Rethink

BBC Sounds

Latest episode

Available Episodes

5 of 105

Rethink... nightlife
The Night Times Industries Association says one in four venues have shut down since 2020, and the sector will face an irreversible decline unless the government provides urgent support.The industry was one of the worst hit during the pandemic, and it's asking for cuts to National Insurance, a permanent cut in VAT and a reform of business rates to help it keep afloat. The NTIA claims the night time economy contributes more than £153 billion to the UK economy and supports over 2 million jobs. Culturally, the sector punches above its weight. The nightclub boom in the last 50 years gave us disco, acid house, drum and bass and grime, as well as many other sub-genres of music. But nightclubs are expensive and consumers are finding their thrills elsewhere; drink is cheaper from supermarkets, and why search for someone you fancy on the dancefloor when you can use a dating app?And as nightclubs struggle, so do small music venues, where artists like Ed Sheeran, Dua Lipa, Coldplay, Arctic Monkeys Blur and Oasis started out, as well as many others. People are willing to pay hundreds of pounds to see those same artists in giant venues like Co-op Live in Manchester or at Wembley Stadium, so what can be done to make sure the next wave of new artists have somewhere to play? Should the government intervene? Should big venues subsidise smaller ones, or is it up to fans to throw them a lifeline? Or has nightlife in its current form - much like variety music halls - taken its last curtain call? Presenter: Ben Ansell Producer: Tom Gillett Editor: Lisa Baxter Contributors:Michael Kill - CEO, Night Time Industries Association Fat Tony - DJ Steve Lamacq - BBC 6 Music DJ and Patron of the Music Venues Trust Richard Simm - Co-owner, The Forum Tunbridge Wells Jane Darougar - Psychotherapist and counselor at the Central St Martins University, London
--------
28:18
--------
28:18
Rethink... winners and losers
Do you agree with either of these statements? Illegal migrants come here and are a burden on services and the taxpayer. OR The only way to reduce inequality is to tax billionaires and giant companies who avoid tax. They may seem on opposite poles of the political spectrum, but both anti-migrant campaigners and anti-capitalists share an identical mindset. Both are demonstrating zero-sum thinking; the belief that if one group wins, another has to lose. In itself, zero-sum thinking isn't moral or immoral, right or wrong. But Economists claim it leads to poor economic policy, and they say evidence shows it is possible to create win-win situations for everyone. But many of the main parties at Westminster also use zero-sum thinking in their political rhetoric - from Reform and the Greens, to the Conservatives and Labour. Also, the first past the post electoral system is literally a zero-sum process. So is this kind of thinking baked-into UK politics? So are there particular groups of people that are more prone to zero-sum beliefs? Where did this mindset come from? What economic conditions encourage zero-sum thinking, and how deeply are these beliefs held? Presenter: Ben Ansell Producer: Ravi Naik Editor: Richard VadonContributors: Stefanie Stantcheva, Nathaniel Ropes Professor of Political Economy at Harvard and founder and director of the Social Economics Lab. Dr Patricia Andrews Fearon, behavioural science researcher at social impact accelerator The Agency Fund, and Stanford University. Her research on zero-sum mindsets began during her doctoral studies at Cambridge, where she was a Gates Scholar. Dr Parth Patel, Associate director for democracy & politics at the Institute of Public Policy and Research Iain Mansfield, Director of Research and Head of Education and Science at Policy Exchange Cleo Watson, Former Downing Street strategist, adviser to Theresa May and Boris Johnson, author, and presenter of Radio 4's "How to win a campaign"
--------
28:27
--------
28:27
Rethink: should we stop flying?
Aviation is far more difficult to decarbonise than other sectors of the economy, because kerosene is the perfect fuel for planes. It produces enough power to enable planes to fly, yet it is light enough for them to get off the ground and cross the world. Alternatives are thin on the ground; batteries are too heavy, clean hydrogen power is in its infancy, while Sustainable Aviation Fuel - or SAF - is expensive and in short supply. Although the Government has a "SAF-mandate", only 22% of all jet fuel supplied by 2040 will have to be sustainable. New airliners are more fuel-efficient than ever before, and both routes and air-traffic control are being optimised. But if growth outpaces efficiencies, greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise. And passenger demand is back at pre-pandemic levels. In 2024 the UK was the third largest market in the world for flights. In the absence of any immediate solution, should we fly less, if at all? How realistic and affordable are slower alternatives like the train? Could passengers be penalised for taking more than one return flight a year? And should the Government rather than individuals be taking responsibility for change? Presenter: Ben Ansell Producer: Ravi Naik Editor: Lisa BaxterContributors: Alice Larkin, Professor of Climate Science and Energy Policy in the School of Engineering at the University of Manchester. Dr Roger Tyers, UK Aviation specialist at Transport & Environment Yannick van den Berg, postdoctoral researcher at the University of Amsterdam Law School Tom Nevitt, project manager of Climate Perks Duncan McCourt, Chief Executive, Sustainable AviationRethink is a BBC co-production with the Open University
--------
28:59
--------
28:59
Rethink: how can flying be less polluting?
Aviation has a problem: it's reliant on fossil fuels which release greenhouse gases when they're burned in a jet engine. Other industries are worse polluters, but in the next few decades, they are likely to decarbonise much faster than the airline sector. Why? Because kerosene is a light enough fuel for planes to get off the ground, while producing enough thrust for them to do so. Also it enables airliners to carry passengers to the other side of the world. International flight has only been around for less than 100 years, but research suggests that it's responsible for 4% of total global warming to date. It's not just that airliners pump out carbon dioxide, but they also emit nitrous oxides and soot. Even contrails, which are mostly water vapour, have a warming effect high up in the atmosphere. Can efficiencies in jet engines, optimal routes and air traffic control lead to less fuel being used? What technologies are available to make flying cleaner? Is the pace of change fast enough to meet net zero by 2050?Presenter: Ben Ansell Producer: Ravi Naik Editor: Lisa Baxter Contributors: David Lee, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Centre for Aviation, Transport and the Environment, Manchester Metropolitan University. Dr Mark Bentall, Head of the Research and Technology Programme, Airbus Dr Naomi Allen, Head of Research at the Royal Aeronautical Society, Alice Larkin, Professor of Climate Science and Energy Policy in the School of Engineering at the University of Manchester. Duncan McCourt, Chief Executive, Sustainable AviationRethink is a BBC co-production with the Open University
--------
28:29
--------
28:29
Rethink...the meaning of terrorism
What is terrorism? Without doubt, it is a pejorative term; few people would ever want to be called a terrorist, and when the word terrorism is attached to a belief system, it delegitimises it in the eyes of the public.It's an emotive word with severe consequences for any individual or group given the label. Virtually everybody agrees that being a terrorist is not a good thing and that the law must seriously punish them.But there isn't an agreed international definition of what terrorism is.The UK has a legal definition, but it differs from other western democracies. When does property damage become a terror offence? How do police officers decide the difference between support for a cause and membership of a proscribed organisation? Should individuals without an ideology who plan or commit mass murders be considered terrorists? Are UK anti-terror laws too broad, or too narrow? And can violence by states be counted as terrorism?Presenter: Ben Ansell Producer: Ravi Naik Editor: Lisa Baxter Contributors: José Ángel Gascón, Professor of Argumentation in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Murcia Jonathan Hall KC, UK Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation Nick Aldworth, Threat, risk & security strategist, former Detective Chief Superintendent and National Coordinator in Counter Terrorism Policing. Leonie Jackson, Assistant Professor and Senior Lecturer in International Relations, Northumbria University, and author of " What is Counterterrorism For?" Richard English, Professor of Politics at Queen's University Belfast, and author of Does Counter-Terrorism Work? Rethink is a BBC co-production with the Open University
--------
28:50
--------
28:50