Recording of the introductory remarks at the Academy of Ideas Economy Forum on 20 March 2025.

Ever since the great financial crisis of 2008, growth in Britain – both in terms of GDP and living standards – has stagnated. While the Covid pandemic and lockdowns didn’t help, the problems of the UK economy (indeed, most Western developed economies) are longstanding. What has gone wrong?

Labour has promised a return to growth, yet the new government has already announced big hikes in taxes like employers’ National Insurance, while promising billions in investment into decarbonising the electricity grid and imposing regulations on everyone from car manufacturers to house builders. Unsurprisingly, the economy only just avoided a technical recession in the second half of last year and GDP per capita has fallen.

For Lord Jon Moynihan, author of the recent two-volume Return to Growth: How to Fix the Economy, the blame lies with high levels of taxation and government spending – particularly spending on growth-stifling projects and programmes. In advance of the latest forecasts from the Office for Budgetary Responsibility and Rachel Reeves’s spring statement, what should we do to revive the economy?

Next week, the Football Governance Bill will go to Report Stage in the House of Lords. While it will then go to the House of Commons, the debates in the House of Lords are a chance to amend a piece of legislation that threatens to damage English football in ways that. as yet, are not getting enough attention. The introduction of an Independent Football Regulator (IFR) has become a controversial subject as the realities are becoming clearer, and unintended consequences are dawning on more and more football owners, managers and fans. 

So, to help you to see what all the fuss is about, Liverpool fan Alastair Donald brought together our own Geoff Kidder and QPR season-ticket holder Simon McKeon alongside – hot from the Lords front line debating the legislation – Claire Fox, and two of the most vocal speakers on the topic: Baroness (Natalie) Evans of Bowes Park and Lord (Nick) Markham.

Claire Fox talks to Sall Grover and Katherine Deves about their fight in Australia to reassert in law that a woman is an adult human female.

Sall Grover is the founder of the female-only app, Giggle for Girls and Katherine Deves is one of her legal team. Both have been visiting the UK from Australia to get support for their appeal of an important test-case decision on the definition of ‘woman’, which Sall lost last year.

It all began when then 54-year-old biological male Roxanne Tickle from New South Wales, who identifies as a woman, complained to the Australian Human Rights Commission when moderators withdrew his access to Giggle for Girls, because - well, to state the obvious - the app is exclusively for women. However, when the subsequent case (known as Tickle v Giggle) was tried at the Federal Court, Justice Robert Bromwich concluded that, according to Australian law, sex is ‘changeable and not necessarily binary’. The ruling effectively eradicated the category of sex in law. The decision set a dangerous legal precedent with international implications, summed up by Jo Bartosch’s headline at the time: ‘Australia has abolished womanhood’. 

They talk about the case, the pros and cons of facial recognition (which the app used to determine who was a woman and who wasn’t), lawfare, the #MeToo movement and how human rights NGOs have become enmeshed in trans ideology. They also discuss the real-world impact of this trend for the likes of Scottish nurse Sandie Peggie, who was suspended from Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy, Fife, in January 2024 after she objected to Dr ‘Beth’ Upton (Theodore Upton) - who identifies as a woman but is a biological male - using the female staff changing facilities.

In the wake of the huge farmers' protest in London on 10 February, Rob Lyons talks to two Cumbrian farmers, John Shaw and Richard Kerr, along with their accountant Paul Benson, about the state of farming in the UK today.

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

In many areas of life, an explosion of diagnostic labels seem to have expanded far beyond straightforward medical prognosis. Medicine seems to have become tangled up with fashionable identities, and a zeitgeist that stresses vulnerability and victimhood. How do such trends affect medical ethics, let alone reliable medical interventions?

One such example is the jokey aphorism ‘we’re all neurodiverse now’ – from the lawyer of the QAnon Shaman blaming his client’s behaviour on his autism to rising diagnoses among students. In workplaces and university campuses, neurodiversity awareness is ubiquitous, with more and more people identifying as ‘on the spectrum’. According to some estimates, as many as 20 per cent of the global population are neurodivergent, spanning everything from severe autism to dyslexia and ADHD. Particularly among women, there has been a sharp increase in ADHD diagnoses in the last year, with record numbers of prescriptions for ADHD medicine in 2024 – the UK is in fact suffering from an ADHD medicine shortage because of increased demand.

Elsewhere, there is contention over the explosion of young people who self-identity as gender dysphoric. A readiness to accept social transitioning in what has been described as social contagion amongst teenage girls has led to the conclusion that anyone declaring themselves gender-confused is in need of medical intervention, whether psychotherapeutic, biomedical or surgical. Advocates of transgender medicine argue against medical ‘gatekeeping’, demanding access to hormones and surgery as part of a patient’s bodily autonomy. However, some mental-health practitioners in the UK and US have testified that they face ideological pressure to put dysphoric patients on a medical pathway. In a 2021 study, 55 detransitioners of a group of 100 stated that they were not given an adequate professional evaluation before receiving clearance for medical transition. What’s more, some gender-critical commentators suggest that there is pressure to misdiagnose the confusions of puberty, same-sex attraction and broader mental-health issues as simply gender dysphoria.

Central to the debate is the premise that doctors, nurses and therapists are obliged to act in a patient’s best interests. But is it always clear what these interests are? Should individuals and their families get the final say? Is the rise in diagnoses due to an actual rise in numbers, expanding definitions, or clinicians and therapists getting better at identifying symptoms? Or are we over-diagnosing the likes of neurodiversity and gender-dysphoria, even pathologising behaviour which in the past may have been described as shy, socially awkward or perhaps a bit quirky? Do medical diagnoses help people understand their difficulties in interacting with the world by giving them a vocabulary and practical accommodations that help manage and alleviate debilitating discomforts? And what are the implications for medical ethics and health policy, when diagnoses have become so closely linked to understanding our identities?

SPEAKERS

Dr Jennifer Cunningham

Dr Az Hakeem

Sophie Spital

CHAIR

On the fifth anniversary of Brexit, listen to this debate recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

In July, on the eve of the General Election, Keir Starmer was asked if he could foresee ‘any circumstances’ in which the UK would rejoin the EU’s single market ‘in his life’. His response was an emphatic ‘no’. Yet it is clear that Labour wants to ‘reset’ the UK’s relations with Europe. Reports in July suggested the German government wants to expand Starmer’s offer of security cooperation into a ‘mega-deal’ that encompasses everything from agricultural rules to the Erasmus student exchange programme.

In the period after the UK left the EU, there were considerable difficulties for many businesses in working out how to trade with the EU, despite a deal that largely dispensed with tariffs on goods. Many difficulties remain – particularly with Northern Ireland’s status, having a foot in both the EU and the UK markets. Many commentators believe leaving the single market was a mistake that is hitting the UK’s economic growth.

But others believe that Brexit has had little impact on the economy. The UK’s economic problems are longstanding, they argue, and have much more to do with a lack of investment and slow productivity growth than with our trading relations with the EU. The pandemic lockdowns and the energy-price crisis were much more important ‘headwinds’ than Brexit. Others believe recent UK administrations have failed to take full advantage of the post-Brexit freedoms to deregulate and pursue other national economic policy opportunities.

Moreover, recent UK GDP figures compare favourably with similar countries – Germany, France and Italy – in the EU. Indeed, former European Central Bank boss Mario Draghi has admitted to having ‘nightmares’ over Europe’s lack of competitiveness and future economic prospects. And there are persistent concerns about being in the single market without being in the EU – that the UK would end up being a ‘rule taker’ rather than a ‘rule maker’ – while being obliged to accept free movement.

How far can Starmer go in forging closer ties with the EU when there is little appetite for reviving the debate about Brexit? Has leaving the single market been an economic disaster as some claim? Or is this yesterday’s news, distracting us from the policies we need at home to revive the economy?

SPEAKERS

Ali Miraj

Dr Thomas Sampson

Gawain Towler

CHAIR

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

Smartphones have become almost ubiquitous in modern society. The rise of social-media services, which have billions of users worldwide, has gone hand in hand with the use of smartphones. Few technologies have seen such rapid adoption. With concerns about several social problems coming to the fore in recent years, a variety of commentators have pointed to this new technology as an important cause. But in this case, does correlation really equal causation?

One problem is how we discuss social and political issues. Social media has democratised political debate. But that debate seems increasingly polarised and toxic, with social media being blamed by many for the summer riots in the UK and Elon Musk being the target of hatred from some for his relatively liberal approach to posts on X/Twitter. The rise of AI, particularly the ease of making ‘deep fakes’, has complicated matters further, making it harder for voters to figure out what candidates really believe or potentially stirring up conflict – as illustrated by fake audio of London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, earlier this year.

There are also worries – most prominently expressed by Professor Jonathan Haidt – that spending so much time looking at devices has damaged children’s mental health, sense of independence and concentration spans. High-profile head teacher Katherine Birbalsingh has caused controversy by banning smartphones from the classrooms at Michaela School in London, a trend now mirrored in state-wide bans on smartphones in schools in some parts of America.

But do such concerns over-inflate the importance of technology? For example, one worry is the decline of children’s independent play and travel – but this has been a trend for decades in much of the West, leading to debates about ‘cotton wool’ kids. Haidt himself has pointed to this as part of the problem. Declining mental health, for children and adults, has also been a concern for many years, but how much of it is new and how much is a result of expanding definitions of mental illness is unclear.

Is new technology really responsible for these social trends – or is it mere coincidence? What else might explain these changes – and what should we do about to tackle such problems?

SPEAKERS

Andrew Doyle

Timandra Harkness

Sandy Starr

CHAIR

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

The Labour government has set out an ambitious goal to decarbonise the UK’s electricity supply by 2030. Labour’s plan includes prioritising renewable energy sources like wind and solar power while reducing the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels. In line with this, the government has indicated it may halt new licences for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. The government also announced the creation of Great British Energy, a publicly funded body to invest in renewable energy. The energy secretary, Ed Miliband, claims these measures will make the UK’s electricity supply greener, more secure and cheaper.

However, there are plenty of commentators warning about the feasibility and impact of this strategy. Renewable energy, while crucial to achieving decarbonisation, is notoriously unpredictable. The sun doesn’t always shine, and the wind doesn’t always blow, leading to concerns about the reliability of the energy supply – unless renewables are backed up in some way, whether by gas-powered plants, rising imports or expensive storage. Far from being cheaper than fossil fuels, critics note, renewable energy continues to need substantial subsidies, which are even more glaring as the price of gas has returned to more normal levels following the energy-price crisis of recent years.

Moreover, most of the UK’s nuclear power stations, which have long provided a steady and reliable source of low-carbon electricity, are set to close between 2026 and 2030. Replacements for them are still a long way off, with Hinkley Point C years behind target and Sizewell C still tied up in paperwork and court cases. The previous government’s plan to produce 24 gigawatts (GW) of power from nuclear sources by 2050 – up from 6 GW now – seems increasingly over-optimistic. Indeed, Labour already seems to be getting cold feet on a proposed nuclear-power plant in north Wales.

Will Labour’s energy strategy lead to a cheaper, more secure electricity supply, as it claims? Or are we on the brink of an energy crisis, with higher costs and increased vulnerability to blackouts? Are higher bills a price worth paying to tackle climate change or, when global emissions are still climbing, a pointless sacrifice of British jobs and living standards?

SPEAKERS

Lord David Frost

Prof Dr Michaela Kendall

James Woudhuysen

CHAIR

Recording of an Academy of Ideas debate on Tuesday 26 November 2024 via Zoom.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

With Parliament about to vote on the issue for the first time since 2015, join us for a discussion on the rights and wrongs of legalisation.

The House of Commons will vote on Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on 29 November. The Bill claims to ‘allow adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life’, although there have been complaints publishing the full text of the Bill.

While assisted suicide is currently illegal in the UK, the proposed legislation would make an exception on request for patients with six months left to live, with permission from medical professionals. Leadbeater presents assisted suicide as a matter of free choice and dignity, and argues that those without the option will take the situation into their own hands, causing unnecessary distress for those around them.

However, there are doubts – including from the health secretary, Wes Streeting – that the bill will guard effectively against situations in which people are coerced to die, either by family members or by a state that is too often incapable of providing adequate palliative care. In the US state of Oregon, whose Death With Dignity Act bears resemblance to the UK’s Terminally Ill Adults Bill, a majority of people who choose to die cite fears about becoming a burden for their loved ones.

Is the current law a ‘cruel mess,’ to quote campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen – or is it necessary to prevent slippery slopes? Could the interests of our welfare state undermine the Bill’s protections? And how should we square a patient’s freedom of choice with existing frameworks of medical ethics?

SPEAKERS

James Esses

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain MBE

Sonia Sodha

Professor Kevin Yuill

CHAIR

Criminal solicitor Luke Gittos offers an insider's view on the Telegraph columnist's case and the worrying rise of censorship.

The case of Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson has drawn attention to the scale of policing (quite literally) of speech in the UK today. Pearson’s lawyer in the case is Luke Gittos - a partner at Murray Hughman solicitors in London and director of Freedom Law Clinic, as well as a regular Battle of Ideas festival speaker.  

In this exclusive video, Luke reflects on the Pearson case before discussing the role of hate crime, how non-crime hate incidents became so ubiquitous, his views on the policing of speech, and how public pressure is vital in pushing back against these iniquitous and censorious measures.