Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

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

Is gambling immoral?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In the summer of 2025, the think tank IPPR revived the idea of sharp rises in the ‘sin taxes’ on gambling. Not only is this intended to increase revenues for the Treasury, but it also chimes with a longstanding idea: that gambling is wrong and immoral. Many religions have always taken this approach. Our fortunes, they say, should not purely be down to chance. They criticise gambling as it gives us the idea that we can solve all our problems if we simply get lucky on that one occasion.
But across many countries in Europe, national lotteries – the biggest games of chance – are promoted by all governments, regardless of their political views. In the UK, the state doesn’t hide the odds of winning the jackpot – less than 45million to one for the UK Lotto draw – as the official symbol for the National Lottery is a big sign with two fingers crossed for luck.But other forms of gambling, like slot machines and random casino games of chance, (especially online) are seen very differently. Media headlines talk about ‘problem gambling’ and ‘addictive behaviour’, and there are calls for new and stricter regulations when it comes to these types of gambling.
Should we be concerned about how people spend their money? Is gambling an activity which is inherently negative? Should we therefore take a different approach to the regulation of gambling, where we seek to look after those who need protection from this activity, particularly when gambling adverts are almost ubiquitous? Or should we argue against ‘nanny state’ legislation that hinders the freedom of adults to engage in a what is, for the vast majority of people, a relatively harmless leisure activity?
SPEAKERSJon Bryangambling writer and poker player
Matt Zarb-Cousindirector, Clean up Gambling; co-founder, Gamban
CHAIRJohn O’Brienhead of communications, MCC Brussels

School’s out: the rise of home education

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The number of children being home schooled is rising rapidly and the government is cracking down. Until now, the law recognised that it is not school, but education that is mandatory, and parents have been trusted to decide on the best options for their own children.
Currently, there are no restrictions on parents taking their children out of, or never sending them to, school. However, this is set to change with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and many home-schooling parents argue this amounts to state over-reach.
This Bill was announced on the same day as the sentencing of the father and stepmother of 10-year-old Sara Sharif, who took her out of school to hide the unthinkable abuse that led to her death. Supporters of the Bill ask what is wrong with a law change to protect children. Who can object to parents no longer having an automatic right to home educate if their child is subject to a child protection investigation or under a child protection plan?
But critics of the Bill argue that the inference that home-schooling is, in itself, a safeguarding issue is an insult to parents. In Sara Sharif’s case, the issue was not home schooling but state agencies placing her with a known abuser. What’s more, plans to introduce compulsory Children Not in School registers in every local authority in England, so that councils can make sure that all children are receiving a suitable education, are over-intrusive, undermine privacy and create a culture of mistrust in parents’ freedom to educate their own children.
Why do parents increasingly decide to home educate? According to government research, the main reason has always been philosophical beliefs. Certainly, the freedom not to have to follow the national curriculum is appealing to those parents who worry lessons have become politicised around race, climate change and gender. For example, sex and relationships education has been used to push gender ideology onto children.
But also, after Covid, children’s mental health has been the fastest-growing reason given by parents for taking their children out of school. Bullying, special educational needs, religious beliefs and general dissatisfaction with local schools and lack of places are also often cited. Some believe that the tax raid on private schools will only increase this trend and there have even been reports of parents removing their children from school to avoid term-time holiday fines.
Should parents have the freedom to educate their children as they wish, without state interference? Will these new measures prevent vulnerable children falling through the cracks and provide vital safeguarding for those most at risk? Who should be responsible for children – their parents or the state?
SPEAKERSVenice Allancampaigner for women and children; research assistant, House of Lords
John Denninghead of education, The Christian Institute
Joolz Saville-Hippelyformer home educator
CHAIRGareth Sturdyeducation and science writer; co-organiser, AoI Education Forum

Are the old political parties over?

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

Letters on Liberty: Abortion and the Freedom to Forge Our Own Fate

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 her Letter – Abortion and the Freedom to Forge Our Own Fate – Ann Furedi, an author and former chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, argues that debates about abortion often focus on when human life begins in the womb. Instead, she argues that it is important to consider a different human life – that of the woman.
Furedi argues that the future of a woman’s pregnancy should be for her alone to decide, and this decision ought to be regarded as personal and private. There is no clearer illustration of the way choice, agency and responsibility matters than the consequences of a woman’s decision about her pregnancy, she says. To prevent someone from exercising their own choice, in a personal and private matter, is to strip them of their dignity and their humanity. Most importantly, she argues, we cannot respect the principles of freedom without acknowledging the freedom of reproductive choice.
However, abortion is still regulated by law and legal limits, which can lead to a clash between an individual woman’s rights and policy priorities. This was vividly illustrated by the recent backlash after MPs voted to change abortion legislation to stop women in England and Wales being prosecuted for ending their pregnancy after 24 weeks. The landslide vote to decriminalise the procedure – considered the biggest change to abortion laws in England and Wales for nearly 60 years – was met with horror in some quarters and not confined to traditional anti-abortion circles. For example, even some feminists argued foetal viability creates a clash of rights. So, is abortion such a clear cut issue for women’s freedom?
Join Ann and respondents to discuss whether such controversies and public qualms might undermine UK abortion rights. How does a decision to continue or end a pregnancy relate to a woman’s freedom to shape her own life? With abortion regulation in many US states as well as other countries becoming more restrictive, does this reflect public sentiment? If not, how should we make the case for bodily autonomy in the twenty-first century?
SPEAKERSDr Piers Bennphilosopher, author and lecturer
Ann Furediauthor, The Moral Case for Abortion; former chief executive, BPAS
Margo MartinPhD student, Aberystwth University
Jacob Phillipsprofessor of systematic theology, St Mary’s University, Twickenham; author, Obedience is Freedom
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

Letters on Liberty: The Tyranny of Campus Wellbeing

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 her Letter – The Tyranny of Campus Wellbeing – writer and student Felice Basboll argues that a focus on mental health and wellbeing is making us ill. The stressors that used to be considered inevitable parts of adult life are now seen as oppressive, she writes. Young people are assumed by everyone – themselves included – to be incapable of dealing with adversity. Rather than meet the difficulties that life might throw at them head on, she argues, the prioritisation of wellbeing means that disagreeable views must be censored, and harsh realities avoided. As a result, students and other young people are convincing themselves that they’re not able to handle real life.
Join Felice and respondents to discuss whether thinking about our wellbeing is good for us. While the destigmatisation of mental health has its benefits, is there a danger in blurring the lines between negative emotions and serious illness? Is wellbeing in danger of being weaponised as a means to censor views we don’t want to hear? And is it possible to push back when society’s priority seems to be feelings over action?
SPEAKERSFelice Basbøllhistory student, Trinity College Dublin; author, The Tyranny of Campus Wellbeing
Dr Jennifer Cunninghamretired community paediatrician; board member, Scottish Union for Education (SUE)
Maeve Halliganco-founder and president, Cambridge University Society of Women; postgraduate student, Eastern European literature; Living Freedom alumna
Ed Renniepsychotherapist; co-founder Climate Debate UK
Eloise Schultzlaw student; political activist
CHAIRDr Ruth Mieschbuehlersenior lecturer in education studies, University of Derby; author, The Racialisation of Campus Relations
 

Can Trump bring peace to the world?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster, on Saturday 18 October.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
‘I want to end it. You know, we’re not losing American lives… we’re losing Russian and Ukrainian mostly soldiers. I want to try and get to heaven if possible. I’m hearing I’m not doing well. I am really at the bottom of the totem pole. But if I can get to heaven, this will be one of the reasons.’
Donald Trump phoned in to a Fox News show to state his motivation for focusing so much on bringing peace to Europe after over three years of the biggest war the continent had seen since the Second World War. Trump might be genuine about his desire to see peace. But the question is whether Trump’s ‘art of the deal’ is cut out for the realities of geopolitics.
It is not just Ukraine where Trump has sought peace. Trump claims to have brought peace to six or seven conflicts in his two terms in office, including Israel-Iran, Pakistan-India and Armenia-Azerbaijan. His administration has also pursued an end to the conflict in Gaza. But in all cases, critics have attacked both the style and the substance of Trump’s peace efforts.
Most obvious have been his failures to end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Despite promising to bring it to an end in 24 hours, and despite August’s high-profile meeting between Trump and Vladimir Putin, and then Trump’s hosting of European leaders including Volodymyr Zelensky, the war seems little closer to an end than when he took office. Supporters of Ukraine have been outraged by his suggestions that Ukraine would have to engage in a ‘land for peace’ swap, and point to Trump’s see-sawing on military support to the beleaguered country and entertaining of ‘war criminal’ Putin.
But many of his supporters are disappointed for the opposite reason – he has refused to cut off the ‘ungrateful’ Zelensky. It seems that Trump’s belief that merely encouraging Putin and Zelensky to come to the table has floundered on the reality of a conflict with huge ramifications and deep roots – including the role of previous American administrations.
Elsewhere, results are more mixed. Trump seems to have successfully dealt with Israel’s conflict with Iran with a combination of an unprecedented use of American airpower against Iran and frantic social-media posts restraining Netanyahu. Trump’s role in India and Pakistan is unclear, but the exchanges did not escalate into war. Yet peace in Gaza remains elusive – the Trump administration has given almost unrestrained backing in practice to Israel whilst hinting at displeasure with the Israeli government, and yet seems to have little leverage over Hamas and its backers.
It is still too early to tell if Trump will succeed in ending Russia’s war or bring the Israeli hostages home. But are Trump’s efforts the result of serious geopolitical acumen or just a desperate desire for a Nobel Prize? Is Trump deluded in thinking that he personally can end major conflicts – and has the time when America could dictate world affairs come to an end? But if Trump can’t bring peace, can anyone? Or is it a mistake to think of these wars as a matter of personalities, when much larger geopolitical forces are at play?
SPEAKERSLord Tariq Ahmad KCMGforeign minister, diplomat, British businessman, and community leader
Mary Dejevskyformer foreign correspondent in Moscow, Paris and Washington; special correspondent in China; writer and broadcaster
Dominic Greenhistorian; columnist, Wall Street Journal and Washington Examiner
Blair Milosenior fellow, Sagamore Institute
Bruno WaterfieldBrussels correspondent, The Times
CHAIRTony Gillandchief of staff, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Why is my energy bill so high?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster, on Saturday 18 October.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Heating or eating? That has become a burning question for many people. From struggling households to steel works and factories, energy prices remain a hot topic. Ed Miliband’s assurance that bills would fall by £300 per year looks wildly optimistic.
The cost of energy bills became a major political issue when a combination of a post-pandemic resurgence of the world economy and war in Ukraine sent the price of energy in general, and natural gas in particular, shooting up. Prices have come down a lot since then, but remain higher than before. The Ofgem energy price cap for a ‘typical household’ increased from £1,137 per year in January 2019 to £1,720 in July 2025 – a rise of over 50 per cent.
Supporters of renewable energy argue that the UK is still at the mercy of global prices for gas because ‘gas sets the price’ in the energy market, thanks to the way the ‘merit order’ works for wholesale energy prices: the most expensive form of energy that is used sets the price for everything. Generally, that is gas. Get rid of fossil fuels, we are told, and we would have lower prices and less exposure to world markets.
However, critics point out that the wholesale price is only part of the story. The retail price of energy includes a variety of subsidies for renewable energy that mean the actual price renewable producers receive is much higher. If renewables are really as cheap as their proponents claim, why do they need to be subsidised and why do countries that use a lot of renewables also have the highest energy bills? Will prices rise further as we use even more renewables? And if energy security is so important, why would we want to rely on intermittent energy sources like wind and solar?
In this session, energy experts will explain how our energy bills remain so high and what the consequences are for household finances and the wider economy.
SPEAKERSLord Mackinlaydirector, The Global Warming Policy Foundation
Kathryn Porterconsultant, Watt-Logic
David Turverenergy policy analyst, Eigen Values
CHAIRRob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate