Academy of Ideas

Debate recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2026 at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTIONThe Labour government has published a draft Conversion Practices Bill that, it claims, ‘will deliver a landmark ban on abusive conversion practices in England and Wales’ and will protect LGBTQ+ people ‘from abhorrent… physical and psychological abuse to change who they are’. But what exactly is being made illegal?
The term ‘conversion therapy’ often suggests some illiberal and cruel practices. As writer Lionel Shriver explained, we ‘picture kidnappings, violent fundamentalist interventions, gruelling electric-shock treatments and Clockwork Orange aversion therapy’. However, such practices are already illegal and incredibly rare in the UK. So why did such a law appear in Labour’s manifesto as a priority?
Perhaps a clue is in a statement from the new chair of Stonewall, Kezia Dugdale, who has said the NGO’s priority is no longer self-ID but banning conversion therapy. Regardless, this trans-inclusive legislation would mean anyone found guilty of conducting abusive conversion practices could face a variety of sanctions, including an unlimited fine, a custodial sentence of up to five years, a new pre-emptive civil Conversion Practice Protection Order or find themselves in family court.
The demand for a ban seems to have made it from the margins to the mainstream without any substantial evidence-base to justify it. In a governmental LGBT survey in 2018, of the 108,000 respondents, just five per cent claimed to have been ‘offered’ such therapy, while only two per cent said they’d undergone it. A much-cited Stonewall survey claimed that one in 10 LGBTQ+ people had been ‘exorcised’. But as the mathematician Professor John Armstrong has pointed out, that would mean religious leaders performing one exorcism for every two weddings.
Critics of the Bill worry that the law is too loosely drafted and open to subjective interpretation. Proponents of a ban have defined conversion practices to include ‘deadnaming’ or even a parent trying to set their child up on opposite-sex dates. The government has stated that it will be up to the courts to decide what constitutes abuse. But leaving key concepts such as ‘conversion practices’ open to broad interpretation, and failing to distinguish between coercion and legitimate support, could risk the creation of a chilling effect on free discussion.
One group who may find themselves criminalised are parents. Dame Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, who supports the Bill, has said: ‘Subjecting a family member or partner to harm or coercing them to change who they are is domestic abuse.’ Where does that leave parents who do not believe that immediate affirmation is always the right response when their child is distressed about their sex or identity?
Beyond the family, it’s possible that any adults, such as teachers or youth workers, charged with asking safeguarding questions or encouraging the young to critically reflect on their problems, may be caught out by the law. Another possible target may well be religious leaders whose role is to guide others in line with their beliefs. One of Scotland’s leading KCs, Aidan O’Neill, noted that similar Scottish proposals ‘would have the undoubted effect of criminalising much mainstream pastoral work of churches, mosques and synagogues and temples’. Is this Bill going to undermine religious freedom?
How should we approach this new legislative minefield while ensuring that anyone experiencing real abuse is helped to obtain justice? If the Bill becomes law, will the courts be inundated with subjective, even malicious prosecutions or by children prosecuting their parents for refusing to fund binders, puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones? Are such concerns just scaremongering, especially as in the numerous countries in which conversion therapy is banned, prosecution is rare? Is the real threat a powerful chilling effect that will prevents parents, therapists, teachers, social workers and other guardians from speaking frankly?
SPEAKERSLucy Beneychildren's correspondent, Save Mental Health
Faika El-Nagashidirector, Athena Forum; political scientist; former MP (Austria)
Neale Hanveyformer MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath
Helen Joycedirector of advocacy, Sex Matters; author, TRANS: when ideology meets reality
Sarah Phillimorebarrister; co-founder, Fair Cop
CHAIRDr Jan Macvarishdirector of national engagement, Free Speech Union

Battle of Ideas festival 2026 takes place on Saturday 17 & Sunday 18 October at Church House, Westminster. View the full programme here. Early-bird tickets are available until 17 September here.
This debate was recorded at Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Sunday 19 October.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The process of globalisation was supposed to make the world a more uniform place. But that prospect seems to have evaporated. In the wake of wars, economic conflict and diverging national interests, long-ignored trends seem to be pushing the world apart, not together.
For a long time, Western political leaders have sought to downplay, if not outright deny, this swing to a multipolar global structure. However, hit by one shock after another, this mask of complacency has been falling away: the 2008 financial crash, the Eurozone debt crisis, the Brexit vote, the first election of Trump, the pandemic shutdowns, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and now the return of a second, and more geopolitically disruptive, Trump presidency.
In particular, the European Union countries have now been forced to face up to the anachronism of a united ‘Western alliance’. Their political leaders can no longer hide from their countries’ own vulnerability in a fractious world, unable to rely upon the protection of a US military umbrella. Trump’s demands for increased defence spending by other NATO countries and Europe’s inability to support Ukraine independently of America have exposed Europe’s weakness.
Meanwhile, Trump’s tariffs against China have heightened tensions and exposed American weaknesses for crucial materials like rare earths, which China has a virtual monopoly over and are essential in many modern applications, from smartphones to advance weapons.
How far might America go in pursuing its new-found national interest, and what are the possible implications? How are Britain and other European countries responding? Can we still talk about a united Europe in any meaningful way? And, perhaps most important of all, is there a way to avoid US-China tensions escalating into armed conflict?
SPEAKERSThomas Fazijournalist and writer; author, Reclaiming the State: A progressive vision of sovereignty for a post-neoliberal world; columnist, UnHerd; contributing editor, Compact
William C. Hicksco-chair, Life Sciences Practice Group, Mintz
Anne-Elisabeth Moutetcolumnist and commentator for Telegraph, UnHerd, GB News, BFMTV (Paris)
Phil Mullanwriter, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents
CHAIRJacob Reynoldshead of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Sunday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner made housing a central pillar of their domestic agenda when they were elected. Yet from two disgraced housing ministers to younger generations’ desperation about astronomical rents and unaffordable property prices, housing controversies are rarely far from the headlines.
The government’s rhetoric remains impressive. Rayner, the former housing secretary, put forward the Social and Affordable Homes plan, to deliver 300,000 new homes, with ‘180,000 earmarked for social rent’ and claims Labour will ‘build, build, build’ – even on the sacred green belt. But despite the promise to deliver 1.5million new homes in England over the five-year parliamentary term, evidence suggests a disappointing failure to get even close to meeting their own housing targets – just like previous governments. So, we seem, yet again, to be stuck in a rut of not enough homes for those who need them.
UK housing has been in crisis for a long time. For years, demand has overwhelmed supply, and both rents and mortgages continue to climb. The Office for National Statistics’ private rents index shows that renting in England is now 50 per cent more expensive than 14 years ago. London’s 2.7million private tenants saw their rents rise by 11.5 per cent in 2024 alone.
Some still blame Margaret Thatcher’s 1980s housing reforms: the right to buy was sold as a pathway to homeownership and social mobility, but instead led to a decline in social housing and made private landlords rich. One think tank has claimed the policy cost taxpayers £200 billion.
However, in Bricking it: The UK Housing Crisis and the Failure of Policy, Charlie Winstanley argues that while the significant economic and social changes under Thatcher shaped the housing landscape today, there are much wider demographic, social policy, financial and industrial shifts that have accumulated to create such an unstable housing situation.
A huge increase in migration has also become part of the debate. Is the problem more about too many people rather than too few houses? Meanwhile, shadowy plans to turn residential properties into homes of multiple occupancy (HMOs) to replace asylum hotels add to a sense of grievance, shifting the problem to residential areas without consulting locals.
Other factors have created an escalating sense of crisis: eye-watering service charges and ground rent for leaseholders; landlords complaining that Renters’ Rights legislation will mean taking properties off the market; politicians pandering to NIMBY voters; labyrinthine planning laws.
Is the government going about its housing strategy in the wrong way? How can we solve the housing crisis?
SPEAKERSJames Heartfieldlecturer and writer; author, Britain’s Empires 1600-2020 and Let's Build!
Helen MacNeilconsultant architect, shedkm; founder, Honest Architecture (HA!) free-speech dinners
Matthew Torbittpolitical commentator and writer; senior fellow, The Centre for Social Justice
Charlie Winstanleyauthor, Bricking it: The UK Housing Crisis and the Failure of Policy; public affairs & social policy development professional
CHAIRSheila Lewisretired consultant; former housing association chair

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