Recording of an Academy of Ideas debate on Tuesday 26 November 2024 via Zoom.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

With Parliament about to vote on the issue for the first time since 2015, join us for a discussion on the rights and wrongs of legalisation.

The House of Commons will vote on Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on 29 November. The Bill claims to ‘allow adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life’, although there have been complaints publishing the full text of the Bill.

While assisted suicide is currently illegal in the UK, the proposed legislation would make an exception on request for patients with six months left to live, with permission from medical professionals. Leadbeater presents assisted suicide as a matter of free choice and dignity, and argues that those without the option will take the situation into their own hands, causing unnecessary distress for those around them.

However, there are doubts – including from the health secretary, Wes Streeting – that the bill will guard effectively against situations in which people are coerced to die, either by family members or by a state that is too often incapable of providing adequate palliative care. In the US state of Oregon, whose Death With Dignity Act bears resemblance to the UK’s Terminally Ill Adults Bill, a majority of people who choose to die cite fears about becoming a burden for their loved ones.

Is the current law a ‘cruel mess,’ to quote campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen – or is it necessary to prevent slippery slopes? Could the interests of our welfare state undermine the Bill’s protections? And how should we square a patient’s freedom of choice with existing frameworks of medical ethics?

SPEAKERS

James Esses

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain MBE

Sonia Sodha

Professor Kevin Yuill

CHAIR

Criminal solicitor Luke Gittos offers an insider's view on the Telegraph columnist's case and the worrying rise of censorship.

The case of Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson has drawn attention to the scale of policing (quite literally) of speech in the UK today. Pearson’s lawyer in the case is Luke Gittos - a partner at Murray Hughman solicitors in London and director of Freedom Law Clinic, as well as a regular Battle of Ideas festival speaker.  

In this exclusive video, Luke reflects on the Pearson case before discussing the role of hate crime, how non-crime hate incidents became so ubiquitous, his views on the policing of speech, and how public pressure is vital in pushing back against these iniquitous and censorious measures.

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, London.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

Using technology to help referees get important decisions right seemed like such a good idea. For example, in 2010, England midfielder Frank Lampard famously had a goal against Germany in the World Cup disallowed, despite the ball clearly crossing the goal line. One result was the introduction of technology that can tell the referee instantly if the ball has crossed the goal-line. However, goal-line technology can only assist with one source of refereeing error. VAR enables a wider range of decisions to be reviewed.

One criticism is that VAR is still subject to human subjectivity and fallibility, as it depends on how referees view and apply the rules, with incorrect decisions still being made and with inconsistency between matches. The most high-profile VAR error occurred last autumn, when confused communication between the on-pitch referee and the VAR meant a goal by Liverpool against Tottenham Hotspur was erroneously disallowed – despite the VAR making the correct decision. Representatives of one Premier League club, Wolves, were so incensed by a string of bad decisions that they put forward a motion to scrap VAR altogether.

Secondly, VAR slows down the game as goals or penalty decisions are subject to laborious reviews, playing havoc with the emotions of players and spectators. One former England player, Paul Scholes, has complained that the ‘VAR experience is poor, the in-stadium experience for the supporter. It’s nowhere near good enough.’

However, the football authorities believe that VAR has made the game fairer by improving both decision accuracy and transparency as fans can see the video replays. Responding to the Wolves motion, the Premier League pointed out that VAR has substantially improved decision making overall, while acknowledging that decisions currently take too long.

Has VAR ruined football? Why has video technology been so controversial in football when it has been much more successful in other sports, like cricket and tennis? How can we remove human error, or is human error an inevitable part of the game? Can VAR be fixed, or should it be given the red card?

SPEAKERS

Jonny Gould

Omar Mohamed

Sally Taplin

CHAIR

On the eve of the US presidential election, listen to our discussion from the Battle of Ideas festival 2024:

Within days of being announced as the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris went from the most unpopular vice president in 50 years – a figure whose unpopularity reportedly led to the former president, Barack Obama, scrambling to find an alternative – to a viable presidential candidate. After slumping under Biden, polling now indicates that the Democrats have a real chance of retaining the White House.

Kamala has been rebranded – the ‘brat’ candidate memifying what had previously been seen as gaffs as the imperfections of millennial women. Kamala is posed as a cross between Obama and Bridget Jones. Kamala, it seems, has been embraced as a figure of fun.

Harris has made no unscripted appearances since taking up the candidacy. The Harris strategy seems to be is entirely based on Kamala the person – with the least amount of policy focus in her campaign material of any presidential candidate in history by far. It seems the Democrats hope Kamala can be entertaining enough to distract the American public for a hundred days, avoiding any real scrutiny.

Has the election then turned purely into a competition of ‘vibes’? Or are there still substantive differences between the main candidates? What does the memification of politics mean for democracy? Is Kamalamania a sincere phenomenon, an exercise in how people can change their mind out of convenience, or a complete fiction produced by the Democratic Party machine? Has Trump lost his populist touch? What does the election hold for America?

SPEAKERS:

Nick Dixon, comedian; presenter, GB News; host, The Current Thing

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

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

Stan Swim, chief program officer, Bill of Rights Institute

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

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

The Online Safety Bill is causing huge concern for those who believe in free speech. But how can we protect free expression and still deal with the many problems that arise online?

The Bill has passed through the House of Commons and will now be debated in the House of Lords. There are hopes that Liz Truss’s government may amend the Bill to remove the most egregious problem with it: the attempt to force tech platforms and service providers – such as Twitter, Facebook, Google and many more – to remove content and ban users from expressing ideas or views that the government deems to be ‘legal but harmful’. However, the very idea that legislation was drafted to ban legal speech as it appears in the virtual public square – including references to sex and gender, race, eating disorders or the diverse category of ‘mental health challenges’ – says much about the current attitude among politicians and regulators.

Concerns remain at the wide scope of proposals in the legislation. It recommends new rules to control online services, including search engines and user-generated content. It will also affect privacy by constraining end-to-end encryption. The law will compel tech firms, who already regulate and remove content they have decided is ‘problematic’, to comply through fines and suspension, and requires they provide user tracking data on individuals who are considered to be breaking these laws. If and when the law is passed, it is now proposed that the lead time for compliance is reduced from 22 months to just two. Companies will have just over eight weeks from the royal assent of the law to make sure that they’re in full compliance to avoid penalties.

Despite these potentially draconian measures, there are undoubtedly new harms created by the online world. Are free-speech advocates being insensitive to what is novel about the internet as a threat? Trolling can go beyond unpleasant abuse to threats of violence. Children are far more likely to suffer at the hands of malicious bullying online than in the playground. Worse, such abuse can go viral. What do we do about child-safety concerns, viral sexting, online anonymous grooming, bad faith con-merchants and conspiracy-mongers passing off misinformation as fact? What of the potential psychological damage, particularly for those considered more socially and psychologically ‘at-risk’? Is it good enough to argue that these ‘crimes’ are already protected by existing laws?

In any event, safety issues and legislation may not even be the biggest free-speech issues online. In fact, perhaps it is Big Tech companies that have the real power. For example, Spotify has removed podcasts it deems politically unacceptable while PayPal has removed support for organisations critical of Covid policies and gender ideology.

Does the online world, warts and all, present free-speech supporters with insurmountable problems? Or is free speech a fundamental societal value that must be fought for, whatever the consequences or regardless of the challenges of any new technology?

SPEAKERS

Lord Charles Colville

Paddy Hannam

Molly Kingsley

Graham Smith

Toby Young

CHAIR

Media scrutiny, political scandals and electoral upsets - the Academy of Ideas team get together on the eve of the General Election for one last pre-vote discussion.

The manifestos are in! And, perhaps unsurprisingly, the two main parties have caused the least stir. Reform UK’s ‘contract’ has been denounced by commentators and think tanks alike as ‘uncosted’, while the SDP’s manifesto was praised for standing out as an unusually comprehensive list of ideas in a sea of general obfuscation.

Meanwhile, both Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer have been battling it out for who had the most hard-done-by childhood, with rows about Sky TV and toolmakers providing some comedic relief for the electorate in what has otherwise been a rather depressing three weeks of campaigning.

From Tory implosions to Labour infighting, Emmanuel Macron’s shock election announcement to the rumblings of a Reform challenge, we cover it all in this latest podcast.

Listen, subscribe to our Substack and don’t forget to get your tickets for this year’s Battle of Ideas festival…

The Academy of Ideas team discuss the latest in the General Election campaign - plus a view from Europe.

Just when you think things couldn’t get any worse for the Conservative Party, its leader - Rishi Sunak - managed to mess up on an international scale. The prime minister’s decision to leave D-Day commemorations early - allegedly returning home for a TV interview - has upset many people, including his own colleagues. While Sunak immediately apologised for what he described as a scheduling issue, it doesn’t seem to have quelled disquiet within the party - or consternation among voters.

Meanwhile, both Labour and the Tories have been scrambling to select seats. The deselection of Labour’s Faiza Shaheen and the parachuting in of the Tories’ Richard Holden both caused problems among local party supporters. And who could forget Nigel Farage who, like a twist in an Agatha Christie novel, announced that he will stand in Clacton to the sound of Conservative sighs nationwide. But does this mean that Reform poses a serious threat to the Tories? And, while much of the European media is reporting a rightward shift in this week’s European elections, will that prophecy come true? Or will the trend of fickle voters prove yet again that trying to predict elections is a mug’s game?

Listen to all of this and more on our latest episode in our General Election Podcast of Ideas specials, and subscribe to our Substack: clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

Subscribe to our Substack to keep up to date with our latest podcasts, events and comment.

Last week, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak took the nation - and many of his own MPs - by surprise by calling the next General Election. On Thursday 4 July, UK citizens will join the billions around the world going to the polls this year to pick their next political leaders. While Sunak might have been able to blame his wet start on the weather, the early stages of the campaign haven’t been bright and breezy. Faced with anger and confusion from his fellow party members - including threats of a no-confidence vote - Sunak’s charm offensive across the country is marred by the fact that most people believe this election has already been won.

And yet, the bookies’ favourites - the Labour Party - have their own problems. From a lacklustre speech to concerns about splitting voters over issues like women-only spaces or support for a ceasefire in Gaza, Labour leader Keir Starmer hasn’t yet made hay while the sun refuses to shine on his rivals.

The announcement of the General Election also took the outliers in the competition by surprise. Reform UK’s tough talk about taking on the Tories was somewhat marred by Nigel Farage finally admitting that he wouldn’t stand for election. And yet, Mr Brexit remains the most discussed man of this election campaign so far, thanks to his comments both about the higher status of the US and questioning whether young people - and Muslims - ‘loathed’ British culture beyond persuasion.

But it’s still early days for challengers, with new political hopefuls standing as independents and as members of parties like the SDP, Greens and the Lib Dems hoping to break the monopoly of the two big parties.

To discuss all of this - the big announcements of the first few days of campaigning, from National Service to votes for 16-year-olds - the Academy of Ideas team got together in the first of our regular Podcast of Ideas specials. 

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

Climate change has become the great overarching mission of our times for politicians and business leaders. With the UN secretary general declaring that we are now in an era of ‘global boiling’, every leading politician talks about reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to ‘net zero’ – with the few emissions the economy does produce balanced by some method to soak them up, from planting trees to carbon capture and storage. As a result, a timetable has been created to eliminate emissions, step by step, between now and 2050.

Proponents of Net Zero argue that the process could be a creative one, leading to the development of new technologies and millions of well-paid ‘green’ jobs. Moreover, they point to opinion polls which suggest that the idea is popular with the public.

But the price to be paid for Net Zero is becoming ever clearer and is no longer a distant prospect. As soon as 2026, new oil-powered boilers will be banned and all new housing must have heat pumps installed. Gas boilers, petrol and diesel cars and cheap flights are all in the firing line.

But the impact of Net Zero goes way beyond these measures, with major impacts on jobs and livelihoods. For example, farmers in the Netherlands and Ireland have been angered by EU emissions targets that mean the number of animals that can be reared must be drastically reduced. Energy for industry is becoming more expensive, too, with many high energy users already looking at much lower costs in the US, where the exploitation of shale gas through fracking has kept prices low.

Opinion polls suggest that while Net Zero is popular in the abstract, the policies designed to make it happen are much less so. Moreover, with unanimity among the major parties in the UK that Net Zero is an inviolable policy, there is no electoral route to push back against such policies, except to vote for smaller parties with little hope of winning seats in the near future. Indeed, for some environmentalists, there can be no choice in the matter: if necessary, democracy must be sacrificed to the need to cut emissions.

That said, the Uxbridge by-election – which became something of a referendum on Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ policy – seems to have caused consternation among the major parties. Even though Net Zero itself wasn’t in question, a major environmental initiative seemed to be resoundingly rejected at the ballot box.

Is Net Zero an unpleasant necessity or, more positively, the start of a new industrial revolution? Or is it a policy that is being pursued without the technical means of achieving it in an affordable fashion? Will the backlash against Net Zero increase – and will it matter if governments are determined to pursue it, whether we like it or not?

SPEAKERS

Rob Lyons

Scarlett Maguire

John McTernan

CHAIR