Academy of Ideas

The AoI team of Geoff Kidder, Rob Lyons and Jake Weston are joined by Donald Clark, author, speaker and CEO of Wildfire Learning, to discuss the start of the knockout phase of the tournament. They reflect on Scotland's exit, England's struggles, the rise of the diaspora teams like DR Congo and Morocco, and how multiculturalism may be affecting the way fans in England enjoy the tournament.

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Sunday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

‘I have the feeling that this competition is going to be as important, if not more important, than the Champions League’, said Chelsea manager, Enzo Maresca, after his team had won the inaugural FIFA Club World Cup. This summer’s competition was intended to showcase club football from all continents of the world. But many involved in the game derided the tournament as an unnecessary addition to an already overcrowded football calendar.

Saudi Arabia helped to bankroll the Club World Cup, and is fast developing into a powerhouse for club and international football. The country will host the 2034 World Cup and is planning to build 11 new futuristic stadiums. Saudi club sides are competing with top European teams to sign world-class players such as Cristiano Ronaldo, Karim Benzema and Sadio Mane. The Saudis have even greater financial muscle than the English Premier League or La Liga in Spain. On the world stage, it seems, money talks, while concerns about democracy and human rights are muted.

In the UK, the fate of football clubs, big and small, is rightly considered to be of enormous importance to local communities. The response from Westminster has been the passing of the Football Governance Act into law. The Act means a government-appointed regulator will be in place to check on the health of clubs and monitor negotiations within the English football ‘pyramid’. Currently Morecambe FC and Sheffield Wednesday are on the brink due to recalcitrant owners, and many people say that the football regulator cannot come soon enough. But would such a regulator be able to save these clubs anyway?

Another big change has been the rise of women’s football. The Lionesses’ victory in the Women’s Euros 2025 will provide a big boost to the women’s game in England – but it is also noticeable that the women’s game is growing in both quality and audience figures.

Are we entering a new age of football? Is football now conquering the globe? Or has the beautiful game finally become disconnected from its fans and roots with ever-more fanciful tournaments taking place in soulless arenas to satisfy a multi-billion-pound industry?

SPEAKERS

John McGuirk

Linzi Smith

Dr Dominic Standish

CHAIR

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

Jane Austen turns 250 this year, prompting the question: is one of the world’s greatest female novelists still relevant? With too many BBC and Netflix adaptations to count, Fitzwilliam Darcy, Colonel Brandon, George Knightley and Austen’s other love interests remain staples of romantic fiction that others continue to draw from.

Some argue that Austen’s female characters, while feisty and ‘knowing their own mind’, were not particularly radical. Moving relatively seamlessly into the institutions they so ‘resisted’, her protagonists end up falling into happy marriage – seemingly waiting for a man who can handle them. While Austen may be the pioneer of the love match, is her reverence for society’s patriarchal institutions her downfall in the twenty-first century?

Others point to the fact that Austen’s work changed the landscape of literature completely. She was not a political feminist, nor a political activist, yet her novels developed women as complex individuals with curious minds beyond their physicality and a world beyond their roles as mothers and wives. By making the space for strong and independent women within marriage, she sparked confidence to make matches that suit the individuals, not just the social order.

Some argue that Austen was a victim of her circumstance, most notably to her financial constraints and her dependence on her family. She herself did not marry, perhaps recognising the limitations on time and agency of settling down and running a household. Indeed, she was rather entrepreneurial for a woman of her time. By viewing Austen as the victim spinster, do we risk falling prey to the same shallow stereotypes of women that so many characters in her novels are railing against?

How should we judge Jane Austen, more than two centuries on? Does it matter if she is read by inner-city youth or merely celebrated with Georgian-themed fancy-dress parties? Should we judge her characters by the standards of modern feminism? Are there still lessons for Austen to teach us about relationships and social norms? Or was she simply a brilliant writer, with a turn of phrase and a talent for big finales unmatched for centuries?

SPEAKERS

Emma Gilland

Matilda Martin

Cheryl Robson

Sarah Tucker

CHAIR

Lots of people are converting to Christianity and, across the country, church attendance is increasing. While the numbers vary, one survey shows the number of people attending church at least once a month is up from eight per cent in 2018 to 12 per cent in 2024. Perhaps most notably, the survey shows a quadrupling of attendance among Gen Zers, aged 18 to 24, from four per cent to 16 per cent.

The story of modern society has often been told as a rise of secularism and atheism, but after the peak of new atheism in the early 2010s, trends are now reversing. From sold-out events on faith with musician Nick Cave and historian Tom Holland to a swath of new books on the place of god in society, there is public appetite for grappling with religion.

Some argue that this is a ‘quiet revival’ driven mainly by changing perceptions of religion and a collective search for meaning in modern societies that are increasingly individualistic and atomised. Others point to public figures like Jordan Peterson and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for whom Christianity is part of a larger project to save Western civilisation. Others still argue that there is something distinct and more therapeutic about modern forms of Christian worship – more focused on introspection and personal development than community and morality. Some believers are uneasy about these more pragmatic justifications for faith.

What is the driving force of the resurgence of Christianity? Is this emerging Christianity different from its traditional forms? Is the Christian revival political, or are people searching for meaning? Are we seeing a rise of true faith, or merely cultural Christianity? Is there a difference?

SPEAKERS

Pamela Dow

Simon Evans

Abbot Christopher Jamison

Emma Trimble

CHAIR

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

Genocide, Holocaust, Never Again. Phrases that once conjured up only one image: the Nazis’ systematic attempt to eliminate the entire Jewish people and eradicate Jewish culture, identity and future generations of Jews from the face of the earth. It was once held that the Holocaust was unique in its horror with no precedent in history. Can we confidently say this view still holds today?

Today, the word ‘holocaust’ is increasingly used as a free-floating catch-all to describe many geopolitical events or even general human evil. Even Auschwitz, a death camp designed for the genocide of the Jews, has been turned into an all-purpose symbol of human cruelty. The proposed Learning Centre to be built as part of the controversial Holocaust Memorial in Victoria Garden, next to Parliament, promises a ‘high-tech immersive experience’, expected to last only 45 minutes, that will reference a wide range of other international atrocities, such as Rwanda and colonial-era massacres, with the aim to promote equality and diversity in general.

More specifically, these terms are being applied to the war in Gaza – particularly since Hamas’s attack on 7 October 2023.  Israelis are increasingly likened to Nazis, guilty of war crimes and ethnic cleansing, or settler-colonists aiming at the complete destruction and replacement of Palestinians and their culture. The United Nations, Amnesty International, Médecins Sans Frontières and countless individual governments have proclaimed a genocide in Gaza, a claim strongly denied by Israel and its supporters who condemn the veracity of these accusations and what they refer to as ‘Holocaust relativism’.

In a new book, The World After Gaza, author Pankaj Mishra brings together the narratives of both the Holocaust and slavery-colonialism, arguing Nazism is simply the logical extension of colonialism. The Israeli government, according to Mishra, is guilty of both. Celebrity social-justice activist Naomi Klein wrote in the Guardian last year that we are entering a new intellectual era, one in which people are openly asking if the Holocaust should ‘be seen exclusively as a Jewish catastrophe, or something more universal’. Klein goes on to argue that perhaps the Holocaust was not ‘a unique rupture in European history’ but rather ‘a homecoming of earlier colonial genocides’.

What are the consequences of this ‘dejudification of the Holocaust’, as Brendan O’Neill calls it in his recent book, After the Pogrom? How can the public, especially new generations, understand the true nature of this industrialised act of anti-Semitic barbarism – and to even remember that the Jews were the targets – when the Holocaust is wrenched out of its historical context? Are authors like Mishra and Klein right when they say it is this very sanctifying of the Holocaust in Western history that wilfully ignores crimes of equal magnitude, including what is happening in Gaza today?

SPEAKERS

Naomi Gryn

Samuel Rubinstein

Dr Jake Wallis Simons

CHAIR

So the ‘King of the North’ has cleared the first step in his quest to be prime minister of the UK. Andy Burnham’s victory in the Makerfield by-election was certainly impressive and it looks clear that Labour will be in the midst of a leadership contest very soon. Yet Burnham rarely stuck his neck out to offer any policy alternative to Keir Starmer, merely offering a change of personnel at the top. What does that mean for his party and the country?

Meanwhile, the Conservatives pulled off a victory in Aberdeen South that was almost as impressive, campaigning against shutting down North Sea oil and gas production. Clearly, there is a constituency for defending jobs and livelihoods against Net Zero policies. But will it bring any wider benefit to Kemi Badenoch and co?

While Reform have, for a while, realised they wouldn’t win, but they will still feel deflated that it wasn’t even close, especially having done so well in the local council elections in the area. What does the result mean for the party’s future and what do they need to do to win hearts and minds?

The AoI’s Claire Fox, Alastair Donald, Geoff Kidder and Rob Lyons got together the following day to discuss all this and more.

We've had a full week of action now and every team has made its first appearance. In this episode, the regular team of Rob Lyons, Geoff Kidder and Jake Weston are joined by special guest Denis Russell to offer a viewpoint from Ireland.

The team offer their impressions of the tournament so far. Who has impressed and who has disappointed? With England winning a seemingly tricky opening match against Croatia 4-2, can the Three Lions go deep into the tournament again? As for Scotland, does a scrappy win over Haiti offer much hope for tougher matches against Morocco and Brazil?

Along the way, they discuss the cost of the World Cup for fans, but also how those fans have made a real impression on the host countries. Did America know what was going to hit it? We also return to the thorny issue of VAR and the controversy over the innovation of hydration breaks, effectively turning a game of two halves into a game of four quarters.

What has Ireland’s reaction been after failing to qualify for the tournament? Are the Football Association of Ireland – and the Irish elites in general – more concerned with the upcoming game against Israel than with getting the national team back to qualifying for major tournaments, as they did so often in the past?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

Since 2020, the Academy of Ideas has published Letters on Liberty – a radical pamphlet series aimed at reimagining arguments for freedom today and inspiring rowdy, good-natured disagreement.

In his Letter – The Freedom to Blaspheme – writer and curator Manick Govinda argues that blasphemy law has returned through the back door – with Islam, rather than Christianity, pointing the finger at heretics. From recent cases of attacks on free speech to the self-censorship of everyone from teachers to comedians, Manick argues that blasphemers are being persecuted and prosecuted across the world. While courtesy and kindness are valuable features of a free society, he writes, no religion or religious leader should be above criticism. Kowtowing to the offended, no matter how grievous the insult they may feel, weakens our liberty.

Join Manick and respondents to discuss whether we should be free to criticise and mock religion. Is there a balance to be struck between tolerance of religious freedom and the right to publicly disagree with other people’s faith? Has the UK brought blasphemy law back to the statute books via the notion of ‘hate crime’? And after the stabbing of Salman Rushdie, the Charlie Hebdo massacre and other Islamist attempts to censor discussion of Islam, is the problem we’re dealing with a different idea of blasphemy to the days when the Life of Brian was banned?

SPEAKERS

Manick Govinda

Khadija Khan

John O’Brien

CHAIR

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

The past year has seen a flurry of announcements about military investment in Western countries. Following Trump’s re-election, and his blunt demand that European countries invest more in their militaries, the EU announced €800 million of funds for defence in a package called ReArm Europe (later renamed Readiness 2030 after backlash that the package sounded too militaristic). NATO members then agreed to bump defence spending to five per cent of GDP – although some, like Spain, secured opt-outs, and members will be able to count certain infrastructure spending towards the target.

Aside from Trump, the calalyst has been Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and a more uncertain and dangerous geopolitical situation around the world. From clashes between India and Pakistan to continuing war in Gaza, threats from China about Taiwan, instability in the Balkans and rising tensions in South America – few deny the world is a more unstable place than it was a decade ago.

The question is how Western countries should respond. Many suggest that the new period of rearmament is a necessary corrective to a longstanding vacation from geopolitical realities. In recent decades, weapons stockpiles have shrunk, armed forces have been reduced and industrial capacity has declined – to the point where few Western countries except America or Poland could sustain a serious conflict, or even a minor one. While Western states have let military spending fall down the list of priorities, newly emboldened countries like China, Turkey, the Gulf States and India have grown their armed forces.

But others worry this new talk of militarism risks fanning the embers it is supposed to contain. Some joke that it could be dangerous for Germany, which has spent the postwar years being told to constrain its military, to now be encouraged to spend hundreds of billions of euros on its armed forces. Newly furnished militaries could be like Chekov’s Gun – just waiting to go off. Others point to the loss of progress on arms-reduction treaties, or the dangerous rhetoric of civilisational competition. Burgeoning social-welfare commitments, skyrocketing energy prices, decades of infrastructure decay, and a lack of critical raw materials make rearmament more difficult than simply declaring a new target.

But perhaps the most biting criticism is the gap between these new military ambitions and the reality at home. Western countries cannot defend their borders against illegal migration, let alone foreign adversaries. Young people profess less and less desire to identify with their country, let alone fight for it. And whatever the talk of strategic adversaries, Western countries are still dependent on Russia, China and other competitors for basic and crucial goods, from oil to batteries.

Should the new talk of military rearmament be welcomed, feared or perhaps even ridiculed? When the countries comprising the West seems to be in constant tension over Ukraine, free speech or attitudes to Chinese investment, is there even a West to speak of? Is it high time to get serious about the military and prepare for war? Or do we need to cool off?

SPEAKERS

Mary Dejevsky

Virginie Joron

Tim Scott

Charlie Winstanley

CHAIR

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

From Yes Minister to The Thick of It, the political class has always been a go-to topic for comedians and satirists. But in a world in which political developments have become so extreme and self-satirising, is it still so easy to find laughs in the corridors of power?

Regardless, politics seems to impact on how we assess comedy too. When British comedian Sam Nicoresti became the first transgender person to win the £10,000 award for Best Comedy Show at the Edinburgh Fringe, some questioned if this was more political virtue-signalling than an assessment of comedic brilliance. Nicoresti’s statement added fuel to this disquiet: ‘I did this for the queers making weird art, and it’s a privilege to share this moment with the first all-female line-up of award winners.’

Mixing comedy and politics can be a double-edged sword. In an era of identity politics and offence culture, irreverence about political orthodoxies often collides with everything from hate-speech laws to cultural taboos, leading to cancelled shows, boycotts or social media storms. Ricky Gervais’s infamous monologues mocking ‘woke’ culture regularly draw ire from celebrities and media, even if loved by millions.

While humour can critique politicians effectively, be an edgy way of holding power to account and even spark public debate by saying the unsayable in an engaging way, what happens if comedy itself becomes politically partisan? After all, alternative comedy’s embrace of progressive, right-on, liberal orthodoxies has arguably become a ubiquitous way of squeezing out dissenting comic voices. What happens if anti-woke comedians stop making good jokes and simply ‘sing to the choir’?

With the stakes seemingly higher than ever, and comedians taking robust political stances of their own, does comedy risk become simply another form of propaganda?

SPEAKERS

Nicholas De Santo

Leo Kearse

Intel Lady

CHAIR