-in-chief, Green Futures; former director, Forum for the Future CHAIR Jacob Reynolds head of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Was the UK government's Rwanda scheme for asylum seekers doomed to fail? Why has it taken 20 years for the young girls who were victims of Rochdale's grooming gangs to get justice? And why are they cheering the Houthis in New York?

Former US president and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has been in the news constantly in recent weeks. Listen to this debate from the Battle of Ideas festival on Sunday 29 October 2023 which examines his popularity and trends in US politics. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION Trump is perhaps the most widely vilified political leader of modern times – yet he retains a huge measure of support. So seemingly assured of securing the Republican nomination that he can forgo the candidates’ televised debates, he also transformed his arrest for interfering with the 2020 election into a world-shaking media opportunity, with his mugshot reverberating across the globe. But what underpins his appeal? For some, it is precisely the relentless demonisation of Trump that generates the appeal – whatever Trumpists think of some of his policies or personal conduct, they identify with his vilification by the same liberal, coastal elites who denounce them as ‘deplorables’. Others insist that Trump invents and exploits animosities against immigrants and evokes a ‘paranoid’ vein in American politics. Or perhaps Trump simply appeals to voters fed up the stale consensus that has dominated American politics – or maybe he just livens things up. What explains Trumps’ enduring appeal, and how should liberals, conservatives and populists alike respond? SPEAKERS Mary Dejevsky former foreign correspondent in Moscow, Paris and Washington; special correspondent in China; writer and broadcaster Matthew Feeney writer; head of technology and innovation, Centre for Policy Studies; former director, Cato Institute’s Project on Emerging Technologies Michael Goldfarb journalist and historian, creator, FRDH Podcast; documentary maker, Evangelical or Political Christianity?; author, The Martyrdom of Ahmad Shawkat Dr Cheryl Hudson lecturer in US political history, University of Liverpool; author, Citizenship in Chicago: race, culture and the remaking of American identity CHAIR Jacob Reynolds head of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

On the 75th anniversary of the founding of the UK's National Health Service, listen to this debate from the Battle of Ideas festival, recorded on Sunday 16 October 2022. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION In the wake of the pandemic, many people have expressed frustration about waiting times and the lack of face-to-face appointments with GPs. At the same time, doctors have threatened strike action over new contracts stipulating longer opening times to catch up with the backlog. In some areas of the country, there is just one GP for every 2,500 patients, yet in other places, doctors have demanded legal limits on the number of patients they see. The suspicion in some quarters is that GPs are being lazy, or have lost their sense of vocation. Anecdotes about patients waiting hours to be fobbed off with a hurried telephone call from a GP are commonplace. But the Royal College of General Practitioners has pushed back, claiming that this suggestion is false and is undermining GP morale, which was already low. Several surveys indicate the NHS faces an exodus of experienced GPs, with many taking early retirement or reducing their hours due to workload pressure. Even increases in trainee doctors will not relieve the strain. It seems that GPs are working harder than ever and yet people still can’t get the appointments they need. Is this predominantly due to the increased pressures caused by the pandemic, or are government critics right to suggest that the NHS has been underfunded for decades? Do we need to do more to incentivise more doctors to become GPs or is the GP as the first port of call for healthcare now outmoded? And is the solution to this perhaps bigger than intermittent injections of cash? Has the pandemic caused a crisis in GP provision or led to patient anxieties being exacerbated – or both? What is causing this crisis in trust for our once-beloved family doctors? SPEAKERS Professor Dame Clare Gerada London-based GP; president, Royal College of General Practitioners Sheila Lewis retired management consultant; patient member, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust Allison Pearson columnist and chief interviewer, Daily Telegraph; co-presenter, Planet Normal podcast Jo Phillips journalist; co-author, Why Vote? and Why Join a Trade Union?; former political advisor; fellow, Radix Charlotte Pickles director, Reform; former managing editor, UnHerd; member, Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) and the NHS Assembly CHAIR Tony Gilland teacher of maths and economics; Associate Fellow, Academy of Ideas

This is a recording from the Academy of Ideas' Arts and Society Forum, held on Wednesday 17 May 2023. English singer-songwriter Jack Hues discusses his varied musical career, key influences, inspirations and motivations – and shares his insights on how music is faring in our fast changing world and the culture war. Hues’ musical career and influences straddle popular and classical genres, from the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix to Stravinsky, Beethoven and beyond. Having studied music at Goldsmiths and the Royal Academy of Music, and then launching his career in the late 1970s, as frontman of New Wave band Wang Chung, Hues enjoyed chart success in Britain, Europe and especially the US. He has never stopped creating music. After several years of touring Wang Chung during the 1980s, Hues moved onto creating solo pieces including a number of film scores in the 1990s. In the early 2000s, he co-founded the jazz-influenced The Quartet, which released two albums, both to critical acclaim. Between 2020 – 2022, he released two solo albums, Primitif and Electro-Acoustic Works 20:20 and most recently a double live album with members of The Quartet, rock band Syd Artrhur and free jazz exponents Led Bib entitled “Epigonal Quark”, all receiving warm critical acclaim. He has also taught songwriting at Christ Church University in Canterbury. Music fan and democracy campaigner, Niall Crowley, explores a wide range of issues with Jack Hues, including how the music industry is evolving under changing political and social pressures; innovation, radicalism and conservatism in music; whether now is a good or bad time for music and budding musicians; and what is happening to music education.