Academy of Ideas

When Neil Armstrong made his first steps on the moon on 21 July 1969, he was watched by over 500million people. Many stayed up through the night to witness it, and those who were children at the time often recall being woken up to see the momentous occasion. Today, numerous scientists, engineers, writers and others cite witnessing the moon landings as an inspiring moment that influenced their choice of career. While achieved by Americans, the positive reaction was international – there was a sense that what had been achieved was on behalf of all mankind, and had opened up a sense of unlimited possibilities. But it is the moon landings’ backdrop of the Cold War space race that perhaps dominates how we view them today. Increasingly, we are given to viewing the Apollo missions as political, with dubious scientific merit – certainly, at least, some argue that the money could have been better spent on less glamorous but more worthy missions like probes or telescopes. Those who are even less charitable see the moon landings as a colossal vanity project, wasting millions that could have been spent alleviating problems here on Earth. Today, the worth of manned space missions is under discussion again, with the Chinese Chang’e 3 lander seen as the start of a push to place taikonauts on the moon within a decade. India has followed suit, making its own plans for a manned landing. The Americans, too, have begun to talk again about returning to the lunar surface. More generally, manned spaceflight seems to be coming back into fashion, as exemplified by the rise to celebrity status of Canadian astronaut Commander Chris Hadfield. Are we witnessing the return of the space race? Are these plans any more than just propaganda missions, aimed at projecting the power of rising countries like India and China? Do the missions have enough scientific merit, and should we celebrate them even if the benefits are slight? Should we have gone to the moon in the first place, or should we have been focusing on more earthly concerns? Speakers Professor Ian Crawford professor of planetary science and astrobiology, Birkbeck College, University of London Ashley Dove-Jay PhD researcher, University of Bristol; programme member on NASA/ESA-related projects David Perks principal, East London Science School; author, What is science education for?; co-author, Sir Richard Sykes Review of school examinations and A defence of subject-based education Dr Jill Stuart visiting fellow, London School of Economics; editor-in-chief, Space Policy Will Whitehorn chairman, Transport Systems Catapult and Speed Communications; former president, Virgin Galactic Chair Craig Fairnington online resources manager, Institute of Ideas

The charge of ‘moralism’ or ‘moralising’ is always complicated. Nobody endorses immorality, we all know the difference between moralism and morality. Or do we? The former implies an unattractive self-righteousness; the latter is ‘the real thing’. But without righteousness, does morality have any meaning? The obvious danger with rejecting moralism is that we abandon any attempt to talk about right and wrong. Indeed, contemporary culture seems uncomfortable with the language of morality. Terms like good, bad, right, wrong, should, should not, duty and obligation are often seen as moralistic ‘tut tutting’ that unfairly stigmatises people. To some extent, the kinds of moral judgements that are acceptable or not change with the times, such as attitudes to slavery or eugenics. But do changing moral norms always reflect more enlightened attitudes, or just changing prejudices? For example, is the routine denigration of those who embrace traditional ideas of morality any more than a new form of ‘moralising’? Earlier this year, UK Supreme Court judge Lord Wilson of Culworth declared that the nuclear family had been replaced by a ‘blended’ variety, and that Christian teaching on the family has been ‘malign’. Paradoxically, though, something like homosexuality was not only once considered immoral and now seen as fine; one’s attitude to it has become a marker of one’s own moral standing: ‘enlightened’ or ‘bigoted’. The intriguing result is that those who still frown on homosexuality might well protest against the ‘moralism’ of those who condemn them, while the latter retort that some moral judgements are beyond debate. In other cases, moral etiquette changes for seemingly more fickle reasons. While judgementalism about sexual mores is ostensibly frowned on, the intense moral reaction that followed recent allegations of historic sexual offences seemed to go beyond particular crimes to condemn old-fashioned attitude to sex, and even the past itself. Or take the sphere of public health, in which medics and politicians cite ‘the science’ while engaging in what otherwise looks like a moral crusade to change attitudes to what we eat, drink or smoke, showing a remarkable willingness to tell others what they can and cannot do, or else. The zealousness of those policing behaviour in relation to lifestyle choices points to another apparent contradiction in today’s moral landscape. If religious moral values are seen as too narrow, we seem less troubled by formalised norms dictated by rigid codes of conduct, ethics committees, or ‘you can’t say that’ speech rules, the last of which cast certain words as morally reprehensible, and dubs those who may utter them as beyond the pale. Such discrepancies are hard to explain rationally, perhaps because they have less to do with individual or collective moral judgements than with moral ‘fashion’. So is it possible to engage in serious moral debate that avoids both self-righteous groupthink and relativistic indifference? Are morals best left to individuals, or is there a place for ‘intelligent moralising’? Speakers Dr Hannah Dawson historian of ideas, New College of the Humanities; author, Life Lessons from Hobbes Kenan Malik writer and broadcaster; author, From Fatwa to Jihad and The Quest for a Moral Compass Alister McGrath Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion, University of Oxford Chair Dolan Cummings associate fellow, Institute of Ideas; editor, Debating Humanism; co-founder, Manifesto Club

In the past, government may have intervened frequently in the economy, but our private lives were our own to live as we saw fit. In recent years, however, government has largely given up on being the ‘hand on the tiller’ of the economy and intervenes regularly in once-private aspects of life. Smoking is now banned in most public places, and smoking in cars in the presence of children is about to be banned. Environmental concerns have led to new efficiency standards for domestic appliances, and smart meters may regulate our electricity usage from afar, while we are constantly told to reduce our consumption of everything and there is serious discussion about how procreation should be limited to save the planet. Even now, parents are increasingly lectured to about how they should raise their children and, in Scotland, the Named Person rules mean a specific government employee will oversee each child’s upbringing. Even non-governmental organisations, charities, voluntary associations and academics increasingly see it as their role to ‘educate’ ill-informed, non-expert adults. From public health to environmental campaigns, the assumption is that left our own devices, we will make the ‘wrong choices’. England’s chief medical officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, complains that ‘three quarters of parents with overweight children do not recognise that they are too fat’. How can we trust adults who don’t understand the impact of their gas-guzzling family car on the planet or that feeding their kids junk food is leading to an obesity epidemic? While such attitudes and interventions are viewed as annoying or threatening in some instances, few people actively protest against them. And often there are popular demands for more regulation and legislation to protect us from harm. Why has government become so keen to make decisions for us? And why do we not even seem to take ourselves seriously as autonomous citizens? Or is such ‘infantilisation’ actually a sensible response to our limited capacities and propensity to shoot ourselves in the foot, based on a recognition that in fact, ‘there are no grown ups’. Is it reasonable to allow the ‘experts’ to decide how we live? If not, what should we do about it? Speakers Martha Gill journalist, the Economist Dan Hodges blogger; columnist, Daily Telegraph Ben Pile independent researcher, writer, and film-maker Chris Snowdon director, lifestyle economics, Institute of Economic Affairs; author, The Art of Suppression Chair Simon Knight director, Generation Youth Issues; board member, Play Scotland

With the England cricket team experiencing a turbulent tour of Australia, culminating in a humiliating whitewash, and the problems of succession currently engulfing Manchester United, the issue of management and leadership in sport has been thrust into the spotlight. Is a great sporting leader born or made? What are the key factors for creating a football dynasty, whether it be Sir Alex Ferguson at Manchester United or Bill Shankly at Liverpool? And can a manager really make that much difference today at a time when money plays such a big role in sporting success? Have the requirements of a great sporting leader changed with time? For instance, could a celebrated leader from the past such as Brian Clough succeed today while having to deal with the money, the egos, the politics and the pressures of modern football? Or can a great leader succeed in any circumstances? Is a key component of a great leader the ability to accommodate and manage disruptive and difficult personalities, if they are vital to the success of the team? Or do great leaders need to exhibit a ruthlessness in the world of personnel and ego management? What makes up the winning mentality in 2014, and are there common ingredients to successful leadership, whether in sport, business or politics?   Speakers Matthias Heitmann freelance journalist; contributor, NovoArgumente; columnist, Schweizer Monat Thais Portilho journalist; campaigns and public affairs consultant Luke Regan research officer, The Sports Think Tank Hilary Salt founder, First Actuarial Philip Walters chair, Rising Stars (educational publisher), and the GL Education Group Chair Geoff Kidder director, membership and events, Institute of Ideas; convenor, IoI Book Club; IoI’s resident expert in all sporting matters

When University College London’s students’ union banned a Nietzsche reading group in March, on the grounds that discussions about right-wing philosophers could encourage fascism and endanger the student body, many saw it as the reductio ad absurdum of student-union bans in recent years. These have included bans on Robin Thicke’s pop hit ‘Blurred Lines’, on the grounds that it might be distressing for victims of sexual assault, as well as everything from the Sun (thanks to Page 3) to ‘offensive’ T-shirts depicting Jesus and the prophet Mohammed in cartoon form. So have British universities become bastions of politically correct censorship? Or are such restrictions - enacted by elected unions rather than the state - a welcome attempt to ensure universities are safe spaces for all students? Student politics has long involved political boycotts, going back to campus bans on Barclays Bank in the 1980s (for operating in apartheid South Africa), Nestlé products in the 1990s (for promoting baby milk in the developing world), or Israeli goods in the Noughties (in protest at the treatment of Palestinians). But for all their limitations, these campaigns were an attempt to engage with the world of politics outside the university. In the past few years, however, there seems to have been a trend towards student politics turning inwards. Students’ unions have instead become increasingly concerned with making campuses safe from potentially hostile outsiders, by enacting ‘no platform’ policies, first for ‘fascists’ and later other offensive speakers, from Islamists to radical feminists. For some this is a progressive move because student unions have a duty to ensure that all students feel safe on campus, that no one feels excluded from campus activities and that no offence is caused by those activities. It is argued that women, LGBT and ethnic-minority students are often especially vulnerable and must be protected from intimidation and discomfort. Others feel the unions are engaged in acts of censorship which undermine academic freedom and treat students as children rather than adults. Do ‘safe space’ policies empower or infantilise students? Are today’s students simply not as robust as previous generations and so need protecting in ways their parents’ generation did not? Or have unions simply become more sensitive to the needs of their more vulnerable students? Speakers Tom Bailey recent graduate, UCL; regular columnist, spiked Ellamay Russell postgraduate student, University of Sussex; writer, spiked Michael Segalov communications officer, University of Sussex Students’ Union; freelance journalist. Harriet Williamson columnist and blogger Chair Joel Cohen administrator, Debating Matters; freelance writer

Immigration is a fraught political issue. Those opposing immigration – and especially the EU policy of granting freedom of movement to all EU citizens – argue that low-skilled workers from the relatively impoverished East are now driving down wages in the West. Then there is the spectre of the overseas benefits claimant, taking out without ever giving anything in return. The pro-immigration side counters that immigration is actually good for the economy. Migrants in the UK pay more in tax than they consume in public services, not least because inward migrants are more likely to be working age than the population in general. So does immigration help or hinder the UK economy? Or does that question miss the point? While the much prophesised rush of immigrants taking advantage of the exhaustion of the seven-year ban on immigration from Romania and Bulgaria at the start of the year may not have come to pass, there are still plenty who claim that immigration is a big problem. To respond to public disquiet, the government has concentrated its efforts on non-EU immigrants. But for all its talk of caps and limits, the government seems incapable of enforcing anything of the sort. And for some, that is exactly the problem. EU rules effectively mean the UK government does not control its own borders, rendering the debate about whether immigration is a bane or a boon somewhat moot. Moreover, it sometimes seems that what drives the nominally pro-immigration side is not so much freedom of movement, but the unsavoury associations of anti-immigration arguments. It is claimed that anti-immigration parties like UKIP will prompt ‘kneejerk xenophobia’, or exacerbate people’s ‘ill-informed prejudices’. Is this a pro-immigration position or anti-masses sentiment? Where are those willing to defend immigration on the grounds that everyone should be entitled to freedom of movement regardless of their passport or their skill-set? Is there a case for giving up on controlling borders altogether? Conversely, are arguments against immigration too defensive? Are secure borders essential to maintaining national sovereignty? Is it time for a different kind of debate? Speakers David Goodhart chair, Demos' Advisory Group; author, The British Dream Philippe Legrain visiting senior fellow, LSE’s European Institute; author, Immigrants: your country needs them and European Spring: Why Our Economies and Politics are in a Mess – and How to Put Them Right; former economic adviser to the President of the European Commission Bruno Waterfield Brussels correspondent, Daily Telegraph; co-author, No Means No Steven Woolfe UKIP Frontbench Spokesman on Migration and Financial Affairs Co-ordinator EFDD Group, EU ECON Committee Chair Claire Fox director, Institute of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze

After surging forward through the latter part of the twentieth century after the defeat of fascism, decolonisation and the fall of the Berlin Wall, democracy appears to be in something of a retreat. According to the Economist, even though 45 per cent of the world’s population live in countries that ‘hold free and fair elections’, there is now widespread recognition that ‘democracy’s global advance has come to a halt, and may even have gone into reverse’. After many years of trying to spread democracy abroad, the US and other Western powers seem to have lowered their sights following the tragic, contemporary debacle in Iraq. Elsewhere, the ‘Arab Spring’ has fared little better. Even in the established democracies of the West, democracy appears to have lost its enduring appeal, with declining voter turnout and a hollowing-out of once mass-membership political parties. It was once claimed that only democracies could develop economically; now, democracy is blamed for gridlock. The contrast between the failure of the US Congress to agree a budget and the ability of China to get things done is much remarked upon. Very few in the developed world openly discount democracy as an ideal, but nearly everyone agrees the reality is flawed. Some would reform it in various ways: lowering the voting age, using more new technology, etc. Occupy activists oppose ‘representative democracy’ altogether, preferring ‘direct democracy’. Some argue for limits on democracy in favour of the considered opinion of experts. Elected governments in Greece and Italy have even been replaced by interim technocratic administrations during the European economic crisis, and democratic mandates can be annulled when people vote the ‘wrong way’, as when the Irish voted ‘No’ to the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 or when the Muslim Brotherhood was voted into power in Egypt. And far from being cheered as a historic democratic exercise that ousted an entrenched Gandhi dynasty, this year’s election in India provoked fears that 815million voters were expressing atavistic religious prejudice. If anything sums up the contemporary concern with democracy, it is the word ‘populism’. In Europe, it is the fear of people voting for the wrong sort of political party: the Front National in France, the PVV in the Netherlands, UKIP in the UK. In America, it is the fear of what used to be called the ‘moral majority’: conservative voters out of step with the liberal consensus on social issues. Are populist political movements simply throwbacks, appealing to the bigotry of greying voters? Or do they give voice to the frustrations of citizens who feel increasingly cut off from an aloof and deracinated political class? Will the twenty-first century see the demise of democracy in favour of technocratic governance? What has so tarnished our view of what used to be the foundational principle of Western civilisation? Speakers Professor Ivan Krastev Chairman of the Centre for Liberal Strategies in Sofia; permanent fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna Professor Chantal Mouffe Professor of political theory, University of Westminster; author, Agonistics: thinking the world politically Brendan O'Neill editor, spiked; columnist, Big Issue; contributor, Spectator Dr David Runciman professor of politics, Department of Politics and International Studies (POLIS), Cambridge University; author, The Confidence Trap: A History of Democracy in Crisis from World War 1 to the Present Chair Claire Fox director, Institute of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze

Cultural policy is seen as essential in helping to regenerate previously unfashionable areas of east London and right across the capital. Every neighbourhood seems keen to emphasise its credentials as a creative, artist-friendly hub and no urban space is complete without short-let ‘pop-up’ shops and restaurants, temporary cinemas or urban beaches. Supporters argue that such playful, small-scale interventions can help ‘citizens take ownership of their city’ and engender a community spirit seen as sorely diminished after the 2011 riots. Yet others are more sceptical about the merits of such schemes, seeing them as invariably corporate-sponsored examples of ‘hipster gentrification’, which undermines rather than bolsters civic engagement, with even the creatives of east London’s Tech City complaining development of the area will change its ‘unique character’. While many artists claim to be committed to being friendly with residents and helping to improve neighbourhoods, the sceptics argue that they are, knowingly or unwittingly, helping gentrification. CityLab magazine recently called it ‘Artwashing’: getting an area cleaned up before properties are bought up cheap, with existing residents removed and flats sold for the highest price possible. Some hail the rise of artist-led cultural initiatives as a radical challenge to both the problems of austerity and the perceived stifling sanitisation of contemporary public life. Are playful, small-scale interventions and urban explorations a challenge to the sanitised city, or merely part of it? To what extent do they provide a means to nurture the urban realm and engender community spirit? In any case, is gentrification inevitable? Speakers Alan Miller co-director, NY Salon; co-founder, London's Truman Brewery; partner, Argosy Pictures Film Company Emma Dent-Coad leader, Labour Group, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council; design and architecture journalist Feargus O’Sullivan Europe correspondent, CityLab James Stevens strategic planner, Home Builders Federation Chair David Bowden coordinator, UK Battle Satellites; columnist, spiked

Next year marks 800 years since the signing of Magna Carta. While the build-up to its anniversary has been dominated by arguments about whether it should be taught in schools as part of lessons on ‘British values’ aimed at tackling ‘Trojan Horse’ extremism, others have strongly suggested Britain needs a contemporary equivalent. Whilst the coalition’s Commission on a Bill of Rights produced ambivalent conclusions, leading Conservative politicians have pledged that it will be a key part of their general election manifesto. Yet while the original brief for the Bill of Rights was for a document ‘which incorporates and builds on Britain’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights’ such a move is widely seen as a potential replacement for the Human Rights Act with Britain leaving the ECHR altogether. Supporters see a British Bill of Rights as an important move in regaining control over key areas of national sovereignty, threatened by increasingly activist judges based in Strasbourg. Many opponents, including leading civil-liberties campaigners, charge the proposal as being a return of Tories as ‘the nasty party’ keen on limiting individual and worker protections enshrined under the Human Rights Act. In any case, it is not clear what immediate gains a UK government would make from leaving the ECHR, given the increasing willingness of British courts to challenge government policies – for example, on workfare - and the need to meet Western standards around universal human rights. Some see the British Bill of Rights as an opportunity to rethink our contemporary attitude to rights. Historically, many see a rights culture as standing in a British tradition dating back to the Magna Carta of 1215 and embracing the 1688 Bill of Rights. Others see sharp distinctions between the natural-rights tradition dating back to John Locke and that which culminated in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man in the wake of the French Revolution and the American Bill of Rights of 1791.  Is it significant that these documents that talk the language of natural rights tend to seek freedom from the state whereas the human rights tradition embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) tend to seek the state’s protection? Could a British Bill of Rights represent a more democratic alternative to the ECHR, or simply greater powers for unelected judges in Britain rather than their counterparts in Strasbourg? Does it represent an opportunity to safeguard civil liberties and national security, as various supporters hope, or risk sacrificing hard-won rights to contemporary opportunist politicians? What advantages would it hold over the existing framework provided by the Human Rights Act? Would its introduction be a triumph for democracy or populism? Who should we trust to make our laws? Speakers Jon Holbrook barrister and writer on legal issues for spiked and the New Law Journal Martin Howe QC barrister; member, Commission on A Bill of Rights Helen Mountfield QC barrister, Matrix Chambers, London; trustee, Equal Rights Trust Rupert Myers barrister and writer Adam Wagner barrister, 1 Crown Office Row Chair Claire Fox director, Institute of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze

This podcast was recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival at the Barbican in London on Sunday 21 October, 2012 From Boris Island to the Dale Farm gypsies, no building project seems too big or small to fall foul of the UK’s notoriously stringent planning laws, which sometimes seem to exist to prevent development rather than manage it. In contrast to China, which delivers new development equivalent to a country the size of Greece every six months, the UK planning system seems to be in a permanent state of denial. The Thames Gateway, High Speed Rail 2, Heathrow’s third runway, Battersea Power Station redux, Green Belt housing and even Eco-Towns have all run up against a wall. Perhaps the biggest issue is in housing, where building languishes at the lowest levels since the First World War. By some estimates, five million people are waiting on housing registers. According to Shelter, the younger generation bears the brunt with a fifth of 18- to 34-year-olds living with their parents because they can’t afford to rent or buy a home. At Inside Housing, Colin Wiles argues the need to build three million new homes on greenfield land in the next 20 years. But few others seem willing to countenance actually increasing housing stock. The charity Intergenerational Foundation argues the problem is ‘under-occupation’ and that elderly people should be encouraged to move out of their ‘big houses’ to make room for larger families. Eight ‘radical solutions’ to the housing crisis discussed on the BBC News website included curbing population growth, forcing landlords to sell or let empty properties, and banning second homes. Meanwhile, the likes of the National Trust, the Countryside Alliance and the Campaign to Protect Rural England campaign against any liberalisation of planning. More broadly, many people distrust developers, fearing they will scar the countryside and destroy our architectural heritage. Some ask why has planning lost its way and what happened to the big visionary plans of the past. David Cameron wants us to rediscover how ‘to build for the future with as much confidence and ambition as the Victorians once did’. But will cutting ‘red tape’ and simplifying the system be enough? Does the new ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ merely reinforce the ‘green tape’ that is already a barrier to development? What are the smart ways to deliver good urban development? Is the solution better top-down planning, more bottom-up planning, or something else altogether? Speakers Professor Kelvin Campbell managing director, Urban Initiatives; author, Massive Small: the operating system for smart urbanism Penny Lewis lecturer, Scott Sutherland School of Architecture, Robert Gordon University; co-founder, AE Foundation Paul Miner senior planning officer, Campaign to Protect Rural England Daniel Moylan The Mayor of London's Aviation Adviser; Conservative councillor, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Christine Murray editor, The Architects' Journal Chair: Michael Owens commercial director, Bow Arts Trust; owner, London Urban Visits; formerly, head of development policy, London Development Agency