POLITICS in PUBS Newcastle

Do you know your left from your right; your City Region from your City Deal; your EU from your EEC? Do you want to know more about local, national, European and world politics, from theory and ideology to practice and influence? Do you want to hear from those you vote for about what you're voting for? And do you want it all in a friendly, relaxed place with plenty of people to discuss and disagree with? Then Politics in Pubs is for you.

Assisted Dying - what's happening in parliament?
7pm, Tuesday 13^th May 2025
The Telegraph
Orchard Street
Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 3NY
Introduction by Professor Kevin Yuill, author, Assisted Suicide: the humanist case against legalisation
Chair: Caspar Hewett, Director, The Great Debate

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill - known as the Assisted Dying Bill - reached the committee stage this February and was due to receive its third reading in April 2025, now postponed till after the local elections and scheduled for 16 May. With both vocal supporters and fierce critics, the Bill itself has been subject to a great deal of controversy - not only about the content of the Bill, but also with the parliamentary procedures surrounding its passage through the House of Commons.

Introduced by Kim Leadbeater MP in November last year, there are many critics who point to the variety of inconsistencies in the language of the Bill, the fact it was introduced - rather suddenly - as a Private Members Bill, and that the Committee Stage has been stacked with the testimonies of those in favour of the Bill, with opposing voices either weak on legislative procedure or ill-equipped to give testimony. Indeed, the reason given for the postponement of its next reading is partly due to a range of controversies over the vast array of amendments to the original bill, provided to the committee in bulk with no time to properly read and consider. Moreover, the issue itself has not been part of widespread public debate for many years and only received five hours of debate in Parliament.

Yet, since Assisted Dying was first legalised in Oregon in 1997, there has been a trend towards legalisation across the liberal world, including Belgium, Australia, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Spain, New Zealand and in Canada where assisted dying now accounts for one in 20 deaths. So, is it time the UK caught up? After all, there is evidence to show that the UK public now support assisted dying to a greater extent than they once did. Although survey data varies, it is estimated that around 63%-74% of the public think terminally ill adults should be allowed to make that choice with one campaign - Dignity in Dying - finding up to 84 per cent of the public are in favour.

On 13th May, prior to the Bill's third reading, Politics in Pubs Newcastle will debate this issue for a second time. Welcoming the return of Professor Kevin Yuill, we'll be asking whether the Bill 'provides the most detailed, robust proposal on assisted dying reform that Westminster has ever considered,' as Dignity in Dying claim, and is simply an extension of the liberal ideal of bodily autonomy. Or, whether we should be deeply concerned about a society that prioritises taking a life over creating the conditions for a better one, through social and palliative care. Is Professor Yuill right when he says, 'If we are to place value on even the most wretched of human lives - an important marker of civilisation - neither the death penalty or assisted suicide can be justified'?

Come along, join us for a pint (or three) and debate the issue for yourself.

Links

Join us at POLITICS in PUBS at the Telegraph Pub, Newcastle upon Tyne on Tuesday 18^th March and have your say.

Location Map

Previous Discussions

Banned from the Stand! An evening with Linzi Smith
7pm, Tuesday 8^th April 2025
The Bridge Hotel
Castle Garth
Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 1RQ

Thursday 27^th February 2025
Defence of Free Speech - no ifs, no buts!
Liberty House, 48 Westgate Road
Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 1TT (near Central Station)
Introduction by Professor Dennis Hayes, founder and director, Academics for Academic Freedom (AFAF)

Elon Musk has been derided for saying he is a 'free speech absolutist'. Most discussions of free speech start with the statement that free speech 'is not an absolute'. We are constantly told that we must only uphold free speech 'within the law'.

During a recent debate in parliament on the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, the Chair of the Education Committee, Helen Hayes (no relation), asked Bridget Phillipson (Secretary of State for Education) to "ensure that universities and students are absolutely clear about the limits to free speech" (15 January).

No sooner is 'free speech' mentioned before it is drowned out by 'buts'. In this talk, Dennis Hayes, will present an uncompromising defence of free speech, no ifs, no buts.

Dennis Hayes is emeritus professor of education at the University of Derby and a visiting professor at the University of Buckingham. He is the founder and director of the campaign group Academics For Academic Freedom (AFAF). He is the author and editor of many books, including The McDonaldization of Higher Education and a follow-up work Beyond McDonaldization: visions of higher education. In 2008, he co-authored, with Kathryn Ecclestone, the controversial and bestselling book, The Dangerous Rise of Therapeutic Education, which has been described as 'one of the most important books to have been written in at least the last 20 years in that crucial area where philosophy, policy and practice coincide.' It was re-issued in February 2019 in the Routledge Education Classic Editions series with a new introduction. His latest book, The Death of Academic Freedom? Free speech and censorship on campus, will be published in 2025.

Follow Dennis on X/Twitter: @ProfDHayes

Click here for notes from meeting

Tuesday 14^th January 2025
An Eventful Year: 2024 Round Up
Chair: Caspar Hewett, Director, The Great Debate

No specific topic for the first meeting of the year, but a chance to review the news and politics of 2024 - an eventful year that has included a change of government here in the UK, the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, ongoing wars in the Middle East, Ukraine and Sudan and another (not so surprising) successful election for Donald Trump as US president!

Tuesday 3^rd December 2024
Trump's victory: what to expect from MAGA 2.0
Introduction by Phil Miles
Chair: Caspar Hewett, Director, The Great Debate

For better or worse - with a hostile mainstream media rendered largely impotent - MAGA is back. And how! Why did different sections of the US electorate vote the way they did, and will Trump deliver for them?

What can we expect from the new administration? Will Musk's 'Department of Government Efficiency' do just what it says on the tin, or will it have unforeseen consequences? Just how 'mass' will those promised mass deportations be? On the international stage, will 'Peace through Strength' actually bring peace? And how on earth will Keir Starmer and David Lammy get along with a man whose worldview seems so at odds with their own?

Click here to read Phil Mile's introduction

Tuesday 5^th November 2024
Panic on a Plate
Introduction by Rob Lyons, author, Panic on a Plate: How society developed an eating disorder
Chair: Caspar Hewett, Director, The Great Debate

Labour has declared a war on junk food. From 1 October next year, adverts for many crisps, chocolates, fizzy drinks and fast food will be banned from our TV screens before the watershed. There will be a total ban on paid-for advertising of products high in fat, sugar and salt, while local councils will be given more powers to control hot food takeaways near schools.

It looks like the nanny state is back with a vengeance. But this time matron gets in on the act, too. A new scheme of 'health MOTs' will see NHS staff going into our workplaces to weigh us and refer any of our chubster colleagues to weight-loss clinics. Fat shaming is fine, apparently, as long as the state is doing it.

But is that really fair? Almost a quarter of Year 6 children are 'obese' according to NHS data. During the pandemic, unhealthy lifestyles were found to be a significant factor in who was vulnerable to hospitalisation and death. Many argue that we need to protect the NHS from the strain of an unhealthy society and Labour's plans are based on the ethos of 'prevention is better than cure.'

In addition, there have been many concerns about industrially processed foods which are 'designed and marketed to be addictive', according to one best-selling author, Dr Chris van Tulleken, in his book Ultra-Processed People (2023). We don't really know what it's doing to our bodies, he says.

But isn't this more of the plebs needing to be told what's good for them? An extension of the NHS being protected from the public? A panic on our plates?

Rob Lyons, author of Panic on a Plate: How society developed an eating disorder (2011) joined Newcastle Politics in Pubs to discuss the issue. Rob is science and technology director at the Academy of Ideas. He writes on a wide range of issues, but takes a particular interest in issues around the economy, environment, food, energy, risk and the harm principle which he covers on his Letter on Liberty, Beyond the Harm Principle. He has also written reports on sugar taxes, the impact of the smoking ban on pubs and the culture wars over nicotine and edited a survey of views from a wide range of commentators on the future of food. He is a frequent commentator on TV and radio.

Click here for notes from meeting

Tuesday 1^st October 2024
What about the Menz?
Introduction by Dr Martin Evison @drmartin_evison, co-founder @PipsOrgNE
Chair: Caspar Hewett, Director, The Great Debate

In social justice discourse, the phrase 'What about the Menz?' has become a meme, used by some feminists, to point out when discussions about women's issues are highjacked by male concerns. For example, when a conversation about women's pay is turned into one about justice for fathers. Is this another example of divisive identity politics - pitting men against women? Or is it simply that men don't like sharing a public sphere where women's issues are better profiled? Have men had it too good for too long? What about when men really do have problems?

Do phrases such as 'What about the Menz?' 'Mansplaining' and 'Toxic Masculinity' deliberately silence men and their concerns? How do we tackle the very many serious problems men (and women) face today?

Click here for notes from meeting

Tuesday 17^th September 2024
In light of Labour's election victory, has woke won?
An evening with author and commentator Joanna Williams
Chair: Caspar Hewett, Director, The Great Debate

Towards the end of the Conservative Party's time in government, it began to seem as if the woke initiatives that had come to dominate our public institutions were finally being challenged. A ban on gender-inclusive conversion therapy had been ruled out, universities had a new legal duty to protect free speech and schools had been told not to teach young children that people can change gender. Civil servants had even been ordered not to wear rainbow lanyards in the workplace.

Now, just weeks into a new Labour government, much has changed. Keir Starmer declares the culture wars to be over while appointing cabinet ministers who are unable to define 'woman'. Civil servants and sections of the media appear delighted at the prospect of a government that, at long last, shares their values.

Does a Labour government mean that woke has won after all? How has this happened? Is it possible to challenge this pernicious, anti-democratic, elite worldview and place the common sense of the majority at the heart of our political system?

An evening with Joanna Williams, political commentator, education editor at Spiked and author of several books including How Woke Won: The Elitist Movement That Threatens Democracy, Tolerance and Reason.

This event was jointly organised by POLITICS in PUBS Newcastle and Newcastle New Culture Forum Locals.

Click here for notes from meeting

Tuesday 16^th July 2024
Could proportional representation be a catalyst for greater political engagement?
Introduction by Paula Watson
Chair: Caspar Hewett, Director, The Great Debate

"In a democratic government the right of decision belongs to the majority, but the right of representation belongs to all." - Ernest Naville

On the 5th of May 2011, the UK held a referendum to change our majoritarian First Past The Post (FPTP) system to one of Alternate Votes (AV). The move was defeated, with 67.9% of votes cast against the change.

Advocates of FPTP hold this up to suggest that there is no demand for PR within the UK voting public, but AV is not a system of proportional representation. Would a different offer have received a different response and is it possible that the political turmoil of the last decade has changed minds? And if the solution is Proportional Representation (PR), in the interests of democracy, is a referendum required to implement it?

PR could give small parties a chance to build, but could it also be an opportunity for extremism?

Given the concerns many have over changing our system, perhaps local government elections would be a better place to start.

POLITICS in PUBS Newcastle picked through the carcass of the 2024 election and asked if First Past the Post should be consigned to the past.

Click here for notes from meeting

Tuesday 11^th June 2024
Planet on fire? The politics of climate change
Introduction by Dr Alistair Ford, Lecturer in Geospatial Data Analytics and Policy Academy Fellow at Newcastle University
Chair: Caspar Hewett, Director, The Great Debate

According to a recent poll of climate scientists, our planet is likely to experience global heating of at least 2.5C above pre-industrial levels this century. Many of the scientists envisage a 'semi-dystopian' future with famines, conflicts, and mass migration, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods and storms. Of those polled, 80% of the scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) foresee at least a 2.5C rise in temperature.

However, the IPCC itself has come under fire from some. While the IPCC has long had critics, their number is growing and includes new members who were once advocates. Critics argue that while some stages of the review process are robust, there is a subsequent re-write by a small group of 'Lead Authors' that is not open and rigorous, nor does it take in a wide variety of views. In summary, it suffers from a lack of transparency, oversight, and a robust peer review strategy.

Given that the public are being asked to make drastic changes to their lives, on the basis of IPCC reports, how can we verify its claims? Moreover, what does the research and report process tell us about democratic accountability more widely?

One outspoken critic is American atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen, who was previously an IPCC contributor. He argues, 'we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios - of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less.' Do Lindzen's comments reflect a sense of fatalism within the environmental movement? Or is he a lone voice speaking against the overwhelming scientific consensus?

Some scientists have hit back, describing Lindzen as a contrarian playing to an audience of people who want to deny climate change. They argue that the science is settled. But is science ever settled? And why are those who question prevailing opinion branded as heretics or 'Climate Change Deniers'? Shouldn't all views be open to debate rather than denounced? Or is the 'Climate Emergency' so great, we must build upon the body of evidence that tells us real change is necessary and urgent? Even if the science is settled, is there more than one way to tackle the effects of climate change than a politics of limits?

Click here for notes from meeting

Tuesday 14^th May 2024 at 7:00pm
Is Western civilisation under attack?
Introduction by Mo Lovatt
Chair: Caspar Hewett, Director, The Great Debate

From the culture wars at home, to the increasingly fraught international situation, many people see our current problems as being "civilisational" in scope, viewing Western civilisation as either under attack or crumbling from within.

But what is civilisation? Can we define what is distinctly "western"? And, if it is under attack, by whom and why? Finally, we will ask whether we can, or even ought to, defend what is under attack and how?

There will be a short introduction from Dr Mo Lovatt after which there will be plenty of time for discussion over a drink or two.

Suggested background material: