You can find our most recent videos below. To see our full archive of videos, visit our YouTube channel.

Recording of an Academy of Ideas debate on Tuesday 28 June 2022.

INTRODUCTION
Around the world, prices of a wide range of goods and commodities have been rising sharply for the past few months. In particular, the wholesale cost of energy has been rising fast as the world economy recovered from the pandemic restrictions. Petrol prices have risen by almost a third in the past 12 months. The UK domestic energy ‘price cap’, which hit a low of £1,042 in 2020, is expected to rise to £2,800 in October. Consumer price inflation has hit 9% and is likely to reach 10% by the end of the year. For those on lower incomes, who spend more of their income on food and energy, the impact is even greater.

There are multiple explanations for the rises: the post-pandemic recovery and problems with shipping have been widely cited. The war in Ukraine and sanctions against Russia are hitting energy and food prices. Many economists also point to the rise in the money supply – thanks to ultra-low interest rates, quantitative easing and huge government spending programmes. Rises in production have not kept pace with rising demand, so prices have risen.

But the other side of the story is that wages are not keeping up with rising prices. As a result, most people are seeing real-terms cuts in their living standards. Governments and central bankers seem desperate to keep a lid on wage rises, desperate to avoid a ‘wage-price spiral’, but the effect is to make most people significantly poorer. Those on fixed incomes may be hardest hit of all.

What are the main reasons for the rise in living costs? What can be done to help reduce the impact? Should we be looking beyond short-term and temporary factors? Is this a crisis that has been coming for some time?

SPEAKERS
Robert Fig
principal, Metals Risk Team, a commodity risk-management consultancy; previously worked at ArcelorMittal and London Metals Exchange

Phil Mullan
writer, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

Hilary Salt
actuary; founder, First Actuarial

Recording of an Academy of Ideas debate on Tuesday 28 June 2022.

INTRODUCTION
Around the world, prices of a wide range of goods and commodities have been rising sharply for the past few months. In particular, the wholesale cost of energy has been rising fast as the world economy recovered from the pandemic restrictions. Petrol prices have risen by almost a third in the past 12 months. The UK domestic energy ‘price cap’, which hit a low of £1,042 in 2020, is expected to rise to £2,800 in October. Consumer price inflation has hit 9% and is likely to reach 10% by the end of the year. For those on lower incomes, who spend more of their income on food and energy, the impact is even greater.

There are multiple explanations for the rises: the post-pandemic recovery and problems with shipping have been widely cited. The war in Ukraine and sanctions against Russia are hitting energy and food prices. Many economists also point to the rise in the money supply – thanks to ultra-low interest rates, quantitative easing and huge government spending programmes. Rises in production have not kept pace with rising demand, so prices have risen.

But the other side of the story is that wages are not keeping up with rising prices. As a result, most people are seeing real-terms cuts in their living standards. Governments and central bankers seem desperate to keep a lid on wage rises, desperate to avoid a ‘wage-price spiral’, but the effect is to make most people significantly poorer. Those on fixed incomes may be hardest hit of all.

What are the main reasons for the rise in living costs? What can be done to help reduce the impact? Should we be looking beyond short-term and temporary factors? Is this a crisis that has been coming for some time?

SPEAKERS
Robert Fig
principal, Metals Risk Team, a commodity risk-management consultancy; previously worked at ArcelorMittal and London Metals Exchange

Phil Mullan
writer, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

Hilary Salt
actuary; founder, First Actuarial

0 0

YouTube Video VVVqb0Y0alM0b1I0NzlfWTJ5OU9rc2JnLlg0U3hZbGgwWjVZ

How can we end the cost-of-living crisis?

8 views 70 minutes ago

This is a recording from a live event hosted by the Academy of Ideas Arts & Society Forum, which took place on 17 May 2022: https://academyofideas.org.uk/event/is-cancel-culture-killing-literature/

What happens when we start judging works by the author’s views and behaviour? Is cancel culture censorship under a new guise? Join the Arts & Society Forum for this public debate in London.

One hundred years ago, the literary world was turned upside down by the publication of the novel Ulysses by James Joyce. It scandalised many but defied censorship to become regarded as one of the most outstanding novels ever written in English, having a profound influence on the development of literature in the twentieth century. But today many literary giants of the last century are coming under attack for expressing what some argue are intolerable ideas.

Censorship seems, once again, to be returning as a major constraint on publishing. Instead of legal measures to prevent the publication of overtly sexual literature, we now have, it is argued, ‘cancel culture’ where people both inside and outside the literary world suggest that some books are too offensive to be published. These people say they want to challenge ‘pale, male and stale’ traditions that have dominated the industry for far too long. For them, it is not about censorship, but about changing editorial policy. Works by great, ground-breaking authors of the twentieth century such as Philip Roth, Norman Mailer, John Updike, Virginia Woolf and Harper Lee have been struck from publishers’ lists and/or from school and university literature courses. Meanwhile, social media scrutiny can mean that a contemporary author’s private life and personal opinions come to be seen as more important than the quality of their creative output and, in some instances, has led to their work being cancelled.

On the other hand, it has never been easy to get a publishing deal and, some argue, that the changing cultural and economic climate provides new creative challenges and opportunities for new writers. Moreover, greater social diversity in the publishing world is giving new writers a chance, those who may have been side-lined in the past because of their background or lack of connections.

Whether this is ‘cancel culture’ or editorial policy, will the new ideologies of the publishing world stimulate or crush the creative spirit of writers? What impact might such attitudes have on contemporary authors and the future of literature? What are the consequences of removing certain works of literature from the Western canon? What, if anything, is the difference between the censorship of Joyce in 1922 and the calls for his cancellation in 2022?

SPEAKERS INCLUDE

Andreas Campomar
publisher at Hachette UK; critic, journalist and writer

Jake Kerridge
journalist, critic, feature writer and interviewer; book reviewer, Telegraph

Michael Nath
author, The Treatment and La Rochelle; senior lecturer in creative writing and English literature, University of Westminster

Ella Whelan
co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want: Fun, Freedom and an End to Feminism

This is a recording from a live event hosted by the Academy of Ideas Arts & Society Forum, which took place on 17 May 2022: https://academyofideas.org.uk/event/is-cancel-culture-killing-literature/

What happens when we start judging works by the author’s views and behaviour? Is cancel culture censorship under a new guise? Join the Arts & Society Forum for this public debate in London.

One hundred years ago, the literary world was turned upside down by the publication of the novel Ulysses by James Joyce. It scandalised many but defied censorship to become regarded as one of the most outstanding novels ever written in English, having a profound influence on the development of literature in the twentieth century. But today many literary giants of the last century are coming under attack for expressing what some argue are intolerable ideas.

Censorship seems, once again, to be returning as a major constraint on publishing. Instead of legal measures to prevent the publication of overtly sexual literature, we now have, it is argued, ‘cancel culture’ where people both inside and outside the literary world suggest that some books are too offensive to be published. These people say they want to challenge ‘pale, male and stale’ traditions that have dominated the industry for far too long. For them, it is not about censorship, but about changing editorial policy. Works by great, ground-breaking authors of the twentieth century such as Philip Roth, Norman Mailer, John Updike, Virginia Woolf and Harper Lee have been struck from publishers’ lists and/or from school and university literature courses. Meanwhile, social media scrutiny can mean that a contemporary author’s private life and personal opinions come to be seen as more important than the quality of their creative output and, in some instances, has led to their work being cancelled.

On the other hand, it has never been easy to get a publishing deal and, some argue, that the changing cultural and economic climate provides new creative challenges and opportunities for new writers. Moreover, greater social diversity in the publishing world is giving new writers a chance, those who may have been side-lined in the past because of their background or lack of connections.

Whether this is ‘cancel culture’ or editorial policy, will the new ideologies of the publishing world stimulate or crush the creative spirit of writers? What impact might such attitudes have on contemporary authors and the future of literature? What are the consequences of removing certain works of literature from the Western canon? What, if anything, is the difference between the censorship of Joyce in 1922 and the calls for his cancellation in 2022?

SPEAKERS INCLUDE

Andreas Campomar
publisher at Hachette UK; critic, journalist and writer

Jake Kerridge
journalist, critic, feature writer and interviewer; book reviewer, Telegraph

Michael Nath
author, The Treatment and La Rochelle; senior lecturer in creative writing and English literature, University of Westminster

Ella Whelan
co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want: Fun, Freedom and an End to Feminism

3 1

YouTube Video VVVqb0Y0alM0b1I0NzlfWTJ5OU9rc2JnLlBYNklXcVFlbW9n

Is cancel culture killing literature?

146 views Friday 20 May 2022

United we stand? Ukraine and the future of the West livestream

563 views Thursday 21 April 2022

Recording of a panel discussion at the Scotland Salon on Wednesday 13 April 2022.

Scotland’s public debate on the war in Ukraine has been very low key. We have set up charity hubs for refugees, but we haven’t really engaged in a public discussion about the causes of the war or the right to national self-determination.

The possibility of nuclear war, Putin’s recklessness and the energy crisis have tended to dominate the way we discuss the issue. There has been very little time and space to discuss the national rights of the Ukrainians. This is surprising given that many Scots are interested in the question of national self-government and would vote – perhaps even fight – for Scottish independence. Scottish politicians have been chastised for making crass connections between the war and Scottish independence. While it’s clear that the two situations are not directly comparable, this seems like a very good time to discuss what we mean by freedom and democracy.

Whether you are for or against independence, surely it’s time we started to have serious discussions about the emerging world order. It has suddenly become painfully clear that the end of the Cold War did not mark the beginning of an era of permanent peace after all.

Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, says the war demonstrates the need to end Scotland’s dependency on fossil fuels and it shows the importance of supranational institutions such as the EU and NATO. Is she right? How did we get here? In all the confusion, the ‘Vladimir Putin is a mad dictator’ explanation really isn’t a good enough answer.

This Scotland Salon event will provide an opportunity to discuss the causes of the war and solidarity. One thing is clear: international solidarity is not a devolved issue and we should develop a better understanding of the history that led to this war and the global tensions that are being fuelled by Russian expansion.

SPEAKERS

Eddie Barnes
campaign director. Our Scottish Future think-tank; former political editor, Scotsman; former political adviser to Ruth Davidson

James Heartfield
writer and lecturer on British history and politics; author of several books, including The Equal Opportunities Revolution and The British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society

Jacob Reynolds
partnerships manager, Academy of Ideas; convenor, The Academy 2022: Old Roots of the New Disorder; writer, Spiked

Image: Creative Commons 2.0 Stand with Ukraine against Russian Invasion, Vancouver Anti-War Rally 2022 photographer gotovan

Recording of a panel discussion at the Scotland Salon on Wednesday 13 April 2022.

Scotland’s public debate on the war in Ukraine has been very low key. We have set up charity hubs for refugees, but we haven’t really engaged in a public discussion about the causes of the war or the right to national self-determination.

The possibility of nuclear war, Putin’s recklessness and the energy crisis have tended to dominate the way we discuss the issue. There has been very little time and space to discuss the national rights of the Ukrainians. This is surprising given that many Scots are interested in the question of national self-government and would vote – perhaps even fight – for Scottish independence. Scottish politicians have been chastised for making crass connections between the war and Scottish independence. While it’s clear that the two situations are not directly comparable, this seems like a very good time to discuss what we mean by freedom and democracy.

Whether you are for or against independence, surely it’s time we started to have serious discussions about the emerging world order. It has suddenly become painfully clear that the end of the Cold War did not mark the beginning of an era of permanent peace after all.

Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, says the war demonstrates the need to end Scotland’s dependency on fossil fuels and it shows the importance of supranational institutions such as the EU and NATO. Is she right? How did we get here? In all the confusion, the ‘Vladimir Putin is a mad dictator’ explanation really isn’t a good enough answer.

This Scotland Salon event will provide an opportunity to discuss the causes of the war and solidarity. One thing is clear: international solidarity is not a devolved issue and we should develop a better understanding of the history that led to this war and the global tensions that are being fuelled by Russian expansion.

SPEAKERS

Eddie Barnes
campaign director. Our Scottish Future think-tank; former political editor, Scotsman; former political adviser to Ruth Davidson

James Heartfield
writer and lecturer on British history and politics; author of several books, including The Equal Opportunities Revolution and The British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society

Jacob Reynolds
partnerships manager, Academy of Ideas; convenor, The Academy 2022: Old Roots of the New Disorder; writer, Spiked

Image: Creative Commons 2.0 Stand with Ukraine against Russian Invasion, Vancouver Anti-War Rally 2022 photographer gotovan

1 0

YouTube Video VVVqb0Y0alM0b1I0NzlfWTJ5OU9rc2JnLjdlZmtuYXgzcFhr

Solidarity with Ukraine: freedom, democracy and sovereignty

68 views Saturday 16 April 2022

PLEASE USE THIS NEW LIVESTREAM LINK

👇👇👇

https://youtu.be/caLZb9mFjlM



This is a livestream of the event UNITED WE STAND? UKRAINE AND THE FUTURE OF THE WEST, hosted by the Academy of Ideas: academyofideas.org.uk/event/united-we-stand-ukraine-and-the-future-of-the-west/

If you are able, please make a donation to the Academy of Ideas to help us continue to hold public events like this: https://academyofideas.org.uk/support/

At first glance, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine seems to have led to an unexpected moment of unity among Western nations. After years of disagreements and talk of decline, Western countries responded to the invasion with tough sanctions and a unified front. Germany has announced a dramatic increase in military spending, Finland and Sweden are seriously exploring NATO membership, and even the Brexit tensions between the EU and UK have faded into the background.  In the words of Andrew Neil: ‘Now Britain stands tall, America is a reliable ally once more, the EU has found new purpose, NATO is more united than ever, and Germany has rediscovered its backbone.’ Commentators everywhere seem eager to christen this a triumph of ‘Western values’ – such as democracy or freedom – over backward, authoritarian values said to define Russia or China.

But beneath the surface, many note tensions and contradictions. Germany resists the toughest sanctions and many disagree on the possibility of an oil and gas embargo on Russia. Emmanuel Macron seems eager to maintain diplomatic ties with Putin. Poland and Hungary, despite welcoming millions of refugees, have been hit with tough EU penalties related to rule of law disputes. Spats have broken out in NATO, too, with the US scuppering Polish plans to send fighter jets to Ukraine. The US and EU remain split on how to deal with China. What’s more, the ‘united front’ seems dangerously unstable, with key leaders like Joe Biden making remarks such as ‘that man must go’ only to row back shortly after. On top of this, many question whether there is even such a thing as ‘Western values’, what they are, and who shares them.

Has Russia’s invasion led to a new moment of Western unity? Will it last? Are deeper geopolitical tensions likely to return, or are they perhaps already shaping the West’s response to Russia’s invasion? Does the West have the leadership, capability and agreement to tackle a serious escalation in the current war? What would a revived Western unity mean for the world, and does it herald the return of aspirations to be ‘the world’s policeman’? Has the invasion demonstrated that reports of the decline of the West were exaggerated, or will declinists be proved right in the end?

SPEAKERS:

Nick Busvine OBE
partner, Herminius Holdings Ltd; advisory board member and writer, Briefings for Britain; Sevenoaks town councillor; former diplomat, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Professor Bill Durodié
chair of risk and security in international relations, University of Bath

Claire Fox
director, Academy of Ideas; member of the House of Lords

Professor Frank Furedi
sociologist and social commentator; author, First World War: Still No End in Sight

Humphrey Hawksley
journalist; former foreign correspondent, BBC; author, Man on Ice, Asian Waters and The Third World War; Asia specialist

PLEASE USE THIS NEW LIVESTREAM LINK

👇👇👇

https://youtu.be/caLZb9mFjlM



This is a livestream of the event UNITED WE STAND? UKRAINE AND THE FUTURE OF THE WEST, hosted by the Academy of Ideas: academyofideas.org.uk/event/united-we-stand-ukraine-and-the-future-of-the-west/

If you are able, please make a donation to the Academy of Ideas to help us continue to hold public events like this: https://academyofideas.org.uk/support/

At first glance, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine seems to have led to an unexpected moment of unity among Western nations. After years of disagreements and talk of decline, Western countries responded to the invasion with tough sanctions and a unified front. Germany has announced a dramatic increase in military spending, Finland and Sweden are seriously exploring NATO membership, and even the Brexit tensions between the EU and UK have faded into the background. In the words of Andrew Neil: ‘Now Britain stands tall, America is a reliable ally once more, the EU has found new purpose, NATO is more united than ever, and Germany has rediscovered its backbone.’ Commentators everywhere seem eager to christen this a triumph of ‘Western values’ – such as democracy or freedom – over backward, authoritarian values said to define Russia or China.

But beneath the surface, many note tensions and contradictions. Germany resists the toughest sanctions and many disagree on the possibility of an oil and gas embargo on Russia. Emmanuel Macron seems eager to maintain diplomatic ties with Putin. Poland and Hungary, despite welcoming millions of refugees, have been hit with tough EU penalties related to rule of law disputes. Spats have broken out in NATO, too, with the US scuppering Polish plans to send fighter jets to Ukraine. The US and EU remain split on how to deal with China. What’s more, the ‘united front’ seems dangerously unstable, with key leaders like Joe Biden making remarks such as ‘that man must go’ only to row back shortly after. On top of this, many question whether there is even such a thing as ‘Western values’, what they are, and who shares them.

Has Russia’s invasion led to a new moment of Western unity? Will it last? Are deeper geopolitical tensions likely to return, or are they perhaps already shaping the West’s response to Russia’s invasion? Does the West have the leadership, capability and agreement to tackle a serious escalation in the current war? What would a revived Western unity mean for the world, and does it herald the return of aspirations to be ‘the world’s policeman’? Has the invasion demonstrated that reports of the decline of the West were exaggerated, or will declinists be proved right in the end?

SPEAKERS:

Nick Busvine OBE
partner, Herminius Holdings Ltd; advisory board member and writer, Briefings for Britain; Sevenoaks town councillor; former diplomat, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Professor Bill Durodié
chair of risk and security in international relations, University of Bath

Claire Fox
director, Academy of Ideas; member of the House of Lords

Professor Frank Furedi
sociologist and social commentator; author, First World War: Still No End in Sight

Humphrey Hawksley
journalist; former foreign correspondent, BBC; author, Man on Ice, Asian Waters and The Third World War; Asia specialist

6 0

YouTube Video VVVqb0Y0alM0b1I0NzlfWTJ5OU9rc2JnLnp5Wk9NUS1vLTg0

(USE NEW LINK IN DESCRIPTION) United we stand? Ukraine and the future of the West

0 views Thursday 14 April 2022

This is a recording of Ann Furedi and Ella Whelan discussing the second edition of The Moral Case For Abortion on 7 April 2022: https://academyofideas.org.uk/event/the-moral-case-for-abortion-live-with-ann-furedi/

Despite almost every politician being willing to wave flags and post hashtags in support for women’s rights on International Women’s Day, access to abortion services remain a thorny issue. In the last few years, attacks on abortion rights in the US have escalated. Heartbeat bills and punitive restrictions on abortion clinics have been emboldened by the possibility of a Supreme Court ruling, which could undermine the 50-year-old legislative protection of abortion services since Roe vs Wade. In Europe, national bans on abortion rights have been challenged by huge protests. In the UK, anti-abortion sentiment has taken subtler forms, with the government refusing to extend telemedical provision of abortion pills, and bills reaching parliament seeking to restrict abortion on the grounds of disability rights.

Since the twentieth-century campaigns for women’s bodily autonomy, which resulted in legislative victories like the 1967 Abortion Act, activists have often avoided the tricky moral questions surrounding abortion. In 2016, Ann Furedi wrote The Moral Case For Abortion, arguing that the fight for unconditional access to abortion could only be won by making the moral case for women’s bodily autonomy on the basis of conscience and choice. ‘The freedom to make moral choices is the most important freedom we have; the freedom to act on our moral choices is the most important privilege we claim’, she writes.

Six years later, Furedi has retired from her position as chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, and has published a number of articles intervening in the discussion about women’s rights in the context of the gender wars. Reflecting the changing landscape of abortion campaigning, which is often plagued by questions of diversity and a nervousness about free speech in the context of abortion debates, Furedi has responded to arguments from her opponents, and added  two new chapters in a second edition of The Moral Case For Abortion.

What are the greatest threats to women’s bodily autonomy today? Do they come from the traditionally conservative values held by Church or state? Or has contemporary feminist discourse, which often argues that women are in need of protection and intervention from the authorities, weakened the idea of a woman being able to exercise her free will? How has the fraught discussion about ‘pregnant people’ or gender-neutral language affected the debate between abortion activists about how best to build support for abortion rights? And why should the idea of ‘life’, and a celebration of its potential, be embraced instead of shunned by those of us who believe a woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy on her own terms?

Buy your copy of The Moral Case For Abortion: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Moral-Case-Abortion-Defence-Reproductive/dp/3030901882

This is a recording of Ann Furedi and Ella Whelan discussing the second edition of The Moral Case For Abortion on 7 April 2022: https://academyofideas.org.uk/event/the-moral-case-for-abortion-live-with-ann-furedi/

Despite almost every politician being willing to wave flags and post hashtags in support for women’s rights on International Women’s Day, access to abortion services remain a thorny issue. In the last few years, attacks on abortion rights in the US have escalated. Heartbeat bills and punitive restrictions on abortion clinics have been emboldened by the possibility of a Supreme Court ruling, which could undermine the 50-year-old legislative protection of abortion services since Roe vs Wade. In Europe, national bans on abortion rights have been challenged by huge protests. In the UK, anti-abortion sentiment has taken subtler forms, with the government refusing to extend telemedical provision of abortion pills, and bills reaching parliament seeking to restrict abortion on the grounds of disability rights.

Since the twentieth-century campaigns for women’s bodily autonomy, which resulted in legislative victories like the 1967 Abortion Act, activists have often avoided the tricky moral questions surrounding abortion. In 2016, Ann Furedi wrote The Moral Case For Abortion, arguing that the fight for unconditional access to abortion could only be won by making the moral case for women’s bodily autonomy on the basis of conscience and choice. ‘The freedom to make moral choices is the most important freedom we have; the freedom to act on our moral choices is the most important privilege we claim’, she writes.

Six years later, Furedi has retired from her position as chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, and has published a number of articles intervening in the discussion about women’s rights in the context of the gender wars. Reflecting the changing landscape of abortion campaigning, which is often plagued by questions of diversity and a nervousness about free speech in the context of abortion debates, Furedi has responded to arguments from her opponents, and added two new chapters in a second edition of The Moral Case For Abortion.

What are the greatest threats to women’s bodily autonomy today? Do they come from the traditionally conservative values held by Church or state? Or has contemporary feminist discourse, which often argues that women are in need of protection and intervention from the authorities, weakened the idea of a woman being able to exercise her free will? How has the fraught discussion about ‘pregnant people’ or gender-neutral language affected the debate between abortion activists about how best to build support for abortion rights? And why should the idea of ‘life’, and a celebration of its potential, be embraced instead of shunned by those of us who believe a woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy on her own terms?

Buy your copy of The Moral Case For Abortion: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Moral-Case-Abortion-Defence-Reproductive/dp/3030901882

8 1

YouTube Video VVVqb0Y0alM0b1I0NzlfWTJ5OU9rc2JnLmxYZ2FaNDV4Zjk0

The Moral Case For Abortion - book launch with Ann Furedi

202 views Monday 11 April 2022

Recording of the Academy of Ideas Economy Forum discussion on Monday 4 April 2022.

INTRODUCTION
There have been many obituaries to globalisation since the big financial crisis of 2008. The dislocations caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the tough sanctions imposed upon Moscow have spawned another batch of them. Beneath this formulaic contemplation of “globalisation” versus “deglobalisation”, what sort of developments might unfold on the international economic front as a result of this conflict?

For the immediate future, it seems clear that the economic damage from the military and economic warfare will go way beyond Ukraine and Russia. The repercussions are already aggravating the existing prospects for a sluggish 2020s in many advanced economies. But what about the possible longer-term economic consequences for the world? What might it mean for international economic relations?

Could the war be a wake-up call for the Western nations to shake themselves from their economic torpor? If it ensues, would a new cold war rekindle the previous Western unity and cooperation that was so absent during the pandemic? Or have we entered a new age of autarky? Might we see further fragmentation into rival economic blocs? What could be the ramifications for the dollar-based financial system?

SPEAKER
Phil Mullan writer, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

Recording of the Academy of Ideas Economy Forum discussion on Monday 4 April 2022.

INTRODUCTION
There have been many obituaries to globalisation since the big financial crisis of 2008. The dislocations caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the tough sanctions imposed upon Moscow have spawned another batch of them. Beneath this formulaic contemplation of “globalisation” versus “deglobalisation”, what sort of developments might unfold on the international economic front as a result of this conflict?

For the immediate future, it seems clear that the economic damage from the military and economic warfare will go way beyond Ukraine and Russia. The repercussions are already aggravating the existing prospects for a sluggish 2020s in many advanced economies. But what about the possible longer-term economic consequences for the world? What might it mean for international economic relations?

Could the war be a wake-up call for the Western nations to shake themselves from their economic torpor? If it ensues, would a new cold war rekindle the previous Western unity and cooperation that was so absent during the pandemic? Or have we entered a new age of autarky? Might we see further fragmentation into rival economic blocs? What could be the ramifications for the dollar-based financial system?

SPEAKER
Phil Mullan writer, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

5 1

YouTube Video VVVqb0Y0alM0b1I0NzlfWTJ5OU9rc2JnLm54Sk02bGxMdUFn

Globalisation in retreat?

116 views Tuesday 5 April 2022

This is a livestream of the event UKRAINE IN THE CROSSHAIRS OF HISTORY, hosted by the Academy of Ideas: https://academyofideas.org.uk/event/ukraine-in-the-crosshairs-of-history/

Any contributions to the Academy of Ideas are greatly appreciated: https://academyofideas.org.uk/support/

A famous old Russian once said: ‘There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.’ The past week feels exactly like that since Russia’s appalling decision to invade Ukraine. Not only will there be enormous bloodshed, but a nation’s independence and sovereignty is under threat. It feels like an earthquake has taken place in international relations, with old certainties undermined and gathering trends suddenly coming to fruition. We need to ask how we got to this point, what we need to do now and what the wider ramifications are.

How did we get here? In all the confusion, the ‘Vladimir Putin is a mad dictator’ explanation really isn’t a good enough answer. We need a much better historical perspective than we’ve been getting so far, at the very least on events since the fall of the Soviet Union, but also how the current world order is, in many respects, an anomaly from the far longer experience of great-power politics. And we need to examine the chain of events in an open and honest way; it’s not ‘treason’, as some have claimed, to question NATO or the West’s approach to Russia in recent decades. Such questions, and a commitment to open inquiry, should not be demonised. Solidarity with Ukraine should not imply that we must suspend critical thinking.

Join us for this Academy of Ideas special public meeting on the war in Ukraine, and what it means for the future of geopolitics.

SPEAKERS INCLUDE

Professor Frank Furedi
sociologist and social commentator; author, First World War: Still No End in Sight

Joan Hoey
regional director for Europe, Economist Intelligence Unit (sister organisation of The Economist newspaper)

Tim Stanley
columnist and leader writer, Daily Telegraph; author, Whatever Happened to Tradition? History, Belonging and the Future of the West

CHAIR: Claire Fox, director, Academy of Ideas; member, House of Lords

This is a livestream of the event UKRAINE IN THE CROSSHAIRS OF HISTORY, hosted by the Academy of Ideas: https://academyofideas.org.uk/event/ukraine-in-the-crosshairs-of-history/

Any contributions to the Academy of Ideas are greatly appreciated: https://academyofideas.org.uk/support/

A famous old Russian once said: ‘There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.’ The past week feels exactly like that since Russia’s appalling decision to invade Ukraine. Not only will there be enormous bloodshed, but a nation’s independence and sovereignty is under threat. It feels like an earthquake has taken place in international relations, with old certainties undermined and gathering trends suddenly coming to fruition. We need to ask how we got to this point, what we need to do now and what the wider ramifications are.

How did we get here? In all the confusion, the ‘Vladimir Putin is a mad dictator’ explanation really isn’t a good enough answer. We need a much better historical perspective than we’ve been getting so far, at the very least on events since the fall of the Soviet Union, but also how the current world order is, in many respects, an anomaly from the far longer experience of great-power politics. And we need to examine the chain of events in an open and honest way; it’s not ‘treason’, as some have claimed, to question NATO or the West’s approach to Russia in recent decades. Such questions, and a commitment to open inquiry, should not be demonised. Solidarity with Ukraine should not imply that we must suspend critical thinking.

Join us for this Academy of Ideas special public meeting on the war in Ukraine, and what it means for the future of geopolitics.

SPEAKERS INCLUDE

Professor Frank Furedi
sociologist and social commentator; author, First World War: Still No End in Sight

Joan Hoey
regional director for Europe, Economist Intelligence Unit (sister organisation of The Economist newspaper)

Tim Stanley
columnist and leader writer, Daily Telegraph; author, Whatever Happened to Tradition? History, Belonging and the Future of the West

CHAIR: Claire Fox, director, Academy of Ideas; member, House of Lords

38 1

YouTube Video VVVqb0Y0alM0b1I0NzlfWTJ5OU9rc2JnLnp6Y1hJaUdjR3ZF

Ukraine in the crosshairs of history: livestream

1K views Monday 14 March 2022

Panel discussion organised by the Academy of Ideas Education Forum on 21 February 2022.

SPEAKERS
Neil Davenport
writer and teacher

Rowenna Davis
teacher; former journalist and Labour Party parliamentary candidate; new mum and community organiser

Alex Kenny
secondary school teacher and NEU Executive member

Joseph Robertson
director, Orthodox Conservatives think tank; education research fellow, The Bow Group

CHAIR
Toby Marshall
teacher and member of the AoI Education Forum

INTRODUCTION
As the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) approaches its 30th birthday, many are increasingly concerned that Ofsted is becoming overly political and moralistic and insufficiently educational in its approach. The anniversary of Ofsted’s creation seems a good moment to take stock.

Ofsted employs more than a thousand people and has an annual budget of close to £130 million. For this, it takes responsibility for regularly inspecting all publicly funded schools and colleges in England. In addition to setting the agenda of her inspection teams, Ofsted’s head, Amanda Spielman, writes a widely read annual report on the state of state education. Spielman herself has strong educational, political and moral opinions, and intervenes regularly in public debates. Last year, for example, she rejected calls to decolonise the school curriculum.

Ofsted was established in 1992 in the final phase of the Thatcherite reform of English state education. The creation of a national inspectorate that reported in public followed the introduction of the National Curriculum in 1989, as well as a new national examination system that included the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE). Results from these national exams were from this point onwards reported in national league tables, in which the performance of all state schools was ranked.

At the time, many teachers opposed this power grab from central government, and these criticisms have continued to be voiced. For many, Ofsted represents an unwarranted extension of central state control over education, as well as a mechanism by which the autonomy and the professionalism of teachers has been undermined. It is certainly true that teachers in England experience extraordinary levels of central state control and that Ofsted is one of the mechanisms by which this control is exercised. However, sociologist Stephen Ball perhaps overstates the case when he describes the accountability pressures experienced by English state-school teachers as giving rise to the ‘terror of performativity’.

It was under the government of John Major that Ofsted was first introduced. As we might expect, his account of its purpose differs from that of its critics. Writing in his autobiography, he observes that when he came into office, producers – rather than consumers – controlled public services and that health and education in particular was ‘run carelessly, wastefully, arrogantly … more for the convenience of the providers than the users, whether they were parents, pupils or patients’.

More recently, however, Ofsted has faced criticism from conservatives. They argue that Ofsted has been captured by progressivist educators, who are using the inspection system to impose woke values on education. Ofsted, the conservatives allege, has become a cuckoo institution, a mechanism by which a progressivist elite lodged within the state are imposing their values on young people. This charge could not be more serious, as Ofsted ought to remain impartial on matters that divide the nation morally and politically. It is, after all, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate.

Is Ofsted now exceeding its official remit? Do we even need a national inspectorate when we have a national examination system? Can state-employed teachers be trusted to do the job for which they are paid and trained? Is it time that we inspected the inspectors?

Panel discussion organised by the Academy of Ideas Education Forum on 21 February 2022.

SPEAKERS
Neil Davenport
writer and teacher

Rowenna Davis
teacher; former journalist and Labour Party parliamentary candidate; new mum and community organiser

Alex Kenny
secondary school teacher and NEU Executive member

Joseph Robertson
director, Orthodox Conservatives think tank; education research fellow, The Bow Group

CHAIR
Toby Marshall
teacher and member of the AoI Education Forum

INTRODUCTION
As the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) approaches its 30th birthday, many are increasingly concerned that Ofsted is becoming overly political and moralistic and insufficiently educational in its approach. The anniversary of Ofsted’s creation seems a good moment to take stock.

Ofsted employs more than a thousand people and has an annual budget of close to £130 million. For this, it takes responsibility for regularly inspecting all publicly funded schools and colleges in England. In addition to setting the agenda of her inspection teams, Ofsted’s head, Amanda Spielman, writes a widely read annual report on the state of state education. Spielman herself has strong educational, political and moral opinions, and intervenes regularly in public debates. Last year, for example, she rejected calls to decolonise the school curriculum.

Ofsted was established in 1992 in the final phase of the Thatcherite reform of English state education. The creation of a national inspectorate that reported in public followed the introduction of the National Curriculum in 1989, as well as a new national examination system that included the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE). Results from these national exams were from this point onwards reported in national league tables, in which the performance of all state schools was ranked.

At the time, many teachers opposed this power grab from central government, and these criticisms have continued to be voiced. For many, Ofsted represents an unwarranted extension of central state control over education, as well as a mechanism by which the autonomy and the professionalism of teachers has been undermined. It is certainly true that teachers in England experience extraordinary levels of central state control and that Ofsted is one of the mechanisms by which this control is exercised. However, sociologist Stephen Ball perhaps overstates the case when he describes the accountability pressures experienced by English state-school teachers as giving rise to the ‘terror of performativity’.

It was under the government of John Major that Ofsted was first introduced. As we might expect, his account of its purpose differs from that of its critics. Writing in his autobiography, he observes that when he came into office, producers – rather than consumers – controlled public services and that health and education in particular was ‘run carelessly, wastefully, arrogantly … more for the convenience of the providers than the users, whether they were parents, pupils or patients’.

More recently, however, Ofsted has faced criticism from conservatives. They argue that Ofsted has been captured by progressivist educators, who are using the inspection system to impose woke values on education. Ofsted, the conservatives allege, has become a cuckoo institution, a mechanism by which a progressivist elite lodged within the state are imposing their values on young people. This charge could not be more serious, as Ofsted ought to remain impartial on matters that divide the nation morally and politically. It is, after all, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate.

Is Ofsted now exceeding its official remit? Do we even need a national inspectorate when we have a national examination system? Can state-employed teachers be trusted to do the job for which they are paid and trained? Is it time that we inspected the inspectors?

7 1

YouTube Video VVVqb0Y0alM0b1I0NzlfWTJ5OU9rc2JnLmRLV3NkRjZlUklz

Has Ofsted become too political?

139 views Tuesday 22 February 2022

International Salon: Boiling point? Russia and the West

290 views Friday 4 February 2022

Recording of the Academy of Ideas Economy Forum discussion on Tuesday 18 January 2022. https://academyofideas.org.uk/event/inflation-short-term-blip-or-long-term-worry/

As the world economy has emerged from the pandemic and lockdowns, prices for goods, raw materials and services have risen sharply. In November, it was reported the UK Consumer Prices Index had hit 4.2 per cent in October, its highest level for almost a decade. In the US, consumer prices are up 6.2 per cent compared to a year ago. How much is this due to temporary factors and how much reflects longer-term government and central-bank policies?

The rising cost of energy is an important issue. In December 2020, Brent crude was priced at just $50 per barrel, but hit a peak of $86 per barrel towards the end of October. Prices for natural gas have shot up, too, from under $3 per million British thermal units (MMBTU) to over $6 in October. Not only do these rises affect costs for direct uses of energy – like household energy bills – but have a knock-on effect for the cost of everything else.

But there are many other factors affecting prices. Supply chains have struggled to cope with rising demand. In part, this is because production takes time to scale up after being placed in relative hibernation. But there are also issues due to rising demand and problems with logistics as container ships stack up outside ports, unable to unload.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman argues that the problem isn’t an overall increase in demand but a change in the kind of things we’re buying: ‘In the pandemic era, people have been consuming fewer services but buying a lot of durable goods — home appliances, exercise equipment, etc. This surge in demand for durable goods has overstressed the ports, trucking and warehouses that deliver durables to consumers, leading to rapidly rising prices for stuff whose prices normally fall over time as technology advances.’ He argues that once supply chains become ‘unkinked’, key workers like drivers come back to work attracted by higher wages and production reflects demand better, inflation will ease off.

But others point to the growth in the money supply as a longer-term problem that isn’t going to go away. Interest rates in many major economies have been stuck at ’emergency’ levels – even going negative in some places – since the financial crisis of 2008. Moreover, central banks have used quantitative easing to push funds into the economy via banks. And state spending has gone through the roof as governments have spent heavily to cope with the pandemic. Some economists argue that these factors will mean that prices will remain higher even when short-term problems work themselves out.

Why is inflation rising and will it continue to do so? Why were many high-profile economists caught by surprise? What will be the impact of rising prices on living standards? What can governments do to get inflation down? What does the return of inflation tell us about wider problems in the economy?

SPEAKER

Jacob Reynolds
partnerships manager, Academy of Ideas

Recording of the Academy of Ideas Economy Forum discussion on Tuesday 18 January 2022. https://academyofideas.org.uk/event/inflation-short-term-blip-or-long-term-worry/

As the world economy has emerged from the pandemic and lockdowns, prices for goods, raw materials and services have risen sharply. In November, it was reported the UK Consumer Prices Index had hit 4.2 per cent in October, its highest level for almost a decade. In the US, consumer prices are up 6.2 per cent compared to a year ago. How much is this due to temporary factors and how much reflects longer-term government and central-bank policies?

The rising cost of energy is an important issue. In December 2020, Brent crude was priced at just $50 per barrel, but hit a peak of $86 per barrel towards the end of October. Prices for natural gas have shot up, too, from under $3 per million British thermal units (MMBTU) to over $6 in October. Not only do these rises affect costs for direct uses of energy – like household energy bills – but have a knock-on effect for the cost of everything else.

But there are many other factors affecting prices. Supply chains have struggled to cope with rising demand. In part, this is because production takes time to scale up after being placed in relative hibernation. But there are also issues due to rising demand and problems with logistics as container ships stack up outside ports, unable to unload.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman argues that the problem isn’t an overall increase in demand but a change in the kind of things we’re buying: ‘In the pandemic era, people have been consuming fewer services but buying a lot of durable goods — home appliances, exercise equipment, etc. This surge in demand for durable goods has overstressed the ports, trucking and warehouses that deliver durables to consumers, leading to rapidly rising prices for stuff whose prices normally fall over time as technology advances.’ He argues that once supply chains become ‘unkinked’, key workers like drivers come back to work attracted by higher wages and production reflects demand better, inflation will ease off.

But others point to the growth in the money supply as a longer-term problem that isn’t going to go away. Interest rates in many major economies have been stuck at ’emergency’ levels – even going negative in some places – since the financial crisis of 2008. Moreover, central banks have used quantitative easing to push funds into the economy via banks. And state spending has gone through the roof as governments have spent heavily to cope with the pandemic. Some economists argue that these factors will mean that prices will remain higher even when short-term problems work themselves out.

Why is inflation rising and will it continue to do so? Why were many high-profile economists caught by surprise? What will be the impact of rising prices on living standards? What can governments do to get inflation down? What does the return of inflation tell us about wider problems in the economy?

SPEAKER

Jacob Reynolds
partnerships manager, Academy of Ideas

2 0

YouTube Video VVVqb0Y0alM0b1I0NzlfWTJ5OU9rc2JnLmNRRmlxRDFNNklJ

Inflation: short-term blip or long-term problem?

101 views Thursday 20 January 2022

Claire Fox on Lord Frost's resignation and the prospect of further Covid restrictions

107 views Tuesday 21 December 2021

Recording of the Academy of Ideas International Salon panel discussion on 23 November 2021.

https://academyofideas.org.uk/international-salon/

INTRODUCTION
From the pandemic to the environment, housing to food supply, politicians and experts often tell us that our choices are limited. When Covid-19 took the world by surprise, governments around the world understandably took a blinkered view – opting to shut down society for fear of the worst. But even before the chaos of the last 19 months, the discussion about how to deal with challenges both political and viral have taken on a fatalistic tone.

The slogan There Is No Alternative might have been coined by Margaret Thatcher to defend the market economy, but a broader reliance on the TINA outlook has come to inform many aspects of modern politics. Politicians and commentators applauded climate activist Greta Thunberg when she accused them of robbing children of their futures. According to climate activists Extinction Rebellion: ‘We are facing an unprecedented global emergency. Life on Earth is in crisis: scientists agree we have entered a period of abrupt climate breakdown, and we are in the midst of a mass extinction of our own making.’ There are some climate activists who shun the idea of any progress at all – believing that it is too late to do anything to stop the damage humans have inflicted on the planet.

This defeatist feeling can be found elsewhere – the Brexit debate descended into banks, industries and politicians telling voters that a rejection of the EU would end in disaster (even world war). Campaigners for fighting racism or sexism argue that life for minorities has gotten worse, despite years of legal and social change. Cynicism among voting populations is common, with scepticism about how much governments do to change politics expressed at every election. Even debate about the end of the pandemic, and how to get back to normal life, has been routinely qualified with assertions that ‘normal’ can never really return. Some people express concerns about this but feel powerless to challenge it in what has become a fatalistic acceptance of the dominant narrative

But despite our penchant for doommongering, some point out that there is proof of what human beings can do when faced with adversity. While global temperatures are rising, this has occurred at a time of rising world population because people are living longer and incomes in most of the world are still expected to rise considerably in coming years. Some commentators point out that, far from a picture of gloom and despair, those of us alive today are the luckiest people in history when it comes to health, wealth, education, culture and more. The success of the vaccine rollout – or the ability for the government to get homeless people off the streets during the pandemic – shows that change can happen when a little bit of pressure is applied.

What happens to politics when we take a fatalistic outlook? Some argue that there is a difference between being doom-laden and telling it like it is – climate activists argue that those who won’t face how bad things have got are simply denying the problem. Where does agency fit into all of this – is action impossible with a modern TINA outlook? Is it right to believe that they are an existential threat to human beings or even life on Earth in general? If not, what explains the popularity of apocalyptic thinking today?

SPEAKERS
Josie Appleton
director, civil liberties group, Manifesto Club; author, Officious: Rise of the Busybody State; blogger, notesonfreedom.com

Alex Cameron
graphic designer; design and cultural critic

Dr Roslyn Fuller
managing director, Solonian Democracy Institute; author, In Defence of Democracy

Matthew Kruger
advocate, Johannesburg Bar

CHAIR
Jacob Reynolds
partnerships manager, Academy of Ideas

Recording of the Academy of Ideas International Salon panel discussion on 23 November 2021.

https://academyofideas.org.uk/international-salon/

INTRODUCTION
From the pandemic to the environment, housing to food supply, politicians and experts often tell us that our choices are limited. When Covid-19 took the world by surprise, governments around the world understandably took a blinkered view – opting to shut down society for fear of the worst. But even before the chaos of the last 19 months, the discussion about how to deal with challenges both political and viral have taken on a fatalistic tone.

The slogan There Is No Alternative might have been coined by Margaret Thatcher to defend the market economy, but a broader reliance on the TINA outlook has come to inform many aspects of modern politics. Politicians and commentators applauded climate activist Greta Thunberg when she accused them of robbing children of their futures. According to climate activists Extinction Rebellion: ‘We are facing an unprecedented global emergency. Life on Earth is in crisis: scientists agree we have entered a period of abrupt climate breakdown, and we are in the midst of a mass extinction of our own making.’ There are some climate activists who shun the idea of any progress at all – believing that it is too late to do anything to stop the damage humans have inflicted on the planet.

This defeatist feeling can be found elsewhere – the Brexit debate descended into banks, industries and politicians telling voters that a rejection of the EU would end in disaster (even world war). Campaigners for fighting racism or sexism argue that life for minorities has gotten worse, despite years of legal and social change. Cynicism among voting populations is common, with scepticism about how much governments do to change politics expressed at every election. Even debate about the end of the pandemic, and how to get back to normal life, has been routinely qualified with assertions that ‘normal’ can never really return. Some people express concerns about this but feel powerless to challenge it in what has become a fatalistic acceptance of the dominant narrative

But despite our penchant for doommongering, some point out that there is proof of what human beings can do when faced with adversity. While global temperatures are rising, this has occurred at a time of rising world population because people are living longer and incomes in most of the world are still expected to rise considerably in coming years. Some commentators point out that, far from a picture of gloom and despair, those of us alive today are the luckiest people in history when it comes to health, wealth, education, culture and more. The success of the vaccine rollout – or the ability for the government to get homeless people off the streets during the pandemic – shows that change can happen when a little bit of pressure is applied.

What happens to politics when we take a fatalistic outlook? Some argue that there is a difference between being doom-laden and telling it like it is – climate activists argue that those who won’t face how bad things have got are simply denying the problem. Where does agency fit into all of this – is action impossible with a modern TINA outlook? Is it right to believe that they are an existential threat to human beings or even life on Earth in general? If not, what explains the popularity of apocalyptic thinking today?

SPEAKERS
Josie Appleton
director, civil liberties group, Manifesto Club; author, Officious: Rise of the Busybody State; blogger, notesonfreedom.com

Alex Cameron
graphic designer; design and cultural critic

Dr Roslyn Fuller
managing director, Solonian Democracy Institute; author, In Defence of Democracy

Matthew Kruger
advocate, Johannesburg Bar

CHAIR
Jacob Reynolds
partnerships manager, Academy of Ideas

4 0

YouTube Video VVVqb0Y0alM0b1I0NzlfWTJ5OU9rc2JnLkFWYlVqMnpzYzE0

From Covid to climate change: challenging the culture of fear

218 views Wednesday 24 November 2021


Battle of Ideas festival 2021

In this vital debate, filmed by WORLDwrite volunteers at the Battle of Ideas festival at Church House, Westminster, a highly engaging panel and audience discuss what’s happened in Afghanistan. Was intervention ever justified? Could there have been a different outcome or was disaster always on the cards? The speakers don’t all agree but share with us valuable insights.

The speakers are: 
Peymana Assad-councillor, London Borough of Harrow; first person of Afghan origin elected to UK public office; founder, Labour Foreign Policy Group
Dr Philip Cunliffe- senior lecturer in politics and international relations, University of Kent; co-founder, The Full Brexit; author, Cosmopolitan Dystopia: international intervention and the failure of the West; co-host, Aufhebunga Bunga podcast
Mick Hume-columnist, spiked; author, Revolting!: how the establishment are undermining democracy and what they’re afraid of and Trigger Warning
Bruno Maçães-senior adviser, Flint Global; author, Belt and Road: history has begun and The Dawn of Eurasia
Ali Miraj-columnist, TheArticle; founder, the Contrarian Prize; infrastructure financier; DJ
The chair is Bruno Waterfield, Brussels Correspondent, The Times

With no one paid to edit the exceptional 33 debates filmed entirely by volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2021, the charity WORLDwrite still has to pay its Volunteer centre costs and edit suite overheads. These come to £130 a day. Most people maybe don't know what it takes to get a completed video out, even a simple 1.5 hour debate. To capture, sync, (2 cameras) edit, sound clean, colour correct, add titles, straps & end credits, transcode, export, compress and upload takes a minimum of 2 days for each debate. Thirty-three debates, sixty-six days, that’s £8580 we need to raise, without paying anyone. There's some vital and fascinating debates here, well worth sharing with the world, but to get them completed we need to raise at least this target. Please chip in what you can on our editing appeal page at https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/editingappeal

In this vital debate, filmed by WORLDwrite volunteers at the Battle of Ideas festival at Church House, Westminster, a highly engaging panel and audience discuss what’s happened in Afghanistan. Was intervention ever justified? Could there have been a different outcome or was disaster always on the cards? The speakers don’t all agree but share with us valuable insights.

The speakers are:
Peymana Assad-councillor, London Borough of Harrow; first person of Afghan origin elected to UK public office; founder, Labour Foreign Policy Group
Dr Philip Cunliffe- senior lecturer in politics and international relations, University of Kent; co-founder, The Full Brexit; author, Cosmopolitan Dystopia: international intervention and the failure of the West; co-host, Aufhebunga Bunga podcast
Mick Hume-columnist, spiked; author, Revolting!: how the establishment are undermining democracy and what they’re afraid of and Trigger Warning
Bruno Maçães-senior adviser, Flint Global; author, Belt and Road: history has begun and The Dawn of Eurasia
Ali Miraj-columnist, TheArticle; founder, the Contrarian Prize; infrastructure financier; DJ
The chair is Bruno Waterfield, Brussels Correspondent, The Times

With no one paid to edit the exceptional 33 debates filmed entirely by volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2021, the charity WORLDwrite still has to pay its Volunteer centre costs and edit suite overheads. These come to £130 a day. Most people maybe don't know what it takes to get a completed video out, even a simple 1.5 hour debate. To capture, sync, (2 cameras) edit, sound clean, colour correct, add titles, straps & end credits, transcode, export, compress and upload takes a minimum of 2 days for each debate. Thirty-three debates, sixty-six days, that’s £8580 we need to raise, without paying anyone. There's some vital and fascinating debates here, well worth sharing with the world, but to get them completed we need to raise at least this target. Please chip in what you can on our editing appeal page at https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/editingappeal

20 6

YouTube Video UExVSkdPQ004Y1VKbG5iYU9YY1BFQWdOUFNaMXgxTDZUbC41NkI0NEY2RDEwNTU3Q0M2

TWENTY YEARS IN AFGHANISTAN: WHAT HAPPENED?

615 views Sunday 17 October 2021

In this debate, filmed by WORLDwrite volunteers at the Battle of Ideas festival at Church House, Westminster, a highly engaging panel and thoughtful audience share their perspectives on the Union, whether it can or should survive. 

Some argue that the impact of Brexit and the Protocol disguise deeper problems with the Union. Irish political allegiances seem in turmoil and the whole question of the North-South border is back on the agenda. Do these developments make a united Ireland inevitable in the long term? A timely, must-watch debate on the 100th anniversary of partition. Do leave your comments to continue the debate.

The speakers are: 
Mick Fealty - founding editor, Slugger O’Toole; 
Andrée Murphy - columnist; Belfast Media Group and Belfast Telegraph board member, Ireland’s Future 
Peter Ramsay - professor of law, London School of Economics and Political Science; author, The Insecurity State; founding signatory, The Full Brexit Gawain Towler - consultant; former director of communications, Brexit Party. The chair is Kevin Rooney co-author of Who’s Afraid Of The Easter Rising? 1916-2016, and editor of the Britain-based website www.irishborderpoll.com which campaigns for a border poll and Irish unity.

With no one paid to edit the exceptional 33 debates filmed entirely by young volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2021, the charity still has to pay its Volunteer centre costs and edit suite overheads. These come to £130 a day. Most people maybe don't know what it takes to get a completed video out, even a simple 1.5 hour debate. To capture, sync, (2 cameras) edit, sound clean, colour correct, add titles, straps & end credits, transcode, export, compress and upload takes a minimum of 2 days for each debate. Thirty three debates, sixty six days, that's £8580 we need to raise, without paying anyone. There's some vital and fascinating debates here, well worth sharing with the world, but to get them completed we need to raise at least this target. Please chip in what you can on our editing appeal page at https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/editingappeal

In this debate, filmed by WORLDwrite volunteers at the Battle of Ideas festival at Church House, Westminster, a highly engaging panel and thoughtful audience share their perspectives on the Union, whether it can or should survive.

Some argue that the impact of Brexit and the Protocol disguise deeper problems with the Union. Irish political allegiances seem in turmoil and the whole question of the North-South border is back on the agenda. Do these developments make a united Ireland inevitable in the long term? A timely, must-watch debate on the 100th anniversary of partition. Do leave your comments to continue the debate.

The speakers are:
Mick Fealty - founding editor, Slugger O’Toole;
Andrée Murphy - columnist; Belfast Media Group and Belfast Telegraph board member, Ireland’s Future
Peter Ramsay - professor of law, London School of Economics and Political Science; author, The Insecurity State; founding signatory, The Full Brexit Gawain Towler - consultant; former director of communications, Brexit Party. The chair is Kevin Rooney co-author of Who’s Afraid Of The Easter Rising? 1916-2016, and editor of the Britain-based website www.irishborderpoll.com which campaigns for a border poll and Irish unity.

With no one paid to edit the exceptional 33 debates filmed entirely by young volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2021, the charity still has to pay its Volunteer centre costs and edit suite overheads. These come to £130 a day. Most people maybe don't know what it takes to get a completed video out, even a simple 1.5 hour debate. To capture, sync, (2 cameras) edit, sound clean, colour correct, add titles, straps & end credits, transcode, export, compress and upload takes a minimum of 2 days for each debate. Thirty three debates, sixty six days, that's £8580 we need to raise, without paying anyone. There's some vital and fascinating debates here, well worth sharing with the world, but to get them completed we need to raise at least this target. Please chip in what you can on our editing appeal page at https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/editingappeal

89 153

YouTube Video UExVSkdPQ004Y1VKbG5iYU9YY1BFQWdOUFNaMXgxTDZUbC4yODlGNEE0NkRGMEEzMEQy

THE IRISH BORDER QUESTION: CAN THE UNION SURVIVE?

6.7K views Saturday 16 October 2021

Is ‘Nudge’ just a harmless effort by those who know best to modify our behaviour or an anti-democratic instrument that needs to be challenged? What happened to the self-directing citizen? In this excellent debate filmed by WORLDwrite volunteers at the Battle of Ideas festival at Church House, Westminster, straight-talking speakers and a feisty audience discuss what's going on.


The speakers are:
Dr NobuLali Dangazele - lecturer, Gordon Institute of Business Science; founder, ShakeXperience; co-founder, Nudgeathon
Laura Dodsworth - writer; photographer; author, A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic
Professor Frank Furedi - sociologist and social commentator; author, 100 Years of Identity Crisis: culture war over socialisation and Democracy Under Siege: don't let them lock it down!
Professor Peter John - head, School of Politics and Economics, King’s College London; author, Nudge, Nudge, Think, Think: experimenting with ways to change civic behaviour and British Politics: an analytical approach
The chair is Timandra Harkness - journalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree; comedian, Take A Risk; author, Big Data: does size matter?



Help WORLDwrite Volunteers Edit 
With no one paid to edit the exceptional 33 debates filmed entirely by volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2021, the charity still has to pay its Volunteer centre costs and edit suite overheads. These come to £130 a day. Most people maybe don't know what it takes to get a completed video out, even a simple 1.5 hour debate. To capture, sync, (2 cameras) edit, sound clean, colour correct, add titles, straps & end credits, transcode, export, compress and upload takes a minimum of 2 days for each debate. Thirty-three debates, sixty-six days, that’s £8580 we need to raise, without paying anyone. There's some vital and fascinating debates here, well worth sharing with the world, but to get them completed we need to raise at least this target. Please chip in what you can on our editing appeal page at https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/editingappeal

Is ‘Nudge’ just a harmless effort by those who know best to modify our behaviour or an anti-democratic instrument that needs to be challenged? What happened to the self-directing citizen? In this excellent debate filmed by WORLDwrite volunteers at the Battle of Ideas festival at Church House, Westminster, straight-talking speakers and a feisty audience discuss what's going on.


The speakers are:
Dr NobuLali Dangazele - lecturer, Gordon Institute of Business Science; founder, ShakeXperience; co-founder, Nudgeathon
Laura Dodsworth - writer; photographer; author, A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic
Professor Frank Furedi - sociologist and social commentator; author, 100 Years of Identity Crisis: culture war over socialisation and Democracy Under Siege: don't let them lock it down!
Professor Peter John - head, School of Politics and Economics, King’s College London; author, Nudge, Nudge, Think, Think: experimenting with ways to change civic behaviour and British Politics: an analytical approach
The chair is Timandra Harkness - journalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree; comedian, Take A Risk; author, Big Data: does size matter?



Help WORLDwrite Volunteers Edit
With no one paid to edit the exceptional 33 debates filmed entirely by volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2021, the charity still has to pay its Volunteer centre costs and edit suite overheads. These come to £130 a day. Most people maybe don't know what it takes to get a completed video out, even a simple 1.5 hour debate. To capture, sync, (2 cameras) edit, sound clean, colour correct, add titles, straps & end credits, transcode, export, compress and upload takes a minimum of 2 days for each debate. Thirty-three debates, sixty-six days, that’s £8580 we need to raise, without paying anyone. There's some vital and fascinating debates here, well worth sharing with the world, but to get them completed we need to raise at least this target. Please chip in what you can on our editing appeal page at https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/editingappeal

36 10

YouTube Video UExVSkdPQ004Y1VKbG5iYU9YY1BFQWdOUFNaMXgxTDZUbC41MjE1MkI0OTQ2QzJGNzNG

A ‘NUDGE’ TOO FAR? THE RISE OF BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOCRATIC RULE

1.1K views Wednesday 20 October 2021

How can we get secure supplies of energy that are reliable and affordable? Have we been too hasty in phasing out fossil fuels? Is there still a place for them until a new technology, like nuclear fusion, can easily supply all the energy we need? In this short panel discussion, filmed at the Battle of Ideas Festival in the run up to COP26, the speakers challenge eco doom mongers and put the case for a people first approach.
The speakers are:
Dr Caspar Hewett - Lecturer in Water Group and EuroAquae+, Programme Director, School of Engineering, Newcastle University; Director, The Great Debate
Don Watkins - Author, Free Market Revolution, Equal Is Unfair and I Am Justice
The Chair is Tony Gilland - Teacher of maths and economics; Associate Fellow, Academy of Ideas


With no one paid to edit the exceptional 33 debates filmed entirely by volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2021, the charity still has to pay its Volunteer centre costs and edit suite overheads. These come to £130 a day. Most people maybe don't know what it takes to get a completed video out, even a simple 1.5 hour debate. To capture, sync, (2 cameras) edit, sound clean, colour correct, add titles, straps & end credits, transcode, export, compress and upload takes a minimum of 2 days for each debate. Thirty-three debates, sixty-six days, that’s £8580 we need to raise, without paying anyone. There's some vital and fascinating debates here, well worth sharing with the world, but to get them completed we need to raise at least this target. Please chip in what you can on our editing appeal page at https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/editingappeal

How can we get secure supplies of energy that are reliable and affordable? Have we been too hasty in phasing out fossil fuels? Is there still a place for them until a new technology, like nuclear fusion, can easily supply all the energy we need? In this short panel discussion, filmed at the Battle of Ideas Festival in the run up to COP26, the speakers challenge eco doom mongers and put the case for a people first approach.
The speakers are:
Dr Caspar Hewett - Lecturer in Water Group and EuroAquae+, Programme Director, School of Engineering, Newcastle University; Director, The Great Debate
Don Watkins - Author, Free Market Revolution, Equal Is Unfair and I Am Justice
The Chair is Tony Gilland - Teacher of maths and economics; Associate Fellow, Academy of Ideas


With no one paid to edit the exceptional 33 debates filmed entirely by volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2021, the charity still has to pay its Volunteer centre costs and edit suite overheads. These come to £130 a day. Most people maybe don't know what it takes to get a completed video out, even a simple 1.5 hour debate. To capture, sync, (2 cameras) edit, sound clean, colour correct, add titles, straps & end credits, transcode, export, compress and upload takes a minimum of 2 days for each debate. Thirty-three debates, sixty-six days, that’s £8580 we need to raise, without paying anyone. There's some vital and fascinating debates here, well worth sharing with the world, but to get them completed we need to raise at least this target. Please chip in what you can on our editing appeal page at https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/editingappeal

8 1

YouTube Video UExVSkdPQ004Y1VKbG5iYU9YY1BFQWdOUFNaMXgxTDZUbC4xMkVGQjNCMUM1N0RFNEUx

IS THERE A CASE FOR FOSSIL FUELS?

177 views Monday 1 November 2021

In this telling debate, filmed by WORLDwrite volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival at Church House, Westminster, speakers and audience discuss what’s happened to free speech and the way forward. The Kathleen Stock case is on the agenda too as she declines her place on the panel due to transphobia allegations and a witch hunt on campus. It's a must watch and it becomes clear there are no easy answers.

The speakers are:
Dr Piers Benn - Philosopher, author and lecturer
James Murray - Lawyer; senior associate, Taylor Vinters; research fellow, University of Buckingham;
James Tooley - Vice Chancellor, University of Buckingham; author, The Beautiful Tree
Dr Joanna Williams - Founder and Director, Cieo; author, Women vs Feminism and Consuming Higher Education: Why Learning Can't be Bought
The Chair is Timandra Harkness - Journalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree; comedian, Take A Risk; author, Big Data: Does Size Matter?


With no one paid to edit the exceptional 33 debates filmed entirely by volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2021, the charity still has to pay its Volunteer centre costs and edit suite overheads. These come to £130 a day. Most people maybe don't know what it takes to get a completed video out, even a simple 1.5 hour debate. To capture, sync, (2 cameras) edit, sound clean, colour correct, add titles, straps & end credits, transcode, export, compress and upload takes a minimum of 2 days for each debate. Thirty-three debates, sixty-six days, that’s £8580 we need to raise, without paying anyone. There's some vital and fascinating debates here, well worth sharing with the world, but to get them completed we need to raise at least this target. Please chip in what you can on our editing appeal page at https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/editingappeal   Thank you.

In this telling debate, filmed by WORLDwrite volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival at Church House, Westminster, speakers and audience discuss what’s happened to free speech and the way forward. The Kathleen Stock case is on the agenda too as she declines her place on the panel due to transphobia allegations and a witch hunt on campus. It's a must watch and it becomes clear there are no easy answers.

The speakers are:
Dr Piers Benn - Philosopher, author and lecturer
James Murray - Lawyer; senior associate, Taylor Vinters; research fellow, University of Buckingham;
James Tooley - Vice Chancellor, University of Buckingham; author, The Beautiful Tree
Dr Joanna Williams - Founder and Director, Cieo; author, Women vs Feminism and Consuming Higher Education: Why Learning Can't be Bought
The Chair is Timandra Harkness - Journalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree; comedian, Take A Risk; author, Big Data: Does Size Matter?


With no one paid to edit the exceptional 33 debates filmed entirely by volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2021, the charity still has to pay its Volunteer centre costs and edit suite overheads. These come to £130 a day. Most people maybe don't know what it takes to get a completed video out, even a simple 1.5 hour debate. To capture, sync, (2 cameras) edit, sound clean, colour correct, add titles, straps & end credits, transcode, export, compress and upload takes a minimum of 2 days for each debate. Thirty-three debates, sixty-six days, that’s £8580 we need to raise, without paying anyone. There's some vital and fascinating debates here, well worth sharing with the world, but to get them completed we need to raise at least this target. Please chip in what you can on our editing appeal page at https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/editingappeal Thank you.

30 6

YouTube Video UExVSkdPQ004Y1VKbG5iYU9YY1BFQWdOUFNaMXgxTDZUbC41MzJCQjBCNDIyRkJDN0VD

HATE, HERESY AND THE FIGHT FOR FREE SPEECH

835 views Sunday 31 October 2021

Are the current divides reflective of a sea-change for feminism, or does the current infighting stem from its roots in identity politics? Can feminism survive its current civil war, or is it time for a new women’s liberation movement? Filmed at the Battle of Ideas Festival this panel of speakers know where they stand.

The speakers are:
Julie Bindel - Journalist; author, Feminism for Women: the Real Route to Liberation
Belinda de Lucy -Former MEP; former Member, Women's Rights (FEMM) Committee - EU Parliament; commentator
Naomi Firsht - Journalist; co-author, The Parisians’ Guide to Cafés, Bars and Restaurants
Inaya Folarin Iman - GB News journalist; political commentator; social campaigner; Founder and Director, The Equiano Project
The Chair is Ella Whelan - Co-Convenor of the Battle of Ideas Festival, Journalist & Author

With no one paid to edit the exceptional 33 debates filmed entirely by volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2021, the charity still has to pay its Volunteer centre costs and edit suite overheads. These come to £130 a day. Most people maybe don't know what it takes to get a completed video out, even a simple 1.5 hour debate. To capture, sync, (2 cameras) edit, sound clean, colour correct, add titles, straps & end credits, transcode, export, compress and upload takes a minimum of 2 days for each debate. Thirty-three debates, sixty-six days, that’s £8580 we need to raise to cover volunteer centre costs, without paying anyone. There's some vital and fascinating debates here, well worth sharing with the world, but to get them completed we need to raise at least this target. Please chip in what you can on our editing appeal page at https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/editingappeal

Are the current divides reflective of a sea-change for feminism, or does the current infighting stem from its roots in identity politics? Can feminism survive its current civil war, or is it time for a new women’s liberation movement? Filmed at the Battle of Ideas Festival this panel of speakers know where they stand.

The speakers are:
Julie Bindel - Journalist; author, Feminism for Women: the Real Route to Liberation
Belinda de Lucy -Former MEP; former Member, Women's Rights (FEMM) Committee - EU Parliament; commentator
Naomi Firsht - Journalist; co-author, The Parisians’ Guide to Cafés, Bars and Restaurants
Inaya Folarin Iman - GB News journalist; political commentator; social campaigner; Founder and Director, The Equiano Project
The Chair is Ella Whelan - Co-Convenor of the Battle of Ideas Festival, Journalist & Author

With no one paid to edit the exceptional 33 debates filmed entirely by volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2021, the charity still has to pay its Volunteer centre costs and edit suite overheads. These come to £130 a day. Most people maybe don't know what it takes to get a completed video out, even a simple 1.5 hour debate. To capture, sync, (2 cameras) edit, sound clean, colour correct, add titles, straps & end credits, transcode, export, compress and upload takes a minimum of 2 days for each debate. Thirty-three debates, sixty-six days, that’s £8580 we need to raise to cover volunteer centre costs, without paying anyone. There's some vital and fascinating debates here, well worth sharing with the world, but to get them completed we need to raise at least this target. Please chip in what you can on our editing appeal page at https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/editingappeal

28 11

YouTube Video UExVSkdPQ004Y1VKbG5iYU9YY1BFQWdOUFNaMXgxTDZUbC5DQUNERDQ2NkIzRUQxNTY1

FEMINISM’S CIVIL WAR

887 views Friday 5 November 2021

In this fascinating debate filmed at the Battle of Ideas festival, an engaging panel of speakers and lively audience discuss the pros & cons of Woke Capitalism and what’s driving it. Is it all ‘woke wash’ and what does it mean for democracy if corporations play an increasingly activist role in pursuing a liberal agenda?
The speakers are:
Laura Bierer-Nielsen -Political consultant; Founder and Director, Foundation for Uyghur Freedom
Konstantin Kisin - Comedian; creator and co-host, TRIGGERnometry YouTube show; author, An Immigrant's Love Letter to the West
Professor Vicky Pryce - Chief Economic Adviser and Board Member, Centre for Economics and Business Research; author, Women vs Capitalism
Dr Diane Wei Liang - Professor of Business; author, The Eye of Jade and Lake with No Name
James Woudhuysen - Visiting professor, London South Bank University; co-author, Energise! A future for Energy Innovation; co-author, Why is Construction so Backward?
The Chair is Rob Killick - CEO, Clerkswell; author, The UK After the Recession


With no one paid to edit the exceptional 33 debates filmed entirely by volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2021, the charity still has to pay its Volunteer centre costs and edit suite overheads. These come to £130 a day. Most people maybe don't know what it takes to get a completed video out, even a simple 1.5 hour debate. To capture, sync, (2 cameras) edit, sound clean, colour correct, add titles, straps & end credits, transcode, export, compress and upload takes a minimum of 2 days for each debate. Thirty-three debates, sixty-six days, that’s £8580 we need to raise to cover volunteer centre costs, without paying anyone. There's some vital and fascinating debates here, well worth sharing with the world, but to get them completed we need to raise at least this target. Please chip in what you can on our editing appeal page at https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/editingappeal

In this fascinating debate filmed at the Battle of Ideas festival, an engaging panel of speakers and lively audience discuss the pros & cons of Woke Capitalism and what’s driving it. Is it all ‘woke wash’ and what does it mean for democracy if corporations play an increasingly activist role in pursuing a liberal agenda?
The speakers are:
Laura Bierer-Nielsen -Political consultant; Founder and Director, Foundation for Uyghur Freedom
Konstantin Kisin - Comedian; creator and co-host, TRIGGERnometry YouTube show; author, An Immigrant's Love Letter to the West
Professor Vicky Pryce - Chief Economic Adviser and Board Member, Centre for Economics and Business Research; author, Women vs Capitalism
Dr Diane Wei Liang - Professor of Business; author, The Eye of Jade and Lake with No Name
James Woudhuysen - Visiting professor, London South Bank University; co-author, Energise! A future for Energy Innovation; co-author, Why is Construction so Backward?
The Chair is Rob Killick - CEO, Clerkswell; author, The UK After the Recession


With no one paid to edit the exceptional 33 debates filmed entirely by volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2021, the charity still has to pay its Volunteer centre costs and edit suite overheads. These come to £130 a day. Most people maybe don't know what it takes to get a completed video out, even a simple 1.5 hour debate. To capture, sync, (2 cameras) edit, sound clean, colour correct, add titles, straps & end credits, transcode, export, compress and upload takes a minimum of 2 days for each debate. Thirty-three debates, sixty-six days, that’s £8580 we need to raise to cover volunteer centre costs, without paying anyone. There's some vital and fascinating debates here, well worth sharing with the world, but to get them completed we need to raise at least this target. Please chip in what you can on our editing appeal page at https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/editingappeal

30 6

YouTube Video UExVSkdPQ004Y1VKbG5iYU9YY1BFQWdOUFNaMXgxTDZUbC45NDk1REZENzhEMzU5MDQz

FROM PROFITS TO PROPHETS: WHY HAS BIG BUSINESS GONE WOKE?

605 views Thursday 4 November 2021

Can the free market provide adequately for all or should we demand more pay for the hardest, worst paid jobs? The speakers in this engaging short debate at the Battle of Ideas festival don't agree, but do raise plenty for us to consider. 
Apologies for sound issues, one of the audience mics is not working.
The speakers are:
Hilary Salt - Actuary; founder, First Actuarial
Don Watkins - Author, Free Market Revolution, Equal Is Unfair and I Am Justice
The Chair is Kevin Rooney - Convenor, AoI Education Forum; politics teacher; co-author, The Blood Stained Poppy

Help WORLDwrite Volunteers Edit 
With no one paid to edit the exceptional 33 debates filmed entirely by volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2021, the charity still has to pay its Volunteer centre costs and edit suite overheads. These come to £130 a day. Most people maybe don't know what it takes to get a completed video out, even a simple 1.5 hour debate. To capture, sync, (2 cameras) edit, sound clean, colour correct, add titles, straps & end credits, transcode, export, compress and upload takes a minimum of 2 days for each debate. Thirty-three debates, sixty-six days, that’s £8580 we need to raise, without paying anyone. There's some vital and fascinating debates here, well worth sharing with the world, but to get them completed we need to raise at least this target. Please chip in what you can on our editing appeal page at https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/editingappeal
Thank you

Can the free market provide adequately for all or should we demand more pay for the hardest, worst paid jobs? The speakers in this engaging short debate at the Battle of Ideas festival don't agree, but do raise plenty for us to consider.
Apologies for sound issues, one of the audience mics is not working.
The speakers are:
Hilary Salt - Actuary; founder, First Actuarial
Don Watkins - Author, Free Market Revolution, Equal Is Unfair and I Am Justice
The Chair is Kevin Rooney - Convenor, AoI Education Forum; politics teacher; co-author, The Blood Stained Poppy

Help WORLDwrite Volunteers Edit
With no one paid to edit the exceptional 33 debates filmed entirely by volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2021, the charity still has to pay its Volunteer centre costs and edit suite overheads. These come to £130 a day. Most people maybe don't know what it takes to get a completed video out, even a simple 1.5 hour debate. To capture, sync, (2 cameras) edit, sound clean, colour correct, add titles, straps & end credits, transcode, export, compress and upload takes a minimum of 2 days for each debate. Thirty-three debates, sixty-six days, that’s £8580 we need to raise, without paying anyone. There's some vital and fascinating debates here, well worth sharing with the world, but to get them completed we need to raise at least this target. Please chip in what you can on our editing appeal page at https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/editingappeal
Thank you

4 0

YouTube Video UExVSkdPQ004Y1VKbG5iYU9YY1BFQWdOUFNaMXgxTDZUbC4zMDg5MkQ5MEVDMEM1NTg2

IS LEVELLING UP REALLY LEVELLING DOWN? THE GREAT INEQUALITY DEBATE

158 views Tuesday 23 November 2021

Filmed at the Battle of Ideas Festival, a compelling panel give us plenty to chew on. Are boycotts  simply legitimate expressions of preference or political opinion? Or, if they stray into the territory of suppressing political debate, do they then become more of a threat? Are boycotts an attack on free expression or a weapon for those fighting for accountability?
The speakers are:
Nick Buckley MBE - Charity founder, writer, former mayoral candidate
Jodie Ginsberg - Chief Executive, Internews Europe
Fraser Myers - Deputy Editor, spiked; producer, spiked podcast
Peter Whittle - Founder and Director, New Culture Forum
The Chair is Paddy Hannam - Editorial Assistant, spiked

Help WORLDwrite Volunteers Edit 
With no one paid to edit the exceptional 33 debates filmed entirely by volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2021, the charity still has to pay its Volunteer centre costs and edit suite overheads. These come to £130 a day. Most people maybe don't know what it takes to get a completed video out, even a simple 1.5 hour debate. To capture, sync, (2 cameras) edit, sound clean, colour correct, add titles, straps & end credits, transcode, export, compress and upload takes a minimum of 2 days for each debate. Thirty-three debates, sixty-six days, that’s £8580 we need to raise, without paying anyone. There's some vital and fascinating debates here, well worth sharing with the world, but to get them completed we need to raise at least this target. Please chip in what you can on our editing appeal page at https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/editingappeal
Thank you

Filmed at the Battle of Ideas Festival, a compelling panel give us plenty to chew on. Are boycotts simply legitimate expressions of preference or political opinion? Or, if they stray into the territory of suppressing political debate, do they then become more of a threat? Are boycotts an attack on free expression or a weapon for those fighting for accountability?
The speakers are:
Nick Buckley MBE - Charity founder, writer, former mayoral candidate
Jodie Ginsberg - Chief Executive, Internews Europe
Fraser Myers - Deputy Editor, spiked; producer, spiked podcast
Peter Whittle - Founder and Director, New Culture Forum
The Chair is Paddy Hannam - Editorial Assistant, spiked

Help WORLDwrite Volunteers Edit
With no one paid to edit the exceptional 33 debates filmed entirely by volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2021, the charity still has to pay its Volunteer centre costs and edit suite overheads. These come to £130 a day. Most people maybe don't know what it takes to get a completed video out, even a simple 1.5 hour debate. To capture, sync, (2 cameras) edit, sound clean, colour correct, add titles, straps & end credits, transcode, export, compress and upload takes a minimum of 2 days for each debate. Thirty-three debates, sixty-six days, that’s £8580 we need to raise, without paying anyone. There's some vital and fascinating debates here, well worth sharing with the world, but to get them completed we need to raise at least this target. Please chip in what you can on our editing appeal page at https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/editingappeal
Thank you

10 1

YouTube Video UExVSkdPQ004Y1VKbG5iYU9YY1BFQWdOUFNaMXgxTDZUbC41Mzk2QTAxMTkzNDk4MDhF

FROM GB NEWS TO BEN & JERRY’S: BOYCOTTS OR CENSORSHIP?

233 views Tuesday 23 November 2021

The Free Speech Union (FSU) was launched in February 2020 by journalist Toby Young as a non-partisan, mass-membership public interest body that stands up for the speech rights of its members. Less than two years later, the FSU has almost 9,000 members and has provided support, including legal support, for over 500 people to push back against cancellation.

While some people doubt that ‘cancel culture’ exists, the evidence from the FSU caseload suggests it is very real indeed as this engaging panel reveals.  In this session, we hear from individuals who’ve experienced first-hand what it’s like to be cancelled, but fought back – often successfully.

The speakers are:
Sam Bayliss - Writer; literature student, University of Edinburgh; member, Free Speech Champions
Nick Buckley MBE - Charity founder, writer, former mayoral candidate
Lisa Keogh - Law graduate, Abertay University
Harry Miller - Chairman, The Reclaim Party; founder, Fair Cop
Gillian Philip - Carnegie Medal-nominated writer; driver
The Chair is Toby Young - General Secretary, Free Speech Union; author, How to Lose Friends & Alienate People; associate Editor, Spectator

Help WORLDwrite Volunteers Edit 
With no one paid to edit the exceptional 33 debates filmed entirely by volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2021, the charity still has to pay its Volunteer centre costs and edit suite overheads. These come to £130 a day. Most people maybe don't know what it takes to get a completed video out, even a simple 1.5 hour debate. To capture, sync, (2 cameras) edit, sound clean, colour correct, add titles, straps & end credits, transcode, export, compress and upload takes a minimum of 2 days for each debate. Thirty-three debates, sixty-six days, that’s £8580 we need to raise, without paying anyone. There's some vital and fascinating debates here, well worth sharing with the world, but to get them completed we need to raise at least this target. Please chip in what you can on our editing appeal page at https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/editingappeal
Thank you

The Free Speech Union (FSU) was launched in February 2020 by journalist Toby Young as a non-partisan, mass-membership public interest body that stands up for the speech rights of its members. Less than two years later, the FSU has almost 9,000 members and has provided support, including legal support, for over 500 people to push back against cancellation.

While some people doubt that ‘cancel culture’ exists, the evidence from the FSU caseload suggests it is very real indeed as this engaging panel reveals. In this session, we hear from individuals who’ve experienced first-hand what it’s like to be cancelled, but fought back – often successfully.

The speakers are:
Sam Bayliss - Writer; literature student, University of Edinburgh; member, Free Speech Champions
Nick Buckley MBE - Charity founder, writer, former mayoral candidate
Lisa Keogh - Law graduate, Abertay University
Harry Miller - Chairman, The Reclaim Party; founder, Fair Cop
Gillian Philip - Carnegie Medal-nominated writer; driver
The Chair is Toby Young - General Secretary, Free Speech Union; author, How to Lose Friends & Alienate People; associate Editor, Spectator

Help WORLDwrite Volunteers Edit
With no one paid to edit the exceptional 33 debates filmed entirely by volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2021, the charity still has to pay its Volunteer centre costs and edit suite overheads. These come to £130 a day. Most people maybe don't know what it takes to get a completed video out, even a simple 1.5 hour debate. To capture, sync, (2 cameras) edit, sound clean, colour correct, add titles, straps & end credits, transcode, export, compress and upload takes a minimum of 2 days for each debate. Thirty-three debates, sixty-six days, that’s £8580 we need to raise, without paying anyone. There's some vital and fascinating debates here, well worth sharing with the world, but to get them completed we need to raise at least this target. Please chip in what you can on our editing appeal page at https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/editingappeal
Thank you

30 7

YouTube Video UExVSkdPQ004Y1VKbG5iYU9YY1BFQWdOUFNaMXgxTDZUbC41QTY1Q0UxMTVCODczNThE

THE FSU FILES: HOW TO FIGHT CANCEL CULTURE AND WIN

537 views Tuesday 23 November 2021