Academy of Ideas

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Risk is everywhere. Taking the bus, crossing the street, swimming in the ocean, going somewhere alone. Everything is risky – and we are, in many ways, more concerned about life’s riskiness than ever before. In Running the Risk: From Shark Attacks to Nuclear Disaster – understanding life’s biggest risks and how we build a safer future, David Reid aims to help us navigate a world full of risks.
Some risks we accept, like sitting next to a person on the Tube and hoping they don’t have a virus. Some risks we find harder to welcome as a fact of life, like shark attacks and plane crashes. The unknown risk affects people differently. Some still swim in the ocean and fly on planes, while some stick to swimming in lakes and traveling by train.
Some risks are merely par for the course of life, but some are preventable, and have only arisen in the contemporary world due to contemporary problems. Delving into issues like climate change, nuclear instability and AI advancements surpassing human capabilities, Reid illustrates what risk is, and how we can learn to live with and mitigate it.
Running the Risk is more than a grim explanation of modern issues; it is a guide to ‘building resilience’ and navigating the interconnected world. Drawing on historical examples like the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Fukushima nuclear disaster and the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Reid masters the art of risk and elucidates how our world can be made safer, healthier and happier.
Are sentiments like ‘no risk, no reward’ courageous or dangerous? Is mitigating risk crucial to happiness or a barrier to it? Is security necessary for well-being? Will the world ever truly be risk-free? Should it be?
SPEAKERSJon Bryangambling writer and poker player
Timandra Harknessjournalist, writer and broadcaster; author, Technology is Not the Problem and Big Data: does size matter?; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree
David Reidvisiting fellow, Institute for the Public Understanding of Risk, the National University of Singapore; director, Global Advocacy; author, Running The Risk
Sandy Starrdeputy director, Progress Educational Trust; author, AI: Separating Man from Machine
CHAIRDr Dominic Standishwriter and commentator on risk and sport; professor, University of Iowa; author, Venice in Environmental Peril? Myth and reality

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Sunday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
After a year of a Labour government, the UK is heading for a ‘debt-crisis cliff edge’, if it is not already in a ‘debt doom-loop’. Things are in many ways worse even than the moribund economy that the Conservatives bequeathed. Government borrowing, inflation and unemployment are going up. The interest rate that government is paying is also up, making the fiscal position even worse. Attempts to rein in welfare spending have been curtailed due to pressure from Labour MPs.
Meanwhile, the broader economy continues to stutter. After a comparative boom in the first quarter, the economy was shrinking again by the summer. Job vacancies continue to fall, in part thanks to higher employment taxes, while the number of people on sickness benefits continues to rise. Energy costs remain high compared to competitors like the US and China. The ongoing uncertainty caused by Donald Trump’s trade tariffs and conflict in the Middle East hasn’t helped, but the UK economy was already weak. There has been renewed talk of ‘stagflation’ – a stagnant economy alongside rising inflation.
But is this assessment a bit too gloomy? As one Telegraph commentator noted in July, private-sector debt has been falling faster than government debt has risen: ‘You would hardly know it from our compulsion to talk the country down, but the UK is today one of the least indebted states in the rich world.’ Inflation is still way down on levels seen during the post-pandemic energy-price crisis. The official unemployment rate (4.7% in May) was still well below the EU (5.9%), Germany (6.0%) and France (7.4%) and not very different from the US (4.1%).
Is the UK economy in big trouble or have we all become too adept at talking the country down? Have we underestimated the ongoing impact of the 2008 financial crisis and the cost of dealing with Covid? Is there anything Labour can do to kick-start growth or are we at the mercy of events elsewhere?
SPEAKERSRob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate
Jon Moynihanbusinessman; former chair, Vote Leave; Conservative peer; author, Return to Growth: How to Fix the Economy
Professor Vicky Prycechief economic adviser and board member, Centre for Economics and Business Research; author, How to be a Successful Economist
Karl Williamsresearch director, Centre for Policy Studies
CHAIRTimandra Harknessjournalist, writer and broadcaster; author, Technology is Not the Problem and Big Data: does size matter?; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Sunday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In December last year, critic Dean Kissick, in an article for Harper’s Magazine, caused controversy in the contemporary art world. He complained that the ‘fascination with identity’ was lending to a ‘nostalgic turn to history’. The ‘socially conscious turn’ of the early 2010s, he said, meant prestigious galleries were overwhelmed with works that were ‘progressive in content but conservative in form’, noting that ‘everyone in the world of contemporary art wants to revive a tradition, however recent’. What is lacking, he wrote, is much that is ‘inventive or interesting’.
Perhaps this wave of progressivism is over. Commentators have heralded Trump’s second term as a ‘vibe shift’ and a rejection of identity politics. Following the cues of New York’s postliberal ‘Dimes Square’ subculture, youth-oriented ‘post-woke’ cultural scenes have popped up in major cities.
But the same issues arise in these enclaves: few of the emerging works appear visually or ideologically new. For example, New York’s Fiume Gallery greeted Trump’s ‘spiritual insurrection’ by adopting the accelerationist ideals of the Italian Futurists and the neoclassical look of online ‘vaporwave’. Fashion designer Elena Velez shocked magazine editors by taking aesthetic cues from Gone with the Wind. And in June, ‘dark enlightenment’ figure Curtis Yarvin put in a bid to represent the United States at the 2026 Venice Biennale with a pavilion themed around Titian’s Rape of Europa.
‘Art wants to break taboos’, Yarvin told Vanity Fair. But artists have been trying to break taboos since the age of Duchamp’s urinal. Will these latest provocations continue to resound when even the president himself relies on social-media shock tactics?
How will a post-woke age affect the output of the contemporary art world? What role should artists take in the ‘vibe shift’? Will new styles emerge to greet this new political landscape – or did the roots of our old artistic stagnancy lie in something deeper than identity politics? And after years of a political controversy-offence cycle, is there still potential for grassroots provocation?
SPEAKERSDr JJ Charlesworthart critic; editor, ArtReview
Pierre d’Alancaisezco-founder, Verdurin; art critic, The Critic
Maria Lisogorskayaartist; co-founding member, Assemble
Dr Ella Nixonart historian and writer; post-doctoral researcher, University of Cambridge
Professor Ian Pacepianist and professor of music at City, University of London
CHAIRVicky Richardsonarchitectural writer and curator; former head of architecture and Drue Heinz Curator, Royal Academy of Arts

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Sunday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Netflix’s hit series Adolescence seemed to capture the current anxiety surrounding young men and what they might be getting up to online. The show tells the story of a teenage boy who, seemingly out of the blue, stabs and kills his female classmate after she calls him an ‘incel’ online. The message of the show points to influencers like Andrew Tate and the so-called ‘manosphere’ as the cause for the boy’s violent tendencies.
For the uninitiated, the manosphere is a term which incapsulates the various YouTube channels, chat forums and other corners of the internet where men can get advice on everything from parenting skills to relationship advice – often with a sexist twist. Many took the message of Adolescence and ran with it. The UN has ‘sounded the alarm over online misogyny’. Politicians even argued that the show should be compulsory viewing for school-age children.
But others are worried that the Adolescence effect has caused something of a moral panic. Figures like Tate might enjoy online popularity, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that young men are all turning into misogynists. In fact, the finger-pointing around discussions about toxic masculinity and what boys should and shouldn’t do has, some argue, pushed young men into the hands of Tate and his contemporaries who preach pride instead of shame about being a man.
As one person interviewed by the Manchester Evening News put it, some kids have never heard the word ‘masculinity’ without the word ‘toxic’ added to it. Critics also argue that relationships between men and women have, in many ways, never been better. Sexism used to be the social norm for our mothers and grandmothers, but is increasingly becoming an anomaly.
Do we need to reassess what we mean by misogyny and toxic masculinity? Are we in danger of writing off all young men and boys as having a problem with women that needs fixing? Or is the new world of identity politics and online content influencing men to behave in a way that is unacceptable, whatever you term it? What is really going on with how men feel about women in the real world, away from laptop screens? And if we’ve failed to succeed up until now, how can we change how we talk to our sons about what kind of men we want them to be?
SPEAKERSJulie Bindeljournalist; author, Lesbians: Where are we now?; feminist campaigner; podcast host, Julie in Genderland
Dr Az Hakeemconsultant psychiatrist and medical director, Psyche Clinic; author, Trans and Detrans
Nina Powerwriter and philosopher; author, What Do Men Want? Masculinity and its Discontents
Dr Stuart Waitonsenior lecturer, sociology and criminology, Abertay University; author, Scared of the Kids: curfews, crime and the regulation of young people; chair, Scottish Union for Education
Dr Joanna Williamsacademic; author, How Woke Won and Women vs Feminism
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

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