Academy of Ideas

With the UK officially in recession, what should governments be doing? This debate was recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIR

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

Recording of the debate at Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

Being ‘diverse’ is no longer simply about shaking things up. Today, diversity is considered a core value of any civilised society and its institutions. Diversity strategies are a must for businesses, small or big – diversity is good for the planet, good for politics, good for social mobility and good for our sense of self. Diversity is no longer a means to a better future, but an end in and of itself.

For many, this is a no brainer – having different people from different backgrounds in your work or social environment can only be a good thing. They argue that cultural melting pots provide border horizons on everything from what food we enjoy to our appreciation of different beliefs and world views. In contrast, homogeneity is a sign of a moribund system. The idea that similar groups of people might apply for the same job – from nursing to plumbing – is a sign of discrimination or closed mindedness, and must be challenged.

But not everyone is so keen on the prioritisation of diversity over all else. The home secretary, Suella Braverman, caused uproar with a speech in Washington in which she described multiculturalism as a failed ‘misguided dogma’, adding that ‘the consequences of that failure are evident on the streets of cities all over Europe’. Some say the scenes of celebrations in Western cities at Hamas’s actions in Israel seem to prove her point. Critics point to the way in which it has been institutionalised via policies in the workplace or education, with contentious political topics on everything from the climate to transgender ideology being repackaged as mandatory ‘diversity training’. They argue that a ‘fetishisation’ of diversity has led to its opposite – atomisation and tribalism. Many argue that the push for multiculturalism as a political policy objective has led to a confusion of social norms. Instead of a utopia of rich cultural fusion, neighbourhoods are often defined by national identities, with hostility between groups commonplace. If we don’t ask for shared values in some key areas of life, critics ask, how will we ever hope to get along?

For some, diversity is a necessary strategy to help break open closed areas of public life for groups previously discriminated against. For others, it is too focused on the things we can’t control – like race or sex – and too disregarding of diversity of thought and feeling. Has the d-word taken over as our new deity? Variety is certainly the spice of life, but is our love of diversity at risk of creating its opposite? And how do we talk about shared social values in a world where difference is king?

SPEAKERS Simon Fanshawe OBE consultant and writer; author The Power of Difference ; co-founder, Diversity by Design

Maya Forstater executive director, Sex Matters

Mercy Muroki policy fellow to minister for women and equalities and business and trade secretary

Tomiwa Owolade writer and critic; contributing writer, New Statesman; author, This is Not America: Why Black Lives in Britain Matter

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

CHAIR

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

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

WHAT WOULD A LABOUR GOVERNMENT LOOK LIKE? Recording of the debate at Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION After Labour’s catastrophic haemorrhaging of Red Wall voters in 2019, and widespread disillusion among working-class Brexit voters, Labour seems to be back in contention. For some time, Labour has been way ahead of the Conservatives in the opinion polls. But the gap between the parties became a chasm after the resignation of Boris Johnson and the debacle of Liz Truss’s short-lived premiership. Now, with Labour running roughly 20 points ahead in the polls, a substantial majority at the next election – which must happen no later than January 2025 – seems highly likely. But assuming Labour does win power, what would Keir Starmer actually do?

The answer is, perhaps: who knows? Yes, there has been some headline-grabbing radical proposals such as abolishing the House of Lords and replacing it with an elected chamber of regions and nations. When he won the leadership vote in April 2020, Starmer had stood on a platform of 10 pledges – from increasing income tax for the rich and abolishing universal credit to ‘support’ for ‘common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water’ and a ‘green new deal’.

Since then, Starmer and his shadow ministers have moved away from many of these pledges. For example, plans to abolish university tuition fees have been scrapped, and universal credit looks like it will be ‘reformed’ – but with the two-child limit for benefits left in place. Nationalisation plans have been replaced with the idea of greater regulation. Plans to introduce self-ID for transgender people have been shelved (despite having voted for the SNP’s infamous Gender Recognition Reform Bill, and with no apology forthcoming to its much maligned gender-critical MP Rosie Duffield) as has the idea of reintroducing free movement for EU nationals. Inevitably, the Corbynista wing of the party shout betrayal. With Blair and Mandelson back in the mix, some on the Left dread New Labour Mark 2, without the charisma or vision.

Despite its uber-technocratic pragmatism, many fear Labour has fundamentally changed – emptied of its working-class credentials, instead assuming the garb of identitarian social justice. It seems most comfortable arguing for laws against misogyny, condemning institutional racism or celebrating Pride than either full-throttled support for picket-line strikers or taking up the cause of free speech when under assault from progressive ideologues. It’s true that Labour’s centrepiece policy of a ‘green prosperity plan’ has been watered down from £28 billion per year to an aspiration to be achieved at some point in a Labour administration. But its championing of eco policies – such as heat-pump boilers, anti-driver measures such as ULEZ and LTNs or its financial entanglement with the funder of Just Stop Oil – means that many fear Labour is tin-eared when voters are sceptical of its right-on, illiberal and expensive zealous approach to net-zero targets.

SPEAKERS Dr Tim Black books and essays editor, spiked

Dr Richard Johnson writer; senior lecturer in US politics, Queen Mary, University of London; co-author, Keeping the Red Flag Flying: The Labour Party in Opposition since 1922 (forthcoming)

Mark Seddon director, Centre for UN Studies, University of Buckingham; board member, Foreign Correspondents Association, New York; co-author, Jeremy Corbyn and the Strange Rebirth of Labour England

James Smith host, The Popular Show podcast; writer; academic

Joan Smith author & columnist

CHAIR Paddy Hannam researcher, House of Commons; writer and commentator

From the furore over PMQs and jibes about gender ideology to surveillance of football fans, international farming protests and Labour's latest U-turn, tune in to the latest Podcast of Ideas.

Featuring the AOI team: Claire Fox, Rob Lyons, Geoff Kidder, Jacob Reynolds and Ella Whelan.

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

With Nicola Sturgeon the latest politician to be lambasted over WhatsApp messages - or the lack of them - listen to this debate from the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House in London.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

SPEAKERS

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

David Davis member of parliament, Conservative Party

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

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

CHAIR

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

Recording of a debate at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION Too often, talking about race feels fraught with difficulty, leaving us walking on eggshells to avoid offence. However, this can mean that important questions and queries go unanswered, and grievances can fester. Luckily, more and more authors are taking up the challenge – and this session features three of them in conversation.

Rakib Ehsan’sBeyond Grievance: What the Left Gets Wrong About Ethnic Minoritiesargues that the left too often buys into toxic, imported ideologies around identity politics. Left-wingers are also complacent, he argues, assuming they can depend upon a traditional support base among ethnic minorities. As a result, they fail to engage with the small-c conservative values around family, faith and flag that many of these communities support. Yet these values could create a fairer multi-ethnic society based upon equal opportunity, social cohesion and a national sense of belonging.

Remi Adekoya’s bookIt’s Not About Whiteness, It’s About Wealthnotes that Western conversations on race and racism often revolve around the holy trinity of the race debate: colonialism, the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the ideology of white supremacism. However, Adekoya argues that it is socioeconomic realities which play the leading role in sustaining racial hierarchies in everyday life. He looks at the global big picture, regularly overlooked in the current debate.

Finally, inAgainst Decolonisation: Campus Culture Wars and the Decline of the West, Doug Stokes challenges the theories and arguments deployed by ‘decolonisers’ in a university system now characterised by garbled leadership and illiberal groupthink. More broadly, Stokes examines the threat posed by Critical Theory to wider society and critiques the desire to question the West’s sense of itself, deconstruct its narratives and overthrow its institutional order.

SPEAKERS

Dr Remi Adekoya lecturer of politics, University of York; author It’s Not About Whiteness, It’s About Wealth and Biracial Britain

Dr Rakib Ehsan author, Beyond Grievance: what the Left gets wrong about ethnic minorities

Professor Doug Stokes professor in international security and director of the Strategy and Security Institute, University of Exeter; senior adviser, Legatum Institute; author, The Geopolitics of the Culture Wars

CHAIR Dr Jim Butcher lecturer; researcher; co-author, Volunteer Tourism: the lifestyle politics of international development

Recording of the debate at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION Trump is perhaps the most widely vilified political leader of modern times – yet he retains a huge measure of support. So seemingly assured of securing the Republican nomination that he can forgo the candidates’ televised debates, he also transformed his arrest for interfering with the 2020 election into a world-shaking media opportunity, with his mugshot reverberating across the globe. But what underpins his appeal?

For some, it is precisely the relentless demonisation of Trump that generates the appeal – whatever Trumpists think of some of his policies or personal conduct, they identify with his vilification by the same liberal, coastal elites who denounce them as ‘deplorables’. Others insist that Trump invents and exploits animosities against immigrants and evokes a ‘paranoid’ vein in American politics. Or perhaps Trump simply appeals to voters fed up the stale consensus that has dominated American politics – or maybe he just livens things up.

What explains Trumps’ enduring appeal, and how should liberals, conservatives and populists alike respond?

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

Matthew Feeney writer; head of technology and innovation, Centre for Policy Studies; former director, Cato Institute’s Project on Emerging Technologies

Michael Goldfarb journalist and historian, creator, FRDH Podcast; documentary maker, Evangelical or Political Christianity?; author, The Martyrdom of Ahmad Shawkat

Dr Cheryl Hudson lecturer in US political history, University of Liverpool; author, Citizenship in Chicago: race, culture and the remaking of American identity

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

Recording of the debate at Battle of Ideas festival on Sunday 29 October 2023.

The wildfire in Hawaii in August is just one example of extreme weather and natural disasters in recent months. Southern Europe has baked in record temperatures. Indeed, July was reportedly the hottest month globally since records began. Earlier this year, wildfires in Canada covered much of the north-eastern US with smoke. There have also been major floods and landslides this year in Sweden, Slovenia and the Czech Republic. Last year, devastating floods affected Pakistan, leaving over 1,700 people dead.

Environmental campaigners, experts and many politicians argue that climate change is already making such events more likely. Disasters aside, extreme weather events make life much more unpleasant and costly. Extreme weather will continue to become more common unless we phase out fossil fuels and cut emissions.

But others note that the data on extreme weather does not, in the main, support the idea that these events are becoming more common. Moreover, they argue that economic development allows societies to be better prepared and more resilient when disaster strikes. Diverting vast resources to reducing emissions could actually lead to more deaths in the future, particularly in poorer countries.

Should we spend trillions on reducing our greenhouse-gas emissions? Given that economic losses from such events can be enormous, even if lives are saved, isn’t prevention better than cure? Or would that money be better spent on making societies more resilient to extreme weather? Does the narrative of climate-change catastrophe get in the way of less dramatic measures that can protect people and property?

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

Laurie Laybourn researcher; writer; associate fellow, Institute for Public Policy Research; co-author, Planet on Fire: A manifesto for the age of environmental breakdown

Harry Wilkinson head of policy, Global Warming Policy Foundation

Martin Wright director, Positive News; formerly editor-in-chief, Green Futures; former director, Forum for the Future

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

Was the UK government's Rwanda scheme for asylum seekers doomed to fail? Why has it taken 20 years for the young girls who were victims of Rochdale's grooming gangs to get justice? And why are they cheering the Houthis in New York?

Former US president and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has been in the news constantly in recent weeks. Listen to this debate from the Battle of Ideas festival on Sunday 29 October 2023 which examines his popularity and trends in US politics.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

Trump is perhaps the most widely vilified political leader of modern times – yet he retains a huge measure of support. So seemingly assured of securing the Republican nomination that he can forgo the candidates’ televised debates, he also transformed his arrest for interfering with the 2020 election into a world-shaking media opportunity, with his mugshot reverberating across the globe. But what underpins his appeal?

For some, it is precisely the relentless demonisation of Trump that generates the appeal – whatever Trumpists think of some of his policies or personal conduct, they identify with his vilification by the same liberal, coastal elites who denounce them as ‘deplorables’. Others insist that Trump invents and exploits animosities against immigrants and evokes a ‘paranoid’ vein in American politics. Or perhaps Trump simply appeals to voters fed up the stale consensus that has dominated American politics – or maybe he just livens things up.

What explains Trumps’ enduring appeal, and how should liberals, conservatives and populists alike respond?

SPEAKERS

Mary Dejevsky former foreign correspondent in Moscow, Paris and Washington; special correspondent in China; writer and broadcaster Matthew Feeney writer; head of technology and innovation, Centre for Policy Studies; former director, Cato Institute’s Project on Emerging Technologies

Michael Goldfarb journalist and historian, creator, FRDH Podcast; documentary maker, Evangelical or Political Christianity?; author, The Martyrdom of Ahmad Shawkat

Dr Cheryl Hudson lecturer in US political history, University of Liverpool; author, Citizenship in Chicago: race, culture and the remaking of American identity

CHAIR

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