Academy of Ideas

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Sunday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
From accusations of ‘two-tier’ justice to an inability to tackle everyday criminality, the disarray enveloping British institutions is nowhere more evident than with the police.
In recent times, intervening to stop widespread crime such as shoplifting, and solving – or even investigating – ‘traditional’ crimes such as burglary has seemed less of a priority than sorting out petty disputes, enforcing speech codes, tackling catcalling or donning rainbow flags. When a couple were arrested for using a private parents’ WhatsApp group to criticise their daughter’s school, it seemed to sum up the petty, censorious nature of policing today.
Policing impartiality has been called into question by what is described as a ‘two-tier’ approach. Critics identify the perceived leniency towards Leeds Harehills rioters from the Roma community with a tough response to disturbances following the Southport murders as a turning point – not just in the exercise of public order itself, but in public perception of an unfair system.
Since then, a report by Hardeep Singh, The Many Tiers of British Justice, has noted that there are ‘many examples of where identity politics and progressivist causes have trumped impartial policing’. Dismay has grown at police failure to tackle – and even alleged complicity in – the grooming gangs scandals; the seeming disparity in treatment of Lucy Connolly and Labour councillor Ricky Jones has added fuel to the fire. When the High Court recently ruled that uniformed officers should no longer take part in Pride events or parades, stressing that supporting a cause can ‘undermine the public’s confidence in impartiality’, it at least seemed like recognition of the two-tier problem.
Police chiefs though reject the two-tier charge, citing limited resources, the need to police by consent, and the danger of judging complex situations through social-media clips. Others say ‘two-tier’ has become a cliché, a dog whistle to protestors or a far-right conspiracy theory – each effectively hindering officers and the wider cause of justice.
In any event, has policing not always required differential approaches to different groups or sections of society? For example, higher rates of stop and search among minorities are often justified as legitimately reflecting policing needs on the ground. Is there anything wrong with policies that reflect different needs and risks?
Whatever the truth, police priorities are increasingly perceived as diverging from public concerns while the service faces significant challenges, simultaneously lacking in authority and public consent while also confronted by a crisis of purpose and identity.
Does policing need wholesale reform to restore trust, or is the real challenge persuading the public it remains even-handed? Are accusations of two-tier policing justified, or just a cynical victimhood narrative hyped-up to make partisan political points? In a world where everyone can record and broadcast instantly, can policing survive the court of public opinion?
SPEAKERSPeter Bleksleywriter and broadcaster; former detective, Scotland Yard
Luke Gittoscriminal lawyer; author, Human Rights – Illusory Freedom; director, Freedom Law Clinic
Sarah Phillimorebarrister; co-founder, Fair Cop
Hardeep Singhjournalist; author, The many tiers of British justice: When identity politics and progressivist causes trump impartial policing; deputy director, Network of Sikh Organisations
CHAIRSimon McKeonfounder member, Our Fight UK; QPR season ticket holder; archivist

‘The populists, nationalists, stupid nationalists, they are in love with their own countries’, declared Jean-Claude Juncker, the former president of the European Commission, in May 2019. This familiar retort of a leading figure in the globalised elite exemplifies the recent fashion for regarding any manifestation of national pride with contempt. But what was intended as a snide insult about love of country then, now seems to have been embraced with pride by millions throughout the West.
Whether it’s the seeming unstoppable rise of national populist parties throughout Europe or the popular MAGA support for Donald Trump’s pursuit of national interest, it seems that unapologetic nationalism is in the ascendant. In Britain, one very visual grassroots campaign, Operation Raise the Colours, illustrates this shift. Local people have been inspired to hang thousands of Saint George’s Cross and Union flags on lampposts all over the country. And as quickly as local councils rip them down, flags are defiantly raised again, a symbolic gesture of an unashamed nationalist pride.
This is a momentous shift in the West because, until recently, many felt inhibited about voicing their patriotic sentiments in the wake of an implicit but dogged, top-down cultural crusade against nationalism. Its negative associations with national rivalries, war and fascism continue to resonate.  Many commentators are perhaps understandably queasy. Is this an emboldened demonstration of xenophobia and bigotry?
However, others point out that the growth of supranational institutions, as a counter to these alleged negatives, has undermined the legitimacy of the nation-state per se. This has led to official scepticism of borders, an embrace of mass migration and an associated disregard for the specific privileges of national citizenship. Meanwhile, the gradual detachment of the governing elites from the institutions of the nation has contributed to their alienation from their own nation’s culture and popular sentiment. In many places, this has included increasing institutional hostility to the country’s historic legacy, presented as a national story of shame, slavery, colonialism, oppression.
But perhaps the governing classes’ loss of ability to inspire loyalty and pride in the nation has fomented a backlash. Now a people’s rebellion seems determined to take back control of the national narrative. Meanwhile, the ideology of globalisation is rapidly unravelling. Postwar international legal agreements and institutions, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, are now exposed as barriers to pursuing national interest in global affairs. Is the national sovereignty now emerging a key to the conduct of global affairs once more?
At a time when many feel an increasing sense of isolation, of being disconnected from any larger shared project, is a return to national identity an inevitable, even welcome trend? Or does it reflect an absence of alternatives, a feeling that ordinary people have little else to hold on to? Does nationalism still retain its worrying, discredited associations with everything from racism to warmongering? Or is nationalism a return to our democratic roots, a force capable of forging national solidarity that can overcome the divisive fragmentation of demographic, cultural, ethnic, identitarian and political changes that have left citizens feeling like strangers in their own land? Can political elites learn to love their country again, and allow national interest to guide policies in the best interest of their nation state?
SPEAKERSAda Akpalawriter and commentator
Dr Rakib Ehsanauthor, Beyond Grievance: what the Left gets wrong about ethnic minorities
Eric Kaufmannprofessor of politics, University of Buckingham; advisory council member, Free Speech Union; author, Taboo: How Making Race Sacred Led to a Cultural Revolution
Professor Robert Tombsemeritus professor of French history, Cambridge University; co-editor, History Reclaimed
Bruno WaterfieldBrussels correspondent, The Times
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Sunday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
National ID cards have been a hotly debated issue for decades in Britain. Being able to unambiguously prove who you are can be extremely useful for us all as individuals – but that facility also comes with concerns about our liberties.
Historically, the British public have not been supportive of a national-identification scheme, particularly when a passport, driving licence or birth certificate can act as sufficient proof when needed by officialdom. At one time, politicians agreed. For example, in 1952, Winston Churchill abolished the national identity cards that had been imposed during the Second World War saying this was fulfilling his promise to ‘set the people free in Britain’.
After the 9/11 terror attacks in 2001, there was a push by the then Labour government under Tony Blair to reintroduce national identity cards. This led to the Identity Cards Act 2006. However, in 2011, the law was scrapped by the coalition government on the basis of civil liberties and privacy concerns. In June 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced ‘Freedom Day’, where pandemic measures were to be relaxed while simultaneously saying it was time to have ‘vaccine passports’, based on digital ID, to enter venues and buildings. While millions registered with the NHS Digital app, vaccine passports were fiercely contested and did not take off.
However, some groups are still keen. The Tony Blair Institute has been a continual advocate for digital ID. In 2025, Labour Together produced a report, BritCard: a progressive digital identity for Britain, proposing a mandatory digital ID card that would be able to identify everyone in Britain. It argued that this would help not only with illegal migration concerns but also make it easier to access services.
However, civil-liberties campaigners warn that mandatory ID will create a biometric surveillance state that traces, tracks and monitors all aspects of our behaviour – at a cost. There is the precedent of ‘debanking’ and also concerns over data protection.
Do we want to live in a (virtual) ‘papers please’ society? Or are the concerns with digital ID overblown? Is it worth the risks of a surveillance society if fraud and serious crime can be curbed using such measures? Could digital ID ‘stop the boats’ of illegal migrants? What is the right balance between privacy and freedom on the one hand and safety and convenience on the other?
SPEAKERSAlan Millerco-founder and chair, Together Association
Morgan Wildchief policy adviser, Labour Together
CHAIRDr Tiffany Jenkinswriter and broadcaster; author, Strangers and Intimates and Keeping Their Marbles

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Sunday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Marketing with purpose, rather than solely for profit, hit the mainstream 20 years ago with the launch by Unilever of the ‘Campaign for Real Beauty’ for Dove. This was a well-meaning attempt to link selling soap with a broader social theme: female body positivity.
With the rise of CSR (corporate social responsibility) and EDI in business, more brands dived into so-called ‘purpose-led’ marketing in their communications, advertising and logo design. The rush was on, not just to flog stuff to consumers, but also to take a stance on social issues and portray the brand as an actor on the societal stage. It didn’t always go to plan.
People have an affection and loyalty for their favourite brands. So, for some marketing directors’ moves to align the car, beer or food they sell with the social cause du jour, there is a backlash waiting to happen. A quiet but loyal user base who were happy with the brand’s previous non-politicised approach may object to a new direction and make their feelings known – with social media pile-ons and boycotts, sometimes to devastating effect.
The solution is for the brand to only make moves that are well-researched, authentic and heartfelt, where the external marketing supports the reality of the product and realistic consumer tolerance.
It’s the quick-win superficial attempts to get down with the kids (for example, Bud Light beer’s financially disastrous ‘partnership’ with a transgender influencer in 2023) that can turn to a quick loss. And even removing a familiar symbol can be as infuriating to the base as creating a diverse new campaign. The Cracker Barrel restaurant chain in the US found this recently when they announced the removal of the (apparently) much-loved ‘Uncle Herschel’ character from their logo and tried to go all plain and bland. And when Donald Trump weighed in, sensing an attack on the traditional values of his MAGA base, the company was caught in the headlights.
This session will ask if we are past ‘peak purpose’. Should brands with big marketing, advertising and design budgets persist in using their leverage to become political or social evangelists and risk the backlash from those who disagree… or just dodge the issue and stick to selling stuff? What is the purpose of ‘marketing with purpose’?
SPEAKERSSuzanne Evansdirector, Political Insight
Martin Loatcommunications expert, business mentor, social campaigner
Kevin McCullaghfounder, Plan; innovation strategist and writer
CHAIRDr Michael Owensurban planning researcher and lecturer; author, Play the Game

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Sunday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The past 20 years have seen astonishing advances in science, technology and medicine. Building upon the completion of the Human Genome Project at the turn of the century, scientists have developed ever more powerful ways to sequence and study DNA, enabling us to better understand genetic diseases and develop pioneering treatments. Now, AI tools such as the AlphaFold program developed by Google DeepMind are also providing unprecedented understanding of the human proteome – the complete set of proteins made from instructions in our DNA.
As well as acquiring powerful ways to study DNA, we have also acquired powerful ways to change it. CRISPR genome editing, which enables us to make precise changes to the DNA of humans and other organisms, is now widely used in laboratories across the world and has been used in life-saving treatments for devastating diseases. Meanwhile, stem-cell research has advanced to the point where it is now possible to create structures resembling early human embryos entirely from stem cells, instead of having to begin by fertilising an egg cell with a sperm cell. There is even speculation about one day being able to bypass pregnancy altogether.
Some are thrilled about the new possibilities opened up by these developments, while others worry about human life being mechanised in ways that seem distasteful. Genetics, genomics, neuroscience and psychology can be (mis)used to seek to reduce human beings to brain circuits and physiological mechanisms, which can then be managed via modification, drugs or nudge-based policy. Who gets to decide what counts as progress, and who gets a say in how science is governed?
What happens when the (in)famous Silicon Valley dictum ‘Move fast and break things’ meets biology? What can be learned from incidents such as the He Jiankui scandal of 2018, in which a Chinese scientist who worked on human embryos in secret breached scientific and ethical standards, resulting in the birth of three children with edited genomes? How can oversight and rules be imposed, when the science is so complex and fast-moving, and when the world is made up of diverse (and in some cases warring) nation states?
Over the past two decades, Sandy Starr of the Progress Educational Trust and Dr Stuart Derbyshire of the National University of Singapore have been involved in numerous national and international deliberations on science, ethics, policy and law in these areas. At this breakfast banter, they will compare their experiences, exchange insights and invite questions.
DISCUSSANTSDr Stuart Derbyshireassociate professor, deputy head of psychology, National University of Singapore
Sandy Starrdeputy director, Progress Educational Trust; author, AI: Separating Man from Machine

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Sunday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
TERF Island is the story of the brave and determined women who led the charge against demands that undermined their rights and jeopardised the physical and mental health of children. They dragged shadowy campaigns into the daylight, exposing the harm that would result – and the harm that had already been done. They forced policy change, set legal precedents and transformed public opinion.
Fiona McAnena has been right there campaigning alongside them. Her unique insight and personal involvement bring to life the intimate human stories behind the movement to Keep Britain Terfy. This extraordinary, inspiring, furious and sometimes funny account shows how a few women, acting on their convictions, turned back a tide which threatened to sweep away the rights their foremothers fought for.
McAnena’s book offers rare insight into the strategy, setbacks, and successes of years of grassroots activism and reveals the key figures behind the resistance to gender ideology. It also critically examines the claims of transgender ideology and explores the impact of gender identity policies on law, language, sport, prisons and children’s health, arguing why sex matters in public life.
Should trans rights be prioritised over childhood and the protection of women? How have trans lobbyists unpicked past medical and scientific standards – undermining solid trials and ethical approval? Is there a way to move forward, to safeguard women’s sports and maintain vigorous scientific standards? What enabled the UK to be ‘TERF Island’ when so many other jurisdictions have fallen to trans ideology?
SPEAKERSSonya Douglasartist, poet and campaigner
Fiona McAnenadirector of campaigns, Sex Matters; author, Terf Island: How the UK resisted trans ideology
Connie Shawexternal affairs officer, The Free Speech Union; contributor, GB News
CHAIRCeri Dingledirector, WORLDwrite and WORLDbytes
 

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Sunday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Plato wrote The Republic around 375 BC, making it 2,400 years old. Yet it has continued to reverberate throughout the entire subsequent history of Western philosophy. Any serious philosopher since has had to reference their ideas to the framework Plato originally set down in ancient Greece.
The Republic is the best known of Plato’s Socratic dialogues. In one sense, it can be thought of as a diatribe against Athenian democracy. It was this democracy that Plato blamed for the death of his friend and mentor Socrates. But it was also this same city, Athens, that allowed Plato to prosper.
What does Plato’s philosophy still have to say to us about the questions we face today? Have we yet managed to find our way out of Plato’s ‘cave’ or are we still flailing about in ignorance in the dark?
SPEAKERSDennis Hayesfounder and director, Academics For Academic Freedom (AFAF); author, The Death of Academic Freedom? Free speech and censorship
David Perksretired head teacher
CHAIRGareth Sturdyeducation and science writer; co-organiser, AoI Education Forum

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Sunday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Tinder, Grindr, Bumble, Hinge, Feeld – whatever your dating preference, there’s an app for it. Gone are the days of hitting the town in the hopes of catching someone’s eye in a busy bar. People moan about their problems, and some want to leave digital dating behind, but for today’s generation, the first spark often happens over a keypad.
Should we be worried about the prevalence of online dating? For some, the game-like approach to virtual romance, with love thwarted or given a chance with a swipe of the thumb, is degrading. Novara Media’s Aaron Bastani recently called for a ban on dating apps, as they ‘encourage the worst possible behaviour towards other people’. Others argue that the addictive nature of online dating, where multiple partners can be found at the touch of a button, has fed the addictive and attention-deficit qualities of an already fidgety generation. When love is always just a click away, why would anyone stick with just one partner?
On the other hand, without online dating many argue that finding love would be near impossible. Pub closures, lockdown-hangover regulation on social spaces and less intergenerational mixing means it can be hard out there to meet someone the old-fashioned way. Many argue that panics about online dating foget that the app is just a tool to facilitate what people continue to do – meet up in person and carry on as normal. Building a profile online is no different to a lonely-hearts advert in the paper, or wearing your best dress and standing by the bar.
Is love only worthwhile if it’s found in the flesh? Is the boom in hook-up apps merely the straight world catching up with what gays have been enjoying for some time? Should we loosen up about online dating? Or is there something lost when it comes to romance if the story we tell our kids of how we first met starts with a ‘swipe right’?
SPEAKERSElliot Bewickhost, The Next Generation; former producer, TRIGGERnometry
Ella Dornjournalist, New Statesman; creator, Fairyland! Substack; project assistant, Academy of Ideas
Ralph Leonardauthor, Unshackling Intimacy: Letters on Liberty; contributor, UnHerd, Quillette, New Statesman and Sublation Magazine
CHAIRBeverley MarshallAoI Parents Forum; working mum of three young adults