Podcast appearances and mentions of David Willetts

Living standards have stalled — you're worse off than 20 years ago. How do we fix it? David Willetts is a Conservative Member of the House of Lords and President of the Resolution Foundation, where he looks at intergenerational fairness, the theme of his book The Pinch. One of the foundation's more controversial ideas? Capping ISAs at £100k. 

To discuss the government's U-turn on taking winter fuel allowance from all but the poorest pensioners, Caroline is joined by the Conservative peer, David Willetts - president of the Resolution Foundation, which focuses on people on lower incomes; and Claire Ainsley, former policy director to Sir Keir Starmer, now at the Progressive Policy Institute.Also this week, the UK and the EU struck a trade deal. Caroline speaks to the EU Ambassador to the UK, Pedro Serrano about it. Reform UK's newest MP Sarah Pochin, who served as a magistrate for twenty years and the Labour MP and barrister Catherine Atkinson discuss plans by the former Conservative Justice Secretary David Gauke for the biggest shake-up of sentencing in England and Wales for more than 30 years. And, this week marks the first anniversary of a public inquiry report into the infected blood scandal. The former Health Secretary, now Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham has campaigned on behalf of victims and came into the studio with Lee Moorey, who was given contaminated blood.

Doubts about the financial returns from gaining a degree and concerns about too many people now going to university persist in the debate about the future of UK higher education. But in a new paper published by the Policy Institute at King's College London, Resolution Foundation President and former universities minister David Willetts challenges this pessimistic outlook.  The Resolution Foundation and the King's Policy Institute are hosting an in-person and interactive event to discuss the controversial question of the returns from university for graduates, firms and the wider economy, and how we can better assess the long-lasting benefits of higher education. Following a presentation from Lord Willetts, we will hear from leading experts including the Rt Hon Baroness Jacqui Smith, the minister responsible for universities in the Department for Education. Chaired by Professor Bobby Duffy. 

Joining Iain Dale on Cross Question this evening are leader of the House of Commons and Labour MP Lucy Powell, Conservative peer and former minister Lord Willetts, the Spectator's Cindy Yu and the Guardian's John Crace - whose new book 'Taking the Lead: A Dog at Number 10' is out this week.

Joining Iain Dale for Cross Question are the Conservative peer and former Universities Minister Lord David Willetts, the Sunday Telegraph's political editor Camilla Turner, the SDLP MP Claire Hanna and the The Times writer Oliver Kamm.

Will the UK general election offer a ray of hope for the beleaguered university sector? On this episode of the Times Higher Education podcast, two policy experts give their take on opportunities that 4 July may bring and how a new UK parliament might tackle hot topics such as international students and research funding. Our questions include what is on higher education's wish list for the new parliament, and how might university leaders demonstrate the value of their institutions to policymakers? Over two interviews, we also tackle “blue sky” research funding, the future of skills training, how immigration policy might shape international student flows, and whether higher education will be a priority regardless of who wins the race to Whitehall. Nick Hillman is director of the Higher Education Policy Institute and worked as chief of staff for David Willetts when he was minister for universities and science from 2007 to 2013. Diana Beech is CEO of London Higher. Her policy experience includes being a policy adviser to three ministers of state for universities, science, research and innovation.

Can we still expect a meaningful job, stable income, a chance of owning property? How have expectations changed and what is the place of protest? Matthew Sweet's guests this week are: David Willetts is a former Universities Minister and now a life peer. The Rt Hon Lord Willetts FRS is also current President of the Resolution Foundation, Chair of the UK Space Agency and a visiting Professor at King's College London. His books include The Pinch: How the Baby Boomers Took Their Children's Future – And Why They Should Give It Back Dr Tiffany Watt Smith is Director for the Centre for the History of Emotions at Queen Mary, London. Her books include Schadenfreude: The Joy of Another's Misfortune, and The Book of Human Emotions. She was chosen as a BBC/AHRC New Generation Thinker in 2014 and you can hear her in Free Thinking discussions about happiness, schadenfreude and she presented a short feature about the science of baby laughs. Professor Will Davies is a sociologist and political economist teaching at Goldsmiths University of London. His books include Nervous States: How feeling took over the world, The Happiness Industry: How the government and big business sold us wellbeing and This is Not Normal: The collapse of liberal Britain. Elizabeth Oldfield's latest book is called Fully Alive: Tending to the Soul in Turbulent Times. She hosts The Sacred podcast and is a former director of Theos, a religion and society think tank.Plus a report from an event this week in which the Royal Institute of Philosophy was paying tribute to its outgoing president, the political philosopher and ethicist Onora O'Neill, and welcoming her successor, the political philosopher Jonathan Wolff. We hear from Angie Hobbs, Paul, Tom Shakespeare, Grace Lockrobin, Onora O'Neill and Jo Wolff.Producer: Luke Mulhall

For the final episode of the year, host Jack Blanchard and a series of expert guests look ahead to 2024 and what is certain to be an extraordinary year of world politics.The Spectator's Katy Balls and the Times' Patrick Maguire survey the election prospects of Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer respectively, while More in Common's Luke Tryl — a polling and focus group expert — assesses Britain's current electoral landscape.The Resolution Foundation's David Willetts looks ahead to the Budget in March and considers how the state of the economy will affect the U.K. general election, whenever it is held.Beyond Britain, POLITICO's Meredith McGraw, Shawn Pogatchnik and Stuart Lau discuss the impact that elections in the U.S., Ireland and Taiwan could have on the Western world.And former U.K. Foreign Office chief Peter Ricketts considers how the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East are likely to play out in 2024. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Freedom of speech is one of the fundamental tenets of a liberal democracy, and yet threats to freedom of speech today don't so much come from authoritarians abroad as they do from within. The idea of ‘no-platforming' those you disagree with, or ‘cancelling' them, has taken root in all forms of public debate, and increasingly so in science. The word ‘science' can today often be a shorthand for ‘truth', which creates an orthodoxy where diversity of opinion is not welcomed. Science is meant to be ongoing process of finding truth, where what each generation takes as given may well be overturned as we discover more. On this podcast, we will be looking into the question of free speech within science, and asking whether we have lost sight of what science means. Is it simply the case that in an age where misinformation travels at lightning speed, there needs to be greater restrictions on freedom of speech in science? Cindy Yu, assistant editor at The Spectator, is joined by Professor Jay Bhattacharya, an expert in health policy at Stanford University, David Willetts, a former science minister who sits on the board of a number of scientific bodies, and Dr Gizelle Baker, who trained in biometry and epidemiology and is the vice president of global scientific engagement at tobacco company Philip Morris International. Philip Morris International are kindly sponsoring this podcast.

Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, Philip Dunne and former Business Secretary, Vince Cable, on the problems in the water industry and what 'temporary nationalization' might mean for debt-laden utility Thames Water. Plus, David Willetts, president of the Resolution Foundation, on how Britain could make better government policy. Hosted by Caroline Hepker, Lizzy Burden and Yuan Potts. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ben Kentish sits in and is joined on Cross Question by Labour peer Baroness Chakrabarti, LGBT campaigner and evangelical Christian Jayne Ozanne, Conservative peer Lord Willetts and tech entrepreneur and former David Cameron adviser Daniel Korski, who wants to be the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London.

Last month, we were told, the 8 billionth person was added to Earth's human population. But despite many acknowledging that some of the biggest threats facing us and the planet, like climate change - stem from our impact on world, and the more of us there are, the worse those threats will be, the topic of population is mysteriously absent from the dialogue at major international fora, like the recent COP27 meeting in Egypt. Surely "living sustainably" must include, as David Attenborough puts it, not over-running the planet and destroying it in the process?So how many people can, or should the... Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

Session 3 at The Economy 2030 Inquiry conference. How should the UK confront its legacy of low growth and high inequality? Will the UK have the bandwidth to renew its economic strategy given the major change coming in the 2020s: Brexit, net zero and the legacy of Covid? And what could the Conservatives' economic strategy for Britain in the 2020s look like? Join Conservative Former Minister for Universities and Science Lord David Willetts to discuss these questions and more with Economics Editor of the Financial Times, Chris Giles. Read the full report: https://economy2030.resolutionfoundation.org/reports/stagnation-nation/  Watch back the event: https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/events/stagnation-nation/ 

Paul Willetts discusses with Ivan six things which he thinks should be better known. Paul Willetts is the author of five much-praised nonfiction books: Fear and Loathing in Fitzrovia; North Soho 999; Members Only; Rendezvous at the Russian Tea Rooms; and King Con. The third of these was turned into a big-budget British movie. Entitled The Look of Love (2013), it starred Steve Coogan, who described Members Only as “a thoroughly entertaining story, told by a writer with a vivid and amusing turn of phrase.” Paul has also written occasional journalism for The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Spectator, The Times Literary Supplement, BBC History Magazine, History Today, and contributed to The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Further information about Paul and his work can be found by visiting https://www.paulwilletts.com. Julian Maclaren-Ross https://www.julianmaclaren-ross.com The House on the Hill Toy Museum at Stansted Mountfichet http://www.stanstedtoymuseum.com The paintings of David Willetts https://www.paulwilletts.com/visual-arts-background Bakelite https://rebornbakelite.co.uk Six Degrees of Separation https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/six-degrees-separation-review/ What Makes Sammy Run? https://inverarity.livejournal.com/265552.html This podcast is powered by ZenCast.fm

Join me as I host David Willetts, my former colleague in government as Universities Minister, now in the Lords and Chairman of the Resolution Foundation; Shakira Martin, twice elected President of the National Union of Students and a student who graduated the hard way: a black single mum working her way through FE college to graduation, now in charge of Student Experience at a college in South East London; and Deborah Streatfield who has done pioneering work with teenagers from disadvantaged backgrounds in careers development. In this episode, we discuss the short and long term impact on Covid on the student experience.  To find out more about Vince, go to www.vincecable.org Follow him on Twitter: @vincecable Produced by Podcast.co

Auckland man David Willetts has traveled overseas for potentially life extending medical care, but is in limbo about when, or, if he'll be able to secure an MIQ place, this is despite having a return ticket. He has incurable myeloma and will receive medical treatment in Singapore for a secondary blood cancer. He tells Kathryn Ryan that a stem cell transplant from a relative is his last remaining option, after being declined the treatment here. His donor sister has traveled with him to Singapore, and while both have return airline tickets, neither has been able to secure an MIQ spot. He's concerned there seems to be a hole in the eligibility criteria - and that although it is accepted by authorities that some people will need to travel overseas for medical treatment that they can't get in New Zealand, there's no provision for them to be automatically eligible for an emergency allocation in MIQ when they return.

In this episode we discuss Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities by Eric Kaufmann. Next time we will discuss True Names by Vernor Vinge. Some highlights from Whiteshift: Many people desire roots, value tradition and wish to maintain continuity with ancestors who have occupied a historic territory. This means we're more likely to experience what I term Whiteshift, a process by which white majorities absorb an admixture of different peoples through intermarriage, but remain oriented around existing myths of descent, symbols and traditions No one who has honestly analysed survey data on individuals – the gold standard for public opinion research – can deny that white majority concern over immigration is the main cause of the rise of the populist right in the West. This is primarily explained by concern over identity, not economic threat. We are entering a period of cultural instability in the West attendant on our passage between two relatively stable equilibria. The first is based on white ethnic homogeneity, the second on what the prescient centrist writer Michael Lind calls ‘beige' ethnicity, i.e. a racially mixed majority group. In the middle lies a turbulent multicultural interregnum. We in the West are becoming less like homogeneous Iceland and more like homogeneous mixed-race Turkmenistan. But to get there we'll be passing through a phase where we'll move closer to multicultural Guyana or Mauritius. The challenge is to enable conservative whites to see a future for themselves in Whiteshift – the mixture of many non-whites into the white group through voluntary assimilation. Anyone who wants to explain what's happening in the West needs to answer two simple questions. First, why are right-wing populists doing better than left-wing ones? Second, why did the migration crisis boost populist-right numbers sharply while the economic crisis had no overall effect? If we stick to data, the answer is crystal clear. Demography and culture, not economic and political developments, hold the key to understanding the populist moment. Because Western nations were generally formed by a dominant white ethnic group, whose myths and symbols – such as the proper name ‘Norway' – became the nation's, the two concepts overlap in the minds of many. White majorities possess an ‘ethnic' module, an extra string to their national identity which minorities lack. Ethnic majorities thereby express their ethnic identity as nationalism. I contend that today's white majorities are likely to successfully absorb minority populations while their core myths and boundary symbols endure. This will involve a change in the physical appearance of the median Westerner, hence Whiteshift, though linguistic and religious markers are less likely to be affected. Getting from where we are now, where most Westerners share the racial and religious features of their ethnic archetype, to the situation in a century or two, when most will be what we now term ‘mixed-race', is vital to understanding our present condition. In our more peaceful, post-ideological, demographically turbulent world, migration-led ethnic change is altering the basis of politics from class to ethnicity. On one side is a conservative coalition of whites who are attached to their heritage joined by minorities who value the white tradition; on the other side a progressive alliance of minorities who identify with their ethnic identity combined with whites who are agnostic or hostile towards theirs. Among whites, ethno-demographic change polarizes people between ‘tribal' ethnics who value their particularity and ‘religious' post-ethnics who prioritize universalist creeds such as John McWhorter's ‘religion of anti-racism'. Whites can fight ethnic change by voting for right-wing populists or committing terrorist acts. They may repress anxieties in the name of ‘politically correct' anti-racism, but cracks in this moral edifice are appearing. Many opt to flee by avoiding diverse neighbourhoods, schools and social networks. And other whites may choose to join the newcomers, first in friendship, subsequently in marriage. Intermarriage promises to erode the rising diversity which underlies our current malaise. Religion evolved to permit cooperation in larger units.31 Our predisposition towards religion, morality and reputation – all of which can transcend the tribe – reflects our adaptation to larger social units. Be that as it may, humans have lived in large groups only in the very recent past, so it is reasonable to assume tribalism is a more powerful aspect of our evolutionary psychology than our willingness to abide by a moral code. Today what we increasingly see in the West is a battle between the ‘tribal' populist right and the ‘religious' anti-racist left. Much of this book is concerned with the clash between a rising white tribalism and an ideology I term ‘left-modernism'. A sociologist member of the ‘New York Intellectuals' group of writers and literary critics, Daniel Bell, used the term modernism to describe the spirit of anti-traditionalism which emerged in Western high culture between 1880 and 1930. With the murderous excesses of communism and fascism, many Western intellectuals embraced a fusion of modernist anti-traditionalism and cultural egalitarianism, distinguishing the new ideology from both socialism and traditional liberalism. Cosmopolitanism was its guiding ethos. Unlike socialism or fascism, this left-wing modernism meshed nicely with capitalism and globalization. The left-modernist sensibility spread from a small elite to a much wider section of middle-class society in the 1960s with the rise of television and growth of universities, taking over as the dominant sensibility of the high culture. As it gained ground, it turned moralistic and imperialistic, seeking not merely to persuade but to institutionalize itself in law and policy, altering the basis of liberalism from tolerating to mandating diversity. This is a subtle but critical shift. Meanwhile the economic egalitarianism of socialism gave way to a trinity of sacred values around race, gender and sexual orientation. Immigration restriction became a plank of the Progressive movement which advocated improved working conditions, women's suffrage and social reform. This combination of left-wing economics and ethno-nationalism confounds modern notions of left and right but Progressive vs. free market liberal was how the world was divided in the late nineteenth century. A prominent plank in the Progressive platform was temperance, realized in the Volstead Act of 1920 prohibiting the sale of alcohol. The Prohibition vote pitted immigrant-origin Catholics and upper-class urban WASPs such as the anti-Prohibition leader and New York socialite Pauline Morton Sabin on the ‘wet' side against ‘dry' working-class, rural and religious Protestants. For Joseph Gusfield, Prohibition was principally a symbolic crusade targeted at urban Catholic immigrants who congregated in saloons and their ‘smart set' upper-class allies. This was a Protestant assertion of identity in an increasingly urban nation in which Catholics and Jews formed around a fifth of the population. Those of WASP background had declined to half the total from two thirds in the 1820s. What's interesting is that Anglo representatives did not make their case in ethno-communal terms, nor did they invoke the country's historic ethnic composition. Rather they couched their ethnic motives as state interests. Instead of coming clean about their lament over cultural loss, they felt obliged to fabricate economic and security rationales for restriction. Much the same is true today in the penchant for talking about immigrants putting pressure on services, taking jobs, increasing crime, undermining the welfare state or increasing the risk of terrorism. In my view it would be far healthier to permit the airing of ethno-cultural concerns rather than suppressing these, which leads to often spurious claims about immigrants. Likewise, immigrants' normal desires to defend their interests are decried as ‘identity politics'. [Randolph] Bourne, on the other hand, infused Kallen's structure with WASP self-loathing. As a rebel against his own group, Bourne combined the Liberal Progressives' desire to transcend ‘New Englandism' and Protestantism with Kallen's call for minority groups to maintain their ethnic boundaries. The end product was what I term asymmetrical multiculturalism, whereby minorities identify with their groups while Anglo-Protestants morph into cosmopolites. Thus Bourne at once congratulates the Jew ‘who sticks proudly to the faith of his fathers and boasts of that venerable culture of his', while encouraging his fellow Anglo-Saxons to: Breathe a larger air … [for] in his [young Anglo-Saxon's] new enthusiasms for continental literature, for unplumbed Russian depths, for French clarity of thought, for Teuton philosophies of power, he feels himself a citizen of a larger world. He may be absurdly superficial, his outward-reaching wonder may ignore all the stiller and homelier virtues of his Anglo-Saxon home, but he has at least found the clue to that international mind which will be essential to all men and women of good-will if they are ever to save this Western world of ours from suicide. [1916] Bourne, not Kallen, is the founding father of today's multiculturalist left because he combines rebellion against his own culture and Liberal Progressive cosmopolitanism with an endorsement – for minorities only – of Kallen's ethnic conservatism. In other words, ethnic minorities should preserve themselves while the majority should dissolve itself. Cosmopolitanism must manage the contradiction between its ethos of transcending ethnicity and its need for cultural diversity, which requires ethnic attachment. Bourne resolved this by splitting the world into two moral planes, one for a ‘parental' majority who would be asked to shed their ethnicity and oppose their own culture, and the other for childlike minorities, who would be urged to embrace their heritage in the strongest terms. This crystallized a dualistic habit of mind, entrenched in the anti-WASP ethos of 1920s authors like Sinclair Lewis and H. L. Mencken and the bohemian ‘Lost Generation' of American intellectuals such as F. Scott Fitzgerald. All associated the Anglo-Protestant majority with Prohibition, deemed WASP culture to be of no value, and accused the ethnic majority of suppressing more interesting and expressive ethnic groups. The Lost Generation's anti-majority ethos pervaded the writing of 1950s ‘Beat Generation' left-modernist writers like Norman Mailer and Jack Kerouac – who contrasted lively black jazz or Mexican culture with the ‘square' puritanical whiteness of Middle America. As white ethnics assimilated, the despised majority shifted from WASPs to all whites. The multiculturalism of the 1960s fused the Liberal Progressive pluralist movement with the anti-white ethos of the Beat counterculture. The situation by 1924 was a far cry from the pre-1890 dispensation, when a liberal-assimilationist Anglo-Americanism spanned both universalist and ethno-nationalist shades of opinion. Prior to 1890, most Anglo-Protestant thinkers held the view that their ethnic group could assimilate all comers. During moments of euphoria, they talked up the country as a universal cosmopolitan civilization; in their reflective moods, they remarked on its Anglo-Saxon Protestant character. By 1910, this Emersonian ‘double-consciousness' was gone, each side of its contradiction a separate and consistent ideology. Most WASP intellectuals were, like New England patrician Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, ethno-nationalists who backed restriction, or, like Bourne and Dewey, cosmopolitans calling for diversity and open borders. Few ethno-nationalists favoured open immigration. No pluralists endorsed restriction. Herein lie the roots of our contemporary polarized condition. Critical race theorists contend that white ethnics only ‘became white' when they became useful to the WASP majority. Even Bill Clinton, a southern Protestant whose Irish heritage is undocumented, latched on to the idea that his Irish forebears ‘became' white. Irish Catholics in the north, some claim, were important allies of southern whites in the struggle against Yankee republicanism, so southerners embraced the Irish.60 I'm less convinced. The Irish, Jews and Italians may not have been part of a narrower WASP ‘us', but they were perceived as racially white, thus part of a pan-ethnic ‘us'. This entitled them to opportunities not available to African- or Asian Americans. Post-1960s intermarriage led to an extension of American majority ethnic boundaries from WASP to white but the foundations for expansion were already in place. From the 1960s on, the religious marker of dominant ethnicity came to be redefined from Protestant to ‘Judaeo-Christian'. This chapter underscores several aspects of American ethnic history that are relevant today. First, that the US, like most European nations, has had an ethnic majority since Independence. Second, that the Anglo-Protestant majority underwent a Whiteshift in the mid-twentieth century which permitted it to absorb Catholics and Jews, members of groups once viewed as outsiders. Finally, certain ethnic groups – notably Anglo-Protestants and African-Americans – have become symbolically intertwined with American nationhood. Two thirds of Americans are not members of these groups, yet many recognize them as ethno-traditional: part of what makes the nation distinct. On the right, an ethno-traditional nationalism focused on protecting the white Anglo heritage is emerging as an important force in American politics. Culture is not ethnicity and the two have too often been conflated. Even if white culture remains the default mode, ethno-cultural decline may proceed apace. There are two separate ethno-cultural dynamics, white ethnic decline and the attenuation of the white tradition in American national identity. Only whites will be concerned with the former, but conservative-minded minorities may be attached to white ethno-traditions of nationhood. That is, they will wish to slow changes to the America ‘they know'. Where conservatives seek to preserve the status quo, which might be multiracial, authoritarians always prefer less diversity and dissent. Conservatives are not the same as authoritarians. For instance, authoritarians dislike inequality – a form of economic diversity – thus may find themselves on the left Electoral maps based on aggregate county results matched to census data offered the first snapshot of the social drivers of Trump, and it was apparent that education, not income, best predicted Trump success. Still, at first glance, maps reinforce stereotypes like the urban–rural divide. As with Brexit, income is correlated with education, but there are many wealthy people – think successful plumber – with few qualifications. Similarly, many resemble struggling artists, possessing degrees but little money. When you control for education, income has no effect on whether a white person voted for, or supports, Trump. Being less well-off produces an effect on Trump voting only when authoritarian and conservative values are held constant – and even then has a much smaller impact than values. Education is the best census indicator because it reflects people's subjective worldview, not just their material circumstances. Researchers find that teenagers with more open and exploratory psychological orientations self-select into university. This, much more than what people learn at university, makes them more liberal. Median education level offers a window onto the cultural values of a voting district, which is why it correlates best with Trump's vote share. In American exit polls, Trump won whites without college degrees 67–28, compared to 49–45 for whites with degrees. The changing racial demographics of America could permit the Democrats to consistently win first the presidential, then congressional, elections. Alternatively, the Republican establishment may be able to install a pro-immigration primary candidate. But is this a solution? With no federal outlet for white identity concerns or ethno-traditional nationalism, and with a return to policies of multiculturalism and high immigration which are viewed as a threat to these identities, it's possible the culturally conservative section of the US population could start viewing the government as an enemy. This is an old trope in American history and could pose a security problem. It is also how violent ethnic conflict sometimes ignites. For instance, the British-Protestant majority in Northern Ireland, where parties run on ethnic lines, meant Irish Catholics lost every election in the province between 1922 and the abolition of the Northern Ireland provincial government in 1972. This lack of political representation produced alienation which helped foment the civil war in 1969. What happens if rural and red-state America is permanently frozen out of power when it considers itself the repository of authentic Americanism? [EUROPE:] Liberals fought against the ‘normalization' of the far right, but with rising populist-right totals and coalition arithmetic pulling towards partnership it was only a question of time before the consensus gave way. The anti-racist norm against voting for the far right began to erode and centrist parties started adopting their policies. Elite obstruction may actually have contributed to an angrier anti-elite mood, recruiting yet more voters to the far-right banner. The anti-racist taboo against them has weakened but remains: more voters express strong anti-immigration views than are willing to vote far right.4 Yet, as I explain in chapter 9, the higher the populist right's vote share, the more the taboo erodes. This eases their path to a higher total when conditions permit, setting in motion a self-fulfilling spiral. Economic rationales frequently disguise underlying psychological drivers. For instance, in small opt-in samples on Prolific Academic, one group of white Republican voters scored the problem of ‘unchecked urban sprawl' a 51 out of 100, but another group of white Republicans who saw the question as ‘unchecked urban sprawl caused by immigration' scored it 74/100 (italics added for emphasis). Likewise, among a sample of white British Brexit voters, the problem of ‘pressure on council housing' scored a 47/100 but ‘immigrants putting pressure on council housing' was rated 68/100. In both cases, it logically cannot be the case that the immigration-driven portion of the problem of urban sprawl or pressure on council housing is more important than the problem itself. Thus what's driving opposition to immigration must be something prior to these material concerns. Likewise, the large-sample, representative British Election Study shows that concerns over the cultural and economic effects of immigration are tightly correlated. This suggests opposition to immigration comes first (Jonathan Haidt's unconscious ‘elephant' moves us to act) and various rationalizations like pressure on public services follow (Haidt's conscious ‘rider' telling us a story about why we acted as we did).17 But rationales matter. If a morally acceptable rationale is not there, this inhibits a party's ability to articulate its underlying anti-immigration grievances. This is why restrictionists tend to don the cloak of economic rationalization. The idea that the country has a traditional ethnic composition which people are attached to – what I term ethno-traditional nationalism – and which should not change too quickly, is viewed as beyond the limits of acceptable debate. This is a pity, because the ‘legitimate' arguments stigmatize minorities and are often racist in a way the ‘illegitimate' arguments about wanting to slow cultural loss are not. Only when the latter is taken to the extreme of wanting to bar certain groups or repatriate immigrants do they become racist. Rising diversity polarizes people by psychological outlook and reorients party platforms. As countries ethnically change, green parties move to capture cosmopolitan liberals and the populist right targets conservatives and authoritarians.88 While attitude liberalization did throw up cultural debates over religion, gay marriage and traditional values, these are on their way to becoming marginal in Europe as liberal attitudes attain mass acceptance. The legalization of drugs and the question of how best to address crime are live social issues, but neither promises the same radical transformation of society as ethnic change. Therefore it is ethno-demographic shifts which are rotating European societies away from a dominant left–right economic orientation to a globalist–nationalist cultural axis. The West is becoming less like homogeneous South Korea, where foreign policy and economic divisions dominate, and more like South Africa, where ethnicity is the main political division.89 When a regalizing order fails to make a charge of deviance stick, the norm begins to unwind, leading to a period of intense cultural contestation. Competing groups police norm boundaries and marginalize deviants who are seen to have violated their community's sacred values. I maintain we are currently in such a period, in which hegemonic liberal norms known as ‘political correctness' are being challenged by both populists and centrists, some of whom are trying to install new social norms, notably those defining Muslims and cosmopolitans as deviant. Fascism and socialism lost out after the Second World War, but what of the victor, liberalism? The Allies' victory did enlarge and protect the scope of negative liberty. But alongside this success a positive liberalism was smuggled in which advocated individuality and cosmopolitanism over community. Most, myself included, value individual autonomy, but one has to recognize that not all share this aim. Someone who prefers to wear a veil or dedicate their lives to religion is making a communitarian choice which negative liberalism respects but positive liberalism (whether of the modernist left or burqa-banning right) does not. Expressive individualism advocates that we channel our authentic inner nature, or what H. G. Wells or Henri Bergson termed our life force, unconstrained by tradition or reason. Aesthetically, it tended towards what the influential American sociologist Daniel Bell terms modernism, rejecting Christian or national traditions while spurning established techniques and motifs.22 Not only were traditions overturned but esteem was accorded to those whose innovations shocked sensibilities and subverted historic narratives and symbols the most. Clearly something happened between the nation-evoking historical and landscape painting of a Delacroix or Constable in the early nineteenth century and Marcel Duchamp's urinal of 1917. This ‘something' was the rise, after 1880, of what Bell terms modernism and Anthony Giddens calls de-traditionalization. For Bell, modernism is the antinomian rejection of all cultural authority. For Giddens, the shift is from a past- to a future-orientation and involves a decline in existential security.23 For Bell, modernism replaces contemplation of external reality and tradition with sensation and immediacy.26 The desire to seek out new and different experiences elevates novelty and diversity into cardinal virtues of the new positive liberalism. To favour tradition over the new, homogeneity over diversity, is to be reactionary. Left-modernism continually throws up new movements such as Surrealism or Postmodernism in its quest for novelty and difference. The shock of the new is accompanied by a cosmopolitan pastiche of borrowings from non-Western cultures, as with the Primitivism of Paul Gauguin. Yet there is a tension between the expressive-individualist and egalitarian strands of left-modernism. Gauguin, for example, who considered himself a cosmopolite defending Tahitian sexual freedom against the buttoned-down West, stands accused by the New Left of cultural appropriation, colonialism, orientalism and patriarchy. The social penetration of left-modernist ideas would take a great leap forward only in the 1960s as television and university education soared. In America, the share of 18- to 24-year-olds in College increased from 15 per cent in 1950 to a third in 1970. Given the large postwar ‘baby-boom' generation, this translated into a phenomenal expansion of universities. The growth of television was even more dramatic: from 9 per cent penetration in American homes in 1950 to 93 per cent by 1965.41 The New York, Hollywood and campus-based nodes in this network allowed liberal sensibilities to spread from a small coterie of aficionados to a wider public. Rising affluence may also have played a part in creating a social atmosphere more conducive to liberalism. All told, these ingredients facilitated a marked liberal shift across a wide range of attitudes measured in social surveys from the mid-1960s: gender roles, racial equality, sexual mores and religion – with the effects most apparent in the postwar Baby Boom generation.42 Since so much of the debate around the boundaries of the permissible revolves around racism, we need a rigorous – rather than political – definition of the concept. It's very important to specify clearly, using analytic political theory and precise terminology, why certain utterances or actions are racist. Only in this manner can we defend a racist taboo. I define racism as (a) antipathy to racial or pan-ethnic outgroups, defined as communities of birth; (b) the quest for race purity; or (c) racial discrimination which results in a violation of citizens' right to equal treatment before the law. The problem is that left-modernism has established racial inequality as an outrage rather than one dimension – and not generally the most important – of the problem of inequality. If racial inequality is one facet of inequality, it should be considered alongside other aspects such as income, health, weight or age. To focus the lion's share of attention on race and gender disparities entrenches ‘inequality privilege', wherein those who suffer from low-visibility disadvantages are treated less fairly than those who fit totemic left-modernist categories. A white male who is short, disabled, poor and unattractive will understandably resent the fact his disadvantage is downplayed while he is pilloried for his privilege. In effect, the 2010s represent a renewed period of left-modernist innovation, incubated by near-universal left–liberal hegemony among non-STEM faculty and administrators. Most academics are moderate liberals rather than radical leftists, but in the absence of conservative or libertarian voices willing to stand against left-modernist excess, liberal saturation reduced resistance to the japes of extremist students and professors. Social media and progressive online news acted as a vector, carrying the new left-modernist awakening off-campus much more effectively than was true during the first wave of political correctness of the late 1980s and 1990s. Angela Nagle finds that leftist radicalism emerged first, attracting a far-right response. One of the first to trace the emergence of this polarizing dynamic, she shows how, in left-modernist online chat groups, those who stake outlandish claims about white male oppression win moral and social plaudits. These in turn are lampooned by the alt-right, who leverage left-modernist excesses to legitimate blatant racism and sexism. This begins a cycle of polarizing rhetorical confrontation. Alt-right message boards adopt a playful countercultural style, emphasizing their rebellion against a stifling, puritanical-left establishment.11 Whereas bohemians like the Young Intellectuals of the 1910s and 1920s lauded African-American jazz and immigrant conviviality as a riposte to an uptight Prohibitionist Anglo-Protestant culture, the alt-right champions white maleness as a liberation from the strictures of the puritanical left. Hamid argues that being attached to an ethnic group and looking out for its interests is qualitatively different from hating or fearing outgroups. This is a distinction social psychologists recognize, between love for one's group and hatred of the other. As Marilyn Brewer writes in one of the most highly cited articles on prejudice: The prevailing approach to the study of ethnocentrism, ingroup bias, and prejudice presumes that ingroup love and outgroup hate are reciprocally related. Findings from both cross-cultural research and laboratory experiments support the alternative view that ingroup identification is independent of negative attitudes toward outgroups.54 If politics in the West is ever to return to normal rather than becoming even more polarized, white interests will need to be discussed. I realize this is very controversial for left-modernists. Yet not only is white group self-interest legitimate, but I maintain that in an era of unprecedented white demographic decline it is absolutely vital for it to have a democratic outlet. Marginalizing race puritanism is important, but muzzling relaxed versions of white identity sublimates it in a host of negative ways. For example, when whites are concerned about their decline but can't express it, they may mask their concern as worry about the nation-state. It's more politically correct to worry about Islam's challenge to liberalism and East European ‘cheap labour' in Britain than it is to say you are attached to being a white Brit and fear cultural loss. This means left-modernism has placed us in a situation where expressing racism is more acceptable than articulating racial self-interest. David Willetts, Minister of Education in David Cameron's Conservative government: The basis on which you can extract large sums of money in tax and pay it out in benefits is that most people think the recipients are people like themselves, facing difficulties which they themselves could face. If values become more diverse, if lifestyles become more differentiated, then it becomes more difficult to sustain the legitimacy of a universal risk-pooling welfare state. People ask, ‘Why should I pay for them when they are doing things I wouldn't do?' This is America versus Sweden. You can have a Swedish welfare state provided that you are a homogeneous society with intensely shared values. In the US you have a very diverse, individualistic society where people feel fewer obligations to fellow citizens. Progressives want diversity but they thereby undermine part of the moral consensus on which a large welfare state rests.62 trying to reconstruct our racial categories from above through politics may be as difficult as trying to get people to unlearn the primary colours. This doesn't mean categories can't evolve, but it suggests the process is complex, evolutionary and bottom-up. As the median racial type changes, the boundaries of whiteness may expand because people judge categories based on the average type they encounter. Hispanics, like the Italians before them, may become part of the ethnic majority in the not-too-distant future. Many white Americans currently view those with Spanish surnames or Hispanic features as outsiders. A majority of Hispanics see themselves as white, but only 6 per cent of Hispanics who identify as white say they are accepted as such by American society. Even among those with just one Latino grandparent, 58 per cent identify as Hispanic.43 Yet this may change with increased intermarriage, cultural assimilation and the arrival of more culturally distant groups. Already, lighter-skinned Hispanics are more likely to vote Republican or live in the same neighbourhoods as whites.44 As group lines are blurred by intermarriage, ethnic boundaries may shift: Ramirez may be considered an Anglo-American on a par with De Niro. Hispanic surnames are unlikely to be ‘counter-entropic' barriers to assimilation. This assimilation process is a major reason why the centre-left writer John Judis revised his thesis that America's changing demographics will automatically produce Democratic victories in the future.45 When the criteria for defining who is in or out of the majority change, whole chunks of the population who are not of mixed origin – like the fully Irish John F. Kennedy – suddenly become part of the ethnic majority. The analogy would be if fully Hispanic or Asian Americans came to be viewed as white. I deem this unlikely, given the proximity to Mexico and the established nature of the racial categories noted by Richard Dawkins. What seems more likely is that the high rate of intermarriage between Latinos and whites, as well as the rising share of native English-speakers, Protestants or seculars among them, may expand the boundaries of whiteness to include those of mixed parentage. That is, those with some European background who are culturally assimilated and have Anglo first names – but who have Spanish surnames or a Hispanic appearance – may be accepted as white.

Government intervention on an unprecedented scale has propped up the British economy - and society at large - during the pandemic. But what should be the state's role from now on? Can Conservatives successfully embrace an enduring central role for government in the economy given their small-state, Thatcherite heritage championing the role of the individual, lower spending and lower taxes? And can Labour, instinctively keener on a more active state, discipline its impulses towards more generous government so that they don't end up thwarting its ambitions for greater equality and fairness? Four eminent political thinkers join Edward Stourton to debate the lessons of political pivot points in Britain's postwar history and how these should guide us in deciding what the borders of the state should be in the post-pandemic world - and who's going to pay. Those taking part: Andrew Harrop of the Fabian Society, who draws inspiration from Labour's 1945 landslide victory to advocate a highly active and determined state to promote opportunity, fairness and equality; former Conservative minister David Willetts of the Resolution Foundation, who sees the lessons of the Conservative revolution in 1979 as relevant as ever about the limits of the state but also argues core Conservative beliefs are consistent with bigger government; former Blairite thinker, Geoff Mulgan, who, drawing on the lessons of 1997, resists notions of a catch-all politics in the face of the multi-faceted demands on today's state; and Dean Godson of Policy Exchange, influential with the Conservative modernisers of the Cameron era, who insists a Thatcherite view of the state shouldn't rigidly define how the centre-right responds to our new circumstances. Producer Simon Coates Editor Jasper Corbett

Lord David Willetts has been an intellectual titan on the centre right for the past 30 years. Having worked in Margaret Thatcher’s policy unit, Willetts was an MP between 1992 and 2015, and served as a Cabinet Minister in the coalition government. He is President of the independent think-tank the Resolution Foundation, and the author of a number of books, including The Pinch: How Baby Boomers took their children’s future – and why they should give it back.The book caused quite a stir on publication in 2010, and its thesis has proved remarkably prescient in the years since. So to mark the release of the second edition, our Deputy Editor Frank Lawton sat down with him to discuss the broken social contract and how to fix it.Frank began by asking him when – as a Baby Boomer himself – he first realised he was to blame for everything. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Economist Larry Summers, former President of Harvard lays out his view of a university and Philip Dodd debates with the OU's Josie Fraser, classicist Justin Stover and NESTA's Geoff Mulgan. Has new technology and globalisation signed the death knell for traditional courses in humanities subjects like English literature and philosophy ? You can find Philip talking to academic Camille Paglia here https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0006t8t to Niall Fergusson about the importance of networks here https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b096gv0d to David Willetts here https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09gsxhq about Nietsche's views of a university education in University Therapy or Learning? here https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07gnj1b Producer: Eliane Glaser.

Resolution Foundation Chairman and Former Universities Minister David Willetts tells Bloomberg's Caroline Hepker and Sebastian Salek it's not surprising that spending cuts spurred struggling families to vote for Brexit. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court gives the government until today to publish its plan for if it loses the prorogation case.

On Budget day, Andrew Marr discusses what is broken in our economic and social system, and how it could be mended - if only those in charge were bold enough. Oxford’s Paul Collier is an economist known around the world for his work on inequality. His new book, The Future of Capitalism, focuses on the great rifts dividing Britain, with solutions on how to close them. David Willetts, the former Conservative minister, is focused on generational fairness and the increasing tensions between the successful and the struggling in society. The Resolution Foundation, of which he is chair, suggests the state must do more to redistribute wealth and responsibility. Baroness Helena Kennedy has been a campaigning lawyer and a feminist throughout her career. Her new book, Eve was Shamed, looks at how British justice has been failing women - and comes up with solutions. And for those who think bad news for other people may be good for them, Tiffany Watt Smith explains that most British of Germanic concepts: schadenfreude. Producer: Hannah Sander

To mark 50 years of the International Baccalaureate, our panel asks: what kind of education do we need now to enable young people to flourish the 21st century? With Anthony Seldon, David Willetts and Naomi Climer. The International Baccalaureate is today offered by 4,871 schools across the world, to nearly 160,000 students each year through four different programmes. In the UK it is offered by 140 schools, independent, state and international. IB’s courses encourage students to become active, compassionate and lifelong learners who understand that other people, with their differences, can also be right. This event was recorded live at The RSA on Wednesday 27th September 2018. Discover more about this event here: https://www.thersa.org/events/2018/09/educating-for-a-better-future

David Willetts, Polly Toynbee, Baroness Simone Finn, Julia Black and Adrian Wooldridge join Anne McElvoy for a debate recorded with an audience at the LSE Festival Beveridge 2.0

The Rt Hon Lord David Willetts talks to Philip Dodd about universities. The UK Minister for Universities and Science from 2010 to 2014, his new book considers both the history and the global role they now play. Plus a discussion about scandal old and new - is it a driving force for social change or once the outrage has passed does everything revert to the status quo. Historian and New Generation Thinker Tom Charlton, journalist Michael White and biographer Frances Wilson, author of lives of Thomas De Quincey and royal courtesan Harriette Wilson look at scandals past and present.

'The Fix' brings together twelve of the country's bright young minds and gives them just one day to solve an intractable problem. This week we have asked our teams to come up with ways to stop criminals re-offending when they leave prison. The day is introduced by Matthew Taylor, Chief Executive of the RSA and the teams will be led through the day by Cat Drew, Director at design consultancy Uscreates. Can the teams do enough to impress our judges, Dawn Austwick, Chief Executive of the Big Lottery Fund and David Willetts, former minister and Executive Chairman of the Resolution Foundation, or will they fall short?

Now executive chairman of the Resolution Foundation, Lord Willetts has long been one of the Tory party's intellectual heavyweights - the man so smart they nicknamed him "Two Brains". He talks to Robert Colvile - in a conversation recorded before the election - about what Britain's getting right. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Can ideas change the world? Matthew Taylor talks to David Willetts about intergenerational inequality and his book ‘The Pinch: How the baby boomers stole their children’s future and why they should give it back’ (2010). Since its publication, inequality between the generations has only gotten worse. Why is it so difficult to turn peoples concern for their own children into policy which improves the prospects for the next generation as a whole? Can appeals to the welfare of future generations bridge cultural and political differences? And what does the author of ‘The Pinch’ think of his own policies as the Minister for Universities? The first of four interviews revisiting influential books on public policy and social change published in recent decades. Produced by Ben Irvine and Samuel Shelton Robinson.

Matt Chorley is joined by former advisor to Tony Blair turned stand up, Matt Forde, Times columnist Rachel Sylvester and former minister David Willetts, who now heads the Resolution Foundation. They debate if the weak Labour opposition is distorting everything Theresa May does? Why in the age of Google, some politicians make claims which can so easily be disproved? And how the goal of each generation doing considerably better than the one before it can be revived. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

How is population change transforming our world? Think of a python swallowing a pig: a big bulge makes its way slowly down the snake from the head end to the other end. That's a bit like what's happened to the UK demographically. The baby boom generation - which has changed Britain politically, culturally and economically - is now retiring. That means a large bulge of pensioners with big implications for the generations that come behind them. Other advanced economies face a similar challenge and emerging economies - most notably China - will be dealing with an ageing bulge themselves soon. But in Africa, the bulge is at the other end. A very young generation is about to make its way through the snake. Former government minister David Willetts, now executive chair of the Resolution Foundation, wrestles with this python of population change. What will these challenges of both ageing and very young populations mean for the world? What are the implications for future migration patterns, for geopolitics and for global economic growth? This programme is part of a special week of programmes for the first week of 2017, examining major forces which are changing the world around us. Producer: Rob Walker.

In this episode, David Willetts and Nicholas Crafts discuss 'Was Brexit a rebellion against globalisation?' In November 2016, the CER took more than 50 of Europe's top economists to Ditchley Park in Oxfordshire for a conference on 'The economics of populism’. This CER podcast series offers an insight into the discussions of that weekend.

In the first episode of this new monthly series, Prospect editor Tom Clark is joined by three contributors to discuss the ideas gracing the October edition of the magazine. We hear from Joanne Paul on what Thomas More's "Utopia" can tell us about politics some 500 years after it was first published. Rachel Holmes applauds the rise of women to positions of political power—but are they radical enough? Plus, former Conservative minister David Willetts tells us why Thatcher's industrial policy needs updating. Produced by Matt Hill at Rethink Audio. To download the next episode automatically, you can subscribe to this series on iTunes (using the button above) or through the many free podcast apps available for your smartphone. Just search "Prospect Headspace" and subscribe. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Grammar schools are back on the agenda courtesy of Theresa May. Why has the Conservative party's love affair with an almost extinct system of educational selection endured? Step into The Briefing Room with David Aaronovitch to discover the history of the Conservatives' attitude to grammar schools - and the impact the system has on exam performance and social mobility.Contributors: Newsnight's Policy Editor Chris Cook Sir David Bell, former Department of Education Permanent Secretary and now Vice Chancellor of Reading University Social historian David Kynaston Laura McInerney, editor of 'Schools Week' Nick Hillman, former special advisor to David Willetts and now director of the Higher Education Policy Institute. Producers: Matt Booker and Wesley Stephenson Researcher: Kirsteen Knight.

Anne McElvoy talks to Dame Fiona Reynolds about a career spent defending the beauty of the British landscape, and considers an exhibition of English beauties at the Bowes Museum. She is also joined by former minister The Rt Hon David Willetts, media executive Charles Brand and Marc Stears head of the New Economics Foundation to discuss the role of the state in the 21st century, and ahead of Sunday's Drama on 3 she explores literary depictions of the city of Venice with David Barnes. Dame Fiona Reynolds' book is called The Fight For Beauty: Our Path to a Better Future English Rose Feminine Beauty from Van Dyck to Sargent runs at the Bowes Museum from 14 May - 25 September 2016 and if you're in Liverpool there's still a couple of weeks to catch the Walker Gallery show of Pre Raphaelite beauties Pre-Raphaelites: Beauty and Rebellion which runs until June 5th David Willetts is the author of The Pinch. David Barnes' book is called The Venice Myth: Culture, Literature, Politics, 1800 to the Present. Naomi Alderman's imagining of the story of Jessica from the Merchant of Venice is being broadcast on Sunday night on Radio 3 at 10pm and there's an introductory animation on the Radio 3 website and a link to Professor Jerry Broton's Sunday Feature investigating the Venice Ghetto. Producer: Eliane Glaser

David Willetts’ career began as a civil servant at 10 Downing Street under Margaret Thatcher. He was elected to Parliament in 1992 as the MP for Havant and was Minister of State for Universities and Science between 2010 and 2014, and attended Cabinet meetings. As Universities Minister he introduced a series of wide-ranging reforms including the introduction of £9,000 tuition fees. This event is a unique opportunity to listen to David Willetts’ discuss a wide range of issues; including education policy, the EU Referendum and the Conservative Party.

David Willetts’ career began as a civil servant at 10 Downing Street under Margaret Thatcher. He was elected to Parliament in 1992 as the MP for Havant and was Minister of State for Universities and Science between 2010 and 2014, and attended Cabinet meetings. As Universities Minister he introduced a series of wide-ranging reforms including the introduction of £9,000 tuition fees. This event is a unique opportunity to listen to David Willetts’ discuss a wide range of issues; including education policy, the EU Referendum and the Conservative Party.

Conservative politician and former Universities Minister with a reputation as a big thinker David Willetts joins Tony Wright for an evening in conversation at Birkbeck Politics. As a Conservative MP from 1992–2015 David Willetts served in the Treasury, held several key Shadow Cabinet roles across a number of portfolios and, from 2010–2014, he was Universities Minister – the man responsible for changes to tuition fees and other reforms in the higher education sector. He is also a significant thinker and policy analyst, the theorist of 'civic Conservatism' and the author of a much-discussed controversial book on inter-generational inequality (The Pinch: How the Baby Boomers Took Their Children’s Future – and Why They Should Give It Back). Image credit: The Open University Facebook: www.facebook.com/BirkbeckPolitics/ LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/birkbeck-dept-of-politics Twitter: www.twitter.com/bbkpolitics Centre website: www.csbppl.com Department website: www.bbk.ac.uk/politics/

On Start the Week Tom Sutcliffe discusses the importance of uncertainty and failure. The former head of the European Research Council Helga Nowotny argues research is fed by uncertainty and that any form of scientific inquiry may produce results that are ambiguous. She criticises policy makers for focusing on easy short-term solutions, but the former conservative MP and Minister for Universities and Science, David Willetts, understands the difficulty for governments in dealing with uncertainty. In his role at the think tank Resolution Foundation he's attempting to use analytical research to improve policy on living standards. Matthew Syed examines how a positive attitude to failure can lead to success in areas as diverse as sport, business, politics and healthcare. The failure of governments to come to an agreement on climate change will be discussed next month at a UN conference in Paris and Oliver Morton looks at whether the radical, yet uncertain, strategies of geo-engineering are the answer. Producer: Katy Hickman.

As George Osborne prepared to announce his emergency budget, including £12bn of cuts to the welfare bill, Zoe Williams asks if a rapid reduction of the deficit is the only way to bring stability and growth to the economy. What impact will austerity measures have on opportunity, aspiration and social mobility?

Aaron Knoll and Chris Bridges join Space Boffins Sue Nelson and Richard Hollingham at the Surrey Space Centre for a virtual ride into space. Plus science minister David Willetts argues for a spaceport in Scotland, and shuttle astronaut and B612 Foundation founder Ed Lu explains why we should act now to save the Earth from an asteroid with our name on it... Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

Aaron Knoll and Chris Bridges join Space Boffins Sue Nelson and Richard Hollingham at the Surrey Space Centre for a virtual ride into space. Plus science minister David Willetts argues for a spaceport in Scotland, and shuttle astronaut and B612 Foundation founder Ed Lu explains why we should act now to save the Earth from an asteroid with our name on it... Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

Aaron Knoll and Chris Bridges join Space Boffins Sue Nelson and Richard Hollingham at the Surrey Space Centre for a virtual ride into space. Plus science minister David Willetts argues for a spaceport in Scotland, and shuttle astronaut and B612 Foundation founder Ed Lu explains why we should act now to save the Earth from an asteroid with our name on it... Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

UK Universities and Science Minister, David Willetts, becomes his own radio presenter; here, on a tour organised by the UK's Science and Innovation Network, he charts his meetings with scientists and entrepreneurs in Chicago, including discovering how researchers are trying to develop new batteries, he meets MIRA the Argonne supercomputer, attends a synthetic biology convention, talks to technology start-up CEOs, addresses the AAAS fellows forum and talks in depth to his travelling companions, Nottingham chemist Martyn Poliakoff and Edinburgh Vice Prinicipal Mary Bownes...

UK Universities and Science Minister, David Willetts, becomes his own radio presenter; here, on a tour organised by the UK's Science and Innovation Network, he charts his meetings with scientists and entrepreneurs in Chicago, including discovering how researchers are trying to develop new batteries, he meets MIRA the Argonne supercomputer, attends a synthetic biology convention, talks to technology start-up CEOs, addresses the AAAS fellows forum and talks in depth to his travelling companions, Nottingham chemist Martyn Poliakoff and Edinburgh Vice Prinicipal Mary Bownes... Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

UK Universities and Science Minister, David Willetts, becomes his own radio presenter; here, on a tour organised by the UK's Science and Innovation Network, he charts his meetings with scientists and entrepreneurs in Chicago, including discovering how researchers are trying to develop new batteries, he meets MIRA the Argonne supercomputer, attends a synthetic biology convention, talks to technology start-up CEOs, addresses the AAAS fellows forum and talks in depth to his travelling companions, Nottingham chemist Martyn Poliakoff and Edinburgh Vice Prinicipal Mary Bownes... Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

UK Universities and Science Minister, David Willetts, becomes his own radio presenter; here, on a tour organised by the UK's Science and Innovation Network, he charts his meetings with scientists and entrepreneurs in Chicago, including discovering how researchers are trying to develop new batteries, he meets MIRA the Argonne supercomputer, attends a synthetic biology convention, talks to technology start-up CEOs, addresses the AAAS fellows forum and talks in depth to his travelling companions, Nottingham chemist Martyn Poliakoff and Edinburgh Vice Prinicipal Mary Bownes... Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

UK Universities and Science Minister, David Willetts, becomes his own radio presenter; here, on a tour organised by the UK's Science and Innovation Network, he charts his meetings with scientists and entrepreneurs in Chicago, including discovering how researchers are trying to develop new batteries, he meets MIRA the Argonne supercomputer, attends a synthetic biology convention, talks to technology start-up CEOs, addresses the AAAS fellows forum and talks in depth to his travelling companions, Nottingham chemist Martyn Poliakoff and Edinburgh Vice Prinicipal Mary Bownes... Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

Dr Chris Smith aka The Naked Scientist investigates climate change and whether weather is getting more extreme, designing a smarter power grid to integrate sustainable power, and the eight great science technologies Britain is good at according to the Universities and Science minister David Willetts.

Addressing the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 2014 meeting in Chicago, David Willetts, UK Minister for Universities and Science, outlines how the special relationship between Britain and the US, coupled with competition and collaboration, is driving discovery and the next generation of technology... Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

Do scientists resort to propaganda to defend climate change? How do we deal with evolution unbelievers? How do governments and policy-makers decide what science should be funded? Where will the next generation of communicators come from? Why are western countries spending more on baldness than malaria? Live at the AAAS 2014 meeting in Chicago, panellists David Willetts, the UK Minister for Universities and Science, Robyn Williams, of the Science Show on the ABC, MIT Enterprise Forum president, Kathleen Kennedy, IgNobel Awards founder Marc Abrahams and University of Madison-Wisconsin scientist Molly Jahn join Chris Smith to answer questions live from the audience...

Addressing the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 2014 meeting in Chicago, David Willetts, UK Minister for Universities and Science, outlines how the special relationship between Britain and the US, coupled with competition and collaboration, is driving discovery and the next generation of technology... Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

Do scientists resort to propaganda to defend climate change? How do we deal with evolution unbelievers? How do governments and policy-makers decide what science should be funded? Where will the next generation of communicators come from? Why are western countries spending more on baldness than malaria? Live at the AAAS 2014 meeting in Chicago, panellists David Willetts, the UK Minister for Universities and Science, Robyn Williams, of the Science Show on the ABC, MIT Enterprise Forum president, Kathleen Kennedy, IgNobel Awards founder Marc Abrahams and University of Madison-Wisconsin scientist... Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

Do scientists resort to propaganda to defend climate change? How do we deal with evolution unbelievers? How do governments and policy-makers decide what science should be funded? Where will the next generation of communicators come from? Why are western countries spending more on baldness than malaria? Live at the AAAS 2014 meeting in Chicago, panellists David Willetts, the UK Minister for Universities and Science, Robyn Williams, of the Science Show on the ABC, MIT Enterprise Forum president, Kathleen Kennedy, IgNobel Awards founder Marc Abrahams and University of Madison-Wisconsin scientist... Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

David Willetts, Minister for Universities and Science, talks about the links between universities, industry and government in excerpts from a speech delivered at the Triple Helix International Conference – an event co-hosted by The Big Innovation Centre, Birkbeck, and UCL Advances. Luciana Berger, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy, then describes her fascinating and enjoyable experiences studying an MSc in Government, Policy and Politics at Birkbeck. She praises the diversity of the student body and explains her support for part-time education. http://www.bbk.ac.uk/news/birkbeck-voices-podcast/birkbeck-voices-podcast-mps2019-views-david-willetts-discusses-research-and-luciana-berger-speaks-about-birkbeck

Fresh from an appearance on ‘Any Question’ on BBC Radio 4 from Rothbury, Lesley still has points and observations to make about her fellow panellists. Energy came up as a topic and Lesley has more to say on the subject in response to David Willetts’ assertions. Lesley also reveals what local people said to her following the recording and the audience’s surprising reaction to the Scottish independence debate. She also had occasion to use a machine in London which would not take Scottish notes. The resulting twitterstrom threw up some interesting points. Lesley also managed to have an eventful time at the SNP Conference in Perth and has a tale to tell. And, on the road with ‘Blossom’, there was a very interesting meeting at the Centre for Human Ecology which prompted lots of questions. Some of which we discuss.

Satellite technology and advances in robotics are set to revolutionise the future of farming. Out go the heavy, soil destroying combines and tractors, in come a light army of mini robots which weed, spray and pick crops at the optimum time. Expert agronomists will advise thousands of farmers at a time. Using real data, farmers will be able to maximise the yield and quality of the crops as they leave the field. Sarah Cruddas meets the scientists engineering the robotic shepherds of the future, and hops into the cab of a self-driving tractor to experience labour and fuel saving precision farming. She also hears from Science Minister, David Willetts who believes that the UK can become Europe's centre of satellite technology. The data provided will, in the coming years, become more and more detailed enabling farmers to have a greater understanding of their land and allow them to produce yield maps and farm more efficiently than ever before. Costing The Earth ask if farms of the future will be run by a fleet of robots: from crop-picking automatons to swarms of electronic bees, and whether the farmer of the future be found in a control centre rather than out in a muddy field. Producer: Martin Poyntz-Roberts.

20 years ago the European Union embarked on an ambitious project which clearly ranks among its greatest achievements – the creation of the Single Market. The Single Market has brought down barriers to trade and created a level playing field for European businesses and consumers. To mark the 20th anniversary, a series of events took place across the EU. In the UK, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, in cooperation with the European Commission, organised a half-day conference at Lancaster House on 18 October 2012 and published ‘Twenty Years On: The UK and the Future of the Single Market’

Education minister David Willetts and research chief Dame Janet Finch are in the studio to debate Open Access along with Professor Roey Sweet, New Generation Thinker Nandini Das and scientist Ross Mounce, discussing the ramifications of this fundamental rethink of the way academic research is published and crucially - who pays for it? Anne Applebaum discusses her new book Iron Curtain looking at how civil society was picked apart under Communism in Eastern Europe. And it's first night at the Donmar Warehouse for Racine's Berenice in a new translation by Alan Hollinghurst. Andrew Dickson, Nandini Das and Rana Mitter review.

Science Minister David Willetts delivers the 2011 Roberts Lecture at the Royal Society of Medicine, for the Science Council as part of London Science Festival.