Spent an enjoyable day at the Battle of Ideas yesterday.
For those who don’t know, this annual two-day event is organised by the Academy of Ideas whose director Claire Fox (now Baroness Fox) has been a friend of Forest for over 20 years.
Like the online magazine Spiked, the Academy of Ideas (which was originally called the Institute of Ideas until they were told they couldn’t use the word ‘Institute’) emerged from the dying embers of LM magazine (formerly Living Marxism).
Given that I spent a considerable part of my youth (and twenties) ‘fighting’ Communists and Marxists at home and abroad, the idea that one day I would be aligned with former members of the Revolutionary Communist Party on issues concerning free speech and individual liberty would be a shock to my younger self but here we are.
The first Battle of Ideas, in 2005, was a month-long series of events in a number of small venues throughout London.
It concluded with a dinner to which every speaker was invited and that was the moment I realised how much more enjoyable it was to exchange views in a civilised manner without being dragged down to the level of party politics or no platformed by adversaries whether it be the tobacco control industry or anyone else.
It was the first time too that I began to realise that the political debate wasn’t as simple as left versus right because the political boundaries are often blurred, especially when it comes to free speech and individual autonomy.
I was subsequently asked to endorse the Battle of Ideas and I wrote:
The Battle of Ideas is a breath of fresh air. Freedom of speech is actively encouraged, which is hugely liberating. Audience and speakers are refreshingly candid. Apart from speaking their minds, many of them enjoy a drink. Others like to smoke. This is the real world, not the grey, bland, sanitized world our political masters would like us to inhabit.
In 2007, after the format changed to a single weekend, Claire asked if Forest would sponsor an end of event party, which we did.
It was a few months after the smoking ban was introduced so I suggested we hire a boat - The Elizabethan - which I had used previously for private events and would later hire for ‘Smoke On The Water’, the annual Forest boat party.
The following year, and for several years after that, the Battle of Ideas took place at the Royal College of Art in South Kensington.
In 2008, having again agreed to underwrite the farewell party (this time under the banner of The Free Society), we hired the famous Polish Club in Princes Gate because it had a nice outdoor terrace for smokers.
It was a great success, made even more memorable because I had to discharge myself from hospital to be there. (It’s a long story.)
Thereafter the Battle of Ideas went from strength to strength, enjoying a long residency at the Barbican that lasted until 2019.
There was no Battle of Ideas in 2020 because of Covid but in 2021 the event relocated to Church House in Westminster which is where it reconvened this weekend.
The circular Assembly Hall, with a capacity of 600, is the stand out room but the Memorial Hall (270) is equally historic. Apparently it hosted the House of Commons for a time during the Second World War.
There are 19 ‘event spaces’ in total but at times under the lights one or two of the smaller rooms felt a little cramped (and hot!).
Also, unlike the Barbican, there are no large bar areas to hang out and chat to people, but that’s a very small moan.
In many ways Church House is a better match for an event that prides itself on an intimacy you don’t get at many larger conferences, or even in fringe meetings at party conferences.
The slogan of the Battle of Ideas is ‘Free speech allowed’ and it’s not an idle boast.
Speakers yesterday included Graham Linehan, the Irish television comedy writer whose career appears to have stalled due to his views on transgender issues.
At the Battle of Ideas however there is an acceptance that people can have different and opposing views without falling out and in all the years I’ve been going, either as a speaker or a member of the audience, I can’t remember speakers ever making snarky or personal comments about one another (or their source of funding).
If I have one small criticism it’s that some debates and discussions can be a little on the academic side with (arguably) very little relevance to the real world.
I don’t doubt the sincerity, intellect or enthusiasm of the speakers but one debate I was looking forward to yesterday left me thinking ‘What was that all about?’. A day later I’m none the wiser.
One thing is clear though. I’m struggling to think of another event like this so hats off to Claire Fox and her team for keeping the flame of freedom alight and in such an eclectic way.
At a Forest fringe meeting at the Conservative conference in Birmingham the other week she told the audience:
I’m on the left and I’m far more pro-freedom than anyone I’ve met in the Conservative party … What has happened to you lot? You’ve lost your bottle, in my opinion.”
Sadly the same could be said of every other mainstream political party, and even the smaller ones.
The problem is that if the liberal, pro-freedom Academy of Ideas was reconstituted as a political party it would no doubt succumb sooner or later to the same in-fighting and personal ambitions that bedevil all political groups.
Meanwhile one speaker, in a debate about autonomy, seemed to suggest that because ‘no man is an island’ individual autonomy doesn’t - or shouldn’t - exist because we are part of something bigger.
Another speaker in the same debate suggested that the age of liberalism is coming to an end. (At least I think that’s what she said. Some of it went over my head.)
She may be right, especially after the pandemic when more and more people seem happy for government to make decisions on our behalf or ‘protect’ us far beyond what was originally envisaged by advocates of the welfare state (which was supposed to help those in genuine need, not the entire population regardless of circumstances).
I get that people want insurance against a rainy day or acts of God (like the pandemic) but why, with the exception of the most vulnerable, is it the government’s responsibility to be the sole provider of that insurance?
Surely, as individuals, we have to take some responsibility for our own welfare?
The issue is that once we transfer to the government all responsibility for our health, earnings etc we arguably give up the right to freedom of speech and expression because we are no longer autonomous beings.
We become servants of the state, not its master. Or have I been indoctrinated by the ‘wrong’ people?
Either way the day raised some interesting points that are rarely if ever be discussed in Parliament or by the mainstream media.