Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

Religious fervour: the rise of faith or Cultural Christianity?

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?
SPEAKERSDolan Cummingswriter and novelist; co-director, Manifesto Club
Pamela Dowchief operating officer, Civic Future
Simon Evanscomedian; GB News and BBC TV and radio regular; presenter, BBC Radio 4's Simon Evans Goes to Market
Abbot Christopher JamisonAbbot President, English Benedictine Congregation; author, Finding the Language of Grace: rediscovering transcendence
Emma Trimblewriter and broadcaster; fellow, New Culture Forum
CHAIRDr James Pantondeputy head welfare, St Edwards School, Oxford; associate lecturer in philosophy, The Open University

Never Again – for anyone? The new Holocaust relativism

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?
SPEAKERSDaniel Ben-Amijournalist; creator, Radicalism of Fools project on rethinking anti-Semitism; author, Ferraris for All: in defence of economic progress
Naomi Grynwriter; filmmaker
Samuel Rubinsteinpostgraduate historian and writer
Dr Jake Wallis Simonsauthor, Never Again? How the West betrayed the Jews and itself
CHAIRSimon McKeonfounder member, Our Fight UK; QPR season ticket holder; archivist

Letters on Liberty: The Freedom to Blaspheme

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?
SPEAKERSDr Piers Bennphilosopher, author and lecturer
Manick Govindaindependent writer, commentator, mentor/arts adviser and curator
Khadija Khanjournalist and broadcaster; editor, A Further Inquiry; co-host, A Further Inquiry podcast
John O’Brienhead of communications, MCC Brussels
CHAIRRosamund Cuckstonsenior HR professional; co-organiser, Birmingham Salon

Should the West get ready for war?

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?
SPEAKERSDr Tim Blackbooks and essays editor, spiked
Mary Dejevskyformer foreign correspondent in Moscow, Paris and Washington; special correspondent in China; writer and broadcaster
Virginie JoronFrench member of the European Parliament, Patriots for Europe Group
Tim Scottexecutive director, The Freedom Association
Charlie Winstanleyauthor, Bricking it: The UK Housing Crisis and the Failure of Policy; public affairs & social policy development professional
CHAIRJacob Reynoldshead of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Comedy: is politics that funny?

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?
SPEAKERSSteve N Allenbroadcaster and comedian
Nicholas De Santocomedian; TV journalist and commentator
Leo Kearsecomedian; writer, Breaking The News, Mock The Week and The Mash Report; co-creator, Hate 'n' Live
Intel Ladysatirist, performer
CHAIRAndrew Doylewriter 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

Rebuilding Britain: the infrastructure crisis

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?
SPEAKERSPaul Finch OBEprogramme director, World Architecture Festival
Ben Flatmanarchitectural editor, Building Design and Building; author, Birmingham: Shaping the City
Shelagh McNerneyhead of regeneration, Manchester City Council
Christopher Worrallindustry fellow, Onward; commentator on housing, planning, and political realignment

Is there a right to die? The moral dilemmas of assisted death

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?
SPEAKERSDr Az Hakeemconsultant psychiatrist and medical director, Psyche Clinic; author, Trans and Detrans
Sonia Sodhacolumnist and broadcaster
Dr Kathleen Stockcolumnist, UnHerd; co-director, The Lesbian Project; author, Do Not Go Gentle: The Case Against Assisted Death
Professor Kevin Yuillemeritus professor of history, University of Sunderland; author, Assisted Suicide: the liberal, humanist case against legalization

What should schools teach about sex and relationships?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Successive governments have struggled with Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE). But in July, the Department for Education finally published the long-anticipated guidance to schools to a mixed reception. Some critics argue that crucial safeguards made by the Conservatives have been watered down by Labour.
Giving parents access to classroom materials has dominated the discussion in recent years, both in the news and the courts. The new guidance claims that parents will be able to see what their children are being taught, but concerns remain about how this will work in practice.
Transparency is only one aspect of this emotive and divisive topic. Other conflicts between so-called ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ parents include whether these controversial classes are compulsory and, most importantly, what, when and how they are taught, and by whom.
This RSHE guidance is not to be confused with the separate Gender Questioning Children guidance, which will outline how schools should treat kids who say they are trans. The government has announced that this must be published by the time the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act passes into law. But with so much debate on the highly contested concept of gender identity, how can we possibly explain it to our kids?
Even among parents, teachers and commentators who are sceptical about transgenderism, there is no consensus on the broader aspects of sex and relationship education. Should we be teaching teenagers about consent and coercion, masturbation and misogyny, spiking and surrogacy – and what, if anything, should teachers and external providers be telling primary school children about sex?
Should we let kids be kids, leave it to Biology teachers to explain the basics and for parents to decide what they discuss in their family about intimacy? Or do we need to ensure that children are educated about all the potential offline and online dangers that young people face?
SPEAKERSFelice Basbøllhistory student, Trinity College Dublin; author, The Tyranny of Campus Wellbeing
Stephanie Davies-Araidirector, Transgender Trend; author, Communicating with Kids
Penny Lewiseditor, Scottish Union for Education
Jo-Anne Nadlerpolitical journalist; campaigner, Don't Divide Us
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

The rise and rise of fantasy fiction

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Fantasy fiction is dominating bestseller lists, and its popularity is on the rise.  A new generation of readers are devouring both traditional novels like Lord of the Rings, while also demonstrating a considerable rise in interest in ‘romantasy’ fiction, a contemporary blend of romance and fantasy that has captivated female readers but is often resented by ‘traditional’ fantasy fans. Fantasy fiction even has its own master’s degree in the UK, and fantasy novels are taught in universities alongside the classics of the canon. Is the influence of fantasy fiction still expanding?
Fantasy has long been dismissed as escapism – providing an ‘easy read’ for those looking for an uncomplicated ‘happily ever after’. Some also dismiss lots of contemporary fantasy – especially that targeted at women like TikTok bestseller A Court of Thorns and Roses – as lazy erotica in disguise. And with the surge in worries about the manosphere, some are concerned that young men are turning to fantasy for toxic tropes of ‘real’ masculinity.
Fantasy stories, with their crafted maps and intricate laws offer a sense of community for the atomised individual – a guide through higher ‘law’ and common cultural references. It allows for the exploration, meditation and individual interpretation of religion and spirituality in the twenty-first century. Often looking back to paganism and medieval religions, fantasy challenges current institutional forms and offers complex emotional relationships and moral choices, asking philosophical questions that may have otherwise been forgotten. Many see fantasy lands and laws as an alternative religion, acting as a guide in the mist of modern moral individualism.
The media and the franchising industry has long been captivated by the fantasy genre, with many books being made into TV series or Hollywood films. The accessibility of these stories in multiple forms is deepening their influence and capturing audiences across realms. But fantasy fiction has gone through many phases and forms, so what has really accelerated this trend?
Should we give fiction writers credit for influencing political and spiritual narratives through their moralised plot lines and alternative rules of law? With the influence of ancient mythologies, religion and historic codes of conduct, are fantasy fiction writers really constructing new worlds, or simply reflecting our own? Should we praise fantasy fiction for the moral dilemmas and controversies it brings to light, or should we question the dependence on alternative realms and contrived plotlines to grapple with these questions?
SPEAKERSLara Browncommissioning editor, the Spectator; former president, Cambridge Union
Dr JJ Charlesworthart critic; editor, ArtReview
Helen Dalesenior writer, Law & Liberty; author, Kingdom of the Wicked
Blair Milosenior fellow, Sagamore Institute
CHAIRSandy Starrdeputy director, Progress Educational Trust; author, AI: Separating Man from Machine

An island of strangers? Immigration and integration

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In May 2025, Prime Minister Keir Starmer delivered a speech unveiling Labour’s plans to curb net migration. It framed high migration levels as a ‘failed experiment’ by the previous Conservative government, arguing it not only strained public services, but community cohesion, too. While controversial with many of his own supporters, Starmer’s statement that ‘in a diverse nation like ours… we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together’ landed with many more ordinary voters.
In the wake of a subsequent backlash, Starmer expressed ‘deep regret’ for that wording. But actually, his ‘island of strangers’ phrase resonated with huge swathes of the public. It cut through because millions experience an intense feeling of estrangement daily. Many say they don’t recognise their own neighbourhoods and feel overwhelmed by the huge surge in newcomers to the country, whether arriving legally or illegally.
This contrasts with the past, when Britain oversaw tens of thousands of migrants arriving from its own former colonies in the West Indies or South Asia, all under a common citizenship. Many of these newcomers identified with Britain, and despite pockets of racism, willingly assimilated themselves.
But unprecedented numbers arriving in recent years make that approach seem unmanageable. And politically, the notion of a common culture is portrayed as backward and parochial. British citizens are constantly told to repudiate their collective traditions and history by those who Professor James Orr calls ‘rootless, cosmopolitical ideologues’, too often leading to competing identity groups living parallel lives. The loss of a commitment to common norms, a sense of belonging and a collective national story – one that could integrate new arrivals into a united nation of many strangers – is now under strain.
Some commentators are worried about the emergence of Fortress Britain. A recent front page New Statesman essay worried that we are being propelled ‘out of an age of migration into something altogether new: an age of deportation’. What’s more, the demand to deport ever greater numbers seem to be unsettling our historic views of citizenship. The Windrush generation were considered by the vast majority as British, no ifs or buts. Now some – albeit a minority – are arguing that even if they were born here or held British citizenship, even second- and third-generation migrants should be treated essentially as foreigners who could legitimately be deported.
Is the immigration debate – which may be motivated by a reasonable demand to control our borders and streets – spiralling towards darker sentiments? Is immigration really the reason for feelings of estrangement? Does that explain why so many people plan to vote Reform or attended the Unite the Kingdom march? Are migrants being scapegoated for broader reasons that the country seems so ill at ease with itself or for why people feel fed up with being ignored, powerless, disconnected, estranged?
SPEAKERSDolan Cummingswriter and novelist; co-director, Manifesto Club
Inaya Folarin Imanbroadcaster and columnist; founder and director, The Equiano Project
Lord Maurice GlasmanLabour life peer; author, Blue Labour: the politics of the common good; director, the Common Good Foundation
Ike Ijehauthor; architect; founder, London Architecture Walks; founding signatory, Don't Divide Us
Dr Tony Sewellfounder and director, Generating Genius; author, Black Success, The Surprising Truth
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; organiser, European Free Speech Network

What’s next for the young right?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The vibe shift is here. Once caricatured as reliably ‘woke’, today’s younger generations are proving harder to pin down. From the surge of the National Rally in France to the AfD’s rise in Germany and the growing profile of Reform in the UK, it is increasingly clear that parts of Europe’s youth are curious about ideas and movements on the political right. But where is this energy heading?
For many young people, the attraction stems from a sense of loss: a diminished sense of national pride and identity, and an anger at a society in social and economic decline. But what is the positive vision that could replace this? Should the young right reject the identity politics that defined the past decade, or repurpose it for a populist era of ethnonationalist or illiberal politics?
Students were once seen as the progressive, identitarian foot soldiers of the free-speech wars. Should young conservatives now stand firm for open debate, or imitate the left by deploying their opponents’ tactics of cancellation and cultural pressure? And if the left itself is now facing backlash, is such mimicry doomed to fail?
There are also questions of values. Should the young right embrace diversity and LGBT rights as part of a modern conservative vision, or return to something closer to a traditional vision of religion, family and society?
And finally, is this really a democratic groundswell of youth opinion or simply another iteration of fringe politics, where an organised minority sets the tone? What could a distinctively youthful right look like in the 2020s, and what future might it build?
SPEAKERSAlbie Amankonabroadcaster; financial analyst; executive member, 2022 Group; champion, Next Gen Tories; general council, LGBT+ Conservatives; co-founder, Conservatives Against Racism.
Charlie Downescampaigns director, Restore Britain
CHAIRInaya Folarin Imanbroadcaster and columnist; founder and director, The Equiano Project

Deepfakes: the media’s new challenge

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The proliferation of Al-generated imagery now means our social-media feeds are filled with the likes of popes in padded jackets, Studio Ghibli memes and lots of fat cats. While these are likely to make you chuckle, there is a darker side to this kind of imagery, which includes deepfakes. Defined as any image or recording that has been ‘convincingly altered and manipulated to misrepresent someone’ – often maliciously – some have predicted that eight million will be shared by the time 2025 is done, up from 500,000 in 2023.
Recent elections around the globe pointed to the power of these creations to move the dial. There was Biden apparently telling Democrats not to vote and the digital resurrection of long-time dictator Suharto in Indonesia, essentially endorsing his son-in-law, who went on to win. The AI-generated Fake Pentagon Explosion image a couple of years ago, depicting a massive explosion and smoke plume near the Pentagon, went viral, was shared by verified accounts and financial news outlets, and sparked panic in the markets.
More recently, AI-generated or manipulated visuals have proliferated during the Israel-Hamas conflict since October 2023, often amplifying emotional narratives to fuel propaganda. These fakes have been shared millions of times on social media, exploiting the war’s real horrors to inflame tensions, manipulate public opinion and, in turn, eroding trust in real evidence.
With many news organisations increasingly looking to social-media platforms as a way of newsgathering, deepfakes represent a novel challenge for verification, especially when trying to beat rivals to publish in an always-on ecosystem. Alongside AI-generated ‘facts’ and ‘quotes’ that are fictitious, are journalists likely to inadvertently share manipulated misinformation?
So what can be done? Part of the solution may lie with journalist’s ability to parse what is real and not. But as the technology improves and becomes more effective, digital tools – including Al – will be needed. But while we wait for more sophisticated technical solutions, some worry the threat of deepfakes will be yet another excuse for online censorship. And anyway, as journalists are professionally trained to check sources, do they need to maintain standards in being less credulous and more sceptical?
But more broadly, with trust levels in the news media for many already at rock bottom, is the threat that deepfakes pose really a novel one, especially when more old-fashioned, staged-for-the-camera reactions to Israeli attacks in Gaza are commonplace online? Are deepfakes just the latest problem plaguing an industry struggling with confirmation bias, tribalism and mistrust?
SPEAKERSLiam Deaconcommunications and campaigns consultant, Pagefield Communications; former journalist; former head of press, Brexit Party
Jenny Hollandwriter and critic; former assistant, New York Times; author, Saving Culture (from itself) Substack
Jacob Mchangamaexecutive director, The Future of Free Speech
CHAIRMax Sandersonassistant managing editor, Guardian

The battle over money: gold, bitcoin and geopolitics

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Money is not neutral. We may use it to buy and sell, and to store wealth, but governments can use it as a political tool, too. Right now, in front of our eyes, the nature of money is changing – significantly and dramatically.
For most of history, money meant gold. Then, in the twentieth century, as gold standards evaporated, we entered the era of ‘fiat’ money – government-issued currency, not backed by a commodity like gold, with its value derived from public faith in the government. This era brought relentlessly rising prices, with the dollar acting as the reserve currency. For decades, it seemed to work. But cracks are showing.
Since Russia’s reserves were frozen after its invasion of Ukraine, central banks have been stockpiling gold at record rates. China has understated its holdings by a factor of five. Gold has overtaken both the euro and US treasuries to become the second most-held reserve asset worldwide. Meanwhile, the US dollar, once the unquestioned reserve currency, has slipped below 50 per cent of global holdings. Gold, the world’s oldest money, is back on the front line of geopolitics.
Meanwhile, the US is quite deliberately engineering a managed decline of the dollar as a global reserve asset – Vice President JD Vance has called it a ‘tax’ on US producers — as part of its plans to reshore US industry. Both the US and China are content for ‘neutral’ gold to replace the dollar. They both have lots of gold.
At the same time, Bitcoin has emerged as a rival system: borderless, digital and outside state control. Some hail it as ‘gold for the internet age’. Others dismiss it as a scam. Either way, both gold and Bitcoin are now in direct collision with the state’s greatest power: control of money itself.
What is the future of money in all of this? The stakes could not be higher. What happens to freedom of speech, trade and political power when money itself is politicised? And where does Britain fit in?
In this session, Dominic Frisby — author of Bitcoin: The Future of Money? and his new book, The Secret History of Gold — argues that the battle over money is about to reshape politics, economics and freedom itself.
SPEAKERSDominic Frisbywriter; comedian; author, The Secret History of Gold: Myth, Money, Politics and Power
CHAIRRob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate

Palestine Action: to ban or not to ban?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The decision to proscribe Palestine Action (PA) as a terrorist organisation has been one of the Labour government’s most contentious decisions – with significant legal, political and social implications.
Justifying the decision, the then home secretary, Yvette Cooper, and the armed forces minister, Luke Pollard, argued that PA’s actions – particularly the spray-painting of military jets at RAF Brize Norton in 2025, reportedly costing millions – posed a serious threat to national security. The aim of proscription is to prevent other such attacks on critical infrastructure and military assets. But while cracking down on direct action, vandalism, trespassing, property damage and the targeting of businesses linked to Israel’s defence sector is legitimate, the row is about whether these would be better addressed through existing criminal laws.
Many argue that using terrorism legislation is disproportionate. The proscription of PA is the first time a non-violent direct-action group has been banned under the Terrorism Act 2000. And while Palestine Action’s tactics may well technically meet the statutory criteria for proscription, more contentiously the ban also criminalises ‘encouraging or promoting’ terrorism – in other words, verbal or visual support for the organisation. That means that even minor expressions of support – such as wearing clothing associated with the group – can incur penalties, including up to 14 years in prison or substantial fines. Is this yet another attack on free expression, and could it be expanded to suppress dissent more generally?
Already we have seen mass arrests of grannies, vicars and activists of all ages, all being carted off by the police for holding placards in support of the group. Others suggest that equating a domestic direct-action group like PA with violent terrorist organisations, like Hamas, ISIS or al-Qaeda, relativises the brutality and severity of ‘real’ terrorism.
Supporters of proscription believe deploying a civil-liberties defence of PA is disingenuous because the group brazenly flouts the criminal law to achieve its anti-Israel ends and needs to be tackled robustly. They point out that over the past year the group’s actions have escalated and show a willingness to use sabotage and violent intimidation to advance its political agenda.
For example, in the 2022 attack on Thales in Glasgow, activists caused over £1million in damage to submarine components and used pyrotechnics and smoke bombs that forced staff to evacuate in fear for their lives. And while initially the organisation focused on arms manufacturers, it has expanded its attacks to include financial institutions, universities, charities and government buildings, affecting innocent civilians and creating widespread fear.
One recent attack targeted a Jewish-owned business in north London: it was defaced by intimidatory slogans and broken glass. ‘The Underground Manual’ published by PA shows organised intent to sustain and amplify terrorist-like activities aimed at coercing the public and government through disruption and panic.
Have PA’s actions crossed from legitimate activism into terrorism? What are the implications for proscribing PA on the right to protest, free speech and even our definition of terrorism? Can you oppose proscription while also opposing PA’s aims and tactics or does such an approach amount to apologism for extreme Israelophobic activism?
SPEAKERSMark Birbeckfounder, Our Fight
Dr Ruth Dudley Edwardsjournalist; historian; crime novelist; broadcaster; awards include the Crime Writers’ Association Non-Fiction Gold Dagger for Aftermath: The Omagh Bombing and the Families’ Pursuit of Justice
Omar Mohamedwriter and activist
Dr Jake Wallis Simonsauthor, Never Again? How the West betrayed the Jews and itself
CHAIRNiall Crowleydesigner; writer; former East End pub landlord; co-producer and co-host, Arts First podcast

China’s trump card? Rare earths and geopolitics

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster.
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?
SPEAKERSRobert Figpartner, the metals risk team
Animesh Jhaprofessor, applied material science
Henry Sandersonjournalist; author, Volt Rush, the Winners and Losers in the Race to Go Green
CHAIRAustin Williamsdirector, Future Cities Project; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution