Academy of Ideas

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Sunday 19 October at Church House, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION Tinder, Grindr, Bumble, Hinge, Feeld – whatever your dating preference, there's an app for it. Gone are the days of hitting the town in the hopes of catching someone's eye in a busy bar. People moan about their problems, and some want to leave digital dating behind, but for today's generation, the first spark often happens over a keypad. Should we be worried about the prevalence of online dating? For some, the game-like approach to virtual romance, with love thwarted or given a chance with a swipe of the thumb, is degrading. Novara Media's Aaron Bastani recently called for a ban on dating apps, as they ‘encourage the worst possible behaviour towards other people'. Others argue that the addictive nature of online dating, where multiple partners can be found at the touch of a button, has fed the addictive and attention-deficit qualities of an already fidgety generation. When love is always just a click away, why would anyone stick with just one partner? On the other hand, without online dating many argue that finding love would be near impossible. Pub closures, lockdown-hangover regulation on social spaces and less intergenerational mixing means it can be hard out there to meet someone the old-fashioned way. Many argue that panics about online dating foget that the app is just a tool to facilitate what people continue to do – meet up in person and carry on as normal. Building a profile online is no different to a lonely-hearts advert in the paper, or wearing your best dress and standing by the bar. Is love only worthwhile if it's found in the flesh? Is the boom in hook-up apps merely the straight world catching up with what gays have been enjoying for some time? Should we loosen up about online dating? Or is there something lost when it comes to romance if the story we tell our kids of how we first met starts with a ‘swipe right'? SPEAKERS Elliot Bewick host, The Next Generation; former producer, TRIGGERnometry Ella Dorn journalist, New Statesman; creator, Fairyland! Substack; project assistant, Academy of Ideas Ralph Leonard author, Unshackling Intimacy: Letters on Liberty; contributor, UnHerd, Quillette, New Statesman and Sublation Magazine CHAIR Beverley Marshall AoI Parents Forum; working mum of three young adults

The Academy of Ideas team of Alastair Donald, Geoff Kidder and Rob Lyons are joined by Sebastian Moore from the Take Me Home podcast to discuss why England lost that semi-final, what they thought about the performances of England and Scotland in the tournament, why 64 teams isn't as mad as it sounds, and who they think between Argentina and Spain will walk away with the trophy on Sunday.

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION After Labour's election last year, the new defence secretary, John Healey, wrote a memo to Cabinet colleagues in relation to the scandalous Afghan data leak and the subsequent cover-up of relocations. Healey stressed the need to ‘maintain control of the narrative', particularly in the wake of that summer's riots. The riots themselves were arguably fuelled by suppression of information about the Southport murderer, in an attempt to contain public reactions. The desire to control the narrative by curtailing public information has implications for the media's idealised role of telling ‘truth to power'.  Beyond super-injunctions, governments seem preoccupied with muting the widespread availability of counter-narratives on social media. Countries across Europe are introducing measures such as the UK's Online Safety Act or the EU's Digital Services Act, which are partly designed to deal with threats to the establishment narrative via suppressing what has been dubbed ‘misinformation'.  This mirrors governments' pressure on online and offline media during the Lockdown period to suppress any challenges to official, ‘consensus' health advice. However, the media stands accused of having taken it upon itself to have become more partisan in its reporting of our rapidly changing political landscape – championing a single, biased point of view, with little insight or empathy into what is driving new, popular concerns. Two recent events in America – the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the brutal stabbing of a young Ukrainian woman, Iryna Zarutska on the subway – have catalysed this sense that the mainstream media is more concerned with shaping narratives rather than reporting on them. In the case of Kirk, reaction from the mainstream media seemed to focus less on the appalling nature of the political violence or why he was so popular with millions of young people, than in communicating that Kirk was a ‘MAGA troll'.  With Zarutska, whose murder by a black repeat felon was captured on CCTV, the media ignored the story for 18 days, despite its dominance on social media. Eventually, the New York Times reported only how the case had ‘ignited a firestorm on the right', a culture-war framing echoed widely in the mainstream. In the UK, media narrative-shaping is a familiar accusation on everything from the coverage of the unexpectedly large ‘Unite the Kingdom' march to the Southport riots. Populist anger has for some time focused on the supposed bias, arrogance and aloof nature of what is dismissed as the ‘MSM'. There is fury at the way protests and movements are often described as ‘far', ‘hard', ‘extreme' or ‘ultra' right – with media outlets almost running out of adjectives to communicate the idea that these movements are thinly disguised racists. No wonder journalists have been shunned or abused when they turn up to report on events. Trust is declining. All this touches on an older debate: does the media shape or reflect reality? Anti-populist commentators regularly accuse media outlets of amplifying populist talking points, contributing to moral panics about the small boats or ‘whipping up' hate about asylum hotels. Nigel Farage's frequent appearances on BBC Question Time are seen as a key explanation for Reform's credibility, indeed for the size of the 2016 Brexit vote. Has the role of the media changed, or have different outlets always be partisan? What drives governments to control the narrative for public consumption? Is mainstream media ill-equipped to deal with the pace of political change or has it abandoned even the ideal of impartiality? Can anyone, new or old media, credibly claim to merely report events rather than try to shape them? SPEAKERS Colin Brazier journalist; farmer Andrew Gold YouTuber; host, Heretics Dr Pamela Paresky academic dissident, Harvard; founder, Free Mind Foundation Tom Slater editor, spiked; co-host, spiked podcast and Last Orders Baroness Stowell former chair, Communications & Digital Select Committee CHAIR Jacob Reynolds head of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION In February 2025, the then deputy prime minister and communities secretary, Angela Rayner, established an independent government working group, chaired by former Conservative MP and Attorney General Dominic Grieve KC, to advise on a definition of ‘anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobia'. The demand for such a definition comes after an official definition of anti-Semitism was adopted in 2016. Critics have argued since that, for the sake of fairness, something similar must be done for Muslims. The formation of this group, as well as its objectives, has incurred criticism from many quarters and sparked intense public debate. Questions have been raised over the transparency of the group's proceedings, the independence of its members, the marginalisation of certain Muslim communities' voices and the chilling effect that such a definition could have on free speech. The fear of being accused of Islamophobia is, some have argued, part of the reason for the lack of action on grooming gangs. Critics argue that a non-statutory definition of Islamophobia will inevitably be highly subjective and perception-based in its application by public bodies. This will limit freedom of speech by confusing criticism of the religion of Islam with prejudice against Muslim individuals, something which is already addressed through existing legislation. The freedom to interrogate and ridicule the tenets of all faiths is fundamental in a modern society and restricting this freedom for one faith risks quelling not only criticism of that religion from non-believers, but also criticism of it from within, amongst fellow believers who disagree over interpretations of texts and controversial practices, such as face coverings. This is why the working group's approach has led to criticism from Muslim groups, some of whom also make the point that through attempting to define what Islamophobia is, the government is neglecting the importance of addressing actual cases of anti-Muslim hate crimes. They also fear that at a time when many see the UK as a state that is on the road towards the application of ‘two-tier' justice, singling out Islam for special protection and threatening its critics with speech-restricting measures, such as non-crime hate incidents, will only increase tensions. This Free Speech Union discussion will give voice to leading opponents of defining Islamophobia who all have their unique and legitimate concerns over the wider and deeper consequences of this policy. The panel features voices from within Parliament, the Muslim community, the legal profession and campaigners. SPEAKERS Professor Khalid Mahmood former member of Parliament; visiting professor, Birmingham City University; director, KN Strategic Solutions Ltd Baroness Amanda Spielman conservative peer, former chief inspector; Ofsted Nick Timothy MP member of parliament, West Suffolk; former special advisor, Home Office; author and comment writer Toby Young general secretary, Free Speech Union; associate editor, Spectator; editor-in-chief, Daily Sceptic CHAIR Dr Jan Macvarish education and events director, Free Speech Union

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION There is no doubt that far too many of our children and young people are not thriving mentally or emotionally in the way that they should be. In 2024, almost 20 per cent of school-aged children in the UK had been diagnosed with a mental-health condition, up from 10 per cent 20 years ago. Meanwhile, the line between ‘learning disabilities' and ‘mental-health issues' has also become increasingly blurred. According to the charity ADHD UK, a diagnosis of ADHD is listed as a ‘mental-health disability' under the Mental Health Act 1990. Over 1.6million pupils in England have been identified as having special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), up 24.9 per cent since 2016, while the number of children with an education, health and care plan (EHCP) has risen by an astonishing 83.4 per cent – up 11.6 per cent in the past year alone. The care minister, Stephen Kinnock, has confirmed that the government is committed to its manifesto pledge to put a ‘mental-health practitioner' into ‘every school in the country'. The idea has widespread support, with the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives offering similar commitments. Already, there have never been so many staff and volunteers working within schools with a specific responsibility for the emotional wellbeing of pupils: senior mental-health leads, educational psychologists, mental-health support teams and more. Access to counselling is available in many schools. Despite this booming school-based ‘mental-health industrial complex', the wellbeing of pupils continues to deteriorate and rates of ‘mental illness' continue to rise. However, a recent Family Education Trust report by Lucy Beney, a qualified counsellor, asks if such interventions are not only ineffective, but perhaps harmful. She discusses everything from ‘diagnostic inflation' and ‘social contagion' to definitions of ‘mental health' and ‘neurodiversity', from the impact of schools encouraging young people to look at life through the subjective filter of their own feelings to the capture of mental-health professional bodies by critical social justice theory. If one fifth of children are suffering so much that they are deemed as having a ‘disorder', should our focus be on where we as parents and teachers are going wrong rather than what's wrong with children? Is school the best place to address such mental distress, however it's categorised? And what are the opportunity costs if classroom time and resources are taken away from academic pursuits that could potentially be more conducive to better mental health? SPEAKERS Lucy Beney counsellor; children's correspondent, Save Mental Health Baroness Joanne Cash life peer and radical Dave Clements writer and policy advisor; contributing co-editor The Future of Community Dr Ashley Frawley sociologist; author, Significant Emotions and Semiotics of Happiness CHAIR Professor Ellie Lee professor of family and parenting research, University of Kent, Canterbury; director, Centre for Parenting Culture Studies

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION When US Vice President JD Vance warned in a Fox News interview this summer that Europe risked ‘committing civilisational suicide', he was chiefly concerned with Germany, which he says is in danger of bringing about its own demise. While Vance's fire was directed primarily at Germany's failure to control its borders and the destabilising effects of rising immigration, Europe's longstanding economic powerhouse faces challenges on many fronts. That famed economy is sputtering, partly reflecting a green agenda that has caused soaring energy costs and created fears of deindustrialisation. Attempts to restructure around defence and infrastructure haven't allayed fears over the failure to tackle structural problems. Reforms have stalled, such as on welfare, and a managerial overclass has created administrative bloat. Meanwhile, the pivot to foreign policy as a show of international dynamism now collides with rising tensions within the EU, such as over trade, rearmament and energy security. The refusal or inability to shift course – especially on immigration and environmental policies that are increasingly opposed by the electorate and even parts of the establishment – both reveals and entrenches the political stasis. In February's elections, right-wing populists AfD emerged the second-strongest force, yet power was retained by a coalition of decaying traditional parties. Yet the struggle between defenders of the status quo and insurgent challengers is complicated. The surprise electoral success of a revitalised Left Party demonstrated that more challenger parties can emerge, while rifts are growing among the populists – over issues such as Ukraine or Israel. What does stasis allied to fragmentation mean for Germany's political future? In response, the coalition government – from day one, the most unpopular in modern German history – is increasingly propped up by state power. These include tightening controls over public discourse and laws that crack down on ‘defamation' of politicians, which have led to hundreds of prosecutions over social-media posts critical of elected officials. While supporters call these measures necessary to protect democracy, critics see them as authoritarian overreach. Where is Germany heading? Some observers say this is just the beginning of a new political upheaval. Can a coalition presiding over economic decline and mired in cultural and social conflict find the solutions that help regain voter trust – or is it likely to drive more citizens into the arms of populist challengers? Will Germany regain its economic dynamism and its capacity to act as the engine of European integration or will it become a growing source of instability at the heart of Europe? And is there a danger that Germany is drifting into a new kind of authoritarianism – with ramifications domestically and throughout Europe – and if so, how can that be challenged? SPEAKERS Sabine Beppler-Spahl chair, Freiblickinstitut e.V; CEO, Sprachkunst36; Germany correspondent, spiked Dr Jochen Bittner UK correspondent, Die Zeit Professor Ulrike Guérot publisher; author; director, European Democracy Lab e.V. Katja Hoyer journalist; historian, King's College London CHAIR Bruno Waterfield Brussels correspondent, The Times

The AoI team of Geoff Kidder, Rob Lyons and Jake Weston are joined by Donald Clark, author, speaker and CEO of Wildfire Learning, to discuss the start of the knockout phase of the tournament. They reflect on Scotland's exit, England's struggles, the rise of the diaspora teams like DR Congo and Morocco, and how multiculturalism may be affecting the way fans in England enjoy the tournament.

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Sunday 19 October at Church House, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION ‘I have the feeling that this competition is going to be as important, if not more important, than the Champions League', said Chelsea manager, Enzo Maresca, after his team had won the inaugural FIFA Club World Cup. This summer's competition was intended to showcase club football from all continents of the world. But many involved in the game derided the tournament as an unnecessary addition to an already overcrowded football calendar. Saudi Arabia helped to bankroll the Club World Cup, and is fast developing into a powerhouse for club and international football. The country will host the 2034 World Cup and is planning to build 11 new futuristic stadiums. Saudi club sides are competing with top European teams to sign world-class players such as Cristiano Ronaldo, Karim Benzema and Sadio Mane. The Saudis have even greater financial muscle than the English Premier League or La Liga in Spain. On the world stage, it seems, money talks, while concerns about democracy and human rights are muted. In the UK, the fate of football clubs, big and small, is rightly considered to be of enormous importance to local communities. The response from Westminster has been the passing of the Football Governance Act into law. The Act means a government-appointed regulator will be in place to check on the health of clubs and monitor negotiations within the English football ‘pyramid'. Currently Morecambe FC and Sheffield Wednesday are on the brink due to recalcitrant owners, and many people say that the football regulator cannot come soon enough. But would such a regulator be able to save these clubs anyway? Another big change has been the rise of women's football. The Lionesses' victory in the Women's Euros 2025 will provide a big boost to the women's game in England – but it is also noticeable that the women's game is growing in both quality and audience figures. Are we entering a new age of football? Is football now conquering the globe? Or has the beautiful game finally become disconnected from its fans and roots with ever-more fanciful tournaments taking place in soulless arenas to satisfy a multi-billion-pound industry? SPEAKERS Dr Tim Black books and essays editor, spiked John McGuirk editor, Gript Media Linzi Smith hospitality manager Dr Dominic Standish writer and commentator on risk and sport; professor, University of Iowa; author, Venice in Environmental Peril? Myth and reality CHAIR Geoff Kidder director, membership and events, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Book Club

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION Jane Austen turns 250 this year, prompting the question: is one of the world's greatest female novelists still relevant? With too many BBC and Netflix adaptations to count, Fitzwilliam Darcy, Colonel Brandon, George Knightley and Austen's other love interests remain staples of romantic fiction that others continue to draw from. Some argue that Austen's female characters, while feisty and ‘knowing their own mind', were not particularly radical. Moving relatively seamlessly into the institutions they so ‘resisted', her protagonists end up falling into happy marriage – seemingly waiting for a man who can handle them. While Austen may be the pioneer of the love match, is her reverence for society's patriarchal institutions her downfall in the twenty-first century? Others point to the fact that Austen's work changed the landscape of literature completely. She was not a political feminist, nor a political activist, yet her novels developed women as complex individuals with curious minds beyond their physicality and a world beyond their roles as mothers and wives. By making the space for strong and independent women within marriage, she sparked confidence to make matches that suit the individuals, not just the social order. Some argue that Austen was a victim of her circumstance, most notably to her financial constraints and her dependence on her family. She herself did not marry, perhaps recognising the limitations on time and agency of settling down and running a household. Indeed, she was rather entrepreneurial for a woman of her time. By viewing Austen as the victim spinster, do we risk falling prey to the same shallow stereotypes of women that so many characters in her novels are railing against? How should we judge Jane Austen, more than two centuries on? Does it matter if she is read by inner-city youth or merely celebrated with Georgian-themed fancy-dress parties? Should we judge her characters by the standards of modern feminism? Are there still lessons for Austen to teach us about relationships and social norms? Or was she simply a brilliant writer, with a turn of phrase and a talent for big finales unmatched for centuries? SPEAKERS Jack Aldane host and producer, The Booking Club Emma Gilland event co-ordinator, Academy of Ideas; convener; Battle Book Club Matilda Martin trainee English teacher; tutor Cheryl Robson writer, editor and publisher, Aurora Metro Books Sarah Tucker novelist; broadcaster; columnist CHAIR Jane Sandeman founder, AoI Parents Forum; former director of finance

Lots of people are converting to Christianity and, across the country, church attendance is increasing. While the numbers vary, one survey shows the number of people attending church at least once a month is up from eight per cent in 2018 to 12 per cent in 2024. Perhaps most notably, the survey shows a quadrupling of attendance among Gen Zers, aged 18 to 24, from four per cent to 16 per cent. The story of modern society has often been told as a rise of secularism and atheism, but after the peak of new atheism in the early 2010s, trends are now reversing. From sold-out events on faith with musician Nick Cave and historian Tom Holland to a swath of new books on the place of god in society, there is public appetite for grappling with religion. Some argue that this is a ‘quiet revival' driven mainly by changing perceptions of religion and a collective search for meaning in modern societies that are increasingly individualistic and atomised. Others point to public figures like Jordan Peterson and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for whom Christianity is part of a larger project to save Western civilisation. Others still argue that there is something distinct and more therapeutic about modern forms of Christian worship – more focused on introspection and personal development than community and morality. Some believers are uneasy about these more pragmatic justifications for faith. What is the driving force of the resurgence of Christianity? Is this emerging Christianity different from its traditional forms? Is the Christian revival political, or are people searching for meaning? Are we seeing a rise of true faith, or merely cultural Christianity? Is there a difference? SPEAKERS Dolan Cummings writer and novelist; co-director, Manifesto Club Pamela Dow chief operating officer, Civic Future Simon Evans comedian; GB News and BBC TV and radio regular; presenter, BBC Radio 4's Simon Evans Goes to Market Abbot Christopher Jamison Abbot President, English Benedictine Congregation; author, Finding the Language of Grace: rediscovering transcendence Emma Trimble writer and broadcaster; fellow, New Culture Forum CHAIR Dr James Panton deputy head welfare, St Edwards School, Oxford; associate lecturer in philosophy, The Open University

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION Genocide, Holocaust, Never Again. Phrases that once conjured up only one image: the Nazis' systematic attempt to eliminate the entire Jewish people and eradicate Jewish culture, identity and future generations of Jews from the face of the earth. It was once held that the Holocaust was unique in its horror with no precedent in history. Can we confidently say this view still holds today? Today, the word ‘holocaust' is increasingly used as a free-floating catch-all to describe many geopolitical events or even general human evil. Even Auschwitz, a death camp designed for the genocide of the Jews, has been turned into an all-purpose symbol of human cruelty. The proposed Learning Centre to be built as part of the controversial Holocaust Memorial in Victoria Garden, next to Parliament, promises a ‘high-tech immersive experience', expected to last only 45 minutes, that will reference a wide range of other international atrocities, such as Rwanda and colonial-era massacres, with the aim to promote equality and diversity in general. More specifically, these terms are being applied to the war in Gaza – particularly since Hamas's attack on 7 October 2023.  Israelis are increasingly likened to Nazis, guilty of war crimes and ethnic cleansing, or settler-colonists aiming at the complete destruction and replacement of Palestinians and their culture. The United Nations, Amnesty International, Médecins Sans Frontières and countless individual governments have proclaimed a genocide in Gaza, a claim strongly denied by Israel and its supporters who condemn the veracity of these accusations and what they refer to as ‘Holocaust relativism'. In a new book, The World After Gaza, author Pankaj Mishra brings together the narratives of both the Holocaust and slavery-colonialism, arguing Nazism is simply the logical extension of colonialism. The Israeli government, according to Mishra, is guilty of both. Celebrity social-justice activist Naomi Klein wrote in the Guardian last year that we are entering a new intellectual era, one in which people are openly asking if the Holocaust should ‘be seen exclusively as a Jewish catastrophe, or something more universal'. Klein goes on to argue that perhaps the Holocaust was not ‘a unique rupture in European history' but rather ‘a homecoming of earlier colonial genocides'. What are the consequences of this ‘dejudification of the Holocaust', as Brendan O'Neill calls it in his recent book, After the Pogrom? How can the public, especially new generations, understand the true nature of this industrialised act of anti-Semitic barbarism – and to even remember that the Jews were the targets – when the Holocaust is wrenched out of its historical context? Are authors like Mishra and Klein right when they say it is this very sanctifying of the Holocaust in Western history that wilfully ignores crimes of equal magnitude, including what is happening in Gaza today? SPEAKERS Daniel Ben-Ami journalist; creator, Radicalism of Fools project on rethinking anti-Semitism; author, Ferraris for All: in defence of economic progress Naomi Gryn writer; filmmaker Samuel Rubinstein postgraduate historian and writer Dr Jake Wallis Simons author, Never Again? How the West betrayed the Jews and itself CHAIR Simon McKeon founder member, Our Fight UK; QPR season ticket holder; archivist

So the ‘King of the North' has cleared the first step in his quest to be prime minister of the UK. Andy Burnham's victory in the Makerfield by-election was certainly impressive and it looks clear that Labour will be in the midst of a leadership contest very soon. Yet Burnham rarely stuck his neck out to offer any policy alternative to Keir Starmer, merely offering a change of personnel at the top. What does that mean for his party and the country? Meanwhile, the Conservatives pulled off a victory in Aberdeen South that was almost as impressive, campaigning against shutting down North Sea oil and gas production. Clearly, there is a constituency for defending jobs and livelihoods against Net Zero policies. But will it bring any wider benefit to Kemi Badenoch and co? While Reform have, for a while, realised they wouldn't win, but they will still feel deflated that it wasn't even close, especially having done so well in the local council elections in the area. What does the result mean for the party's future and what do they need to do to win hearts and minds? The AoI's Claire Fox, Alastair Donald, Geoff Kidder and Rob Lyons got together the following day to discuss all this and more.

We've had a full week of action now and every team has made its first appearance. In this episode, the regular team of Rob Lyons, Geoff Kidder and Jake Weston are joined by special guest Denis Russell to offer a viewpoint from Ireland. The team offer their impressions of the tournament so far. Who has impressed and who has disappointed? With England winning a seemingly tricky opening match against Croatia 4-2, can the Three Lions go deep into the tournament again? As for Scotland, does a scrappy win over Haiti offer much hope for tougher matches against Morocco and Brazil? Along the way, they discuss the cost of the World Cup for fans, but also how those fans have made a real impression on the host countries. Did America know what was going to hit it? We also return to the thorny issue of VAR and the controversy over the innovation of hydration breaks, effectively turning a game of two halves into a game of four quarters. What has Ireland's reaction been after failing to qualify for the tournament? Are the Football Association of Ireland – and the Irish elites in general – more concerned with the upcoming game against Israel than with getting the national team back to qualifying for major tournaments, as they did so often in the past?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION Since 2020, the Academy of Ideas has published Letters on Liberty – a radical pamphlet series aimed at reimagining arguments for freedom today and inspiring rowdy, good-natured disagreement. In his Letter – The Freedom to Blaspheme – writer and curator Manick Govinda argues that blasphemy law has returned through the back door – with Islam, rather than Christianity, pointing the finger at heretics. From recent cases of attacks on free speech to the self-censorship of everyone from teachers to comedians, Manick argues that blasphemers are being persecuted and prosecuted across the world. While courtesy and kindness are valuable features of a free society, he writes, no religion or religious leader should be above criticism. Kowtowing to the offended, no matter how grievous the insult they may feel, weakens our liberty. Join Manick and respondents to discuss whether we should be free to criticise and mock religion. Is there a balance to be struck between tolerance of religious freedom and the right to publicly disagree with other people's faith? Has the UK brought blasphemy law back to the statute books via the notion of ‘hate crime'? And after the stabbing of Salman Rushdie, the Charlie Hebdo massacre and other Islamist attempts to censor discussion of Islam, is the problem we're dealing with a different idea of blasphemy to the days when the Life of Brian was banned? SPEAKERS Dr Piers Benn philosopher, author and lecturer Manick Govinda independent writer, commentator, mentor/arts adviser and curator Khadija Khan journalist and broadcaster; editor, A Further Inquiry; co-host, A Further Inquiry podcast John O'Brien head of communications, MCC Brussels CHAIR Rosamund Cuckston senior HR professional; co-organiser, Birmingham Salon

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION The past year has seen a flurry of announcements about military investment in Western countries. Following Trump's re-election, and his blunt demand that European countries invest more in their militaries, the EU announced €800 million of funds for defence in a package called ReArm Europe (later renamed Readiness 2030 after backlash that the package sounded too militaristic). NATO members then agreed to bump defence spending to five per cent of GDP – although some, like Spain, secured opt-outs, and members will be able to count certain infrastructure spending towards the target. Aside from Trump, the calalyst has been Russia's invasion of Ukraine and a more uncertain and dangerous geopolitical situation around the world. From clashes between India and Pakistan to continuing war in Gaza, threats from China about Taiwan, instability in the Balkans and rising tensions in South America – few deny the world is a more unstable place than it was a decade ago. The question is how Western countries should respond. Many suggest that the new period of rearmament is a necessary corrective to a longstanding vacation from geopolitical realities. In recent decades, weapons stockpiles have shrunk, armed forces have been reduced and industrial capacity has declined – to the point where few Western countries except America or Poland could sustain a serious conflict, or even a minor one. While Western states have let military spending fall down the list of priorities, newly emboldened countries like China, Turkey, the Gulf States and India have grown their armed forces. But others worry this new talk of militarism risks fanning the embers it is supposed to contain. Some joke that it could be dangerous for Germany, which has spent the postwar years being told to constrain its military, to now be encouraged to spend hundreds of billions of euros on its armed forces. Newly furnished militaries could be like Chekov's Gun – just waiting to go off. Others point to the loss of progress on arms-reduction treaties, or the dangerous rhetoric of civilisational competition. Burgeoning social-welfare commitments, skyrocketing energy prices, decades of infrastructure decay, and a lack of critical raw materials make rearmament more difficult than simply declaring a new target. But perhaps the most biting criticism is the gap between these new military ambitions and the reality at home. Western countries cannot defend their borders against illegal migration, let alone foreign adversaries. Young people profess less and less desire to identify with their country, let alone fight for it. And whatever the talk of strategic adversaries, Western countries are still dependent on Russia, China and other competitors for basic and crucial goods, from oil to batteries. Should the new talk of military rearmament be welcomed, feared or perhaps even ridiculed? When the countries comprising the West seems to be in constant tension over Ukraine, free speech or attitudes to Chinese investment, is there even a West to speak of? Is it high time to get serious about the military and prepare for war? Or do we need to cool off? SPEAKERS Dr Tim Black books and essays editor, spiked Mary Dejevsky former foreign correspondent in Moscow, Paris and Washington; special correspondent in China; writer and broadcaster Virginie Joron French member of the European Parliament, Patriots for Europe Group Tim Scott executive director, The Freedom Association Charlie Winstanley author, Bricking it: The UK Housing Crisis and the Failure of Policy; public affairs & social policy development professional CHAIR Jacob Reynolds head of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION From Yes Minister to The Thick of It, the political class has always been a go-to topic for comedians and satirists. But in a world in which political developments have become so extreme and self-satirising, is it still so easy to find laughs in the corridors of power? Regardless, politics seems to impact on how we assess comedy too. When British comedian Sam Nicoresti became the first transgender person to win the £10,000 award for Best Comedy Show at the Edinburgh Fringe, some questioned if this was more political virtue-signalling than an assessment of comedic brilliance. Nicoresti's statement added fuel to this disquiet: ‘I did this for the queers making weird art, and it's a privilege to share this moment with the first all-female line-up of award winners.' Mixing comedy and politics can be a double-edged sword. In an era of identity politics and offence culture, irreverence about political orthodoxies often collides with everything from hate-speech laws to cultural taboos, leading to cancelled shows, boycotts or social media storms. Ricky Gervais's infamous monologues mocking ‘woke' culture regularly draw ire from celebrities and media, even if loved by millions. While humour can critique politicians effectively, be an edgy way of holding power to account and even spark public debate by saying the unsayable in an engaging way, what happens if comedy itself becomes politically partisan? After all, alternative comedy's embrace of progressive, right-on, liberal orthodoxies has arguably become a ubiquitous way of squeezing out dissenting comic voices. What happens if anti-woke comedians stop making good jokes and simply ‘sing to the choir'? With the stakes seemingly higher than ever, and comedians taking robust political stances of their own, does comedy risk become simply another form of propaganda? SPEAKERS Steve N Allen broadcaster and comedian Nicholas De Santo comedian; TV journalist and commentator Leo Kearse comedian; writer, Breaking The News, Mock The Week and The Mash Report; co-creator, Hate 'n' Live Intel Lady satirist, performer CHAIR Andrew Doyle writer and comedian; author, The End of Woke: How the Culture War Went Too Far and What to Expect from the Counter-Revolution and The New Puritans

The World Cup is back – and so is the World Cup Podcast of Ideas. With the biggest-ever tournament kicking off on Thursday 11 June across the US, Mexico and Canada, we've got the team together to discuss some of the burning issues. Are we actually looking forward to it? Is 48 teams too many – or is it giving a chance to smaller nations to take their bow on the biggest stage in sport for the first time? Has FIFA gone overboard with the commercialisation? What will it be like for the fans – from high ticket prices to long journeys between matches? With relatively few fans travelling, what will that mean for the atmosphere at games? Do we really need a half-time show in the final or will that spoil the game itself? Who do we think will actually win – and who are the potential ‘dark horses', the teams that don't usually do well but have the players to go far? Can England finally win it after '60 years of hurt'? Can Scotland break out of the group stage for the first time? Who will be sporting the best kit – and the worst?  

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION The UK's infrastructure is at a crossroads. Decades of underinvestment and misdirected investment have left transport networks congested, energy systems under strain, digital connectivity patchy, sewers clogged, towns flooded, bridges crumbling and housing targets seemingly unattainable. The government promises £1.5million new homes and yet we are faced with a major slowdown in the construction industry, a situation not helped by local resistance and bureaucratic inertia. The situation is further restrained by a lack of adequate support systems like schools, colleges, hospitals, and even courts and prisons. Cost overruns on projects like HS2 erode public trust, but day-to-day staff shortages, engineering works, train cancellations and leaves on the line are what really frustrate commuters. Grenfell Tower was a national tragedy, but spending billions on recladding buildings and funding bureaucratic regulators – instead of training builders to construct sufficient, affordable homes for those in need – seems inexplicable. Planning laws, environmental concerns, over-regulation, risk aversion, litigiousness and insurance liabilities have exacerbated the problem. But what is the actual problem? To be fair, this year, Keir Starmer announced that the government would ‘push past nimbyism' to get things done. Although tangible evidence has yet to materialise, recent ministerial pledges have included the desire to streamline planning, kickstart New Towns and boost energy provision. In August, the government announced a £130million package to help create 40,000 jobs in the construction sector So maybe we are not giving credit where it's due. This government has pledged to build nine new reservoirs, expand Heathrow, construct new nuclear and small nuclear reactors, and it has recently announced a £63million investment package to supercharge Britain's electric-vehicle infrastructure. In June 2025, it laid out its ‘10 Year Strategy' for UK infrastructure, whereby the government pledges to deliver growth in roads, railways, airports, water networks, energy grids, digital and housing infrastructure in order to deliver a more productive economy. Maybe we shouldn't grumble. How believable are the government's plans? How do we balance local concerns with national housing and infrastructure needs? If we can't maintain existing networks, how can we possibly create the next generation of infrastructure, like AI networks, smart systems, modular homes, autonomous vehicles, 3D printing, drone deliveries and low-carbon energy systems? SPEAKERS Paul Finch OBE programme director, World Architecture Festival Ben Flatman architectural editor, Building Design and Building; author, Birmingham: Shaping the City Shelagh McNerney head of regeneration, Manchester City Council Christopher Worrall industry fellow, Onward; commentator on housing, planning, and political realignment

Vickrum Digwa, the killer of Henry Nowak, was convicted of murder last month. This week, the police released bodycam footage showing how Nowak was handcuffed and assumed to be the offender in a racist attack, even though he was dying from stab wounds. The fallout has been public and political outrage, and has spotlighted the way the police (and many other institutions) have formal policy to treat people differently based on their ethnicity. In that context, this debate, recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025, seems very topical on how we got to this state of affairs. ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION Over recent months, there has been a loud and vociferous debate raging in the UK about the merits or otherwise of multicultural policies. In the past,  Martin Luther King's dictum of ‘colour-blindness' was embraced by all sides politically and aspired to a multi-ethnic society that saw skin colour and ethnicity as secondary factors to unity and cohesion. More recently, institutionalised and ubiquitous state multiculturalism has instead encouraged British citizens to view each other through the prism of ethnic, religious and cultural difference. Combined with a more contemporary embrace of identity politics and critical race theory, which regards white people as inherently privileged, multiculturalism has been accused of dangerously stoking up fragmentation and division. But there are shifts that imply identity politics is now being embraced across the political spectrum. The political right, in particular, reacted against the race- and identity-based grievances associated with the Black Lives Matter movement's rise after the death of George Floyd. It rejected ‘two-tierism', justified by DEI, whether in the criminal-justice system or in hiring practices. However, more recently, increasing sections of the right have begun to embrace similar thinking, only in reverse. A newly emerging white-identitarian sentiment now frequently suggests white victimhood must be addressed by policies, arguing white people are becoming an oppressed class, while minorities are presented as a protected elite. Although the term itself is contested, critics of this emergent ‘woke right' argue it has much in common with its counterpart on the left: race essentialism and identity-based grievance. They point out that while past waves of immigration were always a source of some racial tensions; crucially, movements were created that transcended difference and encouraged mass political struggles for equality and against discrimination. Yet the slogan ‘black and white, unite and fight' – which focused on commonality of values, hopes and aspirations – seems out of sync with today's identitarian discourse espoused by both left and right. Is white identitarianism an understandable reaction to left-wing wokeism? Is it possible to go beyond mutually suspicious ethno-religious blocs, each armed with competing grievances and claims to victimhood? Is a framework of common values and beliefs – that enables us to treat all people equally, regardless of ethnicity – possible today? SPEAKERS Albie Amankona broadcaster; financial analyst; executive member, 2022 Group; champion, Next Gen Tories; general council, LGBT+ Conservatives; co-founder, Conservatives Against Racism. Chris Bayliss writer and consultant Sonya Douglas artist, poet and campaigner Tim Samuels documentary-maker; broadcaster; author Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbert director, Don't Divide Us; author, What Should Schools Teach? Disciplines, subjects and the pursuit of truth CHAIR Dr Jan Macvarish education and events director, Free Speech Union

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION Labour MP Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is still being discussed in parliament. But beyond proposals for a law change, how should we tackle one of the great debates of our time: should we set up a system of assisted death and profound questions it raises about everything from whether adults have a right to assistance to end their own life to what safeguards and protections should exist between individuals and the state when death is offered as a medical option by health professionals. Philosopher and bestselling author of Material Girls Kathleen Stock will lead a discussion raising themes in her forthcoming book Do Not Go Gentle, arguing that we should reaffirm life, rather than death and collectively, we should rage against the dying of the light. The issue throws up many moral dilemmas worth discussing: Is the status quo a ‘cruel mess,' to quote campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen? Is assisted death for those with a terminal illness, or suffering chronic pain or extreme mental distress, a progressive and compassionate choice as its supporters argue? Does it give a person more “freedom” or “control” over their lives, allow dignity in dying as it were? How should we square a patient's freedom of choice with existing frameworks of medical ethics? Will having the right to take control of your death by asking a doctor to kill you, really have broader sinister outcomes for the vulnerable, the elderly, the disabled, the suicidally depressed as its opponents warn? Is it ever possible to guard effectively against situations in which people are coerced to die, either by family members or by a state that is too often incapable of providing adequate palliative care? Or are such slippery slope arguments just a form of emotive scaremongering? How should we all approach our own or loved ones' terminal illness and death? SPEAKERS Dr Az Hakeem consultant psychiatrist and medical director, Psyche Clinic; author, Trans and Detrans Sonia Sodha columnist and broadcaster Dr Kathleen Stock columnist, UnHerd; co-director, The Lesbian Project; author, Do Not Go Gentle: The Case Against Assisted Death Professor Kevin Yuill emeritus professor of history, University of Sunderland; author, Assisted Suicide: the liberal, humanist case against legalization

The implosion of the two traditional major parties and the widespread success of Reform (and, to a lesser extent, the Greens) have been widely described as historic, a shifting of the tectonic plates of British politics. But what does last Thursday's vote mean for the present and future? The Academy of Ideas team got together in the wake of Keir Starmer's ‘speech of a lifetime' to share their post-election thoughts in a wide-ranging discussion. They also look ahead to two events: The Academy 2026, the Ideas Matter annual residential weekend of lectures and discussions, which this year is titled ‘Hollow Leviathan: the state against the demos', on 22 & 23 August. The Academy 2026 The Battle of Ideas festival, the UK's premier festival of discussion and debate, in London on 17 & 18 October. Battle of Ideas festival  

Ahead of the elections to the Scottish Parliament on Thursday 7 May, Alastair Donald and Rob Lyons talked to Dean Thomson, author of Scotland Undone: Nationalism, Dogma, and Decline in the Devolution Era. In a wide-ranging discussion, topics included: Thoughts on what will happen in the election, including the fall and rise of the SNP, the Reform UK insurgency, the decline of Labour and Conservatives The much-forgotten 'double out' voters who want to leave the UK and voted to leave the EU How devolution came about and how the SNP went from opponents to claiming it as their own The rise of the 'lanyard class' in Scotland The prospects for the future - do we need a more federal UK?  

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Sunday 19 October at Church House, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION The government suffered serious embarrassment earlier this year when its attempts to rein in Personal Independence Payments (PIP) had to be hurriedly scaled back in the face of a backbench revolt. But the scale of welfare payments today remains a huge worry – and there seems little appetite to bring this spending under control. Earlier this year, there was a furore about the scale and availability of cars through the Motability scheme, which runs a fleet of cars said to be worth £14 billion. According to the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP): ‘In 2025 to 2026 the government is forecast to spend £316.1 billion on the social security system in Great Britain. Total GB welfare spending is forecast to be 10.6% of GDP and 23.5% of the total amount the government spends in 2025 to 2026.' Of this spending, £174.9 billion goes to pensioners and £141.2 billion to children and working age adults. Going forward, an ageing population means these costs will continue to rise – and that's without the huge liabilities for public-sector pensions. Moreover, does the emphasis on state-funded welfare make sense? With millions on working-age benefits for sickness and disability, many worry that too many people are being incentivised to remain out of work. A new report by Policy Exchange, Out of Control, identifies how poor incentives and ‘concept creep' have stretched societal definitions of mental ill-health and neurodivergence so far that public services are stretched to breaking point, with costs of support spiraling to tens of billions each year.Getting people into work would make them better off, reduce the welfare bill and potentially improve the economic outlook, too. What is to be done? Are politicians prepared to have the difficult conversations, from reducing working-age entitlements to increasing the retirement age? Is the debate unnecessarily gloomy about the UK's ability to afford welfare in the future? Or will we face an abrupt financial reckoning if nothing is done? SPEAKERS Dave Clements writer and policy advisor; contributing co-editor The Future of Community Lisa McKenzie working-class academic; author, Lockdown Diaries of the Working Class Jean-André Prager senior fellow, Policy Exchange Gawain Towler former head of press, Reform UK CHAIR Rob Lyons science and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate

The war in Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz have focused attention on skyrocketing energy prices, leading to demands to encourage more output from the North Sea and causing travel chaos in Ireland. But bills were already high before this happened. This discussion with three experts, recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 at Church House in London, explains why - war or no war - we're all paying too much for energy. ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION Heating or eating? That has become a burning question for many people. From struggling households to steel works and factories, energy prices remain a hot topic. Ed Miliband's assurance that bills would fall by £300 per year looks wildly optimistic. The cost of energy bills became a major political issue when a combination of a post-pandemic resurgence of the world economy and war in Ukraine sent the price of energy in general, and natural gas in particular, shooting up. Prices have come down a lot since then, but remain higher than before. The Ofgem energy price cap for a ‘typical household' increased from £1,137 per year in January 2019 to £1,720 in July 2025 – a rise of over 50 per cent. Supporters of renewable energy argue that the UK is still at the mercy of global prices for gas because ‘gas sets the price' in the energy market, thanks to the way the ‘merit order' works for wholesale energy prices: the most expensive form of energy that is used sets the price for everything. Generally, that is gas. Get rid of fossil fuels, we are told, and we would have lower prices and less exposure to world markets. However, critics point out that the wholesale price is only part of the story. The retail price of energy includes a variety of subsidies for renewable energy that mean the actual price renewable producers receive is much higher. If renewables are really as cheap as their proponents claim, why do they need to be subsidised and why do countries that use a lot of renewables also have the highest energy bills? Will prices rise further as we use even more renewables? And if energy security is so important, why would we want to rely on intermittent energy sources like wind and solar? In this session, energy experts will explain how our energy bills remain so high and what the consequences are for household finances and the wider economy. SPEAKERS Lord Mackinlay director, The Global Warming Policy Foundation Kathryn Porter consultant, Watt-Logic David Turver energy policy analyst, Eigen Values CHAIR Rob Lyons science and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate

This debate was part of Battle of Ideas North on 7 March 2026 in Manchester. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court judgement in April 2025, in the case of For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers, was seen as a ‘landmark ruling' in clarifying the definition of a woman as based on biological sex at birth. The hope was that by clarifying the law, women's rights, including single-sex spaces, would be protected and, more broadly, gender ideology would wither on the vine.  Yet, almost a year on, many institutions have failed to stand by the definition of ‘woman' set out in the ruling, instead promoting ‘trans-inclusive culture'. They have ignored the need to provide single-sex spaces for women, and retain policies that fuel discrimination against gender-critical staff, volunteers and visitors. Is this surprising when the UK government itself seems reluctant to fully pursue implementation of the ruling? Having been in possession for months of clear recommendations from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Bridget Phillipson, the women and equalities secretary, has still to publish guidance on single-sex spaces. Similarly, the culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, has been criticised for her weak protection of women's sport. Her stance focuses on ‘including everybody' and continues to suggest that the issue of trans athletes competing alongside biological women is not clear cut. The Scottish government has been similarly tardy in implementing the ruling, even though the judgement was specifically against it. What's more, public-sector institutions, along with charities, NGOs and trade unions, seem reluctant to accept biological sex as real, and insist on an ideological commitment to trans-inclusive policies, at the expense of women. Many schools and teachers openly defy the ruling in order to support trans ideology, often acting behind parents' backs. Recently, trade unions and organisations such as the Royal College of Nursing and Unison have either openly supported action against gender-critical feminists and single-sex spaces or retreated into bureaucratic cowardice, saying action is not possible until guidance is issued. The recent victory at an employment tribunal of eight nurses from Darlington against their NHS trust bosses, who penalised them for challenging the use of the single-sex changing rooms by a trans-identifying male, is a positive. But why do workers need to resort to the courts and tribunals to ensure institutions and workplaces enforce the law? Why are governments and institutions so willing to drag their feet on implementing a ruling given by the highest court in the land? What are the consequences of this for the rule of law, even democracy? How can we rescue institutions from the capture of trans and other ideologies? What is the balance between lawfare and building a wider political movement capable of pushing through change? SPEAKERS Emma Hilton academic scientist, University of Manchester; interim chair, Sex Matters Bethany Hutchison NHS nurse Barry Wall creator, the winning mindset seminars; youtuber, Court of the EDIJester Ella Whelan co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want CHAIR Claire Fox director, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Following the vote in the House of Lords to approve the decriminalisation of women who have abortions after the legal limit of 24 weeks, the whole issue of abortion itself has once again become highly contested. In that context, this debate – recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October – is very topical.  ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION Since 2020, the Academy of Ideas has published Letters on Liberty – a radical pamphlet series aimed at reimagining arguments for freedom today and inspiring rowdy, good-natured disagreement. In her Letter – Abortion and the Freedom to Forge Our Own Fate – Ann Furedi, an author and former chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, argues that debates about abortion often focus on when human life begins in the womb. Instead, she argues that it is important to consider a different human life – that of the woman. Furedi argues that the future of a woman's pregnancy should be for her alone to decide, and this decision ought to be regarded as personal and private. There is no clearer illustration of the way choice, agency and responsibility matters than the consequences of a woman's decision about her pregnancy, she says. To prevent someone from exercising their own choice, in a personal and private matter, is to strip them of their dignity and their humanity. Most importantly, she argues, we cannot respect the principles of freedom without acknowledging the freedom of reproductive choice. However, abortion is still regulated by law and legal limits, which can lead to a clash between an individual woman's rights and policy priorities. This was vividly illustrated by the recent backlash after MPs voted to change abortion legislation to stop women in England and Wales being prosecuted for ending their pregnancy after 24 weeks. The landslide vote to decriminalise the procedure – considered the biggest change to abortion laws in England and Wales for nearly 60 years – was met with horror in some quarters and not confined to traditional anti-abortion circles. For example, even some feminists argued foetal viability creates a clash of rights. So, is abortion such a clear cut issue for women's freedom? How does a decision to continue or end a pregnancy relate to a woman's freedom to shape her own life? With abortion regulation in many US states as well as other countries becoming more restrictive, does this reflect public sentiment? If not, how should we make the case for bodily autonomy in the twenty-first century? SPEAKERS Dr Piers Benn philosopher, author and lecturer Ann Furedi author, The Moral Case for Abortion; former chief executive, BPAS Margo Martin PhD student, Aberystwth University Jacob Phillips professor of systematic theology, St Mary's University, Twickenham; author, Obedience is Freedom CHAIR Ella Whelan co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

With the war in Iran leading to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, preventing or restricting oil and gas being exported from many of the Gulf states, the UK's energy policy has come to the fore once more. Proponents of renewables claim that a rapid shift to homegrown wind and solar power will spare us from the volatility of international supplies of fossil fuels. Critics argue the UK will need oil and gas for decades to come, but we can produce more, either in the North Sea or by fracking on land. This debate from the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 is, therefore, highly topical. Where should future energy policy go? ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION In June 2019, the Conservative government amended the Climate Change Act to insert a target of ‘net zero' emissions by 2050. At the 2024 General Election, all the major political parties, with the exception of Reform, promised to back the goal, with any differences being about when to implement various policies, such as gas-boiler and petrol-car bans. Reform is well ahead in the opinion polls, and calling for the end of Net Zero and the resumption of fracking. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has said: ‘We've got to stop pretending to the next generation… Net Zero by 2050 is impossible.' Is Net Zero gradually being ditched? For proponents of the policy, climate change remains a clear and present danger. The energy and climate change secretary, Ed Miliband declared in May that Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are still backing Net Zero: ‘It's absolutely central to their economic growth and energy security, as well as climate agenda … So as far as I'm concerned, they are 100% committed to this agenda.' Labour has stopped new licences for gas and oil production in the North Sea and is committed to expanding renewable energy, with Miliband claiming: ‘People recognise that cheap, clean renewables beat expensive, insecure fossil fuels.' But fuel bills haven't fallen as the gas-price crisis of 2022 has faded. UK energy prices remain high by international standards, despite (or because of) the expansion of renewables, something highlighted by the need to rescue Scunthorpe steelworks. In June, it was reported that the government was planning to subsidise energy costs for energy-intensive industries. Sky News reported that in 2023, British businesses paid £258 per megawatt-hour for electricity compared to £178 in France and £177 in Germany, according to International Energy Agency data. Will the Net Zero consensus break down further – and should it? At a time when China's greenhouse gas emissions dwarf those of the UK and are still rising, does it make economic or environmental sense to decarbonise? Or does the threat of climate change demand that the UK takes a lead and we accept lower living standards to save the planet? SPEAKERS Jonny Ball contributing editor, UnHerd Dr Caspar Hewett lecturer, School of Engineering, Newcastle University; co-director, NERC FLOOD-CDT; director, The Great Debate Ruari McCallion freelance writer Ali Miraj broadcaster; founder, the Contrarian Prize; infrastructure financier; DJ Kathryn Porter consultant, Watt-Logic CHAIR Austin Williams director, Future Cities Project; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China's Urban Revolution

Recorded at Battle of Ideas North on Saturday 7 March 2026 at Pendulum Hotel, Manchester. ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION From immigration to an aging population, the UK has been experiencing rapid demographic change just as many mainstays of community life – such as pubs, churches, community centres and trade unions – are in rapid decline. Consequently, while individuals share a common geographic space they seem to live parallel lives, lacking any shared outlook, values and, in some cases, shared language. As Keir Starmer stated (but later disowned), ‘in a diverse nation like ours… we risk becoming an island of strangers'. One consequence is that communities often seem about to implode. Many bemoan how once-feted towns have been replaced by low-grade sprawl. High streets now display the so-called ‘Yookay' aesthetics of globally disparate food outlets, proliferating vape shops and barber shops of dubious legality. Young women fear for their safety amidst a series of random – and in the case of grooming gangs, organised – sexually motivated attacks. Housing illegal migrants within local communities has fuelled protests and counter-protests outside asylum hotels. British Muslim communities feel they are under threat from the backlash, especially after the 2024 Southport riots. What are the prospects then for uniting communities? Or is this fragmentation one key component of why so many feel Britain is broken? Failing communities once looked to political leadership or the state to help overcome problems. Yet as local elections approach, many worry that elected leaders will reflect and reinforce political and religious sectarian divides rather than overcome them. The police's reputation is also tarnished. For example, the police failed to investigate grooming gangs for fear of being accused of racism. More recently, West Midlands Police were caught favouring vocal sectarian minorities over the wider interests of local communities when excluding Jewish Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from a football match in Birmingham. Meanwhile, local councils seem to entrench divides. When locals hung British and St George's flags in local streets, rather than recognise the prospects for uniting communities around patriotic pride, officials tore down flags while labelling flaggers as ‘racist' and ‘far-right' for wanting to celebrate their towns and traditions. Who and what should shoulder the blame for the many recent failures? How do we create the places and communities that work for all that live there and which commit to common norms? Given cultural sensitivities and institutional failure to investigate the likes of grooming gangs, what are the prospects of the state finally getting a grip? And given the seeming drift to sectarian political divides, where pride in our communities and the nation is frowned upon rather than celebrated, how can we replace the ‘island of strangers' and instead strengthen community and belonging? SPEAKERS Dr Remi Adekoya lecturer of politics, University of York; author It's Not About Whiteness, It's About Wealth and Biracial Britain Ada Akpala writer and commentator Lisa McKenzie working-class academic; author, Lockdown Diaries of the Working Class Graham Stringer MP member of parliament, Blackley and Middleton South CHAIR Ella Whelan co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

This is an extract from the Academy of Ideas Economy Forum discussion 'After Greenland: understanding the new geopolitics', which took place on Tuesday 24 February 2026. Here, economist and author Phil Mullan offers his analysis of what the Greenland affair tells us about the present and future of international politics. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION President Trump's insistence that the US must take control of Greenland has caused a furore, particularly among America's NATO allies. Many are scratching their heads about why Trump went in so hard – including threatening new tariffs and even military action against America's supposed friends on the world stage. After all, the US already has the power to station troops and weapons systems in Greenland thanks to a decades-old treaty. Just weeks after the capture of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, the Greenland controversy was widely seen as the assertion of a ‘Don-roe doctrine', with America asserting itself in its own ‘backyard'. One thing for sure is that the notion of a ‘rules-based international order' – more convention than reality – has not been called into question as much in decades. Trump's over-riding concern seems to be China as an international rival. The Chinese government continues to demand control over Taiwan and has been marking out a zone of influence in the South China Sea and elsewhere. Meanwhile, Russia's invasion of Ukraine was viewed by many as the return of Great Power politics. Signs that Trump is more interested in settling the conflict than in supporting Ukrainian sovereignty only strengthen that belief. How can we understand these new developments? Is this a sign of American strength or weakness? Is the world going to be divided into rival regional power blocs? With Europe now unable to assert itself, will it be marginalised now? Is there any chance of a new, stable international settlement? SPEAKER Phil Mullan writer, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster. Victory for the Greens in the Gorton & Denton by-election is the latest sign that old political loyalties have broken down. In what was, even as recently as the 2024 General Election, a very safe Labour seat, Hannah Spencer was elected with a majority of over 4,000. Reform came second, pushing Labour into an embarrassing third place while the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats both lost their deposits. Indeed, the three mainstream parties that have governed the UK for over 100 years managed less than 30 per cent of the vote between them.  What does all this mean for the future of British politics? ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION Are the mainstream parties facing extinction or can they bounce back by the time of the next General Election in 2029? Can the Tories recover from 14 years of misrule? Will the Labour Party survive from its current economic woes? Will the political vacuum be filled by Ed Davey's Liberal Democrats or the ‘challenger' parties like Reform or the Greens? Take the Conservative Party: the oldest party in the world currently looks as if it is facing electoral wipeout. In a recent survey, 42 per cent of Conservative voters in the 2024 General Election said that even they wouldn't vote for them. The party that squandered Brexit is desperately looking around for a purpose. Some Tories believe that Robert Jenrick poses a more credible alternative than the current leader, Kemi Badenoch. But are they both fighting for a hopeless cause? Jenrick's crime-fighting TikTok videos and Badenoch's recent support of oil exploration got lots of media coverage, but Net Zero and the current failed model of policing were both introduced on their watch. Are they going back to their roots – if they can remember what those roots are – or are they simply mimicking Trump and Farage's agendas from the sidelines? Meanwhile, Labour seems to be imploding. A recent Ipsos poll ranked the current UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, as the most unpopular leader in modern times. In July 2024, his government won almost two-thirds of all seats, with a 174 majority in the Commons, yet a year later it is collapsing in the polls. The government has presided over cuts and tax rises, strikes and bailouts, two-tier justice and a zero-growth economy. The idea that if you pinned a red rosette on a donkey in Wales, it'd get elected no longer holds true. Far from ‘smashing the gangs', the immigration scandal that Labour inherited from the Tories means it is haemorrhaging support in Red Wall seats. Preferring Davos over Westminster, Starmer seems to prefer hob-nobbing with world leaders while taking British democracy for granted. Yet the death of both Labour and the Conservatives has been declared numerous times before, only for them to revive. Is it too soon to count them out? Is Britain's political map being redrawn, or torn up? Might proportional representation reinvigorate the mainstream parties? Must we wait for four more years? We'll take a vote on it. SPEAKERS Rosie Duffield MP member of parliament for Canterbury Dr Richard Johnson writer; senior lecturer in politics, Queen Mary University of London; co-author, Keeping the Red Flag Flying: The Labour Party in Opposition since 1922 Mark Littlewood director, Popular Conservatism; broadcaster, columnist, the Telegraph and the Mail Tim Montgomerie conservative journalist; founder, ConservativeHome, UnHerd and Centre for Social Justice Graham Stringer MP member of parliament, Blackley and Middleton South CHAIR Bruno Waterfield Brussels correspondent, The Times

Debate recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House, Westminster. This week, Reform's Suella Braverman declared that if the party were elected to government it would 'repeal the Equality Act, because we are going to work to build a country defined by meritocracy not tokenism, personal responsibility not victimhood, excellence not mediocrity, and unity not division'. In response, Prime Minister Keir Starmer told the BBC that the Act represented 'basic values, one of which is should women be treated equally with men... I think it actually rips up something that goes to who we are as a country because I believe passionately that to be tolerant, compassionate and diverse is what it is to be British'. What has been the impact of the Equality Act on British workplaces? ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION The British workplace is now too often a toxic environment, a hotbed of grievance culture, lawfare and an ever-expanding number of disciplinary codes unrelated to the nature of specific jobs. Over the past year, there's been a 23 per cent rise in cases at employment tribunals and a two-year waiting list, due to a growing backlog, with workplace conflicts estimated to now cost businesses £28.5 billion annually. How did this come about? The UK is a world leader in human relations (HR). With over half a million HR workers – almost double the number of 15 years ago – Britain stands second in the global league table for size of HR sector as a share of all occupations. Over seven in 10 FTSE 100 companies now boast a ‘chief HR officer' on their executive committee, reflecting the elevated status of this newfound ‘profession'. We might expect this might lead to happier more productive workers, fewer grievances and higher job retention. Yet the growth of the HR industrial complex doesn't appear to have led to better workplace outcomes or harmony. Arguably, HR is as much the problem as the solution. HR departments – until recently humdrum administrative hubs managing payrolls, processing sick notes and checking firms complied with employment law – have now morphed into real centres of power. They are the enforcers of workplace orthodoxies, controlling what workers can say or do, who keeps their job, and even shaping corporate missions. For example, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) is charged with versing workers in new values, from DEI literacy to managing emotional security. What's more, the traditional defenders of workers' rights – trade unions – are increasingly acting in lockstep with HR managers' priorities. A recent paper by the Free Speech Union, Shopped Stewards, revealed the divisive nature of union bureaucrats' adherence to identity politics, which means they often side with the DEI initiatives of their employers, as opposed to defending their members' rights. For example, teacher Simon Pearson was fired by Preston College after a complaint from a Muslim representative of the National Education Union (NEU). Pearson was accused of being ‘Islamophobic' and ‘racially discriminatory' for social-media posts, such as saying Lucy Connolly ‘should not have been jailed'. Another report suggests that specific legislation has led to a deterioration in workplace relations. The Don't Divide Us report, The Equality Act Isn't Working, reveals the ‘expansionary logic' of the Equality Act 2010 has provided the legal scaffolding that supports a surge in (largely unsuccessful) workplace race–discrimination claims. This, DDU argues, contributes to a grievance culture where people resort to ‘lawfare' to resolve ‘petty disputes and imagined slights', while empowering thin-skinned employees to wilfully misinterpret perfectly innocent comments or interactions. Can the workplace be detoxified? How can we tame the HR monster? Can trade unions return to a ‘one for all, all for one' role of protecting workers' rights? Can laws that are divisive in workplaces be reined in? SPEAKERS Pamela Dow chief operating officer, Civic Future Paul Embery firefighter; trade unionist; author, Despised: why the modern Left loathes the working class; broadcaster Maya Forstater chief executive, Sex Matters Dr Anna Loutfi employment and human rights barrister; advisory council member, Don't Divide Us CHAIR Para Mullan former operations director, EY-Seren; fellow, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development

A debate recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival at Church House, Westminster on Saturday 18 October 2025. ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION In recent years, Britain has been rocked by several scandals where the public has been kept in the dark. Politicians and the authorities have indulged in obfuscation, denial, cover-ups and even possible collusion – all to avoid accountability or admit responsibility.  As with previous scandals, it's often been grassroots campaigners, victims' groups and courageous journalists who have brought these issues to public attention. What was it like being a key player on the frontline of history in three of these recent scandals: rape gangs, the Post Office miscarriages of justice and gender self-ID in Scotland?  Journalists Charlie Peters and Nick Wallis, and Susan Smith from campaign group For Women Scotland, tell their stories of activism, investigation and holding truth to power. GB News reporter Charlie Peters, presenter of the 2023 documentary, Grooming Gangs: Britain's Shame, has called it ‘the worst race-hate scandal and abuse scandal since the Second World War'.  Meanwhile, Conservative MP Nick Timothy, writing in response to Sir Keir Starmer's announcement that he would – at last – commission a national inquiry on the back of recommendations in Baroness Casey's National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (2025), stated: ‘Rape gangs are the biggest scandal of our generation.' The Post Office Horizon IT scandal stands out as another one of the UK's most significant miscarriages of justice. Faulty accounting software developed by Fujitsu led to the Post Office prosecuting over 900 subpostmasters for theft, fraud or false accounting, resulting in wrongful convictions, bankruptcies, imprisonments and even suicides. Nick Wallis, a freelance journalist, broadcaster and author, has been one of the leading figures in exposing and chronicling the scandal. For Women Scotland (FWS) is a women's rights advocacy group that was set up in 2018 to oppose the SNP's attempts to force gender self-identification through Holyrood. Even when the Gender Recognition Reform Bill was blocked by the Tory UK government, the then first minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, continued to defend the policy.  In a car-crash press conference, she famously refused to say whether double-rapist Adam Graham/Isla Bryson, who was initially sent to a female jail, was a man or a woman. The scandal caused a huge public outcry and has been partially blamed for Sturgeon's sudden resignation a few months later. The furore also forged For Women Scotland into a formidable campaign group that eventually won a famous victory in clarifying equality law at the Supreme Court. These scandals are only three of the many that have shocked our nation, alongside the Grenfell Tower fire, the Hillsborough tragedy, the infected-blood scandal and more.  Are such scandals simply a feature of modern Britain? Do they, as many argue, implicate the state itself as negligent, incompetent and mired in the tendency to cover-up and collude? What can we learn from these brave journalists and campaigners who have stood at the frontline, challenged politicians and the authorities, and held them to account? SPEAKERS Charlie Peters GB News national reporter Susan Smith co-director, For Women Scotland; director, Beira's Place; contributor, The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht Nick Wallis journalist, presenter, BBC Radio 4 series The Great Post Office Trial CHAIR Claire Fox director, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Recording of a debate at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House, London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION One consequence of Donald Trump's trade war with China has been increasing attention to a group of minerals called ‘rare earths'. Rare earths are vital to the production of everything from smartphones and electric vehicles to wind turbines and advanced weapons. Despite the name, rare earths are not particularly rare. For example, cerium is more abundant in the earth's crust than copper. But they are spread thinly as trace impurities, so to obtain usable rare earths requires processing enormous amounts of raw ore at great expense – and with considerable environmental impacts. China has been willing to massively subsidise this process to support its own industries while keeping the price low, making the processing of ore uneconomic elsewhere in the world. The potential geopolitical consequences are obvious: China's rivals are currently utterly dependent on it. Years ago, China secured a significant proportion – almost a monopoly – of excavated rare earths in Venezuela, Brazil and other parts of South America and has now imposed export controls on many rare earth elements in response to Trump's tariffs. China is responsible for 60 per cent of all rare earths mined but, more importantly, it controls the processing of 90 per cent of all global refined rare earth output. Given that US is reliant on production plants in in China/Taiwan for its computer chips, it was slow to respond to the geopolitical power shift. China has already flexed its muscles in this regard, having banned exports of rare earths to Japan in 2010 over a fishing dispute (subsequently overturned by the World Trade Organisation) and has imposed export restrictions on the US since 2023. In May, Ford had to stop production at a car plant in Chicago because of the shortage of magnets made with rare earths. China has also placed an export ban on the technologies used to extract and separate rare earths. A desire to open up access to these metals was said to be a major feature of Trump's negotiations around Russia's invasion of Ukraine. After Zelensky's painful ambush in the White House, Trump quickly concluded a deal allowing the US access to Ukraine's natural resources, especially the coveted rare earths. Some have also suggested that claiming these metals is one of the aims of Russia's war. What should the rest of the world do about China's monopoly? Is it feasible to create alternative sources of supply – and what would it cost? Can innovation reduce the need for rare earths – or can recycling save the day? What does it all mean for the direction of geopolitics? SPEAKERS Robert Fig partner, the metals risk team Animesh Jha professor, applied material science Henry Sanderson journalist; author, Volt Rush, the Winners and Losers in the Race to Go Green CHAIR Austin Williams director, Future Cities Project; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China's Urban Revolution

The Academy of Ideas team – Alastair Donald, Claire Fox, Rob Lyons and Jacob Reynolds – discuss the immediate fallout after President Trump's decision to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Why did Trump act? Is it about narcotics, oil, democracy or his desire to create a 'Don-roe doctrine' of US dominance in the Americas? What has been the role of domestic politics – is this the culture wars by other means? For those who believe in that sovereignty is a vital right for nation states, should we make an exception here given the appalling nature of Maduro's regime or must sovereignty be defended at all times? What's left of the 'rules-based international order' when Trump is not only intervening in Venezuela but threatening Denmark's control of Greenland, too? Will the reaction against Trump's actions weaken the hand of populist forces elsewhere?

In a wide-ranging interview, Andrew Doyle talks to Claire Fox about his new book, The End of Woke and why there is much still to be done to defend freedom.   Andrew notes that while some things have shifted in recent months – from the Cass Review and the UK Supreme Court judgement on the meaning of ‘sex' in the Equality Act to the start of Donald Trump's second presidential term – it doesn't mean that our problems are over. The ‘new puritans' he identified in his previous book are still very much there and clinging on to their power and influence.   It's now five years since the death of George Floyd and the hysteria around Black Lives Matter. Claire and Andrew reflect on what the hell happened and the dangers that arise from a re-racialisation of society. They also look at how identity politics and racial thinking has led to a white grievance culture and a tit-for-tat outlook, which Andrew argues has more to do with revenge than with promoting a liberal society.    Above all, the conversation focuses on the continued importance of the fight for free speech, even for 'cosplay' rebels like Irish rappers Kneecap. And they tackle the way in which woke has undermined the search for truth: when even something as common sense as biological sex is called into question, then anything goes – and society suffers.

Dave Clements is a policy adviser, writer, and parent of a child diagnosed with ADHD and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Despite a longstanding scepticism about the claims made about the increase in these and other similar conditions, since becoming a father he has been forced to question his views. Clements describes his son's condition as something that ‘runs through him like a stick of rock'. ASD, in particular, can have a profound effect on children and their families. And yet, as Dave tells us in his forthcoming book, there seems to be something else going on, too. He is struck by the record numbers of pupils being labelled as ‘neurodiverse', having special educational needs (SEN) or struggling with anxiety and attendance issues. Do we know what normal is anymore, he asks? The book is less about providing answers than posing uncomfortable questions. Are we in danger of making identities out of disorders? Why do some parents appear oddly eager that their children be labelled neurodiverse? Has SEN become a hold-all category for too many different kinds of issues and conditions, and thus an unhelpful term? At a time when schools struggle to fund SEN provision, is a growing ‘awareness' of neurodiverse, and other similar conditions, part of the problem or the solution? Are there other reasons for the increasing rates of referral and diagnosis, and for rising numbers of children needing support in class? As the SEN agenda becomes a greater part of the school experience, is teacher autonomy being undermined by the expectation that they follow scripts produced by SENCOs and SEN departments for some pupils and lessons? How are mainstream schools expected to cope with students who are unable to regulate themselves against sudden, intense, and uncontrolled expressions of emotion or aggression? Instead of experts being brought in to teach teachers how to teach pupils with neurodiverse conditions or other special educational needs – wouldn't it be better if experts taught these kids in specialist schools? Or is the problem of inclusion, and the variety and nature of the needs children bring to the classroom, more complicated than that? SPEAKER Dave Clements writer and policy adviser; contributing co-editor, The Future of Community

Claire Fox sits down with Jasleen Chaggar of Big Brother Watch and author Timandra Harkness to talk about the latest attack on our privacy. The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill does not sound like the kind of legislation that will set your pulse racing. But one part of it in particular should be more widely known and the cause of great concern: the new eligibility verification powers for welfare recipients. Essentially, if the Bill passes, the government will be able to demand that banks trawl through the accounts of anyone receiving welfare benefits and use algorithms to flag up any possible fraud or erroneous payments. The government already has the power to see bank statements from those who are suspected of welfare fraud, but these new powers go much further, automating these checks on any account receiving welfare payments AND any linked accounts, too. This is guilty-until-proven-innocent stuff. The civil liberties implications are very serious.

Recording of the introductory remarks at the Academy of Ideas Economy Forum on 20 March 2025. Ever since the great financial crisis of 2008, growth in Britain – both in terms of GDP and living standards – has stagnated. While the Covid pandemic and lockdowns didn't help, the problems of the UK economy (indeed, most Western developed economies) are longstanding. What has gone wrong? Labour has promised a return to growth, yet the new government has already announced big hikes in taxes like employers' National Insurance, while promising billions in investment into decarbonising the electricity grid and imposing regulations on everyone from car manufacturers to house builders. Unsurprisingly, the economy only just avoided a technical recession in the second half of last year and GDP per capita has fallen. For Lord Jon Moynihan, author of the recent two-volume Return to Growth: How to Fix the Economy, the blame lies with high levels of taxation and government spending – particularly spending on growth-stifling projects and programmes. In advance of the latest forecasts from the Office for Budgetary Responsibility and Rachel Reeves's spring statement, what should we do to revive the economy?

Next week, the Football Governance Bill will go to Report Stage in the House of Lords. While it will then go to the House of Commons, the debates in the House of Lords are a chance to amend a piece of legislation that threatens to damage English football in ways that. as yet, are not getting enough attention. The introduction of an Independent Football Regulator (IFR) has become a controversial subject as the realities are becoming clearer, and unintended consequences are dawning on more and more football owners, managers and fans.  So, to help you to see what all the fuss is about, Liverpool fan Alastair Donald brought together our own Geoff Kidder and QPR season-ticket holder Simon McKeon alongside – hot from the Lords front line debating the legislation – Claire Fox, and two of the most vocal speakers on the topic: Baroness (Natalie) Evans of Bowes Park and Lord (Nick) Markham.

Claire Fox talks to Sall Grover and Katherine Deves about their fight in Australia to reassert in law that a woman is an adult human female. Sall Grover is the founder of the female-only app, Giggle for Girls and Katherine Deves is one of her legal team. Both have been visiting the UK from Australia to get support for their appeal of an important test-case decision on the definition of ‘woman', which Sall lost last year. It all began when then 54-year-old biological male Roxanne Tickle from New South Wales, who identifies as a woman, complained to the Australian Human Rights Commission when moderators withdrew his access to Giggle for Girls, because - well, to state the obvious - the app is exclusively for women. However, when the subsequent case (known as Tickle v Giggle) was tried at the Federal Court, Justice Robert Bromwich concluded that, according to Australian law, sex is ‘changeable and not necessarily binary'. The ruling effectively eradicated the category of sex in law. The decision set a dangerous legal precedent with international implications, summed up by Jo Bartosch's headline at the time: ‘Australia has abolished womanhood'.  They talk about the case, the pros and cons of facial recognition (which the app used to determine who was a woman and who wasn't), lawfare, the #MeToo movement and how human rights NGOs have become enmeshed in trans ideology. They also discuss the real-world impact of this trend for the likes of Scottish nurse Sandie Peggie, who was suspended from Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy, Fife, in January 2024 after she objected to Dr ‘Beth' Upton (Theodore Upton) - who identifies as a woman but is a biological male - using the female staff changing facilities.

In the wake of the huge farmers' protest in London on 10 February, Rob Lyons talks to two Cumbrian farmers, John Shaw and Richard Kerr, along with their accountant Paul Benson, about the state of farming in the UK today. Why farmers are so angry about the Labour government's inheritance tax changes The existing difficulties with making a good living from farming, particularly the power of supermarkets Why it is unfair to blame sheep and cattle farmers for climate change The failure of many politicians to understand why a farm is more than just a business Why, despite all the difficulties, they continue to want to farm - if the government will let them.

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION In many areas of life, an explosion of diagnostic labels seem to have expanded far beyond straightforward medical prognosis. Medicine seems to have become tangled up with fashionable identities, and a zeitgeist that stresses vulnerability and victimhood. How do such trends affect medical ethics, let alone reliable medical interventions? One such example is the jokey aphorism ‘we're all neurodiverse now' – from the lawyer of the QAnon Shaman blaming his client's behaviour on his autism to rising diagnoses among students. In workplaces and university campuses, neurodiversity awareness is ubiquitous, with more and more people identifying as ‘on the spectrum'. According to some estimates, as many as 20 per cent of the global population are neurodivergent, spanning everything from severe autism to dyslexia and ADHD. Particularly among women, there has been a sharp increase in ADHD diagnoses in the last year, with record numbers of prescriptions for ADHD medicine in 2024 – the UK is in fact suffering from an ADHD medicine shortage because of increased demand. Elsewhere, there is contention over the explosion of young people who self-identity as gender dysphoric. A readiness to accept social transitioning in what has been described as social contagion amongst teenage girls has led to the conclusion that anyone declaring themselves gender-confused is in need of medical intervention, whether psychotherapeutic, biomedical or surgical. Advocates of transgender medicine argue against medical ‘gatekeeping', demanding access to hormones and surgery as part of a patient's bodily autonomy. However, some mental-health practitioners in the UK and US have testified that they face ideological pressure to put dysphoric patients on a medical pathway. In a 2021 study, 55 detransitioners of a group of 100 stated that they were not given an adequate professional evaluation before receiving clearance for medical transition. What's more, some gender-critical commentators suggest that there is pressure to misdiagnose the confusions of puberty, same-sex attraction and broader mental-health issues as simply gender dysphoria. Central to the debate is the premise that doctors, nurses and therapists are obliged to act in a patient's best interests. But is it always clear what these interests are? Should individuals and their families get the final say? Is the rise in diagnoses due to an actual rise in numbers, expanding definitions, or clinicians and therapists getting better at identifying symptoms? Or are we over-diagnosing the likes of neurodiversity and gender-dysphoria, even pathologising behaviour which in the past may have been described as shy, socially awkward or perhaps a bit quirky? Do medical diagnoses help people understand their difficulties in interacting with the world by giving them a vocabulary and practical accommodations that help manage and alleviate debilitating discomforts? And what are the implications for medical ethics and health policy, when diagnoses have become so closely linked to understanding our identities? SPEAKERS Dave Clements writer and policy advisor; contributing co-editor The Future of Community Dr Jennifer Cunningham retired community paediatrician; board member, Scottish Union for Education (SUE) Dr Az Hakeem consulting psychiatrist; author, Trans and Detrans Sophie Spital speaker; writer; former editor, Triggernometry CHAIR Sally Millard director of finance; co-founder, AoI Parents Forum

On the fifth anniversary of Brexit, listen to this debate recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION In July, on the eve of the General Election, Keir Starmer was asked if he could foresee ‘any circumstances' in which the UK would rejoin the EU's single market ‘in his life'. His response was an emphatic ‘no'. Yet it is clear that Labour wants to ‘reset' the UK's relations with Europe. Reports in July suggested the German government wants to expand Starmer's offer of security cooperation into a ‘mega-deal' that encompasses everything from agricultural rules to the Erasmus student exchange programme. In the period after the UK left the EU, there were considerable difficulties for many businesses in working out how to trade with the EU, despite a deal that largely dispensed with tariffs on goods. Many difficulties remain – particularly with Northern Ireland's status, having a foot in both the EU and the UK markets. Many commentators believe leaving the single market was a mistake that is hitting the UK's economic growth. But others believe that Brexit has had little impact on the economy. The UK's economic problems are longstanding, they argue, and have much more to do with a lack of investment and slow productivity growth than with our trading relations with the EU. The pandemic lockdowns and the energy-price crisis were much more important ‘headwinds' than Brexit. Others believe recent UK administrations have failed to take full advantage of the post-Brexit freedoms to deregulate and pursue other national economic policy opportunities. Moreover, recent UK GDP figures compare favourably with similar countries – Germany, France and Italy – in the EU. Indeed, former European Central Bank boss Mario Draghi has admitted to having ‘nightmares' over Europe's lack of competitiveness and future economic prospects. And there are persistent concerns about being in the single market without being in the EU – that the UK would end up being a ‘rule taker' rather than a ‘rule maker' – while being obliged to accept free movement. How far can Starmer go in forging closer ties with the EU when there is little appetite for reviving the debate about Brexit? Has leaving the single market been an economic disaster as some claim? Or is this yesterday's news, distracting us from the policies we need at home to revive the economy? SPEAKERS Catherine McBride economist; fellow, Centre for Brexit Policy Ali Miraj broadcaster; founder, the Contrarian Prize; infrastructure financier; DJ Dr Thomas Sampson associate professor, LSE; associate in Trade programme, Centre for Economic Performance Gawain Towler former head of press, Reform UK CHAIR Phil Mullan writer, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION Smartphones have become almost ubiquitous in modern society. The rise of social-media services, which have billions of users worldwide, has gone hand in hand with the use of smartphones. Few technologies have seen such rapid adoption. With concerns about several social problems coming to the fore in recent years, a variety of commentators have pointed to this new technology as an important cause. But in this case, does correlation really equal causation? One problem is how we discuss social and political issues. Social media has democratised political debate. But that debate seems increasingly polarised and toxic, with social media being blamed by many for the summer riots in the UK and Elon Musk being the target of hatred from some for his relatively liberal approach to posts on X/Twitter. The rise of AI, particularly the ease of making ‘deep fakes', has complicated matters further, making it harder for voters to figure out what candidates really believe or potentially stirring up conflict – as illustrated by fake audio of London's mayor, Sadiq Khan, earlier this year. There are also worries – most prominently expressed by Professor Jonathan Haidt – that spending so much time looking at devices has damaged children's mental health, sense of independence and concentration spans. High-profile head teacher Katherine Birbalsingh has caused controversy by banning smartphones from the classrooms at Michaela School in London, a trend now mirrored in state-wide bans on smartphones in schools in some parts of America. But do such concerns over-inflate the importance of technology? For example, one worry is the decline of children's independent play and travel – but this has been a trend for decades in much of the West, leading to debates about ‘cotton wool' kids. Haidt himself has pointed to this as part of the problem. Declining mental health, for children and adults, has also been a concern for many years, but how much of it is new and how much is a result of expanding definitions of mental illness is unclear. Is new technology really responsible for these social trends – or is it mere coincidence? What else might explain these changes – and what should we do about to tackle such problems? SPEAKERS Lord James Bethell former health minister; member, House of Lords Andrew Doyle presenter, Free Speech Nation, GB News; writer and comedian; author, The New Puritans and Free Speech and Why It Matters Timandra Harkness journalist, writer and broadcaster; author, Technology is Not the Problem and Big Data: does size matter?; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree Sandy Starr deputy director, Progress Educational Trust; author, AI: Separating Man from Machine CHAIR Rob Lyons science and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION With concerns growing about potential blackouts on cold winter evenings with little wind, listen to this debate on what is happening to UK energy, particularly with the arrival of the new Labour government. The Labour government has set out an ambitious goal to decarbonise the UK's electricity supply by 2030. Labour's plan includes prioritising renewable energy sources like wind and solar power while reducing the nation's dependence on fossil fuels. In line with this, the government has indicated it may halt new licences for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. The government also announced the creation of Great British Energy, a publicly funded body to invest in renewable energy. The energy secretary, Ed Miliband, claims these measures will make the UK's electricity supply greener, more secure and cheaper. However, there are plenty of commentators warning about the feasibility and impact of this strategy. Renewable energy, while crucial to achieving decarbonisation, is notoriously unpredictable. The sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow, leading to concerns about the reliability of the energy supply – unless renewables are backed up in some way, whether by gas-powered plants, rising imports or expensive storage. Far from being cheaper than fossil fuels, critics note, renewable energy continues to need substantial subsidies, which are even more glaring as the price of gas has returned to more normal levels following the energy-price crisis of recent years. Moreover, most of the UK's nuclear power stations, which have long provided a steady and reliable source of low-carbon electricity, are set to close between 2026 and 2030. Replacements for them are still a long way off, with Hinkley Point C years behind target and Sizewell C still tied up in paperwork and court cases. The previous government's plan to produce 24 gigawatts (GW) of power from nuclear sources by 2050 – up from 6 GW now – seems increasingly over-optimistic. Indeed, Labour already seems to be getting cold feet on a proposed nuclear-power plant in north Wales. Will Labour's energy strategy lead to a cheaper, more secure electricity supply, as it claims? Or are we on the brink of an energy crisis, with higher costs and increased vulnerability to blackouts? Are higher bills a price worth paying to tackle climate change or, when global emissions are still climbing, a pointless sacrifice of British jobs and living standards? SPEAKERS Dr Shahrar Ali former deputy leader, Green Party Lord David Frost member of the House of Lords Prof Dr Michaela Kendall CEO, Adelan; UK Hydrogen Champion for Mission Innovation, UK Government James Woudhuysen visiting professor, forecasting and innovation, London South Bank University CHAIR Rob Lyons science and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate  

Recording of an Academy of Ideas debate on Tuesday 26 November 2024 via Zoom. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION With Parliament about to vote on the issue for the first time since 2015, join us for a discussion on the rights and wrongs of legalisation. The House of Commons will vote on Labour MP Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on 29 November. The Bill claims to ‘allow adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life', although there have been complaints publishing the full text of the Bill. While assisted suicide is currently illegal in the UK, the proposed legislation would make an exception on request for patients with six months left to live, with permission from medical professionals. Leadbeater presents assisted suicide as a matter of free choice and dignity, and argues that those without the option will take the situation into their own hands, causing unnecessary distress for those around them. However, there are doubts – including from the health secretary, Wes Streeting – that the bill will guard effectively against situations in which people are coerced to die, either by family members or by a state that is too often incapable of providing adequate palliative care. In the US state of Oregon, whose Death With Dignity Act bears resemblance to the UK's Terminally Ill Adults Bill, a majority of people who choose to die cite fears about becoming a burden for their loved ones. Is the current law a ‘cruel mess,' to quote campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen – or is it necessary to prevent slippery slopes? Could the interests of our welfare state undermine the Bill's protections? And how should we square a patient's freedom of choice with existing frameworks of medical ethics? SPEAKERS James Esses barrister; writer, commentator and advocate, specialising in the impact of ideology on society; co-founder, Thoughtful Therapists Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain MBE chair, Dignity in Dying, the UK's leading campaign for a change in the law on assisted dying; head of the Rabbinic Court of Great Britain; author of several books with the central theme of reforming Judaism, including The Naked Rabbi: His Colourful Life, Campaigns and Controversies and Confessions of a Rabbi. Sonia Sodha chief leader writer at the Observer and a Guardian/Observer columnist. She also makes documentaries on economic and social issues for Radio 4 and appears regularly on the BBC, Sky News and Channel 4 as a political commentator. Professor Kevin Yuill emeritus professor of history, University of Sunderland; author, Assisted Suicide: the liberal, humanist case against legalization. CHAIR Claire Fox director, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Criminal solicitor Luke Gittos offers an insider's view on the Telegraph columnist's case and the worrying rise of censorship. The case of Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson has drawn attention to the scale of policing (quite literally) of speech in the UK today. Pearson's lawyer in the case is Luke Gittos - a partner at Murray Hughman solicitors in London and director of Freedom Law Clinic, as well as a regular Battle of Ideas festival speaker.   In this exclusive video, Luke reflects on the Pearson case before discussing the role of hate crime, how non-crime hate incidents became so ubiquitous, his views on the policing of speech, and how public pressure is vital in pushing back against these iniquitous and censorious measures.

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION In 2018, the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) was introduced at the World Cup in Russia – and the arguments about it haven't stopped since, with complaints that decisions are still often wrong while lengthy reviews cause confusion and frustration. Using technology to help referees get important decisions right seemed like such a good idea. For example, in 2010, England midfielder Frank Lampard famously had a goal against Germany in the World Cup disallowed, despite the ball clearly crossing the goal line. One result was the introduction of technology that can tell the referee instantly if the ball has crossed the goal-line. However, goal-line technology can only assist with one source of refereeing error. VAR enables a wider range of decisions to be reviewed. One criticism is that VAR is still subject to human subjectivity and fallibility, as it depends on how referees view and apply the rules, with incorrect decisions still being made and with inconsistency between matches. The most high-profile VAR error occurred last autumn, when confused communication between the on-pitch referee and the VAR meant a goal by Liverpool against Tottenham Hotspur was erroneously disallowed – despite the VAR making the correct decision. Representatives of one Premier League club, Wolves, were so incensed by a string of bad decisions that they put forward a motion to scrap VAR altogether. Secondly, VAR slows down the game as goals or penalty decisions are subject to laborious reviews, playing havoc with the emotions of players and spectators. One former England player, Paul Scholes, has complained that the ‘VAR experience is poor, the in-stadium experience for the supporter. It's nowhere near good enough.' However, the football authorities believe that VAR has made the game fairer by improving both decision accuracy and transparency as fans can see the video replays. Responding to the Wolves motion, the Premier League pointed out that VAR has substantially improved decision making overall, while acknowledging that decisions currently take too long. Has VAR ruined football? Why has video technology been so controversial in football when it has been much more successful in other sports, like cricket and tennis? How can we remove human error, or is human error an inevitable part of the game? Can VAR be fixed, or should it be given the red card? SPEAKERS Duleep Allirajah football writer; longterm spiked contributor; co-founder, Libero! network; season-ticket holder, Crystal Palace Jonny Gould TV and radio presenter; journalist; host, Jonny Gould's Jewish State Omar Mohamed student, Royal Holloway University Sally Taplin business consultant, Businessfourzero; visiting MBA lecturer, Bayes Business School; former board member, Lewes FC CHAIR Geoff Kidder director, membership and events, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Book Club

On the eve of the US presidential election, listen to our discussion from the Battle of Ideas festival 2024: Within days of being announced as the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris went from the most unpopular vice president in 50 years – a figure whose unpopularity reportedly led to the former president, Barack Obama, scrambling to find an alternative – to a viable presidential candidate. After slumping under Biden, polling now indicates that the Democrats have a real chance of retaining the White House. Kamala has been rebranded – the ‘brat' candidate memifying what had previously been seen as gaffs as the imperfections of millennial women. Kamala is posed as a cross between Obama and Bridget Jones. Kamala, it seems, has been embraced as a figure of fun. Harris has made no unscripted appearances since taking up the candidacy. The Harris strategy seems to be is entirely based on Kamala the person – with the least amount of policy focus in her campaign material of any presidential candidate in history by far. It seems the Democrats hope Kamala can be entertaining enough to distract the American public for a hundred days, avoiding any real scrutiny. At the same time, the Trump campaign seems slightly at odds as to how to counter Kamala the meme. Trump has returned to X/Twitter, but doesn't seem to have his usual talent for lampooning the opposition. Instead, he has been focused on appearing on a range of podcasts. Trump, too, seems light on policy and big ideas. Has the election then turned purely into a competition of ‘vibes'? Or are there still substantive differences between the main candidates? What does the memification of politics mean for democracy? Is Kamalamania a sincere phenomenon, an exercise in how people can change their mind out of convenience, or a complete fiction produced by the Democratic Party machine? Has Trump lost his populist touch? What does the election hold for America? SPEAKERS: Nick Dixon, comedian; presenter, GB News; host, The Current Thing Dr Cheryl Hudson, lecturer in US political history, University of Liverpool; author, Citizenship in Chicago: race, culture and the remaking of American identity Dr Richard Johnson, writer; senior lecturer in politics, Queen Mary, University of London; co-author, Keeping the Red Flag Flying: The Labour Party in Opposition since 1922 Stan Swim, chief program officer, Bill of Rights Institute Chair: Jacob Reynolds, head of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION The Online Safety Bill is causing huge concern for those who believe in free speech. But how can we protect free expression and still deal with the many problems that arise online? The Bill has passed through the House of Commons and will now be debated in the House of Lords. There are hopes that Liz Truss's government may amend the Bill to remove the most egregious problem with it: the attempt to force tech platforms and service providers – such as Twitter, Facebook, Google and many more – to remove content and ban users from expressing ideas or views that the government deems to be ‘legal but harmful'. However, the very idea that legislation was drafted to ban legal speech as it appears in the virtual public square – including references to sex and gender, race, eating disorders or the diverse category of ‘mental health challenges' – says much about the current attitude among politicians and regulators. Concerns remain at the wide scope of proposals in the legislation. It recommends new rules to control online services, including search engines and user-generated content. It will also affect privacy by constraining end-to-end encryption. The law will compel tech firms, who already regulate and remove content they have decided is ‘problematic', to comply through fines and suspension, and requires they provide user tracking data on individuals who are considered to be breaking these laws. If and when the law is passed, it is now proposed that the lead time for compliance is reduced from 22 months to just two. Companies will have just over eight weeks from the royal assent of the law to make sure that they're in full compliance to avoid penalties. Despite these potentially draconian measures, there are undoubtedly new harms created by the online world. Are free-speech advocates being insensitive to what is novel about the internet as a threat? Trolling can go beyond unpleasant abuse to threats of violence. Children are far more likely to suffer at the hands of malicious bullying online than in the playground. Worse, such abuse can go viral. What do we do about child-safety concerns, viral sexting, online anonymous grooming, bad faith con-merchants and conspiracy-mongers passing off misinformation as fact? What of the potential psychological damage, particularly for those considered more socially and psychologically ‘at-risk'? Is it good enough to argue that these ‘crimes' are already protected by existing laws? In any event, safety issues and legislation may not even be the biggest free-speech issues online. In fact, perhaps it is Big Tech companies that have the real power. For example, Spotify has removed podcasts it deems politically unacceptable while PayPal has removed support for organisations critical of Covid policies and gender ideology. Does the online world, warts and all, present free-speech supporters with insurmountable problems? Or is free speech a fundamental societal value that must be fought for, whatever the consequences or regardless of the challenges of any new technology? SPEAKERS Lord Charles Colville Crossbench peer, House of Lords; former member, Communications and Digital Select Committee; freelance TV producer Paddy Hannam researcher, House of Commons; writer and commentator Molly Kingsley co-founder, UsForThem; co-author, The Children's Inquiry Graham Smith tech and internet lawyer; of counsel, Bird & Bird LLP; author, Internet Law and Regulation; blogger, Cyberleagle Toby Young general secretary, Free Speech Union; author, How to Lose Friends & Alienate People; associate editor, Spectator CHAIR Dr Jan Macvarish education and events director, Free Speech Union; author, Neuroparenting: the expert invasion of family life

Media scrutiny, political scandals and electoral upsets - the Academy of Ideas team get together on the eve of the General Election for one last pre-vote discussion.