Academy of Ideas

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

World Cup Podcast of Ideas: episode 1

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

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

Racial grievance politics: how did we become so divided?

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

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

Elections 2026: what next for populism, democracy, Starmer and the Union?

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
 

Podcast of Ideas: Has Scottish devolution been a failure?

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?