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

WELCOME ADDRESS BUXTON 2021

Battle of Ideas 2021

Welcome Address Buxton 2021

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

SHOULD WE RESIST THE NEW NORMAL?
https://archives.battleofideas.org.uk/2021/session/should-we-resist-the-new-normal-2/

The lockdown response to Covid-19 has been a unique period in our social history, and many are now asking whether it will result in a profound change in human attitudes and behaviour. Will habits of fraternity and solidarity have been damaged irreparably by so many months of anti-social measures like stay-at-home isolation, ‘social distancing’, or masks? Will the onslaught of restrictive legislation, from the suspension of the right to protest to the suggestion of vaccine passports, have knocked our faith in a free society? And have the life and death experiences of a global pandemic led to existential questions about what it means to be human?

Profound social changes often lead to such questions. But behind all this, many sense a problem: the so-called ‘new normal’. There is a tendency to depict the future of humanity as at the mercy of events beyond its control – from the threat of viruses to the demand for net zero, from endless public-health emergencies to a mental-health epidemic. Extreme conspiracy theories about a ‘great reset’ seem to capture the sense that many in power see the ‘new normal’ as an opportunity to push for big changes to society. A sense of inevitability hangs in the air – everything will be different, whether we like it or not. At the same time, there seems a widespread acquiescence to the reorganisation of public life around safety and precaution. As Lord Sumption, the former Supreme Court Justice, put it: ‘The British public has not even begun to understand the seriousness of what is happening to our country. Many don’t care and won’t care until it is too late’. Does this view disparage the public, or point to the success of official fearmongering?

On the other hand, many insist there is much to gain from an attempt to create a ‘new normal’. For one, the ‘old normal’ was no utopia – with economic stagnation, flatlining living standards and fraying social bonds. Old moral certainties have been called into question for some time, with populist upheavals representing a widespread sense of alienation from mainstream politics. What’s more, new-normal changes such as working-from-home have left many with more time for friends, family and leisure. Many argue that the pandemic legacy should be used to ‘build back better’; to tackle the inequalities and injustices that defined pre-pandemic life. Perhaps embracing the ‘new normal’ might open new possibilities.

However, critics note that most of these changes seem to have been created and enacted without much input from the public. Concerns that many felt were underlying the Brexit vote of 2016 – a sense of ordinary people being removed from those who make decisions – seem to have resurfaced. Small-business owners are grappling with new coronavirus regulations and city dwellers are waking up to overnight road closures and traffic changes. The 2021 local elections returned a spate of independent candidates, which many argued reflected a widespread feeling that traditional politicians were far removed from the concerns of the public.

Speakers
James Bembridge
deputy editor, Country Squire Magazine

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

Alexander McKay
editor, Red Star Radio podcast

Graham Stringer MP
member of parliament, Blackley and Broughton; select committee member, Science and Technology Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee

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

Should We Resist The New Normal?

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

SHOULD WE CANCEL 'CANCEL CULTURE'?
https://archives.battleofideas.org.uk/2021/session/should-we-cancel-cancel-culture/

From China to UK universities, the Taliban to Trump, it seems that everyone is talking about censorship. Threats to freedom of speech are now recognisable in everything from legislative crackdowns and online bans to Twitter pile-ons, as well as cancellations at universities and in the wider public sphere. But figuring out where this censorious turn has come from is not as simple as it seems. Proponents of free speech argue that claims of ‘hate speech’ involving issues like transgender rights, racism, feminism or other forms of identity politics are silencing debate. Many argue that the subjective nature of what is deemed to be ‘hateful’ can lead to unfair characterisations of political debate as hate speech. For example: in February, Merseyside police parked outside an Asda supermarket with an advert, warning shoppers that ‘being offensive is an offence’.

On the other hand, critics argue that a language free-for-all fails to deal with the consequences of offensive views which can undermine important community values. The comedian, Roy Chubby Brown, was banned from performing his live show at Sheffield City Hall because it was claimed that his ‘hate-filled’ comedy did not ‘reflect Sheffield’s inclusive values’. But Brown’s humour, damned as ‘highly offensive’ remains very popular with many of the people of Sheffield and can still attract an audience. Was Sheffield council being ‘woke’, or showing that a progressive society must be intolerant to hate?

Claims of censorship can become complicated. While some feminists argue that sexist language should be silenced on Twitter, others complain that trans activists are calling for the removal of their opinions on women’s rights. Other examples are more starkly contradictory. The Taliban – an organisation that has no qualms silencing women, LGBT activists or any dissenters – has criticised Facebook for what it called the censorship of ‘foreign information and news’. Likewise, some have pointed to the partisan nature of some commentators’ belief in free speech. While liberal-left Democrats routinely called for the silencing of Donald Trump, right-wing Republicans often responded with calls for censorship of news outlets they deemed to be producing ‘fake news’.

In the UK, while the Labour Party alleges that the Tories need to crack down on Islamophobic speech, the Conservatives allege that Labour has a problem with anti-Semitic language. Despite assertions that both left and right, liberal and conservative sides care about free speech, these political battles often end up weaponising censorship as a means of shutting down the opposite side.

Would a public square that embraced free expression be a dangerous thing? Can words be as dangerous as physical violence? Are we in danger of creating a new form of heresy when so-called social-justice warriors complain about hate speech on Twitter and governments simultaneously ban protests? Or should we embrace moves to get tough on hate? Could an increasingly volatile debate about free speech mean that more people are likely to self-censor for fear of being called a bigot? And if we decide that we do value free speech as a fundamental tenet of a liberal society, how can we mount a modern case for it in the twenty-first century?

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

Andy Shaw
co-founder, Comedy Unleashed

Sophie Watson
student; Free Speech Champion

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

Should We Cancel ’Cancel Culture’?

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: DISUNITED KINGDOM - THE END OF THE UNION?
https://archives.battleofideas.org.uk/2021/session/letters-on-liberty-the-end-of-the-union/

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 – The Scottish Question – Alastair Donald looks at how age-old questions have re-emerged related to liberty, democracy and sovereignty in Scotland – but with a modern twist. Political divisions have often moved beyond left and right; and changing attitudes to nationalism and nation states complicate the matter. Alastair argues that many of the shifts in contemporary thinking around nationhood and identity are due, in part, because there is little substance to contemporary Unionism.

Join Alastair and respondents to re-examine the case for independence – not just in Scotland, but across the four nations of the UK. Can Unionism survive or has it become a hollowed-out political ideal? Does independence become contradictory when devolved governments always seem to be in favour of constraints on freedom? Does the potential break-up of the Union signal a progressive shift, or a break-down in cross-border solidarity?

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

Ewan Gurr
columnist, Dundee Evening Telegraph

Dr Glynne Williams
associate professor, school of business, University of Leicester

Chair
Pauline Hadaway
researcher; writer; co-founder, The Liverpool Salon; author, Escaping the Panopticon

Letters On Liberty: Disunited Kingdom - The End Of The Union?

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: BEYOND THE CULTURE WARS
https://archives.battleofideas.org.uk/2021/session/letters-on-liberty-beyond-the-culture-wars/

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 – Beyond the Culture Wars – Jacob Reynolds argues that the culture wars feature three key trends: the destruction of the private sphere, the moralisation of politics and the replacement of virtues with values. He argues that this hollowing out of politics must be challenged by a radical defence of freedom.

Join Jacob and respondents to examine why the culture wars have intensified, explore some of their key characteristics and ask whether we can transcend them. Are those who wish to fight the culture wars merely pining for a lost and dead culture, or is the task before us more radical than conservative? How do we build a future-orientated society where such foundational principles as liberty and universalism are taken seriously? Do we really live in a ‘fragile peace in a culture of fragments’ as philosopher John Gray suggests, or can we offer a more optimistic outlook?

Speakers
Dr Nicholas Joseph
lecturer, School of Education, University of Derby

Dr Vanessa Pupavac
associate professor, School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham; author, Changing European Visions of Disaster and Development

Jacob Reynolds
partnerships manager, Academy of Ideas

Chair
Simon Belt
web and computer technology consultant; founder, Simply Better IT; founder, Manchester Salon

Letters on Liberty: Beyond The Culture Wars

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

GOING GREEN: ECO-DOGMA OR SALVATION?
https://archives.battleofideas.org.uk/2021/session/going-green-eco-dogma-or-salvation-2/

This is ‘a code red for humanity’. So proclaimed the UN secretary general in response to the organisation’s latest climate assessment report in August. The report claims that dangerously rising levels of carbon emissions will lead to more heatwaves, droughts, floods and storms for decades, if not centuries, to come.

This report was closely followed by the discovery of a ‘warming blob’ originating in New Zealand that has contributed to a decade-long drought in parts of South America, while fires were raging through the state of California. In Europe, German and Belgian towns and villages were submerged by floods and UK streets were temporarily turned into rivers. Since then, we’ve seen Hurricane Ida hit Louisiana, the tail-end of which caused a deluge across four north-eastern US states, including New York.

It’s not just floods that are bringing UK streets to a halt. The latest round of protests by Extinction Rebellion (XR) have simultaneously highlighted a cause and frustrated working citizens. XR claim the only way to save the planet is by forcing the agenda through radical action. At recent protests across the streets of central London, a speaker declared that ‘your only salvation is to respect the first peoples of this Earth’.

But while protesters demand ‘radical action’, less acknowledged is the ever-growing domination of green thinking across society. In 1987, Our Common Future, the report of the World Commission on the Environment and Development, made the concept of ‘sustainable development’ mainstream. Since then, governments, public institutions and private corporations alike have embraced environmental imperatives.

After this year’s local election successes, the Green Party is staking a claim to be England’s third party. In Scotland, the Green Party is now entering government alongside the SNP. But in truth, all the major parties have become converts to the environmentalist cause, from Labour’s 2008 Climate Act to its upgrade in 2019 by the blue-green Conservative Party, locking in the UK’s commitment to reduce emissions to ‘net zero’ by 2050. The Conservative government has made great play of hosting the latest round of climate talks, COP26, in Glasgow in November. Further afield, Greens run most major French cities and are seeking to win this year’s German elections.

Yet the political consensus is at odds with the fact that ‘net zero’ policies – like giving up or severely restricting cheap travel, banning gas boilers and eating less meat – aren’t that popular in practice. Worse, environmentalist solutions can exacerbate the problems. The green-inspired switch away from nuclear power in Germany has not only vastly increased energy prices but resulted in increased emissions – ironically, from the renewed use of coal. A lack of wind in September forced National Grid to fire up coal-fired power stations in the UK.

Critics argue that environmentalist policies are causing harm in the less-developed world, too. The demand from greens for an end to funding for fossil-fuelled energy projects in the less-developed world risks leaving those countries mired in ‘maldevelopment’.

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

Shelagh McNerney
independent built environment consultant

Nikos Sotirakopoulos
lecturer in sociology, York St John University; author, Identity Politics and Tribalism: The New Culture Wars and The Rise of Lifestyle Activism

Martin Wright
writer and speaker; director, Positive News; formerly editor-in-chief, Green Futures

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

Going Green: Eco-Dogma Or Salvation?

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

ELECTRIC DREAMS? CARS AND THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORT
https://archives.battleofideas.org.uk/2021/session/electric-dreams-cars-and-the-future-of-transport/

In 2020, the government announced a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles by the end of the decade, part of the journey towards a climate-friendly ‘net zero’ society by 2050. Over £1.8 billion has been invested in infrastructure and grants to promote zero-emission vehicles, as well as to increase access to them – with nearly £500million going towards helping the industry and supporting some 169,000 jobs in the automotive sector.

However, for many, the transition to electric vehicles raises concerns. Electric cars are currently more expensive to buy, which might price many people out of the market, while early adopters fear that the value of their cars will depreciate rapidly. In addition, despite government assurance of grants for homeowners, businesses and local authorities to install charging points, many critics argue that there are still too few of them, particularly given that the cars’ range is still too low for many longer journeys. And, crucially, there are concerns about how we will generate all the extra electricity we will need when we are also phasing out fossil fuels in favour of low-carbon sources like wind, solar and nuclear.

There are fiscal issues facing the government, too. While owners of petrol vehicles pay fuel taxes and vehicle duties of roughly £1,100 per year, for electric vehicles it is only £320. How will governments make up the shortfall in revenue? And while electric cars cost more to buy, they are cheaper to drive and maintain, so some commentators worry about an increased risk of congestion and gridlock.

These concerns come at a time when many believe there is already a ‘war on cars’, from low-traffic neighbourhoods and lowering of speed limits to ‘spy in the cab’ technology and restrictions on parking spaces in new developments. Yet for millions of people, the democratisation of personal mobility has been a huge liberation, particularly for women who now have access to reliable and secure transport of their own. While campaigners and politicians love to talk about better buses and trains, is better public transport outside metropolitan areas economically viable?

There are wider economic and regional issues, too. The Midlands and the North thrived in the past in part thanks to a successful car manufacturing industry, with major employers like Jaguar Land Rover in the West Midlands, Toyota in Derby and Nissan in Sunderland still providing many high-quality skilled jobs. As driving is discouraged, some worry about the impact on these local economies and on the wider goal of rebalancing the economy away from the South East.

Where once we dreamed of jetpacks, where is the inspiring vision for transport in the future? If our love affair with the car is really over, is public transport up to the challenge of allowing people to move about freely? Are large-scale projects like HS2 ready to meet the demands of a greener economy? And, ultimately, do people really understand what the transition to ‘net zero’ means for our ability to travel?

Speakers
Edwina Currie
author; broadcaster; politician; celebrity speaker

Dr Norman Lewis
director, Futures-Diagnosis Ltd; co-author, Big Potatoes: the London manifesto for innovation

Nigel Ruddock
chief financial officer, Technology Minerals PLC; accountant and insolvency specialist; trustee, former head and chairman of automotive services, Grant Thornton;

Chair
Hilary Salt
actuary; founder, First Actuarial

Electric Dreams? Cars And The Future Of Transport

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

CHINA IN A CHANGING WORLD
https://archives.battleofideas.org.uk/2021/session/china-in-a-changing-world/

This year, the Chinese Communist Party celebrated its centenary – next year it will become the longest serving communist government in history. A communist party that has risen from a peasant economy just 30 years ago is now scheduled to overtake the US economy by 2028. A country that was just 10 per cent urban in the mid-1970s is today 62 per cent urban.

China is a country riddled with contradictions. It is a place of dynamism and restraint, space stations and rickshaws. China’s increasingly authoritarian state is introducing labour laws to protect workers’ rights. It is a country where coronavirus seems to have originated, but which now has one of the lowest Covid-19 fatality rates in the world. China is both an environmental pariah state and the world environmental leader in solar, wind, and battery technology. On top of all of that, China is also a modern society where 120million people still live on less than one dollar a day.

Recent fears of Huawei’s influence on the West’s 5G networks, its intrusive social-credit system that monitors its entire population, its profiteering reach into Africa and East Asia and recent concerns that the Chinese government is meddling in UK universities all suggest that there are issues to be contend with. That said, it is also true that China invests in the Developing World and its social-credit system is the envy of cyber and national-security experts. Indeed, the UK university sector, for example, would probably not survive without tens of thousands of fee-paying Chinese students.

As China continues to develop, is it becoming an ally or a threat? Likewise, as America retreats on the global stage, will China step into the void? And as the UK removes itself from the EU, do we have to do business with a one-party state? How can we understand China’s contradictory emergence into the twenty-first century, and what are the positive and negative implications of this arrival for education, business, culture and global power relations?

Speakers
Flora Huang
professor of law and business, University of Derby; author, Chinese and Global Financial Integration through Stock Connect

Jacklin Kwan
freelance journalist

Dr Li Sun
lecturer in sociology and social policy, University of Leeds; author, Rural Urban Migration and Policy Intervention in China

Chair
Austin Williams
senior lecturer, Dept of Architecture, Kingston University, London; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution: understanding Chinese eco-cities

China In A Changing World

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

CREATIVE FREEDOM: CAN WE SEPARATE ART FROM THE ARTIST?
https://archives.battleofideas.org.uk/2021/session/creative-freedom-can-we-separate-art-from-the-artist/

Oscar Wilde once said: ‘There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.’ However, literary and artistic works are increasingly judged by the behaviour or beliefs of their creators. Over recent years, the practice of ‘cancelling’ high profile artists and other celebrities, in other words culturally blocking an individual from having prominent public exposure, has become a polarising topic of debate.

Philip Larkin, Scarlett Johansson and Wiley are just a few who are being ‘cancelled’ as a result of their words or actions. To many people, this process of publicly calling for accountability has become an important tool of social justice. Others think the moral character of the artist has no bearing on the worth of the art. Nick Cave says cancel culture has an ‘asphyxiating effect on the creative soul of a society’.

Should we cleanse cinemas of Kevin Spacey and Roman Polanski movies or banish Picasso and Caravaggio canvases from our galleries? Should the views and actions of artists be treated differently to those of other offensive celebrities?  Should art be policed on the basis of whether its creators are sending the right message – and, if so, what are the implications for artists themselves?

Speakers
Rosamund Cuckston
organiser, Birmingham Salon; lead singer, Pram

Dr NobuLali Dangazele
lecturer, Gordon Institute of Business Science; founder, ShakeXperience; co-founder, Nudgeathon

Dr Philip Kiszely
lecturer in performance and cultural histories, University of Leeds; author, Hollywood through Private Eyes

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

Zuzanna Murawiak
fine arts student, University of The Arts London; writer, The New Taboo; member, Free Speech Champions

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

Creative Freedom: Can we separate art from the artist?

Sean Ellis, creator of growth hacking, and Morgan Brown, his co-author of "Hacking Growth", discuss the most common misconceptions about growth hacking, and why they are incorrect.

For the full interview and article, please visit: 

www.whatusersdo.com/blog/hacking-growth

Misappropriation of the term “growth hacking”

WhatUsersDo is a UX testing platform that allows businesses to understand their audiences through user insights.

Misappropriation of the term “growth hacking”

WhatUsersDo

Related tracks