Academy Of Ideas

Recording of a discussion at the Battle of Ideas festival 2019 (https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/resisting-wokeness-andrew-doyle-and-douglas-murray-in-conversation/) As the old saying goes, ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’. While social-justice activists are generally decent people, many commentators argue they exhibit all the tendencies of a cult: unshakeable certainty, a desire to convert the fallen while rejecting the idea of redemption, and capable of horrendous acts even though they see themselves as ‘the good guys’. The authors of two recent books on the ‘woke’ phenomenon, Douglas Murray and Andrew Doyle, consider their different approaches to critiquing woke activism. Given that the social justice movement is seemingly impervious to reason, will either of these strategies have any impact? HOSTED BY: ANDREW DOYLE writer and comedian; author, Titania McGrath’s Woke: a guide to social justice GUEST: DOUGLAS MURRAY author, The Madness of Crowds: gender, race and identity; journal

Recording of a debate at the Battle of Ideas festival on Sunday 3 November 2019. Debate is growing about the use of a genetic/genomic approach called ‘polygenic scores’ to understand health and assess health risks. These scores are different from traditional genetic tests and can be used in relation to a vastly greater number of diseases and conditions. Advocates claim this new approach could revolutionise healthcare and – in the UK context – help redefine the NHS. Critics retort that polygenic scores are of limited use, and are perilously easy to misconstrue. Do polygenic scores offer vital information for patients and clinicians or could they lead to unnecessary anxiety and pointless medical intervention? DR TOBY ANDREW lecturer in human genetics, principal investigator in genetics, and programme organiser MSc in Human Molecular Genetics, Imperial College London SIR PETER DONNELLY CEO and founder, Genomics plc; professor of statistical science, Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford NI

Recording of the debate at the Battle of Ideas festival on Sunday 3 November 2019, in partnership with City of London Corporation. Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, is one of the thinkers associated with the concept of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, ‘blurring the lines between the physical, digital and biological spheres’. Do we need a new industrial revolution – and what are the barriers to creating one? Many commentators have noted a longstanding lack of investment and sluggish growth in productivity. Will new technologies really transform our society or is the hype around them a distraction from more fundamental issues? Given the moribund state of developed economies in recent decades, are we still capable of becoming a risk-taking, innovative society? Is talk of a new industrial revolution an unnecessary throwback to an older age of manufacturing? LORD ANDREW ADONIS Labour peer; founding chairman, National Infrastructure Commission; author, Saving Britain: how we must change to prosp

Recording of a debate at the Battle of Ideas festival on Sunday 3 November 2019, in partnership with City of London Corporation. On both sides of the Atlantic, the idea of a Green New Deal has become a major policy focus. In the US, the idea has been put forward by left-leaning elements of the Democratic Party, while a cross-party group of MPs has called for a UK version. Proponents suggest that if the kind of money spent on wars, or on bailing out the financial system, were diverted to greening the economy, it would mitigate climate change while raising living standards and providing jobs. For critics, a Green New Deal would be a waste of resources. With the private sector reluctant to invest in such a long-term and high-risk enterprise, is it up to governments to step in and do what is necessary? DANIEL BEN-AMI journalist; author, Ferraris for All: in defence of economic progress ANGELA FRANCIS chief adviser of economics and economic development, WWF; former chief economist, Green Alliance SIR ROGER GIF

Listen to this debate from the Battle of Ideas festival 2019. Special thanks to the Federation of Awarding Bodies who partnered with the Academy of Ideas to produce this session. The UK has relatively low rates of youth unemployment. But as critics point out, this statistic hides a multitude of issues. Starting salaries for graduates are amongst the lowest in the EU. Despite many initiatives to promote apprenticeships, many young people end up in low-paid, ‘gig economy’ or zero-hour jobs with few career prospects. For many years, the response has been the same: more ‘transferable’ or employment-related skills in education and encouraging young people to take up apprenticeships. But are employers and the government doing enough to train employees for the jobs of the future? Are apprenticeships the solution or an unimaginative return to old ideas? Speakers include: TOM BEWICK chief executive, Federation of Awarding Bodies; founder, Transatlantic Apprenticeship Exchange Forum HARRIET BISHOP astrophysics stud

Listen to this debate from the Battle of Ideas festival 2019: More people now attend university in the UK than ever, but there is much less clarity about what university is for. For many, it is simply a step on the career ladder between school and work. For others, higher learning is about pursuing knowledge for its own sake. Do universities even do a good job at preparing people for jobs, or should we make more use of on-the-job training for that purpose? Do vocational qualifications merit the same prestige as academic degrees? Does everyone deserve the opportunity to spend three years at university – or is it an evasion of the ‘real world’? Speakers include: KIRSTIE DONNELLY MBE group managing director, City & Guilds Group; commissioner, Labour Party Lifelong Learning Commission DENNIS HAYES professor of education, University of Derby; founder and director, Academics For Academic Freedom (AFAF); co-author, The Dangerous Rise of Therapeutic Education JHANELLE WHITE student, King’s College London;

A recording of a debate at the Battle of Ideas festival 2019. From the housing crisis to infrastructure projects, construction is more important than ever. Everyone seems to agree that innovation is crucial to the resurgence of the construction sector. And yet, for all the fine words and government initiatives, the construction industry continues to languish in the doldrums with very little innovation. While the UK has been slow to adopt the latest technologies, other countries have embraced new methods, such as modular construction. So why aren’t robots manufacturing housing in giant factories to be transported to site? Why is there so little investment in 3D printed construction? Where are the new materials and processes, and what needs to be done in order to create them? DR THEO DOUNAS senior lecturer, Scott Sutherland School of Architecture and the Built Environment, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen   LISA FINLAY group leader and partner, Heatherwick Studio; founder, 7N architecture practice SIMON

Listen to this debate from the Battle of Ideas festival 2019. Could artificial intelligence (AI) transform education? Schools are already tentatively exploring ‘adaptive learning’ applications, which identify gaps in a student’s knowledge and build personalised quizzes. Sir Anthony Seldon, author of The Fourth Education Revolution, argues that by taking care of the mechanical aspects of education, AI can free up teachers to focus on creativity and problem-solving. What might this mean in practice and what do teachers make of the idea that our schools are churning out ‘robot-like’ workers? What, if anything, is uniquely human about being a teacher and how important are the relationships between teacher, pupil and subject? Speakers include: CARLA AERTS director, Tmrw Institute; former director of futures, Institute of Education, UCL; global digital director, Cambridge University Press Education DONALD CLARK EdTech entrepreneur; CEO, WildFire; board member, Cogbooks and LearningPool JEN PERSSON director, de

Listen to the debate from the Battle of Ideas Festival 2019. From climate change to tax evasion, humanity’s biggest challenges are increasingly global. Many of those frustrated by our lack of progress on these issues argue for some form of world government. If the United Nations, or some similar body, had real power over national governments, global agreements could be made and enforced. But others argue that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for seven billion people to hold a world government to account. Indeed, many find the idea of a world government sinister. Nevertheless, can we really solve our global problems without global political institutions? Speakers include: ANDREAS BUMMEL executive director, Democracy without Borders; co-author, A World Parliament: governance and democracy in the 21ST century IAN CRAWFORD professor of planetary science and astrobiology, Birkbeck College, University of London MARY KALDOR emeritus professor of global governance, LSE; director, Conflict and

Debate recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival on Saturday 2 November 2019. Critics argue that relatively little has been done since the financial crisis to fix the underlying problems that precipitated it. Have we failed to take the old advice to ‘never waste a good crisis’? Extraordinary monetary measures are still mostly in place, but there are heated debates about whether the major developed economies are healthier or weaker than in 2008. Acclaimed Guardian economics editor Larry Elliott explores what can be done to pull the west out of its economic malaise. How can we challenge the ‘new normal’ of low growth, poor productivity and stagnating living standards? PHIL MULLAN economist and business manager; author, Creative Destruction: how to start an economic renaissance IN CONVERSATION WITH: LARRY ELLIOTT economics editor, Guardian; co-author, Europe Isn’t Working and The Gods That Failed: how the financial elite have gambled away our futures

Listen to the debate from the Battle of Ideas Festival 2019. The result of the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 seemed to put paid for the foreseeable future to the most significant threat to the Union, but the result of the EU referendum in 2016 has put the cat amongst the pigeons once more. The future of Northern Ireland has also been a constant bone of contention since the Brexit vote. In September, a shock opinion poll suggested that a quarter of Welsh voters would vote for independence. Is the Union really in imminent danger? Is there a positive case for the UK today, whether economic, political or even emotional? **SPEAKERS** MEV BROWN spokesperson, SDP Scotland; former spokesperson, Business for Britain in Scotland; campaigner, Better Together DR RUTH DUDLEY EDWARDS journalist, historian and broadcaster; award-winning author, The Seven and Patrick Pearse: the triumph of failure LINDA MURDOCH campaigner for rights and democracy in Scotland; director of careers, University of Glasgow AKASH P

Listen to the debate from the Battle of Ideas Festival 2019. The Court of Arbitration for Sport has ruled women with naturally higher levels of testosterone cannot compete in women’s sport events unless they reduce their testosterone with medication. CAS was hearing an appeal by a South African runner, Caster Semenya, against a ruling by the governing body of athletics, the IAAF, that she cannot compete in certain events having been born with a condition leading to unusually high testosterone levels. What does this mean for elite sport? And can we separate sports from other areas of society in which discrimination against people with different sexual developments is taboo? DR CARLTON BRICK lecturer in sociology, School of Media, Culture and Society, University of the West of Scotland DR SILVIA CAMPORESI director of bioethics and society postgraduate programme, King’s College London; co-author, Bioethics, Genetics and Sport GEORGINA NEWCOMBE student, Durham University; athlete and footballer; Living Free

The results of yesterday's UK General Election throw up many different issues. Why did the Conservatives end up winning comfortably? Why did the Labour vote collapse, with seats that had voted Labour for decades switching to the Tories? Does the success of the SNP in Scotland mean there will be another independence referendum? What does it all mean for Brexit? Discussing these issues and more are Alastair Donald, Claire Fox, Rob Lyons, Jacob Reynolds and Ella Whelan.

Listen to the debate from the Battle of Ideas Festival 2019. Thanks to Living and Dying Well for their partnership on this debate. The question of whether assisted suicide (often known as assisted dying) is morally defensible, or should be legally permitted, is a familiar issue of medical ethics. Polls suggest that most people in Britain support a change in the law to allow it. By contrast, the British medical establishment has a longstanding record of opposition to legalisation – though there are suggestions that this may be changing. Should the law look leniently on relatives who help a patient to die? What if the patient would suffer more harm by staying alive? Indeed, should the idea of ‘harm’ be redefined and, if so, how? What would be the role of doctors, and ‘conscientious objection’, were the law to change? Dr Jacky Davis consultant radiologist, Whittington Hospital; member, BMA Council, chair, Healthcare Professionals for Assisted Dying; board member, Dignity in Dying Dr Carol Davis palliative me

A recording of a debate at the Battle of Ideas festival on Sunday 3 November 2019. The angry exchanges in parliament after the Supreme Court ruled against prorogation were typical of the ill-tempered discourse around Brexit. This year it was also deemed acceptable to ‘milkshake’ those you disagree with. Looking at a world seemingly filled with slurs, angry social-media comments, inflammatory remarks about migrants and nasty jibes about ‘gammons’ and ‘TERFs’, many commentators have called this an age of ‘toxic politics’. Should we lament a lost civility, or is the emergence of more forthright and angry disagreements in fact a good thing? What is the line between passionate disagreement and toxic bile? How can we fi nd ways to disagree with other people constructively? DOLAN CUMMINGS associate fellow, Academy of Ideas; co- founder, Manifesto Club; author, That Existential Leap: a crime story TIMANDRA HARKNESS journalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, Radio 4’s FutureProofi ng and How to Disagree: a be

Listen to the debate from the Battle of Ideas Festival 2019. Earlier this year, Gillette produced an advert aimed at challenging ‘toxic masculinity’. Although somewhat frivolous, the example illustrates a growing trend among the world’s biggest companies to weigh in on social issues. In perhaps the most infamous example of all, in 2017, Pepsi released an advert with Kylie Jenner healing divisions at a protest march. The advert was widely condemned for appropriating the legacy of the civil-rights movement. But many companies seem to genuinely care about social causes. Unilever, one of the world’s biggest companies, has made ambitious environmental commitments that are priorities at all levels of the company. For some observers, this is evidence of a genuine shift in how businesses think about their role, often underpinned by new generations of employees demanding change. But critics have condemned what’s been called ‘woke capitalism’ or even ‘wokewashing’. Are 'woke' corporations a cynical attempt to curry fa

Listen to the debate from the Battle of Ideas Festival 2019.   There is something of an obsession with ‘normality’ today. Sally Rooney’s novel, Normal People, was widely acclaimed for its sensitive portrayal of everyday contemporary relationships. The TV smash hit Fleabag was likewise praised for its unflinching portrayal of ‘normal’ British middle-class sexual mores. But attitudes towards ‘normality’ seem difficult to get a handle on today. On the one hand, campaigns to raise awareness for a variety of social or psychological ills seek to show it is not ‘abnormal’, for example, to experience depression and that such people ‘are not alone’. But on the other hand, the proliferation of identity characteristics encourage people to be celebrate difference, uniqueness and not being ‘normal’. What are we to make of this shifting understanding of what it is to be normal? Should we just accept that everything is unstable, that we can’t expect a single category of ‘normal’ to be helpful? Does society need a concept of

Recording of a debate at the Battle of Ideas festival 2019. Today’s political culture seems obsessed with dark, apocalyptic visions. From young people staging ‘die-ins’ to protest about the environment to talk of an ‘insect apocalypse’, fears and threats loom large. Extinction Rebellion argues that the threat of catastrophe means we must reject growth and material progress in favour of a new eco-austerity. Even proponents of new technology often see it as a means of avoiding environmental catastrophe rather than transforming the world for the better. What can we learn about the present from our attitude to the future? Do we need to recover our faith in the future – and by extension, ourselves? DR SHAHRAR ALI home affairs spokesperson and former deputy leader, Green Party; author, Why Vote Green 2015 GREGORY CLAEYS professor of history, Royal Holloway, University of London; author, Searching for Utopia: the history of an idea; fellow, RSA DR ASHLEY FRAWLEY senior lecturer in sociology and social policy, Sw

Listen to the debate from the Battle of Ideas Festival 2019. Monty Python’s Life of Brian was released in the UK on 8 November 1979. The film had problems from the start, with its funding withdrawn by EMI films at the last minute, but it was rescued by former Beatle George Harrison putting up the money for it to be made. Forty years later, it would be nice to say that we’re more relaxed about religion and comedy. But in truth, while Christianity is considered fair game (notwithstanding the later controversy over Jerry Springer: The Opera), satirising Islam remains deeply controversial, as illustrated by the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the mealy-mouthed reaction to the killings by many supposedly liberal commentators and artists. Could Brian be made today? Why does it still work today? Have we lost the ability to ridicule the dominant ideas of our society? And have comedians, writers and producers lost their edge for fear of causing offence? SIMON EVANS comedian; regular panellist, BBC Radio 4's The News Quiz

Listen to the debate from the Battle of Ideas Festival 2019. ‘Humour is a weapon of the patriarchy.’ So says Titania McGrath, the Twitter superstar who describes herself as an activist, healer and radical intersectionalist poet. Titania has become famous for her ‘woke’ words of wisdom, such as ‘heterosexuality is a hoax’. Of course, those of us who have been following Titania’s rise to fame will know that she is, in fact, fictional – a satirical character dreamt up by the author and comedian Andrew Doyle. Boasting a Twitter following in the hundreds of thousands, Doyle’s parody of a ‘typical Guardian reader’ has managed to fool some so-called ‘social-justice warriors’ into believing Titania’s cries of oppression, as well as revealing uncomfortable truths about the degraded state of identity politics. But not everyone is a fan of Titania. Doyle has been accused of ‘punching down’ with his satire of contemporary ‘leftie’ politics. Is poking fun at social-justice campaigns merely a right-wing ploy – even though