Academy of Ideas

Dave Clements is a policy adviser, writer, and parent of a child diagnosed with ADHD and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Despite a longstanding scepticism about the claims made about the increase in these and other similar conditions, since becoming a father he has been forced to question his views. Clements describes his son's condition as something that ‘runs through him like a stick of rock'. ASD, in particular, can have a profound effect on children and their families. And yet, as Dave tells us in his forthcoming book, there seems to be something else going on, too. He is struck by the record numbers of pupils being labelled as ‘neurodiverse', having special educational needs (SEN) or struggling with anxiety and attendance issues. Do we know what normal is anymore, he asks? The book is less about providing answers than posing uncomfortable questions. Are we in danger of making identities out of disorders? Why do some parents appear oddly eager that their children be labelled neurodiverse? Has SEN become a hold-all category for too many different kinds of issues and conditions, and thus an unhelpful term? At a time when schools struggle to fund SEN provision, is a growing ‘awareness' of neurodiverse, and other similar conditions, part of the problem or the solution? Are there other reasons for the increasing rates of referral and diagnosis, and for rising numbers of children needing support in class? As the SEN agenda becomes a greater part of the school experience, is teacher autonomy being undermined by the expectation that they follow scripts produced by SENCOs and SEN departments for some pupils and lessons? How are mainstream schools expected to cope with students who are unable to regulate themselves against sudden, intense, and uncontrolled expressions of emotion or aggression? Instead of experts being brought in to teach teachers how to teach pupils with neurodiverse conditions or other special educational needs – wouldn't it be better if experts taught these kids in specialist schools? Or is the problem of inclusion, and the variety and nature of the needs children bring to the classroom, more complicated than that? SPEAKER Dave Clements writer and policy adviser; contributing co-editor, The Future of Community

Claire Fox sits down with Jasleen Chaggar of Big Brother Watch and author Timandra Harkness to talk about the latest attack on our privacy. The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill does not sound like the kind of legislation that will set your pulse racing. But one part of it in particular should be more widely known and the cause of great concern: the new eligibility verification powers for welfare recipients. Essentially, if the Bill passes, the government will be able to demand that banks trawl through the accounts of anyone receiving welfare benefits and use algorithms to flag up any possible fraud or erroneous payments. The government already has the power to see bank statements from those who are suspected of welfare fraud, but these new powers go much further, automating these checks on any account receiving welfare payments AND any linked accounts, too. This is guilty-until-proven-innocent stuff. The civil liberties implications are very serious.

Recording of the introductory remarks at the Academy of Ideas Economy Forum on 20 March 2025. Ever since the great financial crisis of 2008, growth in Britain – both in terms of GDP and living standards – has stagnated. While the Covid pandemic and lockdowns didn't help, the problems of the UK economy (indeed, most Western developed economies) are longstanding. What has gone wrong? Labour has promised a return to growth, yet the new government has already announced big hikes in taxes like employers' National Insurance, while promising billions in investment into decarbonising the electricity grid and imposing regulations on everyone from car manufacturers to house builders. Unsurprisingly, the economy only just avoided a technical recession in the second half of last year and GDP per capita has fallen. For Lord Jon Moynihan, author of the recent two-volume Return to Growth: How to Fix the Economy, the blame lies with high levels of taxation and government spending – particularly spending on growth-stifling projects and programmes. In advance of the latest forecasts from the Office for Budgetary Responsibility and Rachel Reeves's spring statement, what should we do to revive the economy?

Next week, the Football Governance Bill will go to Report Stage in the House of Lords. While it will then go to the House of Commons, the debates in the House of Lords are a chance to amend a piece of legislation that threatens to damage English football in ways that. as yet, are not getting enough attention. The introduction of an Independent Football Regulator (IFR) has become a controversial subject as the realities are becoming clearer, and unintended consequences are dawning on more and more football owners, managers and fans.  So, to help you to see what all the fuss is about, Liverpool fan Alastair Donald brought together our own Geoff Kidder and QPR season-ticket holder Simon McKeon alongside – hot from the Lords front line debating the legislation – Claire Fox, and two of the most vocal speakers on the topic: Baroness (Natalie) Evans of Bowes Park and Lord (Nick) Markham.

Claire Fox talks to Sall Grover and Katherine Deves about their fight in Australia to reassert in law that a woman is an adult human female. Sall Grover is the founder of the female-only app, Giggle for Girls and Katherine Deves is one of her legal team. Both have been visiting the UK from Australia to get support for their appeal of an important test-case decision on the definition of ‘woman', which Sall lost last year. It all began when then 54-year-old biological male Roxanne Tickle from New South Wales, who identifies as a woman, complained to the Australian Human Rights Commission when moderators withdrew his access to Giggle for Girls, because - well, to state the obvious - the app is exclusively for women. However, when the subsequent case (known as Tickle v Giggle) was tried at the Federal Court, Justice Robert Bromwich concluded that, according to Australian law, sex is ‘changeable and not necessarily binary'. The ruling effectively eradicated the category of sex in law. The decision set a dangerous legal precedent with international implications, summed up by Jo Bartosch's headline at the time: ‘Australia has abolished womanhood'.  They talk about the case, the pros and cons of facial recognition (which the app used to determine who was a woman and who wasn't), lawfare, the #MeToo movement and how human rights NGOs have become enmeshed in trans ideology. They also discuss the real-world impact of this trend for the likes of Scottish nurse Sandie Peggie, who was suspended from Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy, Fife, in January 2024 after she objected to Dr ‘Beth' Upton (Theodore Upton) - who identifies as a woman but is a biological male - using the female staff changing facilities.

In the wake of the huge farmers' protest in London on 10 February, Rob Lyons talks to two Cumbrian farmers, John Shaw and Richard Kerr, along with their accountant Paul Benson, about the state of farming in the UK today. Why farmers are so angry about the Labour government's inheritance tax changes The existing difficulties with making a good living from farming, particularly the power of supermarkets Why it is unfair to blame sheep and cattle farmers for climate change The failure of many politicians to understand why a farm is more than just a business Why, despite all the difficulties, they continue to want to farm - if the government will let them.

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION In many areas of life, an explosion of diagnostic labels seem to have expanded far beyond straightforward medical prognosis. Medicine seems to have become tangled up with fashionable identities, and a zeitgeist that stresses vulnerability and victimhood. How do such trends affect medical ethics, let alone reliable medical interventions? One such example is the jokey aphorism ‘we're all neurodiverse now' – from the lawyer of the QAnon Shaman blaming his client's behaviour on his autism to rising diagnoses among students. In workplaces and university campuses, neurodiversity awareness is ubiquitous, with more and more people identifying as ‘on the spectrum'. According to some estimates, as many as 20 per cent of the global population are neurodivergent, spanning everything from severe autism to dyslexia and ADHD. Particularly among women, there has been a sharp increase in ADHD diagnoses in the last year, with record numbers of prescriptions for ADHD medicine in 2024 – the UK is in fact suffering from an ADHD medicine shortage because of increased demand. Elsewhere, there is contention over the explosion of young people who self-identity as gender dysphoric. A readiness to accept social transitioning in what has been described as social contagion amongst teenage girls has led to the conclusion that anyone declaring themselves gender-confused is in need of medical intervention, whether psychotherapeutic, biomedical or surgical. Advocates of transgender medicine argue against medical ‘gatekeeping', demanding access to hormones and surgery as part of a patient's bodily autonomy. However, some mental-health practitioners in the UK and US have testified that they face ideological pressure to put dysphoric patients on a medical pathway. In a 2021 study, 55 detransitioners of a group of 100 stated that they were not given an adequate professional evaluation before receiving clearance for medical transition. What's more, some gender-critical commentators suggest that there is pressure to misdiagnose the confusions of puberty, same-sex attraction and broader mental-health issues as simply gender dysphoria. Central to the debate is the premise that doctors, nurses and therapists are obliged to act in a patient's best interests. But is it always clear what these interests are? Should individuals and their families get the final say? Is the rise in diagnoses due to an actual rise in numbers, expanding definitions, or clinicians and therapists getting better at identifying symptoms? Or are we over-diagnosing the likes of neurodiversity and gender-dysphoria, even pathologising behaviour which in the past may have been described as shy, socially awkward or perhaps a bit quirky? Do medical diagnoses help people understand their difficulties in interacting with the world by giving them a vocabulary and practical accommodations that help manage and alleviate debilitating discomforts? And what are the implications for medical ethics and health policy, when diagnoses have become so closely linked to understanding our identities? SPEAKERS Dave Clements writer and policy advisor; contributing co-editor The Future of Community Dr Jennifer Cunningham retired community paediatrician; board member, Scottish Union for Education (SUE) Dr Az Hakeem consulting psychiatrist; author, Trans and Detrans Sophie Spital speaker; writer; former editor, Triggernometry CHAIR Sally Millard director of finance; co-founder, AoI Parents Forum

On the fifth anniversary of Brexit, listen to this debate recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION In July, on the eve of the General Election, Keir Starmer was asked if he could foresee ‘any circumstances' in which the UK would rejoin the EU's single market ‘in his life'. His response was an emphatic ‘no'. Yet it is clear that Labour wants to ‘reset' the UK's relations with Europe. Reports in July suggested the German government wants to expand Starmer's offer of security cooperation into a ‘mega-deal' that encompasses everything from agricultural rules to the Erasmus student exchange programme. In the period after the UK left the EU, there were considerable difficulties for many businesses in working out how to trade with the EU, despite a deal that largely dispensed with tariffs on goods. Many difficulties remain – particularly with Northern Ireland's status, having a foot in both the EU and the UK markets. Many commentators believe leaving the single market was a mistake that is hitting the UK's economic growth. But others believe that Brexit has had little impact on the economy. The UK's economic problems are longstanding, they argue, and have much more to do with a lack of investment and slow productivity growth than with our trading relations with the EU. The pandemic lockdowns and the energy-price crisis were much more important ‘headwinds' than Brexit. Others believe recent UK administrations have failed to take full advantage of the post-Brexit freedoms to deregulate and pursue other national economic policy opportunities. Moreover, recent UK GDP figures compare favourably with similar countries – Germany, France and Italy – in the EU. Indeed, former European Central Bank boss Mario Draghi has admitted to having ‘nightmares' over Europe's lack of competitiveness and future economic prospects. And there are persistent concerns about being in the single market without being in the EU – that the UK would end up being a ‘rule taker' rather than a ‘rule maker' – while being obliged to accept free movement. How far can Starmer go in forging closer ties with the EU when there is little appetite for reviving the debate about Brexit? Has leaving the single market been an economic disaster as some claim? Or is this yesterday's news, distracting us from the policies we need at home to revive the economy? SPEAKERS Catherine McBride economist; fellow, Centre for Brexit Policy Ali Miraj broadcaster; founder, the Contrarian Prize; infrastructure financier; DJ Dr Thomas Sampson associate professor, LSE; associate in Trade programme, Centre for Economic Performance Gawain Towler former head of press, Reform UK CHAIR Phil Mullan writer, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

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

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION With concerns growing about potential blackouts on cold winter evenings with little wind, listen to this debate on what is happening to UK energy, particularly with the arrival of the new Labour government. The Labour government has set out an ambitious goal to decarbonise the UK's electricity supply by 2030. Labour's plan includes prioritising renewable energy sources like wind and solar power while reducing the nation's dependence on fossil fuels. In line with this, the government has indicated it may halt new licences for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. The government also announced the creation of Great British Energy, a publicly funded body to invest in renewable energy. The energy secretary, Ed Miliband, claims these measures will make the UK's electricity supply greener, more secure and cheaper. However, there are plenty of commentators warning about the feasibility and impact of this strategy. Renewable energy, while crucial to achieving decarbonisation, is notoriously unpredictable. The sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow, leading to concerns about the reliability of the energy supply – unless renewables are backed up in some way, whether by gas-powered plants, rising imports or expensive storage. Far from being cheaper than fossil fuels, critics note, renewable energy continues to need substantial subsidies, which are even more glaring as the price of gas has returned to more normal levels following the energy-price crisis of recent years. Moreover, most of the UK's nuclear power stations, which have long provided a steady and reliable source of low-carbon electricity, are set to close between 2026 and 2030. Replacements for them are still a long way off, with Hinkley Point C years behind target and Sizewell C still tied up in paperwork and court cases. The previous government's plan to produce 24 gigawatts (GW) of power from nuclear sources by 2050 – up from 6 GW now – seems increasingly over-optimistic. Indeed, Labour already seems to be getting cold feet on a proposed nuclear-power plant in north Wales. Will Labour's energy strategy lead to a cheaper, more secure electricity supply, as it claims? Or are we on the brink of an energy crisis, with higher costs and increased vulnerability to blackouts? Are higher bills a price worth paying to tackle climate change or, when global emissions are still climbing, a pointless sacrifice of British jobs and living standards? SPEAKERS Dr Shahrar Ali former deputy leader, Green Party Lord David Frost member of the House of Lords Prof Dr Michaela Kendall CEO, Adelan; UK Hydrogen Champion for Mission Innovation, UK Government James Woudhuysen visiting professor, forecasting and innovation, London South Bank University CHAIR Rob Lyons science and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate  

Recording of an Academy of Ideas debate on Tuesday 26 November 2024 via Zoom. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION With Parliament about to vote on the issue for the first time since 2015, join us for a discussion on the rights and wrongs of legalisation. The House of Commons will vote on Labour MP Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on 29 November. The Bill claims to ‘allow adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life', although there have been complaints publishing the full text of the Bill. While assisted suicide is currently illegal in the UK, the proposed legislation would make an exception on request for patients with six months left to live, with permission from medical professionals. Leadbeater presents assisted suicide as a matter of free choice and dignity, and argues that those without the option will take the situation into their own hands, causing unnecessary distress for those around them. However, there are doubts – including from the health secretary, Wes Streeting – that the bill will guard effectively against situations in which people are coerced to die, either by family members or by a state that is too often incapable of providing adequate palliative care. In the US state of Oregon, whose Death With Dignity Act bears resemblance to the UK's Terminally Ill Adults Bill, a majority of people who choose to die cite fears about becoming a burden for their loved ones. Is the current law a ‘cruel mess,' to quote campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen – or is it necessary to prevent slippery slopes? Could the interests of our welfare state undermine the Bill's protections? And how should we square a patient's freedom of choice with existing frameworks of medical ethics? SPEAKERS James Esses barrister; writer, commentator and advocate, specialising in the impact of ideology on society; co-founder, Thoughtful Therapists Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain MBE chair, Dignity in Dying, the UK's leading campaign for a change in the law on assisted dying; head of the Rabbinic Court of Great Britain; author of several books with the central theme of reforming Judaism, including The Naked Rabbi: His Colourful Life, Campaigns and Controversies and Confessions of a Rabbi. Sonia Sodha chief leader writer at the Observer and a Guardian/Observer columnist. She also makes documentaries on economic and social issues for Radio 4 and appears regularly on the BBC, Sky News and Channel 4 as a political commentator. Professor Kevin Yuill emeritus professor of history, University of Sunderland; author, Assisted Suicide: the liberal, humanist case against legalization. CHAIR Claire Fox director, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Criminal solicitor Luke Gittos offers an insider's view on the Telegraph columnist's case and the worrying rise of censorship. The case of Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson has drawn attention to the scale of policing (quite literally) of speech in the UK today. Pearson's lawyer in the case is Luke Gittos - a partner at Murray Hughman solicitors in London and director of Freedom Law Clinic, as well as a regular Battle of Ideas festival speaker.   In this exclusive video, Luke reflects on the Pearson case before discussing the role of hate crime, how non-crime hate incidents became so ubiquitous, his views on the policing of speech, and how public pressure is vital in pushing back against these iniquitous and censorious measures.

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

On the eve of the US presidential election, listen to our discussion from the Battle of Ideas festival 2024: Within days of being announced as the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris went from the most unpopular vice president in 50 years – a figure whose unpopularity reportedly led to the former president, Barack Obama, scrambling to find an alternative – to a viable presidential candidate. After slumping under Biden, polling now indicates that the Democrats have a real chance of retaining the White House. Kamala has been rebranded – the ‘brat' candidate memifying what had previously been seen as gaffs as the imperfections of millennial women. Kamala is posed as a cross between Obama and Bridget Jones. Kamala, it seems, has been embraced as a figure of fun. Harris has made no unscripted appearances since taking up the candidacy. The Harris strategy seems to be is entirely based on Kamala the person – with the least amount of policy focus in her campaign material of any presidential candidate in history by far. It seems the Democrats hope Kamala can be entertaining enough to distract the American public for a hundred days, avoiding any real scrutiny. At the same time, the Trump campaign seems slightly at odds as to how to counter Kamala the meme. Trump has returned to X/Twitter, but doesn't seem to have his usual talent for lampooning the opposition. Instead, he has been focused on appearing on a range of podcasts. Trump, too, seems light on policy and big ideas. Has the election then turned purely into a competition of ‘vibes'? Or are there still substantive differences between the main candidates? What does the memification of politics mean for democracy? Is Kamalamania a sincere phenomenon, an exercise in how people can change their mind out of convenience, or a complete fiction produced by the Democratic Party machine? Has Trump lost his populist touch? What does the election hold for America? SPEAKERS: Nick Dixon, comedian; presenter, GB News; host, The Current Thing Dr Cheryl Hudson, lecturer in US political history, University of Liverpool; author, Citizenship in Chicago: race, culture and the remaking of American identity Dr Richard Johnson, writer; senior lecturer in politics, Queen Mary, University of London; co-author, Keeping the Red Flag Flying: The Labour Party in Opposition since 1922 Stan Swim, chief program officer, Bill of Rights Institute Chair: Jacob Reynolds, head of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION The Online Safety Bill is causing huge concern for those who believe in free speech. But how can we protect free expression and still deal with the many problems that arise online? The Bill has passed through the House of Commons and will now be debated in the House of Lords. There are hopes that Liz Truss's government may amend the Bill to remove the most egregious problem with it: the attempt to force tech platforms and service providers – such as Twitter, Facebook, Google and many more – to remove content and ban users from expressing ideas or views that the government deems to be ‘legal but harmful'. However, the very idea that legislation was drafted to ban legal speech as it appears in the virtual public square – including references to sex and gender, race, eating disorders or the diverse category of ‘mental health challenges' – says much about the current attitude among politicians and regulators. Concerns remain at the wide scope of proposals in the legislation. It recommends new rules to control online services, including search engines and user-generated content. It will also affect privacy by constraining end-to-end encryption. The law will compel tech firms, who already regulate and remove content they have decided is ‘problematic', to comply through fines and suspension, and requires they provide user tracking data on individuals who are considered to be breaking these laws. If and when the law is passed, it is now proposed that the lead time for compliance is reduced from 22 months to just two. Companies will have just over eight weeks from the royal assent of the law to make sure that they're in full compliance to avoid penalties. Despite these potentially draconian measures, there are undoubtedly new harms created by the online world. Are free-speech advocates being insensitive to what is novel about the internet as a threat? Trolling can go beyond unpleasant abuse to threats of violence. Children are far more likely to suffer at the hands of malicious bullying online than in the playground. Worse, such abuse can go viral. What do we do about child-safety concerns, viral sexting, online anonymous grooming, bad faith con-merchants and conspiracy-mongers passing off misinformation as fact? What of the potential psychological damage, particularly for those considered more socially and psychologically ‘at-risk'? Is it good enough to argue that these ‘crimes' are already protected by existing laws? In any event, safety issues and legislation may not even be the biggest free-speech issues online. In fact, perhaps it is Big Tech companies that have the real power. For example, Spotify has removed podcasts it deems politically unacceptable while PayPal has removed support for organisations critical of Covid policies and gender ideology. Does the online world, warts and all, present free-speech supporters with insurmountable problems? Or is free speech a fundamental societal value that must be fought for, whatever the consequences or regardless of the challenges of any new technology? SPEAKERS Lord Charles Colville Crossbench peer, House of Lords; former member, Communications and Digital Select Committee; freelance TV producer Paddy Hannam researcher, House of Commons; writer and commentator Molly Kingsley co-founder, UsForThem; co-author, The Children's Inquiry Graham Smith tech and internet lawyer; of counsel, Bird & Bird LLP; author, Internet Law and Regulation; blogger, Cyberleagle Toby Young general secretary, Free Speech Union; author, How to Lose Friends & Alienate People; associate editor, Spectator CHAIR Dr Jan Macvarish education and events director, Free Speech Union; author, Neuroparenting: the expert invasion of family life

Media scrutiny, political scandals and electoral upsets - the Academy of Ideas team get together on the eve of the General Election for one last pre-vote discussion.

The manifestos are in! And, perhaps unsurprisingly, the two main parties have caused the least stir. Reform UK's ‘contract' has been denounced by commentators and think tanks alike as ‘uncosted', while the SDP's manifesto was praised for standing out as an unusually comprehensive list of ideas in a sea of general obfuscation. Meanwhile, both Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer have been battling it out for who had the most hard-done-by childhood, with rows about Sky TV and toolmakers providing some comedic relief for the electorate in what has otherwise been a rather depressing three weeks of campaigning. From Tory implosions to Labour infighting, Emmanuel Macron's shock election announcement to the rumblings of a Reform challenge, we cover it all in this latest podcast. Listen, subscribe to our Substack and don't forget to get your tickets for this year's Battle of Ideas festival…

The Academy of Ideas team discuss the latest in the General Election campaign - plus a view from Europe. Just when you think things couldn't get any worse for the Conservative Party, its leader - Rishi Sunak - managed to mess up on an international scale. The prime minister's decision to leave D-Day commemorations early - allegedly returning home for a TV interview - has upset many people, including his own colleagues. While Sunak immediately apologised for what he described as a scheduling issue, it doesn't seem to have quelled disquiet within the party - or consternation among voters. Meanwhile, both Labour and the Tories have been scrambling to select seats. The deselection of Labour's Faiza Shaheen and the parachuting in of the Tories' Richard Holden both caused problems among local party supporters. And who could forget Nigel Farage who, like a twist in an Agatha Christie novel, announced that he will stand in Clacton to the sound of Conservative sighs nationwide. But does this mean that Reform poses a serious threat to the Tories? And, while much of the European media is reporting a rightward shift in this week's European elections, will that prophecy come true? Or will the trend of fickle voters prove yet again that trying to predict elections is a mug's game? Listen to all of this and more on our latest episode in our General Election Podcast of Ideas specials, and subscribe to our Substack: clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

Listen to the first of our regular discussions with the Academy of Ideas team on the highs and lows of election campaigning. Subscribe to our Substack to keep up to date with our latest podcasts, events and comment. Last week, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak took the nation - and many of his own MPs - by surprise by calling the next General Election. On Thursday 4 July, UK citizens will join the billions around the world going to the polls this year to pick their next political leaders. While Sunak might have been able to blame his wet start on the weather, the early stages of the campaign haven't been bright and breezy. Faced with anger and confusion from his fellow party members - including threats of a no-confidence vote - Sunak's charm offensive across the country is marred by the fact that most people believe this election has already been won. And yet, the bookies' favourites - the Labour Party - have their own problems. From a lacklustre speech to concerns about splitting voters over issues like women-only spaces or support for a ceasefire in Gaza, Labour leader Keir Starmer hasn't yet made hay while the sun refuses to shine on his rivals. The announcement of the General Election also took the outliers in the competition by surprise. Reform UK's tough talk about taking on the Tories was somewhat marred by Nigel Farage finally admitting that he wouldn't stand for election. And yet, Mr Brexit remains the most discussed man of this election campaign so far, thanks to his comments both about the higher status of the US and questioning whether young people - and Muslims - ‘loathed' British culture beyond persuasion. But it's still early days for challengers, with new political hopefuls standing as independents and as members of parties like the SDP, Greens and the Lib Dems hoping to break the monopoly of the two big parties. To discuss all of this - the big announcements of the first few days of campaigning, from National Service to votes for 16-year-olds - the Academy of Ideas team got together in the first of our regular Podcast of Ideas specials. 

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION Climate change has become the great overarching mission of our times for politicians and business leaders. With the UN secretary general declaring that we are now in an era of ‘global boiling', every leading politician talks about reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to ‘net zero' – with the few emissions the economy does produce balanced by some method to soak them up, from planting trees to carbon capture and storage. As a result, a timetable has been created to eliminate emissions, step by step, between now and 2050. Proponents of Net Zero argue that the process could be a creative one, leading to the development of new technologies and millions of well-paid ‘green' jobs. Moreover, they point to opinion polls which suggest that the idea is popular with the public. But the price to be paid for Net Zero is becoming ever clearer and is no longer a distant prospect. As soon as 2026, new oil-powered boilers will be banned and all new housing must have heat pumps installed. Gas boilers, petrol and diesel cars and cheap flights are all in the firing line. But the impact of Net Zero goes way beyond these measures, with major impacts on jobs and livelihoods. For example, farmers in the Netherlands and Ireland have been angered by EU emissions targets that mean the number of animals that can be reared must be drastically reduced. Energy for industry is becoming more expensive, too, with many high energy users already looking at much lower costs in the US, where the exploitation of shale gas through fracking has kept prices low. Opinion polls suggest that while Net Zero is popular in the abstract, the policies designed to make it happen are much less so. Moreover, with unanimity among the major parties in the UK that Net Zero is an inviolable policy, there is no electoral route to push back against such policies, except to vote for smaller parties with little hope of winning seats in the near future. Indeed, for some environmentalists, there can be no choice in the matter: if necessary, democracy must be sacrificed to the need to cut emissions. That said, the Uxbridge by-election – which became something of a referendum on Sadiq Khan's ULEZ policy – seems to have caused consternation among the major parties. Even though Net Zero itself wasn't in question, a major environmental initiative seemed to be resoundingly rejected at the ballot box. Is Net Zero an unpleasant necessity or, more positively, the start of a new industrial revolution? Or is it a policy that is being pursued without the technical means of achieving it in an affordable fashion? Will the backlash against Net Zero increase – and will it matter if governments are determined to pursue it, whether we like it or not? SPEAKERS Lord David Frost member of the House of Lords Rob Lyons science and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum Scarlett Maguire director, J.L. Partners; former producer in media John McTernan political strategist, BCW; former director of political operations, Blair government; writer, Financial Times and UnHerd CHAIR Phil Mullan writer, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

Battle of Ideas festival 2023, Sunday 29 October, Church House, London ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION In August, India made world news by being the first nation to land near the Moon's South Pole. Prime Minister Narendra Modi described it as a historic moment for humanity and ‘the dawn of the new India'. Meanwhile, India's digital transformation of its financial system is reported by payments systems company ACI Worldwide to be operating on a larger scale than even in the US and China. Earlier this year, UN population estimates suggested India has overtaken China as the world's most populous country, with over 1.4 billion people. As America's rivalry with China heats up, the western world has warmed to India. A month before the Moon landing, President Joe Biden had rolled out the red carpet for Modi's state visit to America. The US wants a more meaningful, closer and stronger relationship with India. The German government is discussing a possible submarine deal. French President Emmanuel Macron invited Modi to celebrate Bastille Day, calling India a strategic partner and friend. But there have also been tensions over India's neutral stance over the war in Ukraine. Are these signs of India's arrival on the international top table? Can India rise to this challenge? India has a huge population, but the vast majority are still poor – the country is ranked 139th in the world for nominal GDP per capita – and faces massive inequalities. While India receives much adulation from the Western elites, its undermining of the freedom of the press and its clampdown on the judiciary have been heavily criticised. The Economist Intelligence Unit‘s Democracy Index showed India falling from 27th position in 2014 to 46th in 2022. But the White House is calling India a ‘vibrant democracy'. Which is it: a faltering democracy or a vibrant one? India is also facing much internal disquiet within its population. Most recently, ethnic tensions have flared up between the majority Hindus and the Muslim minority just 20 miles outside of New Delhi. Ethnic strife between Hindus and Christians also continues especially in the North-east state of Manipur. With this backdrop of domestic instability, can Modi and his BJP party retain control in the 2024 elections? What will India's future role be on the world stage – both politically and economically? SPEAKERS Lord Meghnad Desai crossbench peer; chair, Gandhi Statue Memorial Trust; emeritus professor of Economics, LSE Dr Zareer Masani historian, author, journalist, broadcaster Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbert director, Don't Divide Us; author, What Should Schools Teach? Disciplines, subjects and the pursuit of truth CHAIR Para Mullan former operations director, EY-Seren; fellow, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development

Recording of the Academy of Ideas Education Forum discussion on 25 April 2024 in central London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION A High Court judgement hangs over Michaela Community School for banning ritual prayer. A Wakefield school suspended pupils for damaging a copy of the Quran. Two recent studies claim that faith schools select against poor and SEN children. Two thirds of the liberal Alliance Party in Northern Ireland want Catholic schools banned. Three years after showing pupils images of the Prophet Muhammad, a teacher in the north of England remains in hiding. It seems undeniable that schools are a new crucible for religious and social conflict. How do we navigate between tolerance and intolerance in these disputations? How does the right of faith communities to exercise their beliefs reconcile with established wider freedoms? Should the right to pray be available to all –  even in non-religious schools? Should we defend a parent's right to send their child to a faith school? Or is that tantamount to a defence of privilege? Have we lost sight of whether faith-based liberties impinge on secular freedoms or vice versa? Who are the liberals and illiberals here? ‘What kind of school environment could so easily be destroyed by one group of students publicly expressing their religion for a mere few minutes a day?', asks author and teacher Nadeine Asbali. She describes the ban on Muslims praying in school as ‘a dystopian, sinister vision of multiculturalism'. Yet commentator Tim Black thinks, ‘we are witnessing not quiet displays of faith, but loud all-too-visible assertions of Muslim identitarianism … with little to do with Islam'. Has tolerance become too abstract and impoverished to deal with concrete forms of cultural and religious difference?  What do you think: are our schools fighting an age-old battle between sacred and secular visions of society, or are they on the front line of a new culture war?  SPEAKERS Khadija Khan journalist and commentator Adam Eljadi Media Studies teacher, NEU workplace representative and British Muslim. He speaks here in a personal capacity. Gareth Sturdy former teacher and religious affairs journalist CHAIR Kevin Rooney teacher and Education Forum convenor

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 Collective Life Alex Salmond leader, ALBA Party; former leader, Scottish National Party; author, The Dream Shall Never Die Christopher Snowdon head of lifestyle economics, Institute of Economic Affairs; editor, Nanny State Index; author, Selfishness, Greed and Capitalism Max Wind-Cowie co-author, A Place for Pride; former head, Progressive Conservatism Project, Demos; commentator 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 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.

In this episode of the Podcast of Ideas, Jacob Reynolds talks to one of the students who was at the centre of the controversy surrounding Claire Fox's cancellation at Royal Holloway University, Omar Loubak. Omar was an organiser at the Debating Society, and has a unique insight into how these kinds of cancellations proceed on campus. Listen for an episode of Podcast of Ideas where he and Jacob discuss the case. Read More:  https://clairefox.substack.com/p/cancel-culture-comes-for-claire-fox#details https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/22/chilling-truth-cancellation/ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/claire-fox-trans-joke-ricky-gervais-royal-holloway-university-2023-knj5xwzh6  

On 13 March 2023, the Arts & Society Forum invited Miriam Elia and Manick Govinda to discuss how Miriam develops her ideas as an artist and how she has managed to make a success of her art, in a competitive and sometimes hostile world. They covered broader issues, including what it means to challenge contemporary orthodoxies and ‘groupthink', and how artists can survive the culture wars. Miriam is a conceptual artist, whose diverse work includes short films, animations, illustrated books, prints, drawings and surreal radio writing. She is best known for her art books – including We Go To The Gallery, in which the classic Peter and Jane Ladybird book characters grapple with conceptual art, and We Do Lockdown, where children are forcibly adapted to the ‘new normal', where a joyless existence is heroically embraced to save humanity. Manick Govinda is co-curator of Culture Tensions debates at Ujazdowski Castle Centre for Contemporary Art in Warsaw, Poland. In a long and successful career as an arts consultant, mentor and curator, he has been an outspoken defender of freedom of expression and critic in the culture war. Manick is curating Miriam's solo exhibition at Ujazdowski Castle, launching on 24 March.

BBC Match of the Day presenter Gary Lineker sparked an enormous row last week after a tweet comparing the government's language around illegal immigration to 1930s Germany. After he was taken off air, many of his colleagues downed tools in support. While Lineker may have made up with BBC management for now, the affair has thrown up lots of questions. Should we take Lineker's comparison seriously? What does the affair say about the current state of free speech in the UK? Are his defenders being opportunistic in defending his right to express his opinions? Is calling for someone you disagree to be ‘cancelled' ever a legitimate tactic? Is impartiality something worth striving for – and is it even possible? And what have we learned about the way political debate is conducted today? Alastair Donald, Claire Fox, Ella Whelan and Rob Lyons kick some ideas around.

With Sue Gray and Simon Case in the news amid long-running complaints about the effectiveness and impartiality of the government machine, this Battle of Ideas festival 2022 debate seems very topical. SPEAKERS Nick Busvine OBE consultant; founding partner, Herminius Holdings Ltd; advisory board member, Briefings for Britain; Town Councillor, Sevenoaks; former diplomat, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Caroline Ffiske co-founder and spokesperson, Conservatives for Women Eric Kaufmann professor of politics, Birkbeck College, University of London; Advisory Council member, Free Speech Union; author, The Political Culture of Young Britain and The Politics of the Culture Wars in Contemporary Britain Max Wind-Cowie co-author, A Place for Pride; former head, Progressive Conservatism Project, Demos; commentator

Recording of the Academy of Ideas Education Forum discussion at Accent Study Centre, London on 28 February 2023 INTRODUCTION Following the recent announcement of industrial action by teachers, a Spectator column asked ‘Should teachers really go on strike?'. It argued that teachers are not nearly as enthusiastic about strike action as union leaders claim. While 53% of NEU members in England voted in the ballot, less than 50% of NASUWT members did, meaning the NASUWT ballot failed to meet the legal threshold to strike. So how widespread is support for the strikes among educators and public, and does public support matter? Some who have traditionally supported the right to strike argue that now is not the time, and that closing schools so soon after the Covid lockdowns, which disrupted education for months and continue to have knock-on effects, is irresponsible. How do we balance the idea of vocation and public service with the right of teachers to a decent wage and conditions? Would striking during GCSE and A-Level exams, for example, be unacceptable disruption or is causing disruption necessary if workers want to stand up for their rights? Is a 12% pay claim “fantastical” as government claim or, in a context of more than a decade of longer hours, high inflation and real terms pay cuts, utterly deserved and necessary? With the government's anti-strike bill moving closer to law, are restrictions on the right of teachers to withdraw their labour justified by the circumstances or do they represent an opportunistic attack on civil liberties? Join us for this roundtable discussion as we bring together teachers for and against the strike and those undecided, as we explore what it means to be a teacher today. SPEAKERS Conor McCrory secondary school science teacher, union rep and examiner Gareth Sturdy former teacher and union organiser, including a stint as branch president, now writing on the intersection of schools and politics Gregor Claude art teacher and former lecturer in cultural theory CHAIR Kevin Rooney teacher and convenor of Academy of Ideas Education Forum

Alastair Donald and Rob Lyons from the Academy of Ideas are joined by barrister Steven Barrett, Baroness Hoey and Lord Moylan to unpick the Windsor Framework.

Recording of the Academy of Ideas Economy Forum discussion on Tuesday 21 February 2023. Please note that this event was recorded via Zoom and there are occasional, short-lived issues with the audio. INTRODUCTION The Covid pandemic created huge disruption to the UK labour market. Millions of people were forced to stop working, with most receiving furlough payments. Millions more had to work from home. With lockdowns and pandemic-related business closures in the past, what has been the lasting impact of this disruption? Statistics for employment and earnings published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) for September to November 2022 show that unemployment remains low (3.7 per cent) while the proportion of people aged 16 to 64 in employment continues to hover around 75 per cent. But the number of people defined as ‘economically inactive' – not working or seeking work – in this age group grew markedly over the course of the Covid pandemic and in its aftermath. Meanwhile, job vacancies for October to December 2022 remained well over one million, although the vacancy rate has started to decline. As the Spectator noted in November 2022, ‘more than 20 per cent of working-age Brits are economically inactive, meaning they are neither in work nor looking for it. More than five million are claiming out-of-work benefits.' Yet this exists alongside widespread staff shortages. Meanwhile, unprecedented numbers of doctors, nurses and teachers are threatening to leave their jobs due to burnout. Although the unions lay the blame for this on low pay and poor working conditions, it co-exists with an oft-remarked decline in the quality of public service. Is this a temporary phenomenon that will subside as the impact of the pandemic fades or an acceleration of existing trends? Have many people used the lockdowns as a moment to reflect about their attitude to work – and decided that if they can afford not to work, they won't? What impact will rising living costs have on these trends? What is the impact on the UK economy of having so many working-age people not working? SPEAKER Linda Murdoch is a researcher on well-being and the work ethic. She is also former director of careers at the University of Glasgow.

One year on from the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Professor Frank Furedi talks to Rob Lyons about where things stand today, the causes of the conflict and the potential for peace.

This is a recording of a public discussion hosted by the Academy of Ideas Arts & Society Forum on 24 January 2023. Arts institutions shape themselves and their policies around promoting social good, and have accepted a political agenda around climate change and identity politics. They want to be seen to be on the ‘right side' of progress, but have they become overly instrumentalist and constraining in their approach? What harm are they doing to the development of the arts and artists? Now it appears that the arts are responding not just to the equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) agenda, but also to the government's levelling up policy. Under pressure to take funding outside London, controversial recent Arts Council plans threaten English National Opera with closure unless it relocates to the north. Yet it seems that progressive arts polices have largely failed. Recent research shows that while a few women and BAME people are now more likely to achieve higher status professional roles than in the past, there are fewer people from working class backgrounds involved in the arts than in the 1970s. How can we argue for a renewed discussion about artistic merit? What remains of the idea of art as a source and expression of beauty? Contemporary arts now often seem to be judged primarily on the basis of who they represent and their political message, on what ‘good' they might do in society. In theatre, music and visual arts, artists and artistic projects run the risk of crossing a line if they are not politically and socially ‘on message'. And is instrumentalism (political and social) now embedded in the way most people, perhaps particularly younger generations, think about the arts? What kind of arts institutions do we need? SPEAKERS Alexander Adams artist, critic and author. His publications include Abolish the Arts Council (co-authored with David Lee) and Culture War (Alexander's latest publications will be avilable to buy at the event) Dr Mo Lovatt national coordinator of Debating Matters; programme coordinator, Academy of Ideas Jack Hues singer, Wang Chung; composer; musician; songwriter