Academy of Ideas

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.

Podcast of Ideas |John Tierney debunks recycling myths

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.

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?