Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack:https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

Listen for audio from the Battle of Ideas festival 2023:https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/

Battle of Ideas festival 2023

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

WHO’S AFRAID OF POPULISM?
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/whos-afraid-of-populism/

The recent clamour in Germany for a ban on a right-wing populist party, Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), has once again thrust the question of populism and democracy centre stage. With polls showing support for AfD at an all-time high, President Frank-Walter Steinmeier warned that ‘enemies’ of democracy could soon erode Germans’ freedoms and ‘brutalise’ society. ‘We all have it in our hands to put those who despise our democracy in their place’, he warned, ominously.

However, since Plato argued that excessive freedom leads to mass ignorance, hysteria and, ultimately, tyranny, it has been Western cultural and political elites themselves that have often been driven by a sense of mistrust or even hostility towards democracy and the people. No doubt such fears are accentuated by populist parties being voted into power in Finland, Italy, Hungary, Sweden and more. The latest anxieties centre on Net Zero as the focus of the next big populist revolt. Liberal opinion frets that ‘green policies are the new Brexit’ and suspiciously eyes new rural-metropolitan divides, for example, as expressed by the Dutch Farmer Citizen Movement.

Pragmatically, it can be convenient for mainstream politicians, especially on the left, to use the populist label to discredit grassroots opposition by denouncing the likes of protesters against London’s ultra-low emissions zone (ULEZ) as alt-right conspiracy-mongers. But mainstream free-market conservatives can be equally ill at ease, for example with popular hostility to migration or globalism and can wince at expressions of old-fashioned socially conservative attitudes to family and working-class community norms.

‘Never Trump’ anti-populist Republicans have been as keen as liberal-minded Democrats to distance themselves from the tens of millions of ‘deplorables’ who have helped singing Virginia farmer Oliver Anthony’s song ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ become an overnight viral success. In the UK, Singapore-On-Thames Vote Leave politicians’ seem to have conflicting priorities with those Red Wall Brexiteers, who demand British jobs for British workers.

Do erstwhile socially conservative populists such as Sohrab Ahmari have a point when they say populism must take a leftwards turn and address economic transformation? Perhaps populism is in fact less of an ally of conservatism, than the force of revenge against nominally conservative parties that bought into a liberal, elitist agenda. But does this reactive aspect to populism limit its ability for forge a new political movement?

If populism is worth embracing as offering a voice for people, how can it provide a genuine alternative to the politics of technocratic governance? With many populists fixated on cultural battles, is there a danger of simply mimicking the narrow identitarian outlook of progressives, in this context transferring a sense of victimhood to the lives of the masses? And how can we move beyond populism being defined in the public eye by its detractors?

SPEAKERS
Sabine Beppler-Spahl
chair, Freiblickinstitut e.V; CEO, Sprachkunst36; author, Off-centre: how party consensus undermines our democracy; Germany correspondent, spiked

Lord David Frost
member of the House of Lords

Tim Montgomerie
conservative journalist; founder, ConservativeHome, UnHerd and Centre for Social Justice

Jacob Reynolds
head of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Freddie Sayers
editor-in-chief, UnHerd; former editor-in-chief, YouGov; founder, PoliticsHome

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

TASCAM SD-20M

Who's afraid of populism?

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

WHATSAPPENED TO PRIVACY?
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/whatsappened-to-privacy/

From intimate selfies to leaking of personal messages, the digital age seems to relentlessly blur the boundaries between private and public. Not only are we encouraged to bare it all for social media, but the idea of private or secret communication is increasingly seen as a cover for all kinds of ‘online harms’. While the UK has backed off (for now) from enforcing Online Safety Bill provisions to remove end-to-end encryption, the widespread suspicion by government of encrypted services remains. What goes on in private group chats or messengers is said to be the site of danger, exploitation and threats to health and security.

But it is not just social media or new laws that seem to threaten privacy. Indeed, official bodies are subject to endless leaks, baring the details of this or that supposedly private meeting or conversation. But perhaps this is no bad thing: debate about crucial issues has been widely informed by the leak of previously private correspondence, such as the over 100,000 messages between former health secretary Matt Hancock and others at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. The leak revealed important information about the decisions surrounding lockdowns.

But even if much valuable information was gleaned from the leak, should we be worried about the wider implications of removing the assumption of privacy? For example, many worry that recent charges against former police officers for sharing racist messages in a private WhatsApp group chat upend the principle that what we say ‘behind closed doors’ is a private matter. In a similar vein, the Scottish Government’s recent removal of a ‘dwelling defence’ to a landmark hate-crime bill explicitly invites the courts to police what is said in private. Likewise, many campaigners point to the fact that Britain is one of the most surveilled countries in the world, with the previous privacy of walking the street or meeting friends in a pub now subject to the glare of Big Brother.

But what is so valuable about privacy – and what is at risk if we lose too much of it? Should we welcome the tendency to make everything public, especially if it roots out backward attitudes or exposes those who misuse power? What’s the relationship between the public and private, and where does the balance lie?

SPEAKERS
Josie Appleton
director, civil liberties group, Manifesto Club; author, Officious: Rise of the Busybody State; writer, Notes on Freedom

David Davis
member of parliament, Conservative Party

Dr Tiffany Jenkins
writer and broadcaster; author, Strangers and Intimates (forthcoming) and Keeping Their Marbles

Tim Stanley
columnist and leader writer, Daily Telegraph; author, Whatever Happened to Tradition? History, Belonging and the Future of the West

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

Whatsappened to privacy?

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

BATTLE OF IDEAS 2023 WELCOME ADDRESS

In advance of the weekend at Church House Westminster, Alastair Donald, Claire Fox and Ben Deblo introduce the themes of the festival here.

Speakers:

Ben Delo
entrepreneur, mathematician and philanthropist

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

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

Battle of Ideas Festival 2023 Welcome Address

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

WAR ON THE PAST: A WAR ON THE PUBLIC?
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/the-war-on-the-past-a-war-on-the-public/

When Sir Winston Churchill stated that ‘a nation that forgets its past has no future’, he had no idea that decades later we’d have such a problem with history; that we’d problematise anyone daring to defend past achievements and values. Indeed today, even quoting Churchill is enough to get you cancelled in some circles. Meanwhile, historical figures and the intellectual legacy of the past are presented as ‘problematic’. Towering figures such as David Hume and Immanuel Kant are casually dismissed from the curriculum as racists; buildings or streets renamed because scientists such as Thomas Henry Huxley failed to live up to modern values; galleries rearranged or even shuttered because an Athenian figure or Victorian explorer exhibited racist, sexist and ableist behaviour.

If the past is filled with bad people who did bad things, their continued presence is cast as the root cause of problems in the here and now. Hence why correcting the sins of our fathers is the solution – or at least the first step – to dealing with contemporary issues. Racism, sexism and homophobia in old books or historic figures must be removed from our cultural landscape so that there can be no confusion over what values we hold today. Some worry that we have all but adopted Walter Benjamin’s ‘Angel of History’ theory – that the past is merely the rubble of human mistake and misery, piling up as the years go on. Everything that is old was wrong, and, as such, the outdated ideas of yesterday must be cast out from contemporary society.

While some suggest it was ever thus – young generations decrying their parents’ beliefs as outdated and unworkable – today’s cultural war on history seems more an assault on the traditions, the language, the values of today’s public who do not espouse the fashion of disdain for past mores. Modern linguistic updating, school history-books rewritten, places renamed to eradicate historical sinners, self-censorship and internal iconoclasm instigated by cultural institutions can leave the majority of citizens feeling alienated and disorientated. Some argue, the expansion of the present backwards in chronological time serves to detach Western society and its citizens from its legacy, and from the origins and the traditions that underpin conventions, practices and identity – not just an aversion to the people of the past, but a visceral aversion to the people of today who espouse the ‘wrong’, ‘outdated’ values.

Is there anything intrinsically wrong in updating backward attitudes of the past? Before we confront the problems of our time, should we fix the problems of the past? Or by erasing the boundary between our history and our current moment, are we imprisoning ourselves in a timeless vacuum? Is our only hope of looking to the future in regaining some clarity about how to draw the line between the then and the now? Without a knowledge of the past, can we know ourselves?

SPEAKERS
Dr Ashley Frawley
sociologist; author, Significant Emotions and Semiotics of Happiness

Ivan Hewett
writer and broadcaster; chief music critic, Telegraph; professor, Royal College of Music; author, Music: healing the rift

Ivan Krastev
political analyst; permanent fellow, Institute for Human Sciences, IWM Vienna; chairman, Centre for Liberal Strategies; author, Is it Tomorrow, Yet? How the Pandemic Changes Europe

Dr Sean Lang
senior lecturer in History, Anglia Ruskin University; author, First World War for Dummies and What History Do We Need?; fellow, Historical Association

Professor Robert Tombs
emeritus professor of French history, Cambridge University; co-editor, History Reclaimed

CHAIR
Jacob Reynolds
head of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

War on the past: a war on the public?

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!

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

AGAINST FATALISM: HOW CAN WE CREATE A NEW ENLIGHTENMENT?
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/against-fatalism-how-can-we-create-a-new-enlightenment/

‘Dare to know.’ This was the battle cry of the Age of Enlightenment in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Europe. This spirit remade the world, birthed new sciences and inventions, breathed life into democracy and unleashed economies that lifted millions from obscurity and destitution.

Today, by contrast, daring seems to be in short supply. A strange cloud of both complacency and despondency seems to have settled over the Western world. From climate change to the cost-of-living crisis, we are told both that our problems are enormous, and also that there is not much we can hope to do to fix them – except to lower our expectations. Such a mood strikes a stark contrast with the spirit of the Enlightenment, which assumed that through reason, science, argument and human ingenuity, all the problems that society faced could be dealt with.

Across the political divide, there seems to be a shared assumption that human agency is at best a mirage, at worst a dangerous fairytale. We live in an ‘age of determinisms’ – techno-determinism, neuro-determinism, environmental determinism. Popular historians and philosophers announce that human beings are at the mercy of immovable processes. Research in genetics is used to suggest that government policies and individual effort matter little in accounting for social outcomes. Conspiracists proclaim that we are all pawns of globalists pulling the strings.

Yet this whole mood seems challenged by masses of people across the West who feel their societies are heading fast in the wrong direction. The desire to ‘take back control’ echoes across the globe. This demand could have easily been another Enlightenment slogan: the idea that by turning power over to the people, we might attain mastery over the forces that shape society. Both on left and right, there has been much discussion about how to give voice to the demand for change.

But perhaps what is needed is less a new technocratic innovation – a people’s assembly or a voting reform, a new social media tool or a new form of community service – than a way to give room to a spirit of popular engagement. The Age of Enlightenment, by way of comparison, was clearly founded on a ‘republic of letters’ that extended from the most prestigious journals and universities to the humblest of coffee houses.

Where, then, are we to find the successor to the Enlightenment coffee house? How do we recapture the spirit of an age that insisted human beings could remake the world? Do we need a new Enlightenment, and how do we ‘dare to know’ today?

SPEAKERS
Professor Frank Furedi
sociologist and social commentator; executive director, MCC Brussels; author, 100 Years of Identity Crisis: culture war over socialisation

Professor Jonathan Israel
professor emeritus, School of Historical Studies, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton; author, Spinoza, Life and Legacy and Radical Enlightenment

Munira Mirza
chief executive, Civic Future

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

Against Fatalism: How can we create a new enlightenment?

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

ARE THE CULTURE WARS A DISTRACTION? 
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/are-the-culture-wars-a-distraction/

Compared with issues like the cost-of-living crisis, climate change or the war in Ukraine and the return of global conflict to Europe, many view the culture war as a peripheral issue. At a time when developments such as AI threaten mankind’s progress and, in the minds of some, could lead to our extinction, one commentator argues: ‘The culture wars may be seen not as genuine debates but as a form of Freudian displacement. The woke and anti-woke need each other to engage in piffling spats as a diversion from realities they both find too psychologically threatening to confront.’

Do they have a point? Are we effectively fiddling while Rome burns? Whether it’s fights over vegan sausage rolls or galleries flying rainbow flags, culture-war debates certainly generate a lot of heat. But when economic realities mean, for example, that hospitals are under strain and many cannot access vital health treatment, not surprisingly identitarian wars over language codes can be viewed as an artificial attempt to distract us from the problems that really matter – at a time when few politicians seem capable of offering genuine solutions. For others, the UK culture wars are an American import – an alt-right, Christian fundamentalist assault on stability and the body politic. Given that even the most strident culture warriors on the conservative side are at pains to insist they are not racist, sexist or transphobic, why get so agitated about different degrees of enthusiasm for a worldview we all basically share?

Or is there more to it than is admitted? While today’s cultural divides may not straightforwardly map onto historic Left-Right splits, some say that, in essence, they do reflect significant contemporary class and political divides. Given that how we see the world, and what we value and want out of life, is mediated through culture, today’s battles around historic figures’ links to slavery, or institutions ‘virtue signalling’ over toilets and pronouns can have the capacity to fundamentally influence how we understand ourselves and negotiate change. If no one, from the National Trust to the British Library, will uphold the traditional values and the legacy of the past, will we lose our sense of who we are and where we’ve come from?

Are the culture wars simply a Twitter sideshow to the more serious concerns of everyday life? Or is the way we relate to each other, and to our shared values, fundamental to how we plan for a future together? If, as some argue, today’s culture war is a continuation of the age-old conflict between liberty and authoritarianism, does the claim that the culture war is a ‘distraction’ not in itself become a distraction from the issues that matter?

SPEAKERS
Professor Aaqil Ahmed
director, Amplify Consulting Ltd; professor of media, University of Bolton; former head of religion, Channel 4 and BBC

Andrew Doyle
presenter, Free Speech Nation, GB News; writer and comedian; author, The New Puritans: how the religion of social justice captured the Western world and Free Speech and Why It Matters

Professor Frank Furedi
sociologist and social commentator; executive director, MCC Brussels; author, 100 Years of Identity Crisis: culture war over socialisation

Lord Ken Macdonald KC
barrister, Matrix Chambers; crossbench peer

Nina Power
philosopher; senior editor, Compact Magazine; author, What Do Men Want? Masculinity and its discontents

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

Are the culture wars a distraction?

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

WHY DO COMEDIANS KEEP SIDING WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT?
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/why-do-comedians-keep-siding-with-the-establishment/

At this year’s Edinburgh Festival Fringe, Comedy Unleashed’s show, featuring Graham Linehan, was cancelled because the venue did not ‘support his views’ and his presence would ‘violate their space’. The edgy spirit that used to characterise the Edinburgh Festival Fringe specifically, and stand-up comedy more generally, seems to have evaporated. There was no outcry from comedians attending the festival and very few publicly expressed even the mildest of support for free expression in the arts.

Earlier this year, Nigel Farage was debanked by Coutts, for expressing views that go against the bank’s ‘values’. Despite the bankers themselves having admitted fault, comedian Omid Djalili publicly sided with the elite bank. When comedians see no problem with using the denial of banking services as a form of punishment for holding certain views, how can they claim that they are ‘punching up’?

Why do comedians increasingly side with the Establishment? How can comics say that they are ‘punching up’ when they support the people being ‘cancelled’ by corporations? As society becomes more authoritarian, where is the satirical response and creative backlash?

Speakers:

Miriam Elia
satirical conceptual artist; author, We See the Sights, We Go To The Gallery and We Do Lockdown; creator, A Series Of Psychotic Episodes

Dominic Frisby
writer; comedian; author, Bitcoin: the future of money?

Graham Linehan
creator and co-creator, Father Ted, Black Books and The IT Crowd; comedy writer, Count Arthur Strong, Brass Eye and The Fast Show; author, Tough Crowd: How I Made and Lost a Career in Comedy

Chair: Andy Shaw
co-founder, Comedy Unleashed

Why do comedians keep siding with the establishment?

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

WHAT IS ‘THE BLOB’?
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/what-is-the-blob/

In the 1950s sci-fi movie, The Blob was a jelly-like creature that landed from space, growing as it consumed every person or town in its path. Seized on by Ronald Reagan’s education secretary, William Bennett, to collectively describe the growth of teachers, public servants, lobbyists and unions who resisted reform, ‘the blob’ was popularised in the UK by Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings, depicting their frustrations at perceived intransigence to reform at the Department for Education.

Since then, the blob has mutated to become a catch-all pejorative term that collectively describes those resistant to the government’s wishes. The BBC and the judiciary are branded as the blob due to perceived anti-Brexit bias. The blob is also blamed for the downfall of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, whose respective pro-Brexit and low-tax worldviews were seemingly resisted or sabotaged within government. Meanwhile, Home Office civil servants allegedly resist implementation of the Rwanda deportation programme, aided by anonymous ECHR judges and activist immigration lawyers boasting of removing clients from flights.

Some say the blob serves as evidence of the dominance of a ‘new elite’, including the civil service acting in tandem with a new graduate class now dominating academia, NGOs and the so-called ‘Charity Industrial Complex’. This shapeless, shifting obstacle to reform acts deliberately to stop policies they oppose, reinforcing a particular status quo at the expense of the concerns of voters. Democratic decision-making, critics say, is under threat by new forces in society that are richer, more influential, and more ideological than ever.

However, the term itself has many critics. Simon Case, the UK’s most senior civil servant, has described use of ‘the blob’ as ‘dehumanising’. Others say overuse of the term, allied to its lack of specificity, allows the Tories and other critics to turn a despondency with institutional resistance into an all-purpose conspiracy theory, used to delegitimise valid concerns of their opponents.

Others point out that, ironically, without critical challenge from civil servants and the third sector, the government could end up in its own echo chamber. Critics of government policy are now being banned from even speaking to civil servants – seemingly undermining the very democracy that those worried about the blob are supposedly concerned about.

Is grouping together such a wide range of experts, political actors and civil society institutions either accurate or useful? Has the civil service really been captured or is this just the latest manifestation of conspiratorial thinking? To what extent is the blob just a convenient scapegoat for politicians to deflect from their own failures? And if a notional blob does, in reality, present resistance to change, what steps could be taken to challenge it?

Speakers:

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

Nick Busvine OBE
consultant; founding partner, Herminius Holdings Ltd; advisory board member, Briefings for Britain; former diplomat, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Poppy Coburn
assistant comment editor, Daily Telegraph

Professor Bill Durodié
chair of International Relations, department of Politics, Languages and International Studies, University of Bath

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

What is 'the blob'?

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

RISING TENSIONS, FALLING GROWTH: PROSPECTS FOR THE GLOBAL ECONOMY?
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/rising-tensions-falling-growth-prospects-for-the-global-economy/

Economies around the world have been on the back foot in recent years. The Covid pandemic and the policy response to it – from lockdowns and restrictions on travel to business restrictions and furlough payments – continues to be felt. The war in Ukraine has created problems with energy and food supplies, as well as calling into question assumptions about trade. Covid supply-chain problems have reinforced calls to ‘reshore’ or ‘friendshore’ production, potentially putting a brake on globalisation.

But it’s not just such ‘one off’ issues that are leading many commentators to look gloomily at the prospects for economic growth. Poor economic news from Beijing has called into the question of the ability of China to continue to drive the world economy as it has since the crisis in 2008. From ageing populations to dealing with climate change, there are some longstanding headwinds, too.

In the past, the US could play a central role of determining how an economic crisis would be handled. But America is no longer in a dominant economic position to call the shots. Geopolitical tensions, in particular between America and China, may make agreeing on a way forward through the current problems more difficult. The BRICS countries (Brazil, China, Russia, India and South Africa) are trying to forge a path independent of the US, while Europe has plenty of problems of its own.

What are the prospects for the global economy? How will the changing global order affect the international response to an economic slowdown?

Speakers:

Liam Halligan
columnist, Sunday Telegraph; presenter, On the Money, GB News; author, Home Truths: the UK's chronic housing shortage

Ivan Krastev
political analyst; permanent fellow, Institute for Human Sciences, IWM Vienna; chairman, Centre for Liberal Strategies; author, Is it Tomorrow, Yet? How the Pandemic Changes Europe

Maggie Pagano
columnist, Daily Mail; executive editor, Reaction

Helen Searls
chief operating officer, Feature Story News

Dr Radomir Tylecote
director of research, Legatum Institute; author, Inadvertently Arming China?

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

Rising tensions, falling growth: prospects for the global economy?

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

REVIVING ECONOMIES: IS THE STATE A HELP OR A HINDRANCE?
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/reviving-economies-state-help-hindrance/

With the Conservatives doing badly in the polls and Labour riding high, the UK could have a new party in government in the next year or so. How will this change the relationship between the state and the private sector – and will it boost economic performance and living standards?

During the Corbyn years and even beyond, Labour has talked up the possibility of nationalising important parts of the UK economy – such as water and energy supplies and the railways. But more recently, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves appear to have rowed back on such pledges, with Starmer saying he would not be ‘ideological’ about state control.

Many commentators have pointed out that houses are not being built fast enough. While unemployment is relatively low, the quality of jobs is too often poor. Many argue that what it is needed is more state intervention, greater funding for healthcare, a return to state-provided housing and a proper industrial strategy to boost sectors that can be world-leading, especially in supporting the drive to Net Zero.

Others argue that for all the talk of free markets, we actually have too much state intervention and control. Businesses are bound up in regulation. Government expenditure is getting close to the equivalent of 50% of GDP. Planning rules make building anything almost impossible. Far from a free market, we have everyone from civil servants to central bankers determining how the economy develops, with little room for private initiative or democratic control.

But is the state vs market debate moot – because the ability of the state to change things is becoming exhausted? Increasing state spending even further would have relatively little impact, but government debt is already enormous in any event. ‘Cheap money’ policies of low interest rates and quantitative easing have had to be reversed to tackle inflation.

Whoever wins the next election, what is the best way forward for the UK economy?

Speakers:

Paul Embery
firefighter; trade unionist; columnist; author, Despised: why the modern Left loathes the working class; broadcaster

Matthew Lesh
director of public policy and communications, Institute of Economic Affairs

Ali Miraj
broadcaster; founder, the Contrarian Prize; infrastructure financier; DJ

Hilary Salt FIA, FPMI, FRSA
actuary; founder, First Actuarial

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

Reviving economies: Is the state a help or a hindrance?

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

IS THERE A ‘WAR ON THE MOTORIST’?
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/is-there-a-war-on-the-motorist/

The furore over the widening of London’s ultra-low emissions zone (ULEZ) to include all London boroughs has been identified by many as the latest battleground in a ‘war on the motorist’. The Welsh government has imposed a blanket speed limit of 20mph on all ‘residential’ roads. Low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) have proliferated across the UK, making getting from A to B more difficult and increasing traffic jams on main roads nearby. All that on top of high taxes on fuel – in September 2023, around half the ‘pump price’ was made up of tax. In fact, when global oil prices were lower, as much as three quarters of the pump price was tax.

There have been protests against LTNs in London and independent candidates have stood in council elections to make the case for them to be scrapped. Opponents of London’s ULEZ have gone further, vandalising the cameras that are supposed to catch those who haven’t paid. Critics of anti-car measures point out that they are invaluable for many elderly and disabled people, as well as those with children. Life outside the big cities would be much more difficult without independent transport. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has declared ‘I’m slamming the brakes on the war on motorists’ and ‘hare-brained’ schemes such as LTNs and 20mph zones. Westminster is out of touch and too focussed on trains, he says, declaring: ‘cars are freedom for most people.’

Yet others think the claims of a ‘war on the motorist’ are overblown. Mileage has increased hugely in recent decades, from 141 billion miles in 1982 to 262 billion miles in 2019. The total number of cars rose around 50% between 1994 and 2022, from 21million to 32million – and all those extra vehicles need to park somewhere. The cost of driving has actually fallen compared to the general cost of living, while other forms of transport have become more expensive.

London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, has argued that while the poorest are least likely to own a car, they are much more likely to suffer the consequences of pollution. Drivers tend to be richer, older and of greater social status – are they really so powerless? Indeed, many would argue that cities are much more pleasant when the car is no longer king, creating space for walking and cycling. Campaign group Stop Killing Cyclists argue ’20mph zones make a significant difference for safety for kids’, advocating the Government ‘expand’ 20mph zones.

When so many people rely on cars for personal transport and the whole country relies on vans and trucks to move goods around, why has government at local and national level made driving harder? Is there really a ‘war on the motorist’ when driving is relatively cheaper and more popular than before? What’s wrong with encouraging people to cycle, walk or use public transport?

SPEAKERS
Mary Dejevsky
former foreign correspondent in Moscow, Paris and Washington; special correspondent in China; writer and broadcaster

Alan Miller
co-founder and chair, Together Association;

Simon Nash
environmentalist; speaker; activist and founder, Green Oil bicycle lubes

CHAIR
Dr Paul Reeves
developer of manufacturing simulation technology

Is there a 'war on the motorist'?

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

HAVE WE GIVEN UP ON SEXUAL FREEDOM?
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/have-we-given-up-on-sexual-freedom-2/

Sex has never been so fetishised. We hire experts to portray it ‘consensually’ on TV series, we plan classes on how to talk to our kids about it and we row, constantly, about what is the right way to have it. Sex is everywhere – from pop stars in bondage gear to podcasts about technique.

The question is, are we having any? The paradox of our over-sexualised lives is that fewer people – particularly the young – seem to be enjoying casual sex. Poll after poll shows that generation Z is shunning one-night stands in favour of more low-risk escapades, like sexting. With pornographic depictions of women available at the flick of a touchscreen phone, many young people begin their sexual lives already saturated with extreme material. Some argue that this is the fault of the sexual revolution – the mainstreaming of sex and loosening of morals has led to the pornification and sexualisation of childhood. As a result, some young men and women complain that this presents an impossible image to aspire to, turning sex into a disappointment instead of an adventure.

For some, the answer to our problem with sex is that we’ve simply had too much of our cake and eaten it. The self-titled ‘reactionary feminist’ Mary Harrington says that the sexual revolution has failed us. ‘What we need’, she writes ‘is not more freedom, it’s more and better obligations’. Many small-c conservatives claim that what a young generation really needs is less sex and more commitment. For them, high divorce and low birth rates reveal a problem with our relationship with sex. Louise Perry, whose debut book The Case Against the Sexual Revolution has been wildly popular, recently set up ‘Maiden Matchmaking’ events, where the rule is ‘no shagging on the first date’.

It’s not just the right who are worried about the sexual revolution and its consequences – the contraceptive pill is now almost as unpopular with feminist commentators as it is in church aisles. Even the most liberal commentators claim that there is a problem with sex being an ‘expected’ part of adult life – another job that women have to take on in a busy world. Following the MeToo movement, ‘safe sex’ is no longer characterised as concerns about STIs or pregnancy, but about the possibility of rape and assault. Many argue that sexual freedom didn’t equalise the bedsheets, but merely allowed more ways for men to get away with what they want.

Have we given up on sexual freedom? Is chastity really the only answer to a fraught sexual landscape, or are we too obsessed with theorising instead of doing? With all its flaws, didn’t the sexual revolution and reproductive technologies give women the ability to choose which and how many sexual partners they have? Does the backlash against sexual freedom risk turning back the clock on women’s freedom? And should governments, schools and institutions care about how often a nation is knocking boots?

Speakers:

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

Nina Power
philosopher; senior editor, Compact Magazine; author, What Do Men Want? Masculinity and its discontents

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

Rosie Wilby
award-winning comedian; broadcaster; author, Is Monogamy Dead? and The Breakup Monologues: the unexpected joy of heartbreak

Chair: Dr Tiffany Jenkins
writer and broadcaster; author, Strangers and Intimates (forthcoming) and Keeping Their Marbles

Have we given up on sexual freedom?

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

FROM DIVERSITY TO DEBANKING: IS ESG BAD FOR BUSINESS?
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/from-diversity-to-debanking-esg-business/

In July, NatWest’s CEO Alison Rose became the latest casualty of the turn to environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) in big business. Rose resigned after the furore over the closure of Nigel Farage’s Coutts account, in part because his political views did not ‘align’ with the company’s values. From Nike annoying women by embracing trans ‘influencer’ Dylan Mulvaney to Gillette annoying men by piggy-backing on the #MeToo movement, there have been numerous high-profile corporate mis-steps in the name of projecting a ‘progressive’ image.

The traditional image of a big business is one of an organisation single-mindedly focused on generating profits for shareholders. But in recent years, there has been a drive to introduce other aims into corporate practice and mission statements, from tackling climate change to promoting ethnic and gender diversity. Given the strong position of big corporations in society, changing the way they conduct business could be a powerful force for good, in the eyes of many.

But there have been concerns that the promotion of such values could be at odds with the views of customers. In April, the backlash against Bud Light’s use of Mulvaney in their advertising led to a boycott of Budweiser products and a decline in the company’s share price. Alissa Heinerscheid, Anheuser-Busch’s vice-president for marketing, had earlier declared that the brand needed to increase its ‘inclusivity’, but she was later reported to have been fired by the company.

What is the best role for big firms in improving society? Should they focus solely on producing the best products and services at the keenest prices? Or given their influence, should they be promoting social change, too? Is the turn to ESG, as many claim, merely ‘wokewashing’ or have top executives really bought into pursuing these aims? What does all this mean for profitability, productivity and material progress more generally – and for the future of companies themselves?

Speakers:

Luke Johnson
entrepreneur, Gail's Bakery

Catherine McBride
economist; fellow, Centre for Brexit Policy

Lesley Smith
corporate reputation and communications consultant; former director, global corporate affairs, Revolut; former public policy director, Amazon

Martin Summers
director, Flint Global; advisor on ESG policy

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

Chair: Hilary Salt FIA, FPMI, FRSA
actuary; founder, First Actuarial

From diversity to debanking: Is ESG bad for business?

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

BOUNCING BACK OR BASKET CASE? THE STATE OF THE UK ECONOMY
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/bouncing-back-or-basket-case-state-of-uk-economy/

Back in the Noughties, a popular image was of the ‘Polish plumber’, coming to the UK to earn more money. But with UK living standards stalling and Poland’s economy growing, could Brits soon be heading the other way? Labour has claimed that Poland’s GDP per person could overtake the UK’s by the end of the decade. Slovenia could overtake the UK as early as next year.

It seems after the problems of the past few years that the UK economy has been in the doldrums. GDP has barely risen above pre-Covid levels and inflation has lingered for longer than elsewhere. Even the poorest US states have higher levels of GDP per person than the UK. For some commentators, the answer is obvious: Brexit. But that hardly explains the fact that the UK economy has struggled for decades.

Yet perhaps the doom-and-gloom is one-sided. Indeed, government ministers argue that such arguments are talking the economy down. According to IMF figures published in April this year, the UK has the sixth-largest economy in the world with GDP per person similar to France and Italy. The UK remains in the top 10 countries for manufacturing ‘value added’. Our leading universities are regularly ranked as among the best in the world. The City of London is one of the two biggest financial services providers, dominating Europe and second only to New York.

Has the UK really stagnated while other countries have leapt ahead? Are things really that bad here, and if so, why?

Speakers:

Sam Bowman
editor, Works in Progress; board member, Mercatus Center

William Clouston
party leader, Social Democratic Party

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

Professor Vicky Pryce
chief economic adviser and board member, Centre for Economics and Business Research; author, Women vs Capitalism

Chair: Rob Lyons
science and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum

Bouncing back or basket case? The state of the UK economy

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

BANNING CONVERSION THERAPY: A THREAT TO FREEDOM AND CONSCIENCE?
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/banning-conversion-therapy-threat-to-freedom/

A mounting number of countries across the world have introduced some form of national ban on conversion therapy. Other states, cities and provinces are looking to do the same. While the UK government may not push to legislate on such a controversial issue in the King’s Speech, it is still under pressure to proceed with some form of Conversion Therapy Bill. The chair of the Labour Party, Anneliese Dodds, has committed to bringing in ‘a full, no loopholes, trans-inclusive ban on conversion therapy’.

Legislating on the issue has led to huge rows about who might be included in the Bill. The government flip-flopped, eventually indicating it would ban ‘all forms of conversion therapy in England and Wales – including those targeting trans people’ – stopping attempts to induce young people and ‘vulnerable adults’ to switch their sexual orientation. Even then, supporters of a ban argued the legislation didn’t not go far enough, especially concerned at a rumour that a ‘consent loophole’ will allow adults to agree to the practice in some circumstances.

There are also concerns on both sides of the trans debate. On the one hand, there is concern that the rights of transgender people and those questioning their gender identity are not protected by the law. NHS England insists that all forms of conversion therapy are ‘unethical and potentially harmful’ – and should be banned entirely. Others worry that legalisation may well interfere in the counselling of young people suffering gender dysphoria. It could also have a chilling effect on freedom of conscience and speech for medical professionals, teachers or religious groups – who often find themselves offering advice on sex and gender.

According to the government, the aim of their originally posed Bill was to ‘protect people’s personal liberty to love who they want to love’. But this raises many dilemmas. For example, some would argue that adults should be free to make their own choices without government interference.

Is there agreement on what ‘conversion therapy’ means? Does the very existence of such therapies undermine and disrespect gender fluid, gender questioning, or other LGBT people? What about the argument that gender ideology itself is a form of conversion therapy, aimed at lesbian and gay sexuality? What constitutes the legitimate exercise of conscience when practical conflicts arise, for example, with anti-discrimination equality laws or medical-service provision? Can freedom of conscience interfere with the rights of some groups to live free from intimidation? How should we proceed when matters of conscience come into conflict with external pressures and expectations?

Speakers:

Dolan Cummings
author, Taking Conscience Seriously and The Pictish Princess.. and other stories from before there was a Scotland

Stephanie Davies-Arai
director, Transgender Trend; author, Communicating with Kids

Lord Stewart Jackson
Conservative peer, House of Lords

Bev Jackson
co-founder and trustee, LGB Alliance

Katy Jon Went
diversity and inclusion facilitator and educator, Human Library, Pick My Brain, GenderAgenda, Fifty Shades of Gender

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

Banning Conversion Therapy: a threat to freedom and conscience?

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

ARE WE TAXED TO DEATH?
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/taxed-to-death/

Liz Truss’s government collapsed last autumn after markets reacted negatively to her tax-cutting mini-Budget. But the self-declared repair job done by Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt has left the UK with its highest tax burden for decades. Not only did these events damage the Conservatives’ electoral prospects, but also marked an end to Boris Johnson’s ‘cakeism’ – high public spending without higher taxes – and an ideological defeat for free-market, low-tax advocates.

Yet the introduction of the US Inflation Reduction Act (US IRA) has seemingly re-opened the debate around tax competition after years of movement towards a global minimum tax. The US IRA offers a range of subsidies and tax breaks in green industries that potentially threaten UK investment opportunities just as the government has raised corporation tax. Meanwhile, the government’s focus on fiscal discipline seems to sit uncomfortably for some with the City of London’s reputation as an enabler of international tax avoidance.

There have been notable campaigns to reduce or abolish some taxes, like stamp duty and inheritance tax. Yet ministers seem unwilling to move on these issues, in part because of losing tax receipts, but also because tax cuts are regarded as too unpopular. Another issue is ‘fiscal drag’, where the freezing of tax allowances means most people pay more tax than before and more people are brought into higher tax bands as their wages rise.

One year on from the mini-Budget, can the tax system still play a role in ‘going for growth’?  With public finances under strain globally following the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, do Western governments need to clamp down harder on tax avoidance – or is capital flight an even greater risk in a polarised world? Did the fall of the Truss government mark the end of the vision of the UK as a potential ‘Singapore-on-Thames’, or does the emergence of the US IRA mean the UK can’t afford not to compete?

Speakers:

Paul Embery
firefighter; trade unionist; columnist; author, Despised: why the modern Left loathes the working class; broadcaster

Reem Ibrahim
communications officer, Institute of Economic Affairs; Linda Whetstone Scholar

Chair: David Bowden
associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Are we taxed to death?

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

CAN RENEWABLES POWER THE WORLD?
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/can-renewables-power-the-world/

There is wide agreement across politics, business and academia that climate change is the preeminent threat to humanity and that fossil fuels must be phased out as quickly as possible. The most popular solution, it would seem, is to power society using renewable energy. Some forms of renewable power, like hydro power, are too limited to specific geographies to make a big difference, so two have come to dominate: wind and solar.

Proponents argue that both are potentially cheaper than using fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal. Once the capital costs have been paid, capturing energy from the wind or the sun is very cheap because there is no fuel required – nature provides it for free. We simply need to build enough wind turbines and solar panels to generate what we need. With better storage technologies, we can compensate for days of low wind or little sun by using the excess generated at other times. Many environmentalists argue they are a much better answer than nuclear, too.

But opponents argue that wind and solar are simply too unreliable to serve the needs of modern economies. In the UK, for example, there are often spells in winter with short days, low wind and cold temperatures. We simply couldn’t store enough power to cover these shortfalls. The costs and the sheer amount of materials that would be required make it practically impossible. Indeed, they argue, the claim that renewables are cheap is simply false. Such technologies are no substitute, critics say, for the low cost and energy density of fossil fuels. No wonder that where renewables have been rapidly introduced, energy costs have gone up, too.

Are renewables the answer to the climate crisis and our energy needs? Can we solve the issues with storage? Should we pursue nuclear as well – or even instead? Are the costs of ditching fossil fuels simply too high?

Speakers:

Prof Dr Michaela Kendall
CEO, Adelan; UK Hydrogen Champion for Mission Innovation, UK Government

Simon Nash
environmentalist; speaker; activist and founder, Green Oil bicycle lubes

Dr Ralph Schoellhammer
commentator and podcaster; lecturer, Webster University Vienna and MCC Brussels

James Woudhuysen
visiting professor, forecasting and innovation, London South Bank University

Chair: Rob Lyons
science and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum

Can renewables power the world?

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.