Recording of an Academy of Ideas debate on Tuesday 28 June 2022.

INTRODUCTION
Around the world, prices of a wide range of goods and commodities have been rising sharply for the past few months. In particular, the wholesale cost of energy has been rising fast as the world economy recovered from the pandemic restrictions. Petrol prices have risen by almost a third in the past 12 months. The UK domestic energy ‘price cap’, which hit a low of £1,042 in 2020, is expected to rise to £2,800 in October. Consumer price inflation has hit 9% and is likely to reach 10% by the end of the year. For those on lower incomes, who spend more of their income on food and energy, the impact is even greater.

There are multiple explanations for the rises: the post-pandemic recovery and problems with shipping have been widely cited. The war in Ukraine and sanctions against Russia are hitting energy and food prices. Many economists also point to the rise in the money supply – thanks to ultra-low interest rates, quantitative easing and huge government spending programmes. Rises in production have not kept pace with rising demand, so prices have risen.

But the other side of the story is that wages are not keeping up with rising prices. As a result, most people are seeing real-terms cuts in their living standards. Governments and central bankers seem desperate to keep a lid on wage rises, desperate to avoid a ‘wage-price spiral’, but the effect is to make most people significantly poorer. Those on fixed incomes may be hardest hit of all.

What are the main reasons for the rise in living costs? What can be done to help reduce the impact? Should we be looking beyond short-term and temporary factors? Is this a crisis that has been coming for some time?

SPEAKERS
Robert Fig 
principal, Metals Risk Team, a commodity risk-management consultancy; previously worked at ArcelorMittal and London Metals Exchange

Phil Mullan
writer, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

Hilary Salt
actuary; founder, First Actuarial

How can we end the cost-of-living crisis?

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

POWER PLAY: WHO REALLY RULES TODAY?
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/power-play-who-really-rules-today/

‘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? 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!

TASCAM SD-20M

Power play: Who really rules today?

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

I DISSENT! CHALLENGING THE CULTURE OF CONFORMISM
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/i-dissent-challenging-the-culture-of-conformism/

In the face of social, political and cultural malaise, dissenting voices are vital to clarify the issues at stake and create an invigorating public life. Yet we live in times where we are expected to follow the zeitgeist and conform to received wisdom – often handed down from on high.

During lockdown, for example, experts peddling The Science brooked little challenge, aided by a media sacrificing objectivity for obedience. In the Academy, intellectual conformity rules, built around impregnable ‘truths’ of environment, wellbeing or gender. The cultural avant-garde has given way to insidious current pressures and fashions – often enforced by cultural guardians. When the cultural outlook of record labels and book festivals is echoed by debankers and corporate apparatchiks, challenging new orthodoxies carries dangers. Even the once-cherished figure of the maverick is now largely silent in the face of cancel culture.

Yet many say that an anti-conformist spirit today is alive and kicking. The ‘transgressive’ type is lauded, driving new subcultures and promoting alternative ways of living. A new media landscape promotes any number of controversial figures promoting themselves as defiant rule-breakers and portrayers of truth. But are these ‘professional contrarians’ an antidote today’s conformism, or simply cynically manipulating the culture wars?

Some say self-proclaimed dissenters – for example, critics of ‘sheeple’ and ‘snowflakes’ or ‘herd belief’ – simply conform to their own tribe’s worldview. How can we avoid dissenters becoming as intolerant of anyone who doesn’t confirm to a prescriptive list of tick-box opinions said to represent the rebellious position? Can we, too, typecast allies as well as opponents?

In other eras, too, critical thought and dissent have been banished to the margins. In the paradigmatic Age of Conformity, an impasse in public life reflected the consumer culture of the postwar boom and a mood of political passivity. What are the drivers for today’s conformist impulse? And how do we revive the notion of genuine scepticism and dissent? Given that the dissenters of 1960s counterculture and their progeny now seem central to today’s unchallengeable orthodoxies of identity-driven, emotional and personal issues, do we now need a counter-counterculture? And if so, what does that mean for those keen to revive intellectual life?

What is dissent, why is it so important and why has it become devalued today? How does dissent differ from contrarianism? In a world that craves moral certainty and a sense of solidarity, but where words are commonly viewed as hurtful and dangerous to building consensus, how best can we make the case for speaking freely?

SPEAKERS
Dr Peter Boghossian
founding faculty fellow, University of Austin; executive director, National Progress Alliance; author, How to Have Impossible Conversations

Jennie Bristow
senior lecturer in sociology, Canterbury Christ Church University; author, The Corona Generation: coming of age in a crisis and Growing up in Lockdown

Abbot Christopher Jamison
Abbot President, English Benedictine Congregation; author, Finding the Language of Grace: rediscovering transcendence

Helen Joyce
director of advocacy, Sex Matters; author, TRANS: when ideology meets reality

Lord Moylan
Conservative peer

CHAIR
Ella Whelan
co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

I dissent! Challenging the culture of conformism

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

DEIFYING DIVERSITY: A VALUE FOR OUR TIMES?
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/deifying-diversity/

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

Deifying diversity: a value for our times?

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

FREE SPEECH ON CAMPUS: SHOULD HECKLERS BE BANNED?
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/free-speech-on-campus-should-hecklers-be-banned/

The right to protest and heckle is crucial to exercising our freedom of speech. But increasingly, actions on campus are deliberately designed to disrupt proceedings and to intimidate and silence speakers.

Protests at the University of Edinburgh resulted in a film showing of Adult Human Female being abandoned – twice. Kathleen Stock’s appearance at the Oxford Union was disrupted by an activist glued to the debating-chamber floor near the speaker’s chair. Infamously, at Goldsmiths, University of London, Maryam Namazie’s talk on blasphemy and apostasy was abandoned when Islamic Society students aggressively interrupted her before switching off the slide projector.

Such protests – or the possibility of disorderly protests – that lead to an event being cancelled, abandoned or rendered pointless amount to a ‘heckler’s veto’.

In the context of campus free-speech wars, the new Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act places a duty on universities to champion academic freedom and free speech. However, concerns over the chilling effect of the heckler’s veto have led some supporters of freedom to argue institutions should not be obliged to support forms of speech that restrict another person’s right to free expression or academic freedom. The right to protest, they argue, does not amount to a right to silence others, not least as free expression within universities is vital to developing knowledge.

Defenders of these protests say opponents of gender-critical views should be equally free to express themselves – and that it’s better to protest speakers they dislike rather than try to get them cancelled. Noisy, disruptive interventions, they argue, are simply a form of free speech – and the heckle is a long-standing and legitimate tactic to express disagreement. They also point to the irony of a free-speech act being used to limit freedom, and worry that to ban these protests could invite ever more restrictions. For example, a protester who was arrested outside Adult Human Female was subsequently banned from attending or being within 200 feet of any protest on any subject on the university’s campus. Vice-chancellors have warned that anyone expressing support for Hamas could face arrest.

How should we respond to the dilemma of the heckler’s veto? Should universities take practical steps to restrict protests when they are so loud that they deny someone else’s free speech, whether over trans issues or the conflict in Israel? Is it legitimate to veto the heckler’s veto? Or could this be a slippery slope that may end up constraining and compromising wider hard-won freedoms?

SPEAKERS
Dennis Hayes
professor of education, University of Derby; founder and director, Academics For Academic Freedom (AFAF); author, The Death of Academic Freedom? Free speech and censorship

Dr Holly Lawford-Smith
associate professor in political philosophy, University of Melbourne; author, Gender-Critical Feminism and Sex Matters: Essays in Gender-Critical Philosophy

Dr James Orr
associate professor of philosophy of religion, University of Cambridge

Professor Alice Sullivan
professor of sociology, UCL Social Research Institute

Professor James Tooley
vice chancellor, University of Buckingham; author, The Beautiful Tree

CHAIR
Alastair Donald
co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Free speech on campus: should hecklers be banned?

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

STILL IN THE RACE: UNDERSTANDING TRUMPISM
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/explaining-trumpism/

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?

Battle of Ideas 2023

Still in the race: Understanding Trumpism

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

MAKING BABIES IN THE LAB: THE MORALITY OF REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/the-morality-of-reproductive-technologies/

Forty-five years since the first ‘test-tube’ baby was born through in vitro fertilisation (IVF), the world of reproductive technologies is almost unrecognisable. New screening opportunities and better understanding of genomics has meant that the creation and selection of embryos has become more precise – offering a somewhat more certain process than the gamble of natural conception.

But while many who have experienced fertility issues might cheer new advancements in reproductive technology – IVF is now a routine treatment – others have concerns. Earlier this year, surgeons performed the first womb transplant on a woman in the UK, potentially allowing infertile women to be able to carry their own children. While some hail this a medical breakthrough, others have pointed to the problem of prioritising ‘gestational parenting’ over all else, with some medical professionals arguing that transgender women might be able to get pregnant with a donated womb.

It doesn’t stop there. Scientists have recently generated what some have called ‘embryo-like’ structures from stem cells, even implanting them in monkeys to model early pregnancy. While some have called these ‘synthetic embryos’, the International Society for Stem Cell Research has stressed that these ‘embryo models’ are just that – models. While these ‘can replicate aspects of the early-stage development of human embryos, they cannot and will not develop to the equivalent of postnatal stage humans’, the ISSCR warns. For some, this research provides vital insights into early pregnancy, and could provide information to prevent or lessen defects or even miscarriages. For others, this is a step too far in the direction of playing God.

Should we draw a line when it comes to meddling with baby making? What ethical implications arise from scientists attempting to artificially create life – or even mimic it? By medicalising conception, do we lose something of its magic? In her 1914 poem ‘Parturition’, the poet Mina Loy wrote of the process of pregnancy and childbirth as each new mother becoming a ‘woman of the people’ wearing a ‘ludicrous little halo / Of which she is sublimely unaware’. Does the advent of a reproductive technology-boom – with everything from egg-freezing to womb transplants – deepen our appreciation of the miracle of childbirth, or mess with our halos? Is this a medical no-brainer – taking the mystique out of making babies meaning less heartache and more certainty for couples who want to become parents? Or is there something to be said for leaving some things up to mother nature?

SPEAKERS
Dr Mehmet Çiftçi
public bioethics fellow, Anscombe Bioethics Centre

Nicky Drury
genetic counsellor, Nottingham Department of Clinical Genetics; former member, United Kingdom Human Genetics Commission

Ann Furedi
author, The Moral Case for Abortion; former chief executive, BPAS

Dr Günes Taylor
research scientist; public speaker

CHAIR
Ella Whelan
co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

Making babies in the lab: the morality of reproductive technologies

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

GENDER IDEOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/breakfast-banter-gender-ideology-and-criminal-justice/

Some of the biggest controversies in relation to gender identity and criminal justice concern transwomen prisoners in women’s jails. The shocking example of double rapist Adam Graham (Isla Bryson) is said to have brought down the SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon and irrevocably damaged the reputation of Scotland’s Gender Recognition Reform Act.

However, behind the scenes and less widely discussed are loopholes in safeguarding, the framework of measures designed to protect the health, well-being and human rights of individuals in particular need of protection, including children and vulnerable adults.

Identity verification is a crucial part of safeguarding, including during the process of obtaining a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check. However, any individual can easily, and for any reason, change their name and gender on documents used to establish identity, including their passport and driving licence. But if individuals who change both name and gender can effectively sever the link with any existing records of offending, with exceptional enhanced privacy rights granted to those who change their gender, surely the resulting safeguarding loopholes compromise the DBS service?

While the government has acknowledged the safeguarding loopholes created where registered sex offenders change their name by deed poll, why do the authorities fail to address the problems created by the ability to change identity in a more fundamental way by simultaneously changing gender as well? How can rules of safeguarding be effective if they do not apply equally to everyone? Why are members of one group excused from the normal requirements of safeguarding? Or is changing gender itself a special category in need of particular and special legal and safeguarding protection?

SPEAKERS
Professor Ian Acheson
senior advisor, Counter Extremism Project; visiting professor, school of law, policing and forensics, University of Staffordshire

Dr Kate Coleman
founder and director, Keep Prisons Single Sex

Ceri-Lee Galvin
sexual abuse victim; campaigner for changes to safeguarding regulations created by exemptions for gender change perpetrators

CHAIR
Adam Rawcliffe
director of partnerships, Spectator; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Gender ideology and criminal justice

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

BODIES THAT MATTER: TRANSGENDERISM AND TRANSHUMANISM
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/bodies-that-matter-transgenderism-and-transhumanism/

In her recent book, Transgender Body Politics, author and philosopher Heather Brunskell-Evans takes to task the politics of transgenderism. She argues that, for years, Gender Identity Development Theory has become increasingly accepted as a medically ‘progressive’ idea, yet one that bears all the hallmarks of a religion.

According to this modern creed, Brunskell-Evans argues, gender is believed to be independent of the physical body, resembling something akin to a ‘soul’ which should take precedence over biological sex. Centring on values such as equality, gender diversity and inclusion, it is backed by symbols such as chants, flags, parades and ‘holy’ days. There is a belief in secular transubstantiation – that boys can become women and girls can become men. Organisations like Stonewall, Mermaids and Gendered Intelligence act like a secular clergy, giving ‘sermons’ on right-think in training workshops. Critical individuals are denounced as infidels and detransitioners are akin to apostates.

Has the recent closure of the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) at the NHS Tavistock Clinic turned the tide on this development? Has wider society begun to seriously debate the consequences of young people undergoing unnecessary sex-change surgery that could have lifelong implications for them? Or is it simply the first siren call to a much larger cultural phenomenon which reveals a thriving, well-funded and unaccountable transhumanist movement that should be firmly on our radar?

In this special lecture for the Battle of Ideas festival, Heather Brunskell-Evans presents the findings and thoughts contained in her book. Three respondents will then kickstart a discussion aimed at getting to grips with important issues surrounding transgender politics.

SPEAKERS
Dr Heather Brunskell-Evans
philosopher; co-founder, Women's Declaration International; author, Transgender Body Politics

Sonia Gallego
senior producer and reporter, Al Jazeera English

Marc Glendening
head of cultural affairs, Institute of Economic Affairs; author, Transgender Ideology: a new threat to liberal values

Rosie Kay
dancer; choreographer; CEO and artistic director, K2CO LTD; founder, Freedom in the Arts

CHAIR
Timandra Harkness
journalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree; author, Big Data: does size matter?

Bodies that matter: transgenderism & transhumanism

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

ARE SLIPPERY-SLOPE ARGUMENTS EVER VALID?
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/are-slippery-slope-arguments-ever-valid/

‘It’s a slippery slope’ is a phrase often used in politics. But the ‘thin end of a wedge’ argument can be complicated. If being flexible means always being open to abuse, how will we ever make any change? Why we can’t we simply decide to go a little way down the slope, rather than follow it to ruin?

On the one hand, it’s clear that some slippery slopes really are treacherous – many point to the government’s Online Safety Bill as an example of censorious legislation characterised as ‘safeguarding’ that opens the door to much broader restrictions of free speech. On the other hand, the slippery-slope argument can be used to counteract any suggestion of change, for fear of undesirable consequences. For example, some argue that the liberalisation of abortion law will lead to an increase in late-term abortions, or that the legalisation of assisted suicide will lead to a more callous approach to human life.

Slippery-slope arguments are nearly always conservative, in the sense of maintaining the status quo – and can often be used to simply shut down debate about moral issues that need serious consideration. If they rest on a hypothetical fear of change, should we resist their use? When policies and laws change, can’t we be trusted to know where the line should be drawn? Or, in a world where rules and boundaries seem terribly unfashionable, do we need such arguments to protect us from consequences we might come to regret?

SPEAKERS
Dr Piers Benn
philosopher, author and lecturer

Dr Heather Brunskell-Evans
philosopher; co-founder, Women's Declaration International; author, Transgender Body Politics

Professor David Albert Jones
director, Anscombe Bioethics Centre; professor of bioethics, St Mary’s University, Twickenham; vice chair, Ministry of Defence Research Ethics Committee

Professor Kevin Yuill
emeritus professor of history, University of Sunderland; author, Assisted Suicide: the liberal, humanist case against legalization and Richard Nixon and the Rise of Affirmative Action

CHAIR
John O’Brien
head of communications, MCC Brussels

Are slippery-slope arguments ever valid?

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 groom gangs to get justice? And why are they cheering the Houthis in New York?

Rwanda, Rochdale and the Middle East: the Podcast of Ideas returns

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

WHY BITCOIN MATTERS FOR FREEDOM IN A DIGITAL AGE
https://archives.battleofideas.org.uk/2022/session/why-bitcoin-matters-for-freedom-in-a-digital-age/

Over the past decade, governments, economists and journalists have regularly presented Bitcoin as dangerous and risky. It’s for criminals, they argue, it’s a ponzi scheme – and it’s destroying the planet.

By contrast, supporters of Bitcoin have argued that the world financial system is a cruel labyrinth – creating a situation where tomorrow is traded for today, where capital is strip-mined without consideration for the future and where our money is devalued by central planners and our liberties eroded and behaviour managed in order to engineer compliance. Bitcoin, they argue, has the potential to help us escape this labyrinth.

In Bitcoin is Venice, Allen Farrington and Sacha Meyers explore the terrain of what they describe as a global, digital, sound, open-source, programmable currency. What might economies look like under a Bitcoin standard? What might this new form of capital do to our current governing bodies? Can Bitcoin bring about a new global Renaissance?

Join Allen Farrington in conversation with Jeremy Hildreth to assess why Bitcoin matters for freedom in a digital age. Do the risks of Bitcoin outweigh its opportunities? Or in adopting it, could we be embarking on a historical transformation on a par with the agricultural and industrial revolutions?

SPEAKERS
Allen Farrington
investor; co-author, Bitcoin Is Venice

CHAIR
Jeremy Hildreth
author, Unfuckwithable Money and Brand America; travel writer; commentator, Wall Street Journal, Spectator, Monocle, the New York Post and the Washington Times

Battle of Ideas 2022

Why Bitcoin matters for freedom in a digital age

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

THE BATTLE FOR BITCOIN
https://archives.battleofideas.org.uk/2021/session/the-battle-for-bitcoin/

Over the past decade, Bitcoin has gone from a niche hobby of online libertarians and anarchists to the financial mainstream. During the Covid-19 pandemic, a flurry of online speculators helped push the currency’s price sky-high, once more attracting media attention. This time, however, the crypto-currency attracted more serious attention from the professional world of finance.

But despite this growing adoption, it is still unclear to many what the actual purpose of Bitcoin is. Is it a store of value to protect against the collapse of the dollar and hyperinflation? A means for criminals to carry out illicit transactions? Maybe it is just a fun online game – a tool for people to speculate and gamble? Or perhaps, as it was originally intended, it is still a way to make online payments?

Whatever the answer, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies do seem to have spearheaded ideas about digital payments and coins. Facebook, for example, has been exploring the creation of a digital coin to use on its platform, albeit with limited success. But most notably, there has been growing interest from central banks in the form of so-called central bank digital coins (CBDBs). Central banks across the world have expressed interest in the idea, including the Bank of England, European Central Bank and the US Federal Reserve. The People’s Bank of China has gone furthest with the idea and is currently trialling the e-yuan.

While the specifics are still being worked out, in theory, this would cut out a whole host of intermediaries when it comes to digital payments. For some, this is an exciting new development, with technology allowing us to move away from the world of physical cash.

However, CBDCs are a far cry away from the anti-state origins of Bitcoin, which was to take power away from the state or other centralised bodies. CBDCs, however, would see a further centralisation of power in the hands of state institutions. Indeed, the increased power of central banks and other monetary authorities is often one of the touted benefits of CBDCs. Some have speculated that CBDCs could be transferred to citizens with an expiration date, creating a quicker and more efficient fiscal stimulus.

So, while the future of money and finance appears to be increasingly digital, which version will win out? The decentralised, anti-state vision of Bitcoin and its offspring? Or will the more stable, centralised and, arguably, trustworthy central bank digital coins be the future?

SPEAKERS
Donald Clark
tech entrepreneur; investor; professor; author; founder, Epic plc; CEO, WildFire

Frances Coppola
financial writer, Coppola Comment and Coindesk

Jeremy Hildreth
author, Unfuckwithable Money and Brand America; travel writer; commentator, Wall Street Journal, Spectator, Monocle, the New York Post and the Washington Times

Jemima Kelly
Alphaville reporter and Notebook columnist, Financial Times; former FX/fintech correspondent, Reuters

James Woudhuysen
visiting professor, London South Bank University; co-author, Energise! A future for energy innovation; co-author, Why is construction so backward?

CHAIR
Tom Bailey
financial journalist

The Battle For Bitcoin

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

Football fans, farmers and failed pledges - Podcast of Ideas

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

BREAKFAST BANTER: FROM STREET PREACHERS TO CINEWORLD – RELIGIOUS FREEDOM TODAY
https://archives.battleofideas.org.uk/2022/session/from-street-preachers-to-cineworld-religious-freedom-today/

For all the commentary that claims we live in a post-religious age, religion still throws up a number of political and moral dilemmas. On the one hand, expressing support for traditional beliefs about marriage and morality can clash with everything from equalities legislation to demands to be protected from offence. For example, street preachers have been embroiled in police altercations for quoting the Bible and accused of homophobia, and religious groups have faced censure on university campuses for organising pro-life societies.

On the other hand, some religious groups are themselves demanding protection from ‘offence’ in a way that arguably poses a challenge to liberal society. Take, for example, the protests against Cineworld by Muslim protestors who objected to the showing of the ‘blasphemous’ film The Lady of Heaven. At a more extreme end, the author Salman Rushdie was stabbed by a religious zealot earlier this year for his novel The Satanic Verses.

But drawing a clear line between the legitimate exercising of religious beliefs, and intolerant, unacceptable conduct, is not easy – as illustrated by debates about ‘buffer zones’ surrounding abortion clinics. Should protestors be banned from engaging with women making private choices about abortion? Or does freedom of conscience give people a right to try and change their fellow citizen’s minds? Was the recent arrest of a 76 year old, who was silently praying while walking near an abortion clinic during the first lockdown, a step too far?

More broadly, should critical, even blasphemous speech be tolerated – even if it causes offence? Or should we all be more sensitive to the sacred beliefs of others? Do some religious beliefs pose a threat to liberal society, and, if so, which ones? Are traditional religious views about marriage or gender identity falling foul of a new, secular kind of blasphemy law which forbids dissent? How do we negotiate religious freedom in a modern, secular society?

SPEAKERS
Khadija Khan
journalist and commentator

Lois McLatchie
communications officer, ADF UK; commentator

Paul Sapper
producer and journalist, GB News; Roman Catholic

CHAIR
Dr Piers Benn
philosopher, author and lecturer

From street preachers to cineworld: religious freedom today

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

BREAKFAST BANTER: FROM BOOZING TO OBESITY – THE NEW HEALTH TYRANNY?
https://archives.battleofideas.org.uk/2022/session/will-healthy-living-be-the-death-of-us/

It seems that governments can’t get enough of meddling in our lifestyle choices, especially since the turn of the century. We’ve seen a widespread ban on smoking in public spaces and workplaces. In Scotland and Wales, there is now a minimum unit price for alcohol. Across the UK, sugary drinks are now taxed, forcing most manufacturers to reformulate to keep prices down while depriving their customers of choice. Debate is raging on whether to ban ‘buy one, get one free’ deals in supermarkets.

For politicians, these are vital steps in protecting the health of the nation when diseases related to smoking, boozing and obesity are leading causes of ill-health and mortality. Proponents argue that individual choice must be set aside to protect others and to reduce the strain on health services. But critics see these as attacks on personal autonomy, often with little impact on the problems they are supposed to solve.

But it’s not just governments: the moral imperative to live a healthy life has become all-encompassing. Day after day, we are bombarded with advice from all quarters about what we eat and drink, how much exercise we should do, and the latest fads about ‘superfoods’, supplements and alternative therapies.

Have we become too obsessed with health, and if so, why? Should our habits be a matter of personal choice or is it right to place restrictions on them? Is making food and booze more expensive in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis a good idea? Grab the breakfast of your choice, ‘healthy’ or otherwise, and join us for some lively banter on living longer.

SPEAKERS
Justine Brian
director, Civitas Schools; commentator on food issues

Christopher Snowdon
head of lifestyle economics, Institute of Economic Affairs; editor, Nanny State Index; author, Killjoys

John Vincent
co-founder, LEON; creator, FeedNHS; co-author, 2013 government School Food Plan; founder, The Longhouse

CHAIR
Dr Mo Lovatt
national coordinator, Debating Matters; programme coordinator, Academy of Ideas

From boozing to obesity: the new health tyranny?

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

FREE SPEECH OR COMPELLED SPEECH: IS SILENCE VIOLENCE?

This issue of ‘mandated’ or ‘compelled’ speech shot to prominence when ‘Silence is Violence’ emerged in 2020 as the slogan of Black Lives Matters protests. Just as words are often now deemed potentially wounding, so too is a failure to speak out in support of new racial justice etiquette or other identitarian causes. To defy taking the knee, hoisting Pride flags or entering pronouns in email signatures is to risk being judged complicit in discriminatory behaviour, and could lead to guilt shaming or shrunken career prospects.

The idea that there is only one way to think on the big issues, and one right answer, is not limited to ‘woke’ causes. Academics are expected to repeat the approved Western line on Ukraine; those who deviate face ostracisation as government ministers threaten a ‘crackdown’. Russian cultural figures, such as conductor Valery Gergiev, face demands for what is effectively a loyalty oath to the West: silence, it seems, is the hallmark of guilty Putin supporters.

Historically, it was considered a sign of progress when freedom of conscience became the norm, protecting individuals from being forced to express thoughts they disagreed with – the right to act without reference to authorities or majorities, custom or opinion. Today, pressure to speak to new political scripts threatens to undermine conscience-based freedoms.

Under new conversion therapy legislation, for example, religious groups and secular therapists alike may be forced to offer affirmative advice on sexuality and gender issues that goes against their beliefs. Elsewhere, political pressure to speak to an official line reduces space for debate and open-mindedness on important social, cultural and political questions. Ironically, while a fatwa tried to impose silence on Salman Rushdie, many teachers and cultural figures are now forced to rehearse official lines on multiculturalism or white privilege.

Is compelled speech an attack on freedom of conscience or simply the price we pay for trying to live in a more equal society? Isn’t it a positive thing that changing social and cultural linguistic norms means it is no longer acceptable to use derogatory racial and sexist slurs? And doesn’t staying schtum sometimes amount to cowardice, such as the official silence surrounding the grooming gangs? Or given the quest for free speech is largely focused on our right to speak freely, do we now need to go on the offensive over our right to remain silent? How can we defy pressure to embrace cultural or political norms and avoid the trap of a retreat into one-dimensional thinking?

SPEAKERS
Arif Ahmed
professor of philosophy, University of Cambridge; fellow, Gonville and Caius College; author, Evidential Decision Theory

Dr Shahrar Ali
former deputy leader, Green Party; author, Why Vote Green 2015

Abbot Christopher Jamison
Abbot President, English Benedictine Congregation; author, Finding the Language of Grace: rediscovering transcendence

Dr Joanna Williams
founder and director, Cieo; author, How Woke Won and Women vs Feminism

CHAIR
Claire Fox
director, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Free speech or compelled speech: is silence violence?

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

LETTERS ON LIBERTY: THE LIBERATING POWER OF EDUCATION
https://archives.battleofideas.org.uk/2022/session/letters-on-liberty-the-liberating-power-of-education/

Open debate has been suffocated by today’s censorious climate and there is little cultural support for freedom as a foundational value. What we need is rowdy, good-natured disagreement and people prepared to experiment with what freedom might mean today. Faced with this challenge, the Academy of Ideas decided to launch Letters on Liberty – a radical public pamphleteering campaign aimed at reimagining arguments for freedom in the 21st century.

In his Letter – The liberating power of education – writer, lecture and education publisher, Harley Richardson, argues that education has always held a tension between the practical and the technical application of skills and the broader appreciation of a liberal approach to knowledge. Our contemporary aversion to teaching ‘the best that has been thought and known’, he argues, represents a long-standing fear of what the masses might do with unbridled access to education. Teaching is an act of faith, he says, one which must be free to produce new and exciting ideas.

Join Harley and respondents as they explore why we tend to direct education to such narrow ends like teaching to the test. Should we direct funding to subjects that are perceived to be good for the economy? What do we mean by an open-ended liberal education today?

SPEAKERS
Dr Ruth Mieschbuehler
senior lecturer in education studies, Institute of Education, University of Derby; author, The Racialisation of Campus Relations

Harley Richardson
blogger, historyofeducation.net; organising committee, AoI Education Forum; author, The Liberating Power of Education

Dr Adam Simcock
senior lecturer in education, University of Derby; former faculty lead and assistant headteacher

CHAIR
Dr Vanessa Pupavac
translator; associate professor, School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham; author, Translation as Liberation

Letters on Liberty: The liberating power of education

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

FROM GROOMING GANGS TO CHILD PROTECTION: A SCANDAL IN PLAIN SIGHT?
https://archives.battleofideas.org.uk/2022/session/from-grooming-gangs-to-child-protection-a-scandal-in-plain-sight/

The Telford Inquiry, published in July of this year, is the latest in a number of reports that have highlighted the ongoing issue of sexually exploited children by so-called ‘grooming gangs’.  This independent inquiry found that more than 1,000 children in Telford were sexually exploited over decades.

Similar reviews of child sexual exploitation (CSE) paint an alarming picture, from more well-documented cases – such as in Oldham, Rotherham and Bradford – to a range of cases across the country, from Glasgow to Brighton, which have been less well-documented. Yet, despite these inquiries and reports, what real progress has been made in detecting the grooming gangs and preventing CSE?

A major concern raised in the Telford Inquiry was evidence showing that ‘the majority of CSE suspects in Telford…were men of southern Asian heritage’ and this included all the men convicted in Operations Chalice, Delta and Epsilon. However, the report found that when victims, or teachers with management responsibility, raised this issue they were accused of ‘racism’ as well as being met with a failure to investigate further and a general ‘reluctance to act’.  This has led to concerns that political sensitives were valued over and above the duty of care to children and the prosecution of violent acts of child rape.

In addition, this year also saw the release of the government’s Care Review, which highlighted the rise in killed and injured children during the lockdown periods between April and September 2020, and some agencies have predicted that, within the decade, 100,000 children could be in care. The former education secretary, Nadhim Zahawi, promised ‘system change on a national scale’ – but will it make any difference?

Do we need to address underlying issues such as child poverty, domestic abuse, mental health and problems in the care system? Is there a crisis within the criminal justice system and statutory services, or is a society-wide preoccupation with political correctness and safety culture distracting agencies from protecting those children most at risk from exploitation, abuse and neglect?  Who is best placed to address these concerns – and how?

SPEAKERS
Susie Hawkes
senior lecturer in social work, University of Wolverhampton

Dr Ken McLaughlin
former social worker; academic; author, Social Work Politics and Society: from radicalism to orthodoxy and Stigma, and its discontents

Jordan Tyldesley
journalist and commentator

Wasiq Wasiq
counter terrorism analyst; founding trustee, Muslims Against Antisemitism

CHAIR
Jo Herlihy
change manager and business support consultant; author, Alchemy: a search for truth

From grooming gangs to child protection: a scandal in plain sight?

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

FREE SPEECH IN CRISIS: CAN WE TAKE A JOKE?
https://archives.battleofideas.org.uk/2022/session/can-we-take-a-joke-buxton/

There have been many headlines and column inches devoted to the ‘woke’ backlash against comedians from Ricky Gervais to Dave Chappelle. And for many, Jerry Sadowitz’s cancellation at the Edinburgh Fringe was something of a watershed moment in comedy. But what impact are such controversies having on wider society’s ability to have a laugh?

Office banter has long provided welcome relief from repetitive and boring work. If you were the butt of a joke, a clever response was appreciated and respected. If you couldn’t ‘take a joke’, you were seen as a bit ‘up yourself’. People who didn’t ‘get the joke’ were seen as a bit dim.

But in many workplaces, there is now considerable anxiety about what you can and cannot joke about. Will a misjudged comment, meant purely in jest, get you hauled up before HR? Are we becoming too sensitive? On the other hand, some would argue that workplace banter has long been used as a form of bullying – as embodied in the character of Chris Finch in Gervais’s well-observed breakthrough show, The Office.

In a climate of cancel culture and gratuitous offence-seeking, can we still tell jokes – and take them? Where is the line between lightening the mood and being unprofessional to your colleagues? Does office banter and joking make people feel excluded, or does it knit friendship groups and colleagues together?

SPEAKERS
Tania Edwards
stand-up comedian; writer, Stand Up For The Week, Mock the Week and The Unbelievable Truth

Timandra Harkness
journalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree; author, Big Data: does size matter?

Iona Italia
editor-in-chief, Areo Magazine; author, Anxious Employment; host, Two for Tea podcast

Barry Wall
managing director, Edileaditandliveit.co.uk

CHAIR
Andy Shaw
co-founder, Comedy Unleashed

Free speech in crisis: can we take a joke?

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

BEYOND CULTURE WARS: HOW TO ARGUE BETTER IN AN AGE OF CONFORMITY
https://archives.battleofideas.org.uk/2021/session/beyond-culture-wars-how-to-argue-better-in-an-age-of-conformity/

Whether in debates about Brexit, lockdown, Black Lives Matter or gender issues, today’s political discourse feels more brittle and toxic than ever before. Denunciations replace debate. Caricatures of people’s opinions are deployed to delegitimise those we disagree with. Twitter pile-ons attempt to ‘cancel’ people. Even politicians across all parties encourage Big Tech to censor what some deem to be misinformation about Covid, vaccines or lockdowns in general, labelling a wide range of views as conspiracy theories. On every side of political debate, caricatures of our opponents views’ seem to replace honest engagement. For example, those in favour of lockdowns dismiss sceptics as uncaring, and those against them dismiss advocates as fascists.

Debate in general has been replaced by something sinister. Take the events at Batley Grammar School. A teacher was suspended and forced into hiding for fear of his life after being subject to protests – and threats – for showing a cartoon of the prophet Mohammed in a lesson about blasphemy. Some feel this appears to have brought in a blasphemy law by the back door. Many worry that if what can be said is dictated by non-educational standards – like avoiding offence – then teachers will be hindered in teaching the curriculum.

More broadly, there appears to be a demand for conformity, an enforced consensus on certain issues, and dissent is often demonised. As the slogan ‘silence is violence’ insists, even staying quiet on contentious issues is not enough. It is clear which are the ‘correct’ views, and these appear to becoming increasingly insisted upon by major institutions in society.

Even at the heart of educational institutions, where one might hope to find open-ended inquiry that could usefully counter one-sided intellectual bubbles, we instead find that both schools and universities are widely accused of being hotbeds of groupthink. From the fact that academics overwhelmingly backed Remain in the 2016 EU referendum to the widespread endorsement by teachers of pupils attending climate change ‘school strikes’, many insist that education is suffering from a lack of viewpoint diversity.

In universities, polls show conservative-leaning students and academics feel forced to conceal their views for fear of being demonised or even penalised in terms of marks, research grants and career prospects.

Even if exaggerated by some, the idea of a silent majority (or even minority) who feel nervous about arguing against so-called ‘woke’ opinions rings true for many. No-platforming, safe spaces, trigger warnings – these terms are now part of the public conversation and suggest a lack of tolerance and willingness to debate conflicting ideas. In contrast, others argue that those deploying these terms are indulging in a right-wing moral panic about ‘cultural Marxism’ that boils down to little more than a desire by conservatives to protect the status quo.

SPEAKERS
Arif Ahmed
reader in philosophy, University of Cambridge; fellow, Gonville and Caius College; free-speech campaigner

Dr Shahrar Ali
spokesperson for policing and domestic safety, Green Party; author, Why Vote Green 2015

Claire Fox
director, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Reverend Seminarian Calvin Robinson
senior fellow, Policy Exchange; subject matter expert, National Centre for Computing Education; former assistant principal

CHAIR
Ella Whelan
co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

Beyond Culture Wars: how to argue better in an age of conformity

This is a recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://archives.battleofideas.org.uk/2021/session/history-wars/

How should we decide what works of literature, art and history form the ‘canon’ in our curricula, and which historical figures should we choose to adorn our establishment buildings? Are today’s students really too sensitive to live and learn alongside Britain’s past, to appreciate that today’s moral standards are different to those of our ancestors? And how big is the issue of calls for decolonisation? Is the idea that the school or university curriculum should rely on codified knowledge of the past simply a desire to maintain the status quo?

Speakers:
- Nicolas Kinloch
history teacher; teacher fellow, School of Oriental and African Studies; honorary fellow, Historical Association; author, In Defence of Teaching History

- Dr Sean Lang
senior lecturer in History, Anglia Ruskin University; author, First World War for Dummies; fellow, Historical Association

- Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbert
head of education and co-ordinator, Don't Divide Us; author, What should schools teach? Disciplines, subjects and the pursuit of truth

- Sean Walsh
teacher; head of history

- CHAIR: Kevin Rooney
convenor, AoI Education Forum; politics teacher; co-author, The Blood Stained Poppy

History Wars

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

LETTERS ON LIBERTY: UNSHACKLING INTIMACY
https://archives.battleofideas.org.uk/2021/session/letters-on-liberty-unshackling-intimacy/

During the pandemic, public life came to a standstill. But long before lockdowns and viruses threatened the freedoms that we hold dear, there has been a problem with our belief in liberty.

Open debate has been suffocated by today’s censorious climate and there is little cultural support for freedom as a foundational value. What we need is rowdy, good-natured disagreement and people prepared to experiment with what freedom might mean today. Faced with this challenge, the Academy of Ideas decided to launch Letters on Liberty – a radical public pamphleteering campaign aimed at reimagining arguments for freedom in the 21st century.

In his Letter – Unshackling Intimacy – writer and journalist Ralph Leonard champions sexual freedom as reflective of a more general individual and social freedom. He argues that while taboos around sex and intimacy have shifted over time, prejudices still abound relating to ‘free love’. While the lockdowns might have had an extreme impact on our ability to be intimate, Ralph argues that it would be a mistake to see the pandemic as the sole threat to sexual freedom.

Join Ralph and respondents to ask, has the pandemic killed off our wild side? Do we need to drop our remaining prejudices about love in order for sexual expression to transcend its current fetters? And how do we rediscover love and intimacy in a world that often seems hostile to risk?

SPEAKERS
Neil Davenport
cultural critic; head of faculty of social sciences, JFS Sixth Form Centre

Suzi Godson
columnist, The Times; co-founder, MeeToo Education; author, The MeeToo Teenage Mental Help Handbook

Ralph Leonard
author, Unshackling Intimacy: Letters on Liberty; contributor, Areo

CHAIR
Dr Shirley Lawes
researcher; consultant and university teacher, specialising in teacher education and modern foreign languages; Chevalier dans l'ordre des Palmes Academiques

Letters on Liberty: Unshackling intimacy

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

LAND OF THE UNFREE? SCOTLAND UNDER THE SNP
https://archives.battleofideas.org.uk/2021/session/land-of-the-unfree-scotland-under-the-snp/

‘We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation’, Voltaire was alleged to have said in recognition the Scottish Enlightenment’s unique contribution to the world. But what would he think if he were alive today, after almost 15 years of the Scottish National Party (SNP) in power?

The SNP claims to be building a country with ‘kindness, compassion, fairness, equality and enterprise at its heart’, to quote the party’s recent election manifesto. Yes, higher education is free of charge for Scottish students in Scotland. Prescriptions are free, too, and the rules on social-care financing are more generous.

But during the SNP’s time in office, Scotland has also led the way on attacks on core liberties. Football supporters faced imprisonment for singing the wrong songs, alcohol now attracts a minimum price and the SNP attempted to give every child a state guardian or ‘named person’ to oversee their journey to adulthood.

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act, which came into force in April, has been widely criticised for its potential to restrict free speech. Meanwhile the SNP has formed a coalition with the Scottish Greens and one of the new government’s plans is to introduce gender self-identification and to redefine ‘woman’ to include some men. The plan has attracted widespread criticism across the political spectrum, from conservatives to feminists.

These attacks on freedom go beyond government diktat. In September 2020, Edinburgh University changed the name of one of its buildings, David Hume Tower, because the eighteenth-century philosopher’s ‘comments on matters of race, though not uncommon at the time, rightly cause distress today’. Meanwhile, Scottish academics have come under attack. Edinburgh University lecturer Neil Thin was accused, wrongly, of holding racist and sexist views. A student at Abertay University, Lisa Keogh, was suspended for saying that women have vaginas.

Mel Gibson’s film Braveheart famously has William Wallace declare that ‘they’ll never take our freedom!’ So why has Scotland’s government been doing just that? How do calls for independence sit with restrictions on individual ‘self-determination’? Is the SNP helping to set a wider tone of illiberalism?

SPEAKERS
Marion Calder
co-director, For Women Scotland

Dr Stuart Waiton
senior lecturer, sociology and criminology, Abertay University; author, Scared of the Kids: curfews crime and the regulation of young people

CHAIR
Alastair Donald
co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Land of the unfree? Scotland under the SNP

The Academy of Ideas team is joined by John O'Brien and Jacob Reynolds from MCC Brussels to discuss the attempted censorship of NatCon, threats to free speech in Europe and the prayer ban at Michaela Community School.

From NatCon to Berlin: free speech in Europe

Battle of Ideas 2015

Reassessing paternalism: is autonomy a myth?

Battle of Ideas 2014

Our morals, their moralism?

Is there a future for liberalism?

Is technology limiting our humanity?

Hashtag feminism: radical or banal?

Growth is good: mission or mania?

From literature to Twitter: the death of the reader?

Can we manufacture a new economy?

Big Data, big danger?

At the Institute of Ideas Academy 2012, Professor Roger Scruton delivered a plenary lecture on Kant. 

Academy 2012. Roger Scruton: Immanuel Kant and the purity of subjective experience

Academy in One Day
Unarguably the most infamous of all the great works of political philosophy, Niccolo Machiavelli’s Il Principe has inspired revulsion and adoration in almost equal measure. For some, it is a handbook for evil, an appeal for politics where the ends always justify the means, and where ‘Old Nick’ tells rulers they must ‘learn not to be good’. For others, as it was for some of the American Founding Fathers, it is a republican call-to-arms, asserting the sanctity of the public realm and the goods of self-government. And, since Rousseau, some have even been tempted read it as satire.

A wickedly honest and endlessly provocative book, The Prince has inspired intense debate since even before its posthumous publication in 1532, and its heady mix of Roman Republicanism, Renaissance Humanism and real-world focus makes it a great introduction to political philosophy.

Speakers
Professor Elizabeth Frazer
head of department, Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford; fellow in politics, New College Oxford

Chair
Jacob Reynolds
consultant, SHM Productions 

Machiavelli, The Prince

The term ‘fascism’ originated in Mussolini’s Partito Nazionale Fascista
in Italy, though it is more notoriously associated with Hitler’s National Socialist Party in Germany. It has, however, come to be widely used as an abusive epithet, to refer to any political formation regarded with distaste. In recent months, the fascist label has been promiscuously applied to Donald Trump, to so-called ‘alt-right’ movements and to anti-immigrant parties in Eastern Europe. Some commentators seriously claim that fascism is making a comeback. Is this a real possibility – or should we be more circumspect in using
this label?

SPEAKERS

JANE CAPLAN
professor emeritus of modern European history, University of Oxford

ROGER GRIFFIN
professor in modern history, Oxford Brookes University; author, Fascism: an introduction to fascist studies

KEVIN PASSMORE
professor of history, Cardiff University; author, Fascism: a very short introduction

BRUNO WATERFIELD
Brussels correspondent, The Times; coauthor, No Means No

What is fascism?

How could so many people be convinced to vote for Donald Trump?
 Why did so many Brits vote to leave the EU, despite almost unanimous advice from experts, political leaders and celebrities that we should remain? Some attribute these results to the power of Big Data, specifically to the high-tech psychological marketing techniques of a company called Cambridge Analytica. Can the manipulation of data really swing important votes? What are the implications of this approach for privacy and democracy? What does the assumption that a few targeted messages can influence voters’ decisions tell us about elite attitudes towards the electorate? 

SPEAKERS

JAMIE BARTLETT 
director, Centre for the Analysis of Social Media, Demos; author, The Dark Net and Radicals; presenter, BBC’s The Secrets of Silicon Valley 

CAROLE CADWALLADR 
feature writer, Observer 

SIMON COOKE 
member, Institute of Direct and Digital Marketing; leader of the Conservative group, Bradford City Council 

TIMANDRA HARKNESS journalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, FutureProofing; author, Big Data: does size matter?

Battle of Ideas 2017

Was it Big Data wot won it? Political campaigning today

Are robots going to put us all out of work? Drivers are at risk of being replaced by autonomous vehicles and administrative staff face competition from intelligent assistants like Amazon’s Alexa. Whereas in the past automation largely affected low-skilled jobs, smarter machines and the deployment of artificial intelligence could threaten many high-skilled workers in future. The threat of automation has been anticipated for many years – has it finally arrived? Why are so many commentators and politicians fearful of smart machines? Is growing inequality an inevitable consequence of new technology? Are we merely blaming robots for the deeper problems of the economy?

SPEAKERS

TIMANDRA HARKNESS 
journalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, FutureProofing; author, Big Data: does size matter? 

MATHEW LAWRENCE 
senior research fellow, IPPR 

KEVIN MCCULLAGH 
founder, Plan; writer and commentator  on design 

JOEL TITO 
programme manager, AI and the future of government, Centre for Public Impact

Rage Against The Machines: Is Automation a Threat to Jobs?

Listen to recordings of our discussions and debates. Our aim is to expand the boundaries of public debate, to break out of today's echo chambers and challenge orthodoxies.

Popular tracks by Academy of Ideas