Academy of Ideas

Rob Lyons speaks to architect Austin Williams. In this week’s Podcast of Ideas architect Austin Williams speaks to Rob Lyons about China’s remarkably rapid urbanisation in recent years, and the tension between individual freedom and progress.

Few texts have sustained such extensive reference and quotation in Anglo-American politics as JS Mill’s classic. Mill’s famous ‘Harm Principle’ – that government power may only be justifiably used to prevent harm to others, not to improve one’s own good – still provides the ground on which numerous debates around civil liberties, lifestyle choices, and more recently ‘nudge theory’ are fought. Moreover, Mill’s rousing defence of the liberty of the press never ceases to be relevant. Yet it is imperative to understand the aims and context of On Liberty if Mill’s arguments around press liberty and the Harm Principle are to be properly understood – as the endless argumentation about what ‘harm’ means shows. Attending to the whole of On Liberty, in the spirit of pursuing knowledge for its own sake, shows these familiar ideas in a new light. By tackling this canonical work as a whole we gain valuable insights into Mill’s inspiring defence of personal autonomy, and see quite how at odds Mill would have been with contemporary political rhetoric – just as he was in his own time. Georgios Varouxakis professor of the history of political thought, Queen Mary University of London; author, Mill on Nationality

Listen to this week's public event in London. Seventeen million people voted to leave the EU last Thursday, an historically important democratic moment. Yet there are already attempts to thwart or row back from this decision. Many have signed a petition urging a second referendum so that voters can give the ‘right answer’; others threaten the vote with lawyers and bureaucratic challenges. There is contempt for voters who effectively revolted against an establishment that told them they should vote Remain. There seems to be a special brand of bigotry aimed at white working-class voters, with talk of ‘sewers’, and sections of the electorate being castigated for their ignorance and xenophobia. Others seek to stir up a distasteful generational revolt, prompting some younger Remain voters to turn on anyone over 60 with vicious accusations of selfishness and betrayal. This should be a moment that feels pregnant with possibilities, opening up chances for shaping the future. And yet many feel scared — genuinely scared. Uncertainty and change can be disconcerting. Democracy has been revealed as more than a paper exercise: people now know it has very real consequences. How should we interpret the vote for Brexit? What should democrats do to ensure that popular sovereignty is not squandered? How can we best shape positive developments in future months, and ensure that this democratic moment is not neutralised? At this meeting held earlier this week, organised by the Institute of Ideas and spiked, Professor Frank Furedi, author of Politics of Fear: Beyond Left and Right and Authority: A Sociological History, gives an opening talk and Claire Fox, Director of the Institute of Ideas responds. Tom Slater, deputy editor of spiked, introduces and chairs.

Rob Lyons, Claire Fox and David Bowden discuss the fallout from the Brexit vote. In a historic week where the British public voted to leave the European Union, sparking one of the most tumultuous political upheavals in living memory and causing hysteria across the political establishment and the media, Rob Lyons, Claire Fox and David Bowden offer some much needed sane analysis and give their visions of where we should go from here to ensure we build a more democratic, more prosperous and freer Britain. 

From controversial law cases such as that of the footballer Ched Evans through to intense bursts of outrage at offensive jokes or unpopular opinions, the Twitterstorm seems to have replaced the mob in twenty-first-century imagination. While some defend the use of such tactics as a (mostly) harmless letting off of steam, others have become increasingly uncomfortable about what such tactics mean for the state of public debate more widely. In his much-discussed book, So You’ve Been Publically Shamed, journalist Jon Ronson explored the real-world effects of such vituperative mob justice, from unfairly destroying reputations to ruining lives: last year, an investigation into ‘trolls’ targeting the parents of Madeleine McCann ended in the suicide of one of the accused. From psychologist Gustave le Bon’s 1895 work, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, to Arthur Miller’s play, The Crucible, and even behavioural economics, there has been no shortage of intellectual inquiry into the nature of mobs, yet little consensus about what defines them. Protestors accused of mob violence in riots across US cities counter that it is heavy-handed police responses that turned organised demonstrations into anarchy. Meanwhile, claims that vigilante mobs mistakenly attacked paediatricians during the child-abuse panic at the start of the millennium have been found to have said as much about prejudices about the mob as the mob itself. If fear of the mob is nothing new, however, is there anything different about its spectral online version? Why does the concept of mob rule seem to haunt public debate at a time when the masses play such a minor role in mainstream politics? Has the mob found a new home in the online world, with its seeming hostility to traditional forms of hierarchy and authority? Does the fear of mob rule reveal an elitist contempt for mass politics, or an anxiety that contemporary institutions lack the strength to articulate popular frustration?  SPEAKERS Josie Appleton director, civil liberties group, Manifesto Club John Coventry global communications director, Change.org Rupert Myers barrister and writer Daniel O'Reilly comedian, aka Dapper Laughs Cathy Young contributing editor, Reason magazine; author, Ceasefire! Why women and men must join forces to achieve true equality CHAIR David Bowden associate director, Institute of Ideas

Claire Fox, David Bowden and Rob Lyons discuss the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox, its implications for the EU referendum campaign and the parallels with the Orlando night-club massacre.

Recorded at the Batle of Ideas 2015 In a week where opprobrium has been heaped on the parents of a four-year-old child who had to be rescued from a gorilla enclosure at Cincinnati Zoo, while the parents of a Japanese seven-year-old boy face charges after abandoning him to wander in the woods for a week, listen to this session from the Battle of Ideas 2015 where Lenore Skenazy argues that far from being obsessed with what our kids might be up to, we must give them the freedom to roam and explore without constant adult supervision. The term ‘cotton wool kids’ has become part of everyday language. Indeed, many parents, academics and others share a concern that children have become over­protected. The worry is that youngsters no longer have enough freedom to explore, to get into scrapes, have accidents and work out how to deal with situations when they don’t have adults telling them what to do. Discussions about this problem often focus on Mum and Dad: the blame, it is said, lies with irrationally fearful, overprotective ‘helicopter parents’. Yet when parents do try to give their children more freedom, they can face a great deal of hostility and even legal action. In the US, the parents of so-called ‘Free Range Kids’ have been charged with child neglect, while UK parents who let their young children cycle to school on their own have become the subject of protracted public debate about whether this is neglectful. Parents are told almost daily that their children’s health, welfare and safety are at risk, not just from strangers lurking in the park but from adults they know and thought they could trust, including family members, teachers, doctors and volunteers – and the apparently ever-growing menace of online grooming and abuse. Given this state of affairs, how could parents not end up being fearful and paranoid? How should we, as adults collectively, think about how best to protect and care for children while at the same time challenging and testing them in creative ways? Why do we find it so hard to agree on a ‘commonsense’ approach to child-rearing? Are projects that focus on letting children ‘run free’ the answer? Or are these becoming just another parenting fad, accessible mainly to middle­-class parents who can weekend in the country? Is it possible, or even desirable, to change the way we raise our children in a more profound way? How might we find ways to develop character, determination and independence of thought and action in future generations? SPEAKER Lenore Skenazy founder of the book, blog and movement Free-Range Kids; “America’s Worst Mom” RESPONDENTS Alice Ferguson director, Playing Out Dr Helene Guldberg director, spiked; author, Reclaiming Childhood: freedom and play in an age of fear and Just Another Ape? Lisa Harker director of strategy, policy and evidence, NSPCC CHAIR Dr Ellie Lee reader in social policy, University of Kent, Canterbury; director, Centre for Parenting Culture Studies

Claire Fox, David Bowden and Rob Lyons discuss the week's news. In this week’s Podcast of Ideas the team discuss whether the left’s mealy-mouthed support for the Remain campaign belies contempt for the demos and a fear of right-wing populism, why we should all be celebrating the decision to frack in Yorkshire, the public health lobby’s loss of credibility, the ban on legal highs and a patronising new campaign to protect women on social media.

Recorded at this week's Institute of Ideas event at Goodenough College. On 23 June, the UK will vote in a referendum on whether or not to remain a member of the European Union. The decision is a momentous one, the first time British voters will have had a direct vote on membership since 1975. Yet the public debate about the pros and cons of Brexit has been frustratingly shallow. The aim of this event was to offer a panel of high-profile speakers an opportunity to set out the case for Remain and Leave, and allow an audience of almost 300 people to get involved, offering their own views as well as challenging the panel. The result was a lively, engaging and passionate debate. For anyone interested in hearing the arguments played out with intelligence and without name-calling, this debate is well worth listening to in full. SPEAKERS Rt Hon David Davis Conservative MP for Haltemprice and Howden; former Foreign Office minister (1994–1997) and Shadow Home Secretary (2003-2008) Simon Nixon chief European commentator, Wall Street Journal Vicky Pryce board member, Centre for Economics and Business Research; former joint head, UK Government Economic Service; author, Greekonomics Bruno Waterfield Brussels correspondent, The Times; co-author, No Means No CHAIR Claire Fox director, Institute of Ideas; panelist, BBC Radio 4’s Moral Maze.