Academy of Ideas

In this edition of the Podcast of Ideas, the team chews over Sadiq Khan's election as London mayor and the implications of the different election results across the country for the major parties - particularly the way old assumptions about political strongholds have been called into question. With BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg being targeted over her coverage by Corbynistas, how should accusations of media bias be handled? The team also discusses the claim that Brexit might lead to war in Europe, the controversy over SATS exams and the effect on wider society of claiming that schoolkids are too sensitive to be tested.

In her 1969 essay, ‘The personal is political’, feminist Carol Hanisch defended consciousness-raising groups against the charge they brought ‘personal problems’ into the public arena. She argued that most difficulties women experienced in private were rooted in political inequality, so personal problems could spur women to political action in public life. Today, consciousness-raising groups are less common. Yet the idea that ‘the personal is political’ has survived, albeit giving way to an increasing fractious identity politics. The bizarre story of Rachel Dolezal, a white woman presenting herself as a mixed-race leader in the NAACP, has raised sharp questions about how we think about who a person is.  More broadly, there has been an explosion of different groups vying with one another for social recognition and respect. US writer Cathy Young argues this has led to a ‘reverse caste system in which a person’s status and worth depends entirely on their perceived oppression and disadvantage’. Burgeoning feminist clubs in universities and a diversity of gender, ethnicity, religious and cultural identity groups on college campuses and in the world of activism, reflects a substantial shift in how politics is understood and practiced in modern society. In particular, such groups are often divisively set up in competition with others’ claims to be the victim. Feuds over ‘intersectionality’ and ‘hierarchies of oppression’ have created internecine warfare between ‘terfs’ and the ‘trans’ community, between black women and white feminists, middle-class lesbians and working-class men: checking ‘privilege’ has become a routine pastime. As some critics of contemporary feminism note, identity politics inevitably turns each individual into her own group: demanding the right to assert ‘who I am’ becomes the primary goal of political action. So when Rachel Dolezal claims to be black, who are we to argue against her self-identification? Is this any different from the demand for public applause for Caitlyn Jenner – once known as Olympic athlete Bruce Jenner – who now self-defines as a woman? Is there a point past which we can’t choose our personal identity, as suggested by those who reject comparison between Dolezal’s ‘cultural appropriation’ (‘a glaring example of white privilege in action’) and Jenner realising who she/he always really was? Do today’s identity wars preclude possibilities for transcending gender, race, disability? Does the feminist war cry of ‘personal is political’ inevitably lead to such a narcissistic focus on self? Speakers Julie Bindel journalist, author, broadcaster and feminist activist; research fellow, Lincoln University Andrew Doyle stand-up comedian; playwright; biographer Sabrina Harris technical author; longtime gamer; regular commentator on issues relating to freedom of speech and internet subcultures Jake Unsworth trainee solicitor, Bond Dickinson; convenor, Debating Matters Ambassadors Dr Joanna Williams author and academic; education editor, spiked Chair Claire Fox director, Institute of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze

Recorded at the Battle of ideas 2015. While the UK economy has recovered from the economic crisis, few would argue that the recovery is built on strong foundations. Wages are only just starting to rise in real terms after a number of years of decline. Economic output remains weak compared to previous recoveries, and the state is still spending almost £90 billion a year more than it receives in tax. A particular concern for economists is low productivity – the amount of wealth produced by each worker – which is well below that of other countries and 15 per cent below where it would have been if pre-crisis trends had continued. Yet across the main political parties there seems little vision of how the UK economy could look different in five, 10 or 20 years’ time. The chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, has made much play about the creation of a ‘northern powerhouse’. The HS2 railway has cross-party support, but many are sceptical about its economic potential. Beyond this, there seems little sense of how the economy could be transformed. Indeed, many new industries with the potential to revolutionise the UK economy – like fracking, nuclear power and biotech – have faced considerable resistance. In 2014, the Wright Report, an independent report commissioned by the Labour Party, called for ‘a modern, active industrial policy’ that was not about ‘government “picking winners”, investing in large companies, or trying to plan the economy’ but focused on ‘improving the environment in which companies operate, recognising the positive influence that government can have, and working together to tackle the challenges’. These included barriers to investment, the overall load of taxation and the lack of skilled workers, all still serious problems. That said, there are causes for optimism. In certain sectors, productivity has risen sharply in recent years. Productivity in car manufacturing is high, while in aircraft engine manufacturing and financial services, the UK is a world leader. Moreover, the UK’s universities offer excellent capacity for research and development. If UK businesses can be excellent in some arenas, why is the UK apparently so unproductive overall? What are the barriers to a new and innovative economy? Why is new business investment so low? Do we need a bout of creative destruction, making painful choices about leaving some areas of economic activity behind, in order to allow new sources of wealth creation to flourish? SPEAKERS Frances Coppola associate editor, Pieria; contributor to Nesta’s Our Work Here is Done, exploring the frontiers of robot technology Katie Evans economist, Social Market Foundation Phil Mullan economist; director, Epping Consulting business advice; author, The Imaginary Time Bomb Bauke Schram business reporter, International Business Times UK Mike Wright executive director, Jaguar Land Rover CHAIR Rob Lyons science and technology director, Institute of Ideas

Claire Fox, David Bowden and Rob Lyons discuss the week's news In this week’s edition of the Podcast of Ideas the team discuss whether, on the Queen’s 90th birthday, the monarchy has any place today. There’s analysis of the latest in the Brexit referendum, what’s behind the prosecution of a German comedian for composing an insulting poem about Turkish President Erdoğan and why Dolmio has made the strange move of encouraging the public to eat less of its pasta sauce.

Podcast: listen to this debate from our Battle of Ideas archive. Recorded at the Battle of Ideas 2015 We all love the NHS, don’t we? Despite the ubiquity of platitudes about defending ‘our’ NHS, though, exactly what we are defending and why? The NHS has undergone significant changes since its inception in 1948. Shifts within patient demographics, combined with increased patient demands and advances in technology and medical care, have resulted in a system at breaking point. One million patients are seen every 24 hours, at a cost of £2 billion each week. The kind of care available and sums of money involved would surely astonish the institution’s founders. Indeed, although often perceived as one homogeneous care provider, high-profile scandals, such as those at Mid Staffordshire and at the Morecambe Bay Maternity Unit, have illustrated the variability in care across different hospitals – even within the same trust. And on many important measures – for example, cancer survival rates – the NHS seems to perform badly compared to health services in comparable countries. Nevertheless, the NHS is one of the few manifestations of the British state that elicits strong and often positive feelings from significant numbers of people. Politicians and parties often define themselves in relation to the NHS and compete to be seen to be supporting it – even when this can be difficult to reconcile with their policies and track record. No major party seems willing to have a more fundamental discussion about whether a taxpayer-funded health service, governed by national and local government, is the best way to take care of the nation’s health. Yet, at the same time, the reality is that more and more publicly funded healthcare is provided by profit-making or third-sector organisations. The introduction of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, particularly in relation to the commissioning of services from ‘any willing provider’, has opened the doors to private and volunteer input, often with variable results. Following the Conservatives’ victory in the 2015 general election, many supporters of the NHS fear that these reforms will be pursued further. Yet is the NHS everyone queues up to defend more national myth than effective health care? Can it survive in its current form, and more importantly, should it?

Claire Fox, David Bowden and Rob Lyons discuss the week's news In this edition of the Podcast of Ideas the team ask whether, with Tata Steel’s operations in Britain haemorrhaging £1million a day, renationalisation is really the answer. Instead, should we be demanding investment in new and dynamic industries rather than propping up zombie sectors of the economy? With the release of the Panama Papers making the not-so-startling revelation that the super rich sometimes avoid paying tax, the team ask why the rich feel the need to sit on their capital in the first place rather than using it productively. And finally, there’s analysis of the latest in the Brexit referendum campaign including the government’s latest controversial move: using public money to peddle the Remain line.     

Podcast: listen to this debate from our Battle of Ideas archive. With the chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, having recently announced a sugary drinks tax and the Lancet publishing new figures claiming that 38 per cent of UK adults will be obese by 2025, what is the truth about obesity? This archive debate was recorded at the Battle of Ideas 2013. According to ‘Reducing Obesity and Improving Diet’, a policy document produced by the Department of Health in March 2013, most people in England are overweight or obese - 61.3% of adults and 30% of children aged between 2 and 15. The associated health problems are costing the NHS, it is claimed, more than £5 billion every year. The reasons given for people ‘going large’ are not always clear, and numerous reasons have been suggested: that the modern Western diet is too high in carbohydrates / fat / sugar [delete as appropriate], that we no longer sit down together for a home-cooked family meal, but graze all day or eat ready-meals in front of the TV, that we don’t cook anymore so our understanding of nutrition and seasonality is lacking, that we drink too many fizzy drinks, that processed food is as addictive and we have become food junkies. To tackle the problem, there have been numerous government health initiatives, and doctors and health organisations have called for a wide array of health interventions, including sugar and fat taxes. While these make headlines, it seems they’ve failed to affect our waistlines, with some predicting that obesity will continue to rise and place further strain on the NHS. On the other hand, studies show the number of people who are overweight or obese has not risen for over a decade, and there are concerns that school health campaigns are making our children unhealthily weight-obsessed. Some studies even suggest those labelled ‘category 1 obese’ are likely to be just as healthy as those deemed ‘normal’. So what’s the truth behind the obesity epidemic - are we right to be worried about becoming a nation of fatties? Is being fat necessarily a harbinger of ill health and early death? Just what is making us more obese? And do we all need a nudge to make sure we fill up our plates with carrots and stick with the gym? SPEAKERS Henry Dimbleby co-founder, Leon Restaurants; co-author, School Food Plan Rob Lyons science and technology director, Institute of Ideas Dr Angelica Michelis senior lecturer, Department of English, Manchester Metropolitan University; author, Eating Theory: the theory of eating (forthcoming) Jane Ogden professor in health psychology, University of Surrey; author, The Good Parenting Food Guide’ (forthcoming) CHAIR Jason Smith associate fellow, Institute of Ideas

Claire Fox and Ian Dunt discuss the Rhodes Must Fall movement In this edition of the Podcast of Ideas, David Bowden talks to Claire Fox and journalist Ian Dunt about the Rhodes Must Fall movement, which has swept campuses from Cape Town to Oxford demanding that vestiges of colonialism be removed from colleges, notably statues of Cecil Rhodes. Does the movement represent young people boldly trying to shape the world around them? Or, is it a misguided attempt by privileged students to rewrite the past by shutting down debate and making anachronistic claims to be victims of historical wrongs?

Claire Fox and David Bowden join Rob Lyons to discuss the debate about Brexit so far. What does it reveal about attitudes to democracy today and the snobbery of many calling for the UK to stay in the EU? Is the media too obsessed with Westminster politics rather than the serious issues involved? What will really change if Britain votes to leave?  The team also discussed the new public health campaign, 'One You' - why are government lecturing people to change their bad habits?

A keynote from the Battle of Ideas 2016 ‘If I have a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on, I need not exert myself at all.’ Immanuel Kant, What is Enlightenment? (1784) When One Direction announced they were splitting up, child psychologists offered parents of grieving tweenies advice on how to console their offspring. In the same month, parents were also told by researchers how long they should read to their children each day. Business Secretary Sajid Javid has ordered university heads to establish a taskforce to take on sexist ‘lad culture’ and guide students to conduct their interpersonal relations in line with enlightened mores. Of course, not everyone follows expert advice on any of the above. Policy advisers and academic experts frequently complain about those who refuse to acknowledge their wisdom and carry on smoking, drinking sugary pop, being laddish. Cutting-edge techniques of behavioural psychology are being marshalled to deal with this problem. The UK’s Behavioural Insights Team, now a private company, has quadrupled in size since it was spun out of government in 2014. It is now working for the World Bank and the UN, while ‘nudge’ teams are being established in Australia, Singapore, Germany and the US. The ubiquity of nudge heralds a new renaissance for unapologetic paternalism. But where does that leave the great Enlightenment breakthrough, the idea that individuals should be self-determining and capable of making their own choices? Kant’s description of ‘mankind’s exit from his self-incurred immaturity’ seems strangely at odds with today’s enthusiasm for paternalistic intervention. For Kant, the outcome of any particular choice was less important than the cultivation of moral autonomy. The Enlightenment idea was that we should stop ‘outsourcing’ decisions about how to live to external agencies, whether the church, the monarchy, or some natural order. Today, though, new forms of authority have taken their place, leaving us just as childlike in relation to the new experts. Sceptics about the idea of autonomy suggest breakthroughs in neuroscience have revealed we are less rational than Enlightenment thinkers suggested. They argue it is wrong for strong-willed individuals to run rough-shod over vulnerable groups with less power. In a complex world of multiple choices, what is wrong with people seeking help to make informed decisions? Is autonomy really undermined if students themselves demand university authorities provide safe spaces, issue trigger warnings on course materials, make lessons in consent compulsory? If we are nudged into the good life, what harm is done? Should we grow up and accept new paternalism or does this mean sacrificing self-dominion and consigning ourselves to a life of permanent dependence? Is individual autonomy an outdated myth? Speakers Dr Tim Black books and essays editor, spiked Dr Katerina Deligiorgi reader in philosophy, University of Sussex; author, The Scope of Autonomy Dr Daniel Glaser director, Science Gallery London, King's College London Professor Mike Kelly senior visiting fellow, Behaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge; researcher in nudge theory and choice architecture Georgios Varouxakis professor of the history of political thought, Queen Mary University of London; author, Mill on Nationality Chair Claire Fox director, Institute of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze