Academy of Ideas
The Academy of Ideas has been organising public debates to challenge contemporary knee-jerk orthodoxies since 2000. Subscribe to our channel for recordings of our live conferences, discussions and salons, and find out more at www.academyofideas.org.uk
The Academy of Ideas has been organising public debates to challenge contemporary knee-jerk orthodoxies since 2000. Subscribe to our channel for recordings of our live conferences, discussions and salons, and find out more at www.academyofideas.org.uk
Episodes

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 Many bemoan how once-feted towns have been replaced by low-grade sprawl.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

Monday Mar 02, 2026
After Greenland: understanding the new geopolitics
Monday Mar 02, 2026
Monday Mar 02, 2026
This is an extract from the Academy of Ideas Economy Forum discussion 'After Greenland: understanding the new geopolitics', which took place on Tuesday 24 February 2026.
First, economist and author Phil Mullan offers his analysis of what the Greenland affair tells us about the present and future of international politics. Then James Woudhuysen explores the changing nature of warfare today.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
President Trump’s insistence that the US must take control of Greenland has caused a furore, particularly among America’s NATO allies. Many are scratching their heads about why Trump went in so hard – including threatening new tariffs and even military action against America’s supposed friends on the world stage. After all, the US already has the power to station troops and weapons systems in Greenland thanks to a decades-old treaty.
Just weeks after the capture of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, the Greenland controversy was widely seen as the assertion of a ‘Don-roe doctrine’, with America asserting itself in its own ‘backyard’. One thing for sure is that the notion of a ‘rules-based international order’ – more convention than reality – has not been called into question as much in decades.
Trump’s over-riding concern seems to be China as an international rival. The Chinese government continues to demand control over Taiwan and has been marking out a zone of influence in the South China Sea and elsewhere. Meanwhile, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was viewed by many as the return of Great Power politics. Signs that Trump is more interested in settling the conflict than in supporting Ukrainian sovereignty only strengthen that belief.
How can we understand these new developments? Is this a sign of American strength or weakness? Is the world going to be divided into rival regional power blocs? With Europe now unable to assert itself, will it be marginalised now? Is there any chance of a new, stable international settlement?
SPEAKERSPhil Mullanwriter, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents
James Woudhuysenvisiting professor, forecasting and innovation, London South Bank University

Friday Feb 27, 2026
Are the old political parties over?
Friday Feb 27, 2026
Friday Feb 27, 2026
Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster.
Victory for the Greens in the Gorton & Denton by-election is the latest sign that old political loyalties have broken down. In what was, even as recently as the 2024 General Election, a very safe Labour seat, Hannah Spencer was elected with a majority of over 4,000. Reform came second, pushing Labour into an embarrassing third place while the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats both lost their deposits. Indeed, the three mainstream parties that have governed the UK for over 100 years managed less than 30 per cent of the vote between them.
What does all this mean for the future of British politics?
ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION
Are the mainstream parties facing extinction or can they bounce back by the time of the next General Election in 2029? Can the Tories recover from 14 years of misrule? Will the Labour Party survive from its current economic woes? Will the political vacuum be filled by Ed Davey’s Liberal Democrats or the ‘challenger’ parties like Reform or the Greens?
Take the Conservative Party: the oldest party in the world currently looks as if it is facing electoral wipeout. In a recent survey, 42 per cent of Conservative voters in the 2024 General Election said that even they wouldn’t vote for them. The party that squandered Brexit is desperately looking around for a purpose. Some Tories believe that Robert Jenrick poses a more credible alternative than the current leader, Kemi Badenoch.
But are they both fighting for a hopeless cause? Jenrick’s crime-fighting TikTok videos and Badenoch’s recent support of oil exploration got lots of media coverage, but Net Zero and the current failed model of policing were both introduced on their watch. Are they going back to their roots – if they can remember what those roots are – or are they simply mimicking Trump and Farage’s agendas from the sidelines?
Meanwhile, Labour seems to be imploding. A recent Ipsos poll ranked the current UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, as the most unpopular leader in modern times. In July 2024, his government won almost two-thirds of all seats, with a 174 majority in the Commons, yet a year later it is collapsing in the polls. The government has presided over cuts and tax rises, strikes and bailouts, two-tier justice and a zero-growth economy. The idea that if you pinned a red rosette on a donkey in Wales, it’d get elected no longer holds true.
Far from ‘smashing the gangs’, the immigration scandal that Labour inherited from the Tories means it is haemorrhaging support in Red Wall seats. Preferring Davos over Westminster, Starmer seems to prefer hob-nobbing with world leaders while taking British democracy for granted.
Yet the death of both Labour and the Conservatives has been declared numerous times before, only for them to revive. Is it too soon to count them out? Is Britain’s political map being redrawn, or torn up? Might proportional representation reinvigorate the mainstream parties? Must we wait for four more years? We’ll take a vote on it.
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

Friday Feb 20, 2026
The rise of the workplace speech police
Friday Feb 20, 2026
Friday Feb 20, 2026
Debate recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House, Westminster.
This week, Reform's Suella Braverman declared that if the party were elected to government it would 'repeal the Equality Act, because we are going to work to build a country defined by meritocracy not tokenism, personal responsibility not victimhood, excellence not mediocrity, and unity not division'.
In response, Prime Minister Keir Starmer told the BBC that the Act represented 'basic values, one of which is should women be treated equally with men... I think it actually rips up something that goes to who we are as a country because I believe passionately that to be tolerant, compassionate and diverse is what it is to be British'.
What has been the impact of the Equality Act on British workplaces?
ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION
The British workplace is now too often a toxic environment, a hotbed of grievance culture, lawfare and an ever-expanding number of disciplinary codes unrelated to the nature of specific jobs. Over the past year, there’s been a 23 per cent rise in cases at employment tribunals and a two-year waiting list, due to a growing backlog, with workplace conflicts estimated to now cost businesses £28.5 billion annually.
How did this come about?
The UK is a world leader in human relations (HR). With over half a million HR workers – almost double the number of 15 years ago – Britain stands second in the global league table for size of HR sector as a share of all occupations. Over seven in 10 FTSE 100 companies now boast a ‘chief HR officer’ on their executive committee, reflecting the elevated status of this newfound ‘profession’.
We might expect this might lead to happier more productive workers, fewer grievances and higher job retention. Yet the growth of the HR industrial complex doesn’t appear to have led to better workplace outcomes or harmony.
Arguably, HR is as much the problem as the solution. HR departments – until recently humdrum administrative hubs managing payrolls, processing sick notes and checking firms complied with employment law – have now morphed into real centres of power. They are the enforcers of workplace orthodoxies, controlling what workers can say or do, who keeps their job, and even shaping corporate missions. For example, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) is charged with versing workers in new values, from DEI literacy to managing emotional security.
What’s more, the traditional defenders of workers’ rights – trade unions – are increasingly acting in lockstep with HR managers’ priorities. A recent paper by the Free Speech Union, Shopped Stewards, revealed the divisive nature of union bureaucrats’ adherence to identity politics, which means they often side with the DEI initiatives of their employers, as opposed to defending their members’ rights. For example, teacher Simon Pearson was fired by Preston College after a complaint from a Muslim representative of the National Education Union (NEU). Pearson was accused of being ‘Islamophobic’ and ‘racially discriminatory’ for social-media posts, such as saying Lucy Connolly ‘should not have been jailed’.
Another report suggests that specific legislation has led to a deterioration in workplace relations. The Don’t Divide Us report, The Equality Act Isn’t Working, reveals the ‘expansionary logic’ of the Equality Act 2010 has provided the legal scaffolding that supports a surge in (largely unsuccessful) workplace race–discrimination claims. This, DDU argues, contributes to a grievance culture where people resort to ‘lawfare’ to resolve ‘petty disputes and imagined slights’, while empowering thin-skinned employees to wilfully misinterpret perfectly innocent comments or interactions.
Can the workplace be detoxified? How can we tame the HR monster? Can trade unions return to a ‘one for all, all for one’ role of protecting workers’ rights? Can laws that are divisive in workplaces be reined in?
SPEAKERSPamela Dowchief operating officer, Civic Future
Paul Emberyfirefighter; trade unionist; author, Despised: why the modern Left loathes the working class; broadcaster
Maya Forstaterchief executive, Sex Matters
Dr Anna Loutfiemployment and human rights barrister; advisory council member, Don’t Divide Us
CHAIRPara Mullanformer operations director, EY-Seren; fellow, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development

Wednesday Feb 04, 2026
Rape gangs, Post Office and Scottish self-ID: an anatomy of three scandals
Wednesday Feb 04, 2026
Wednesday Feb 04, 2026
A debate recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival at Church House, Westminster on Saturday 18 October 2025.
ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION
In recent years, Britain has been rocked by several scandals where the public has been kept in the dark. Politicians and the authorities have indulged in obfuscation, denial, cover-ups and even possible collusion – all to avoid accountability or admit responsibility. As with previous scandals, it’s often been grassroots campaigners, victims’ groups and courageous journalists who have brought these issues to public attention.
What was it like being a key player on the frontline of history in three of these recent scandals: rape gangs, the Post Office miscarriages of justice and gender self-ID in Scotland? Journalists Charlie Peters and Nick Wallis, and Susan Smith from campaign group For Women Scotland, tell their stories of activism, investigation and holding truth to power.
GB News reporter Charlie Peters, presenter of the 2023 documentary, Grooming Gangs: Britain’s Shame, has called it ‘the worst race-hate scandal and abuse scandal since the Second World War’. Meanwhile, Conservative MP Nick Timothy, writing in response to Sir Keir Starmer’s announcement that he would – at last – commission a national inquiry on the back of recommendations in Baroness Casey’s National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (2025), stated: ‘Rape gangs are the biggest scandal of our generation.’
The Post Office Horizon IT scandal stands out as another one of the UK’s most significant miscarriages of justice. Faulty accounting software developed by Fujitsu led to the Post Office prosecuting over 900 subpostmasters for theft, fraud or false accounting, resulting in wrongful convictions, bankruptcies, imprisonments and even suicides. Nick Wallis, a freelance journalist, broadcaster and author, has been one of the leading figures in exposing and chronicling the scandal.
For Women Scotland (FWS) is a women’s rights advocacy group that was set up in 2018 to oppose the SNP’s attempts to force gender self-identification through Holyrood. Even when the Gender Recognition Reform Bill was blocked by the Tory UK government, the then first minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, continued to defend the policy. In a car-crash press conference, she famously refused to say whether double-rapist Adam Graham/Isla Bryson, who was initially sent to a female jail, was a man or a woman. The scandal caused a huge public outcry and has been partially blamed for Sturgeon’s sudden resignation a few months later. The furore also forged For Women Scotland into a formidable campaign group that eventually won a famous victory in clarifying equality law at the Supreme Court.
These scandals are only three of the many that have shocked our nation, alongside the Grenfell Tower fire, the Hillsborough tragedy, the infected-blood scandal and more. Are such scandals simply a feature of modern Britain? Do they, as many argue, implicate the state itself as negligent, incompetent and mired in the tendency to cover-up and collude? What can we learn from these brave journalists and campaigners who have stood at the frontline, challenged politicians and the authorities, and held them to account?
SPEAKERS
Charlie PetersGB News national reporter
Susan Smithco-director, For Women Scotland; director, Beira’s Place; contributor, The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht
Nick Wallisjournalist, presenter, BBC Radio 4 series The Great Post Office Trial
CHAIR
Claire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Wednesday Jan 14, 2026
China's Trump card? Rare earths and geopolitics
Wednesday Jan 14, 2026
Wednesday Jan 14, 2026
Recording of a debate at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTIONOne 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

Friday Jan 09, 2026
Podcast of Ideas: Trump's intervention into Venezuela
Friday Jan 09, 2026
Friday Jan 09, 2026
The Academy of Ideas team – Alastair Donald, Claire Fox, Rob Lyons and Jacob Reynolds – discuss the immediate fallout after President Trump's decision to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Why did Trump act? Is it about narcotics, oil, democracy or his desire to create a 'Don-roe doctrine' of US dominance in the Americas?
What has been the role of domestic politics – is this the culture wars by other means?
For those who believe in that sovereignty is a vital right for nation states, should we make an exception here given the appalling nature of Maduro's regime or must sovereignty be defended at all times?
What's left of the 'rules-based international order' when Trump is not only intervening in Venezuela but threatening Denmark's control of Greenland, too?
Will the reaction against Trump's actions weaken the hand of populist forces elsewhere?

Wednesday Jun 04, 2025
Woke politics: ‘People are realising it is deeply authoritarian’
Wednesday Jun 04, 2025
Wednesday Jun 04, 2025
In a wide-ranging interview, Andrew Doyle talks to Claire Fox about his new book, The End of Woke and why there is much still to be done to defend freedom.
Andrew notes that while some things have shifted in recent months – from the Cass Review and the UK Supreme Court judgement on the meaning of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act to the start of Donald Trump’s second presidential term – it doesn’t mean that our problems are over. The ‘new puritans’ he identified in his previous book are still very much there and clinging on to their power and influence.
It's now five years since the death of George Floyd and the hysteria around Black Lives Matter. Claire and Andrew reflect on what the hell happened and the dangers that arise from a re-racialisation of society. They also look at how identity politics and racial thinking has led to a white grievance culture and a tit-for-tat outlook, which Andrew argues has more to do with revenge than with promoting a liberal society.
Above all, the conversation focuses on the continued importance of the fight for free speech, even for 'cosplay' rebels like Irish rappers Kneecap. And they tackle the way in which woke has undermined the search for truth: when even something as common sense as biological sex is called into question, then anything goes – and society suffers.


