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?

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

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review. Check back next week for more recordings from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021.

WILL GREEN JOBS SAVE US?

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/will-green-jobs-save-us/

Will a shift to a green economy revive the UK economy? Is the ‘green economy’ just the latest Big Idea to boost growth that will ultimately prove illusory? Is encouraging economic growth simply bad for the planet and should we accept that environmental problems mean we should strive for a zero-growth society?

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review. Check back next week for more recordings from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021.

CAN OUR DATA BE USED FOR GOOD? THE ETHICS OF RESEARCH

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/can-our-data-be-used-for-good-the-ethics-of-research/

This debate was run in partnership with ADRUK.

When there is such extensive scope to improve lives by making better use of data, what guiding ethical principles and data protections should be in place? Can governments be trusted to use this data for good, or do they deserve scrutiny? Are there useful differences between public bodies and companies, or between researchers and governments? Is ‘anonymous’ data ever truly safe from being re-identified, and if not, how can we balance risk with the benefits afforded by the digital revolution?

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review. Check back next week for more recordings from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021.

PROTECTION FOR ME BUT NOT FOR THEE? THE EQUALITY CONUNDRUM

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/protection-for-me-but-not-for-thee-the-equality-conundrum/

Do we need to be recognised in law to feel secure about ourselves? Is there a difference in the role of the law to protect against discrimination and protect certain beliefs? Has the fight for equality and liberation been replaced by the demand for affirmation? Do concerns about equality end up tongue-tying workers who should be free to debate political and moral issues, or are there some things that should be off limits? Is equality worth fighting for any longer, or does it now mean something very different?

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review. Check back next week for more recordings from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021.

HATE, HERESY AND THE FIGHT FOR FREE SPEECH

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/hate-heresy-and-the-fight-for-free-speech/

Would a public square that embraced free expression be a dangerous thing? Can words be as dangerous as physical violence? Are we in danger of creating a new form of heresy when so-called social-justice warriors complain about hate speech on Twitter and governments simultaneously ban protests? Or should we embrace moves to get tough on hate? Could an increasingly volatile debate about free speech mean that more people are likely to self-censor for fear of being called a bigot? And if we decide that we do value free speech as a fundamental tenet of a liberal society, how can we mount a modern case for it in the twenty-first century?

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review. Check back next week for more recordings from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021.

FEMINISM'S CIVIL WAR

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/feminisms-civil-war/

Does feminism know what it stands for anymore? Are the current divides reflective of a sea-change for feminism, or does the current infighting stem from its roots in identity politics? Can feminism survive its current civil war, or is it time for a new women’s liberation movement?

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review. Check back next week for more recordings from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021.

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

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/from-profits-to-prophets-why-has-big-business-gone-woke/

This debate was run in partnership with the Academy of Ideas Economy Forum.

Is it a positive sign that big corporations are starting to care about something more than profits? Are woke campaigns and branding a distraction from the need to provide good products and services that consumers want? Is there any truth in the critical joke ‘Get woke, go broke’? What does it mean for democracy if corporations play an increasingly activist role in pursuing a liberal agenda?

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review. Check back next week for more recordings from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021.

IS THERE A CASE FOR FOSSIL FUELS?

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/is-there-a-case-for-fossil-fuels/

This debate was held in partnership with the Ayn Rand Centre UK

Governments have been striving to phase out fossil fuels in favour of renewables, particularly in the past decade, to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. But renewables are intermittent and unreliable. So how can we get secure supplies of energy that are reliable and affordable? Have we been too hasty in phasing out fossil fuels? Is there still a place for them until a new technology, like nuclear fusion, can easily supply all the energy we need? Or is climate change such an immediate danger that we need to learn to live without coal, oil and gas?

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review. Check back next week for more recordings from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021.

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

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/a-nudge-too-far-the-rise-of-behavioural-psychology-and-technocracy/

All societies need expert advice, but what is the line between legitimate advice and sinister attempts to shift behaviour? Why has psychology especially become so prominent in how the government relates to the public? Does the rise of experts and ‘evidence-based policy’ capture a real shift in how people are seen, no longer as agents of their own destiny but as data-points to be managed to generate better policy outcomes? What is the line between a gentle nudge in the direction of better choices and an authoritarian shove? Who even decides what is the better choice? What happened to the traditional model of the self-directing citizen, or was it always a mirage?

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review. Check back next week for more recordings from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021.

20 YEARS IN AFGHANISTAN: WHAT HAPPENED?

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/20-years-in-afghanistan-what-happened/

With the withdrawal of Western forces now complete, will 20 years of Western-led occupation and the promotion of liberal-democratic values have an impact on the future of Afghanistan, or will conservative, religious values predominate? Has military intervention and nation-building had a small, but positive impact or was attempting to impose democracy from above simply a doomed act of Western hubris?

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review. Check back next week for more recordings from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021.

WHO ARE WE? IDENTITY IN CRISIS

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021:
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/who-are-we-identity-in-crisis/

Do we know who we are anymore? And does embracing our sense of identity hinder or help our ability to engage in collective ambitions, like figuring out what society stands for? How has the atomisation of modern life changed our identities – particularly when the online world offers opportunities to curate and manicure our own view of ourselves? Is identity important, or should we be telling young people that it’s what they do in the world, rather than who they are, that matters? And can today’s culture wars be seen as part of this identity crisis – or should we accept that all aspects of life are now up for grabs on the political stage?

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review.

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 the Academy of Ideas Education Forum discussion on Monday 29 November 2021.

INTRODUCTION How should we view the teaching of ‘white privilege’? Is it a helpful tool in combating racial inequality or a divisive idea that sows mistrust?

The concept originated in American academia in the 1980s, but entered British schools last year in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd.

White privilege asserts that white people are automatically advantaged by their skin colour, because they do not have to endure lives beset by racialised systemic discrimination. The fact that black people are more likely to be paid less, sectioned under mental-health rules, or stopped and searched by police is cited as evidence of white privilege at work by advocates of the theory.

Yet opponents of the concept say this reading of the data fans the flames of an unnecessary culture war. They counter-claim that those least likely to go to university, for example, are poor white teenagers in former industrial and coastal towns. White working-class children also trail their Indian, Chinese, Bangladeshi and Black African peers In GCSE attainment, they argue.

To what extent, then, does white privilege help or hinder us in understanding how pupils might make the best progress in education?

Teaching white privilege as an uncontested fact in schools is indoctrination and illegal under the 1996 Education Act, according to the women and equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch. Her pronouncement has prompted the Black Educators Alliance and the Coalition of Anti Racist Educators to accuse the government of censorship and chilling free speech in the classroom.

On the other side of the debate, the campaign group Don’t Divide Us claims it is inundated with concerns from teachers and parents. It says the former fear being publicly accused of racism if they speak out against teaching white privilege, while the latter describe having to list their privileges and unconscious bias in their children’s homework.

In the United States, opposition to the teaching of white privilege was seen as an important factor in Republican Glenn Youngkin taking the key governorship of Virginia from the Democrats recently. The result has been widely interpreted as a bellwether of wider public rejection of the kind of educational social-justice programme proposed by the Democrats, which favours schools adopting the principles of ‘critical race theory’, such as countering the effects of white privilege.

So how should we judge the focus on white privilege and unconscious racial bias in lessons, reading lists and school staff training? Will it make schools more anti-racist – or divided?

The Education Forum explores this important issue in a friendly, open and respectful panel discussion. Are the majority of parents and teachers unaware of the term ‘white privilege’ and not likely to give it a second thought? Or is white privilege in the curriculum about to become the next big issue in education?

SPEAKERS Alka Sehgal Cuthbert Education Forum member; co-ordinator, Don’t Divide Us (DDU); educational advisor and writer. Alka is critical of the term ‘white privilege’ and thinks it does more harm than good.

Andre Ediagbonya-Davies Andre went to school in Tottenham and is a second-year historian at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. He supports expanded discussion on race within education. He believes white privilege is a reality and talking about it is a useful way of helping combat racism.

Julie Dupont Julie is a North London parent of three school-age children. She is a committed anti-racist, but is concerned at the way white privilege is communicated in some of her children’s lessons and homework, and in school communications to parents. She thinks it is divisive and does more harm than good.

Playwright and actor David Ireland does not hold back from dealing with controversial and difficult topics. Born in Northern Ireland, his experiences of living in that troubled country inevitably informs his work. His plays create a stir, with no holds barred, often shockingly hilarious, dialogue. As black comedies they expose the raw nerves of identity politics, sexual and family relationships, and contemporary political tensions and polarisations which can drive people to violence and push them to do mad things.

Among his most recent work is the award-winning Cyprus Avenue, performed at the Royal Court in 2016, with Stephen Rea in the lead role, focused on a unionist convinced his new born grandchild is Gerry Adams and has to be killed. Ulster American, performed at the Edinburgh Festival in 2018, focuses on the challenges of writing a play about Irish identity and had audiences laughing in horror. Sadie, due to be premiered in Belfast in early 2020 but cancelled due to lockdown, was recently screened on BBC4, is a disturbing dissection of a middle-aged working-class woman’s frustration and anger.

In this special Arts&Society Forum for the Battle of Ideas festival, Wendy Earle talks to David Ireland about truth and politics in theatre, artistic survival in a climate of intolerance and cancel culture, and the comedic possibilities of not holding back – and how he gets away with it!

David Ireland is a Northern Irish-born playwright and actor most known for his award-winning plays Cyprus Avenue and Ulster American. He won the Stewart Parker Award and the Meyer-Whitworth Award in 2012 and was shortlisted for the Evening Standard Award for Most Promising Playwright 2016. More recently, Sadie was screened on BBC4 and his play YES SO I SAID YES is due to be performed at the Finborough Theatre, Earl’s Court from 23 November to 18 December.

Wendy Earle is the convenor of the Academy of Ideas Arts&Society Forum, and writes on culture and the arts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alex Cameron graphic designer; design and cultural critic

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

Matthew Kruger advocate, Johannesburg Bar

CHAIR Jacob Reynolds partnerships manager, Academy of Ideas

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review. Check back next week for more recordings from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021.

IS THE NHS FIT FOR PURPOSE?

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021:
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/is-the-nhs-fit-for-purpose/

How can we solve the problems of the NHS? Is it simply a matter of providing extra resources, or is the way those resources are used a problem, too? Do we expect too much from the NHS? And with some observers likening the NHS to a national religion, are politicians brave enough to have a proper debate about reform?

Listen to Parth Patel, Professor Karol Sikora, Christopher Snowdon, Dolly Theis and Dave Clements discuss.

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review.

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review. Check back next week for more recordings from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021.

DISINFORMATION AND CONSPIRACY: TACKLING THE CRISIS OF TRUST

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021:

www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/disi…is-of-trust/

Why have disinformation and conspiracy theories become such mainstream preoccupations? What is a healthy distrust of officialdom, and when does it start to move away from reality? Have we become afraid of ourselves and our own ability to make judgements, and do we need a new series of official authorities to determine what’s real and what’s not? Or is the collapse in trust – and in each other – a matter for us all to take up?

Listen to Alastair Donald, Dr Sean Lang, Dr Tim Black, Konstantin Kisin and William Clouston discuss.

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review.

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review. Check back next week for more recordings from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021.

GOING GREEN: ECO-DOGMA OR SALVATION?

A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/goin…r-salvation/

In partnership with the Freiblickinstitut.

How can we solve a problem like climate change? Should it be treated as an emergency that should subsume all other priorities? Do green policies even work or do they make matters worse? Is the problem that political and corporate rhetoric about taking action is just superficial ‘greenwash’, being seen to be green rather than making fundamental changes? Has the political consensus around climate change robbed voters of a chance to have our say?

Listen to Dr Shahrar Ali, Sabine Beppler-Spahl, Heydon Prowse, Austin Williams and Alastair Donald discuss.

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review.

----more----ASSISTED DYING: HAS ITS TIME COME?

A new, live, #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/assi…s-time-come/

After previous efforts failed, will this year be the year the UK grants a ‘right to die’? What are the moral issues at stake? What, politically, does a right to die mean in a society seemingly obsessed with good health? Should people be given the choice, and assistance, to end their lives, or is it a threshold which must not be crossed?

Listen to Joel Cohen, David Pearce, Dr Richard Scheffer, Professor Katherine Sleeman and Dr Kevin Yuill discuss.

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review.

SPORTSCAST OF IDEAS: Geoff Kidder is joined by Academy of Ideas colleagues Alastair Donald and Rob Lyons with special guests David Bowden and Austin Williams to discuss everything happening in Tokyo.

For our latest Sportscast of Ideas, Geoff Kidder is joined by Academy of Ideas colleagues Alastair Donald, Rob Lyons, Jacob Reynolds and Mo Lovatt to dissect *that* match - and the fallout from Italy's victory.

For our latest Sportscast of Ideas, Geoff Kidder is joined by Academy of Ideas colleagues Alastair Donald and Rob Lyons, with special guest Dominic Standish zooming in from Italy.

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

SPORTSCAST OF IDEAS: Geoff Kidder is joined by Academy of Ideas colleagues Alastair Donald, Rob Lyons and Jacob Reynolds, with special guest and Manchester United fan, Hilary Salt.

Para Mullan and Hilary Salt introduce a discussion at the Academy of Ideas Economy Forum on what the post-pandemic office means for employers, employees and the wider economy.

Apart from a brief and ill-starred campaign early last autumn to get staff back to the office, for over a year workers have been told that they should work at home if they can. Yet with Covid cases, hospitalisations and deaths now back down to the level we saw at the end of last summer, it seems workers are not exactly rushing to get back to the office.

For some, there may still be the fear of commute or the fear of catching the virus whilst working in the office. For others, there may still be difficulties in getting childcare. But it is also becoming obvious that for some, the comforts of home working are much more attractive than office life. What does this say about the quality of work to date – perhaps just that it is not as great as it is made out to be and that many jobs are not ‘real’ jobs?

Employers like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs have summoned all US staff back to the office. Others, like HSBC, have adopted a hybrid form of working. Yet other big firms, like Twitter, are allowing their staff to work from home forever if they so wish. For employers, there are multiple different factors at play in encouraging staff to carry on working on the kitchen table or in the spare room: the risk of lawsuits if employees catch the virus; the potential savings on office rents; extracting longer working hours from those who no longer have to commute.

On the other hand, all that extra distance between workers may undermine the idea of pursuing collective goals, workers bouncing ideas off each other or simply picking up on office conservations – finding out things they didn’t know they needed to know. It may also be harder for managers to manage staff at a distance.

For employees, working at home may have its comforts and conveniences, but there is much to be said for a properly thought-out office environment. If the reluctance to get back to the office is driven by disenchantment with the kind of work on offer – something that seems particularly clear with the slow return of those on furlough – will employers use this as an opportunity to reassess the kind of jobs they offer?

Yet for many employees, working from home isn’t working. For all the new buzz about ‘hybrid working’ and a ‘flexible approach’, a survey conducted by the CIPD found that 47 per cent of respondents cited mental well-being as the main challenge of working from home.

In this digital era, can employers ensure that employees do not feel burnt out by work? Is it appropriate to expect employers to adopt a paternalistic approach towards their employees, taking more responsibility for people’s health and well-being? What do these new ways of working mean for the dividing line between work and home?

More broadly, does the focus on returning to work miss the real challenges for UK businesses evident before the pandemic, particularly when it comes to low productivity: a failure to automate processes or make the most of AI, the prevalence of ‘bullshit jobs’ and a stifling aversion to taking risk?

SPEAKERS

Para Mullan fellow, Chartered Institute of Personnel Development

Hilary Salt actuary; founder, First Actuarial

For our latest Sportscast of Ideas, Geoff Kidder is joined by Academy of Ideas colleagues Alastair Donald and Rob Lyons, and special guest Adam Rawcliffe.

They chew the fat on Scotland's departure and wonder if England will ever play exciting football. They also look at UEFA's ban on lighting up the Allianz Arena for Pride, the row over Ronaldo and Pogba moving drinks bottles and the hypocrisy of allowing 2,500 UEFA hangers-on into the UK while we all struggle to travel abroad at all.

SPORTSCAST OF IDEAS: On this second 2021 Sportscast of Ideas, Geoff Kidder, Alastair Donald and Rob Lyons from the Academy of Ideas are joined by sociologist, author and Tottenham fan Frank Furedi to discuss all that's new in the world of sports, politics and upcoming tournaments.

On this Sportscast of Ideas, Geoff Kidder, Alastair Donald and Rob Lyons from the Academy of Ideas are joined by author and Norwich City fan George Harrison to discuss all that's new in the world of sports, politics and upcoming tournaments.

LOCKDOWN DEBATE: Given the extension of state power during lockdowns, have worldwide lockdowns revealed the need for stronger, more hard-wired human rights legislation, like the Bill of Rights in the United States? Or has the whole framework of human rights been revealed as little more than symbolic? Putting the progressive case against human rights, Gittos asks whether it is time to do away with human rights in favour of a new way of thinking about our personal and political freedoms. Join Luke Gittos and Academy of Ideas’ director Claire Fox to discuss whether it’s time to call time on human rights.

Discussion at the Academy of Ideas Economy Forum on Tuesday 4 May 2021.

INTRODUCTION Love it or loathe it, the UK’s Special Relationship with the USA has been around since Churchill coined the phrase in 1946. And as the first nation to leave the European Union, the UK’s ongoing relationship with the EU is, at the very least, ‘special’ by definition.

In his presentation, Jonathan Grant will offer a perspective on these two unquestionably special relationships: one with the EU that has only recently been formed, and that with the USA, particularly how that might change under the new Biden-Harris administration.

SPEAKER Jonathan Grant is a London-based chartered accountant specialising in serving global clients with operations in the UK. He deals extensively with people and businesses across both the USA and the EU; away from the office, he is an independent arts critic.

BOOK CLUB: Klara and the Sun is a thrilling book that offers a look at our changing world through the eyes of an unforgettable narrator, and one that explores the fundamental question: what does it mean to love? Ella Whelan, journalist and author of What Women Want, gives the introduction.

Welcome to this special sports edition of Podcast of Ideas. Alastair Donald is joined by Academy of Ideas colleagues, Geoff Kidder and Rob Lyons, along with Hilary Salt and Simon McKeon, two regular speakers and session producers at the annual Battle of Ideas festival.   Over the past week, football has hogged the headlines on the front as well as the back pages as the plan for a new European Super League emerged and then collapsed, almost in the blink of an eye.

The headlines claimed this has been the 'biggest fiasco in football history', the 'defeat of greed' and that elites sports has suffered its 'most astounding humiliation.

• Why did the European Super League has suddenly emerge now?  • What were the main problems with this initiative? • Why did pushing through the ESL run up against the buffers?  • Can we read anything deeper into this, culturally or even politically? • What are the ramifications of the ESL's collapse and what about the future – for fans, football, football governance and politics?

Academy of Ideas Economy Forum discussion, 13 April 2021.

Joe Biden became the 46th president of the United States on 20 January 2021. But what does Biden stand for and what will his administration aim to achieve?

Most notably, his first major move was the American Rescue Plan Act, a package of stimulus, welfare and other measures that will cost $1.9 trillion. The act provides for a round of $1,400 stimulus checks for individuals making less than $75,000 a year and for married couples earning under $150,000, plus the extension of federal supplements to state unemployment benefits. There is extra provision for coronavirus measures, including vaccination programmes, improving ventilation in schools and more. There is also a boost to federal subsidies for health insurance.

But what does Biden stand for beyond this? What measures will be taken to move the economy out of its long-term lethargy, particularly in the face of competition from China?

SPEAKER

James Matthews New York-based management consultant; commentator on the US economy and business; former economic forecaster

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?

LOCKDOWN DEBATE: Whether you’re a cyclist, driver, pedestrian or all three, the real question is: why, at a time when little political scrutiny is available in a pandemic, have councils and the government felt comfortable instituting such drastic changes? Have some underestimated the drastic effect of restricting car access on people’s lives and routines? Should we take advantage of the benefits of lower activity in cities and learn a lesson about what life could be like without cars? Are groups like Extinction Rebellion right that drastic action is necessary, even if it means making sacrifices? Or is this another example of green activism side-stepping democracy by putting the planet before people? Who should decide what happens in our neighbourhoods – in short, who owns our streets Rita Krishna, Daniel Moylan, Rebekah Kelly, Emma Richman, Niall Crowley and Ella Whelan discuss.

SCOTLAND SALON: What do the revelations of the past few weeks mean for the independence campaign and for the devolved Scottish Government? Have we seen nothing more than political opportunism on behalf of opposition MSPs, or have the hopes for IndyRef2 been dashed? Is faith in Scottish independence inextricably linked to faith in the SNP? And, more broadly, is there something rotten in the democratic settlement for the people of Scotland? What next for Scottish independence? Jim Sillars, Iain Macwhirter, Alastair Donald and Michelle Ballantyne MSP discuss.

BOOK LAUNCH In his latest book, Free Speech and Why It Matters, Writer and comedian Andrew Doyle looks at the most common concerns of free-speech sceptics and offers a robust defence of this most foundational of principles. Andrew spoke to Academy of Ideas associate director Alastair Donald for this book launch of Free Speech and Why It Matters.

ARTS & SOCIETY FORUM: The Swiss-French architect Le Corbusier (1887 –1965) is strongly associated with post-war mass housing projects; his name is often used as shorthand for their failings. He was arguably the most talented architect of the twentieth century and but he is popularly known for his association with the technocrat aspects of modern planning. Architecture lecturer, Penny Lewis 'visits' two of Le Corbusier’s most influential buildings the Villa Roche in Paris (1923) and the Unité d’habitation in Marseille (1952) to compare his innovative pre-war and expressive post-war work. 

Debate hosted by the Academy of Ideas Education Forum on 4 March 2021.

INTRODUCTION

A large survey undertaken by the NHS in July 2020 found that a staggering one in six children now have a ‘probable mental health disorder’. Since that report we have had another school lockdown. Anne Longfield, the outgoing Children’s Commissioner for England, argued that ‘damage to children’s mental health caused by the Covid crisis could last for years without a large-scale increase for children’s mental health services’.

It is widely accepted that lockdown and school closures have had a detrimental effect on young people, but what does that really mean? Some argue that a year of severe disruption to schooling has limited children’s educational, social and intellectual development, with the likelihood of knock-on effects on the future university and career prospects of GCSE and A Level students.

But are the NHS, Children’s Commissioner and others unnecessarily catastrophising the state of children’s mental health? Have the kids really been messed up by lockdown? Or might they be more resilient than may adults give them credit for?

At what point does missing your school friends transform from disappointment, sadness and frustration to mental illness? Is there now a danger that we stretch the definition of mental health so far that it encompasses many of the normal travails and anxieties of normal teenage life and growing up?

On the other hand, kids missing out on seeing their peers and grown-up role models such as grandparents and teachers is no trivial matter. Is it not bound to limit their emotional and social cognition and lead to serious problems? As schools get set to reopen, this latest online Education Forum debate will explore the impact of lockdown on the mental health of young people.

SPEAKERS

Molly Kingsley co-founder, UsForThem

Dr Ken McLaughlin senior lecturer in Social Care and Social Work, Manchester Metropolitan University

Sarah Standish school counsellor at a Harrow school

LOCKDOWN DEBATE: What is it like to fall in love in today, when there seems to be so many more factors involved in intimacy than the feelings of two people? Is the isolation and atomisation of love (or lack of it) in lockdown new, or merely an extreme catalysing of a familiar trend in modern dating? How do we balance the desire to right the wrongs of the past, with an understanding that the intimate encounters we often cherish the most are the ones that took us by surprise? As John Fowles wrote in The French Lieutenant’s Woman, while it’s often futile to be nostalgic, was love and intimacy more hopeful when we were less concerned with controlling the outcome, when ‘strangers were strange, and sometimes with an exciting, beautiful strangeness’? Or are we stuck in an arcane view of how love works – should we be open to a new definition which ditches a reliance on uncontrollable feelings like butterflies in your stomach or sweat on your brow? How risky is it to fall in love today – and what does love and intimacy mean in an increasingly risk-averse society? Claire Fox, Samantha Davies, Ralph Leonard, Emily Hill and Ella Whelan discuss.

ARTS & SOCIETY FORUM: At one time, classical music was rigorously defended – both by the sector and within wider society – because of its unique stature as the epitome of the European music tradition and its alignment with Enlightenment ideals. But who defends classical music today? Should it be defended? Is it time to shake up the genre, make it more accessible, and embrace the sentiment of John Gilhooly, director of Wigmore Hall who says, “In many ways all this is a purification, a chance to start again.” Or is there something intrinsic to the genre that we should seek to preserve? Do we still believe in the transcendental qualities of high art and the concept of art for arts’ sake? Should we defend our traditions or embrace the new normal and move with the times? Gabriella Swallow,  Stephen Johnson, Ivan Hewett and Dolan Cummings discuss.

BOOK LAUNCH: In their latest book, The Corona Generation, author Jennie Bristow and her daughter Emma Gilland consider the effects of lockdown on the generation currently coming of age: the demographic currently known as ‘Generation Z’. In this online book launch hosted by the Academy of Ideas, the Parents Forum and the Centre for Parenting Culture Studies, Jennie and Emma talk to Ella Whelan.

LOCKDOWN DEBATE: What should be the role of social media today? If the public square – universities, schools, workplaces, pubs, parks and polling booths – are under some form of lockdown or restriction, is the internet the only viable place to quickly and freely share ideas? And, if so, should we begin to understand Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube or Reddit as publishers, platforms or (virtual) public spaces? What kind of regulation – if any – do we need to ensure healthy debate, and what are the legal implications for such changes? In short, in a world when everyone (even David Attenborough) seems to have an online presence, what role does Big Tech play today – and what should it be in the ‘new normal’ of the post-pandemic world? Discussed by Rob Lyons, Andrew Orlowski, Timandra Harkness and Nico Macdonald.

Two weeks into the new year and one week into a new lockdown, the Academy of Ideas team come together (via zoom) to look at the key questions posed by the pandemic. How balanced has the discussion been around lockdown - has free speech suffered? What changing role have the media or the police played? What are the long-term effects of lockdown, from the economy to public will? And what is our route out of this - vaccine, resilience or a reinvigoration of freedom?

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.

Smart people have become too powerful. That’s the claim made by social commentator David Goodhart in his latest book Head, Hand, Heart: The Struggle for Dignity and Status in the 21st Century. 

The talent to pass exams and handle information efficiently, he argues, has become the gold standard of human esteem. Those with a generous helping of such aptitude have formed a new class – a ‘mass elite’ – which now shapes society in its own interests. For those employed in manual work or the caring professions it’s another matter.

“It is becoming harder to feel satisfaction and self-respect living an ordinary, decent life, especially in the bottom part of the income spectrum”, writes Goodhart.

Brexit and Trump have frequently been criticised because of the low intelligence or poor education of their working-class voters. Yet the recent wave of Covid-related school closures and exam cancellations suggests that academic values aren’t all-conquering either.

The pandemic has seen a re-evaluation of the importance of blue-collar workers and the caring professions, such as in the weekly ‘Clap for Carers’ during the height of the crisis. However, it has also seen those protesting against masks and lockdowns labelled as low-information ‘Covidiots’.

So to what extent is Goodhart’s distinction between Head, Hand and Heart helpful in understanding the contemporary tensions in education? Is he correct to claim that we have reached an era of ‘peak Head’ in which a meritocracy based on educational achievement is counter-productive? Or can one believe in high intellectual standards and the importance of exams without excluding those who have little aptitude for them?

Is a school system which embraces both the academic and non-academic possible – or are these distinctions meaningless anyway?

To consider these and other questions, this Academy of Ideas Education Forum event took the form of a book group on Head, Hand, Heart. Gareth Sturdy gives a short introduction to the book before opening up the meeting to round-table discussion.

How does one argue effectively for a schooling system which accords dignity and status to the non-academic, while upholding academic standards?

LOCKDOWN DEBATES: During the summer, the lockdown measures imposed in March were dismantled piece by piece. We were even encouraged in August to ‘eat out to help out’. But in the past few weeks, more and more restrictions have been imposed across countries and regions, including the return of lockdown in Wales and Ireland. Can we continue to live with lockdowns and restrictions, or should we find different ways to manage the risk? Indeed, how do we decide? Should we adopt a ‘consequentialist’ approach, adding up the ‘best guess’ costs and benefits of each policy and choosing the one that causes the least harm? Do we choose to emphasise rights and freedoms and live with the consequences as best we can? How should we move forward? Emily Barley, Rob Lyons and Alan Miller discuss.

ECONOMY FORUM: The idea of a green recovery from the current slump almost seems like a self-evident good. Who would not want the economy to reach and then exceed the levels of output achieved before the Covid-19 pandemic? And who would not support a cleaner environment or the creation of large numbers of jobs? But dig a little deeper and it becomes clear that things are not as straightforward as they seem. What, for example, are advocates of a green new deal arguing for when they call for a ‘reset’ of the economy? Is the new economy they envisage as positive as it first sounds? Why do they put so much emphasis on tackling inequality? Daniel Ben-Ami and Rob Lyons discuss.