Academy of Ideas

The World Cup is back – and so is the World Cup Podcast of Ideas. With the biggest-ever tournament kicking off on Thursday 11 June across the US, Mexico and Canada, we’ve got the team together to discuss some of the burning issues.

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

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

The UK’s infrastructure is at a crossroads. Decades of underinvestment and misdirected investment have left transport networks congested, energy systems under strain, digital connectivity patchy, sewers clogged, towns flooded, bridges crumbling and housing targets seemingly unattainable.

The government promises £1.5million new homes and yet we are faced with a major slowdown in the construction industry, a situation not helped by local resistance and bureaucratic inertia. The situation is further restrained by a lack of adequate support systems like schools, colleges, hospitals, and even courts and prisons.

Cost overruns on projects like HS2 erode public trust, but day-to-day staff shortages, engineering works, train cancellations and leaves on the line are what really frustrate commuters. Grenfell Tower was a national tragedy, but spending billions on recladding buildings and funding bureaucratic regulators – instead of training builders to construct sufficient, affordable homes for those in need – seems inexplicable. Planning laws, environmental concerns, over-regulation, risk aversion, litigiousness and insurance liabilities have exacerbated the problem.

But what is the actual problem?

To be fair, this year, Keir Starmer announced that the government would ‘push past nimbyism’ to get things done. Although tangible evidence has yet to materialise, recent ministerial pledges have included the desire to streamline planning, kickstart New Towns and boost energy provision. In August, the government announced a £130million package to help create 40,000 jobs in the construction sector

So maybe we are not giving credit where it’s due. This government has pledged to build nine new reservoirs, expand Heathrow, construct new nuclear and small nuclear reactors, and it has recently announced a £63million investment package to supercharge Britain’s electric-vehicle infrastructure. In June 2025, it laid out its ‘10 Year Strategy’ for UK infrastructure, whereby the government pledges to deliver growth in roads, railways, airports, water networks, energy grids, digital and housing infrastructure in order to deliver a more productive economy. Maybe we shouldn’t grumble.

How believable are the government’s plans? How do we balance local concerns with national housing and infrastructure needs? If we can’t maintain existing networks, how can we possibly create the next generation of infrastructure, like AI networks, smart systems, modular homes, autonomous vehicles, 3D printing, drone deliveries and low-carbon energy systems?

SPEAKERS

Ben Flatman

Shelagh McNerney

Christopher Worrall

Vickrum Digwa, the killer of Henry Nowak, was convicted of murder last month. This week, the police released bodycam footage showing how Nowak was handcuffed and assumed to be the offender in a racist attack, even though he was dying from stab wounds. The fallout has been public and political outrage, and has spotlighted the way the police (and many other institutions) have formal policy to treat people differently based on their ethnicity.

In that context, this debate, recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025, seems very topical on how we got to this state of affairs.

ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION

Over recent months, there has been a loud and vociferous debate raging in the UK about the merits or otherwise of multicultural policies. In the past,  Martin Luther King’s dictum of ‘colour-blindness’ was embraced by all sides politically and aspired to a multi-ethnic society that saw skin colour and ethnicity as secondary factors to unity and cohesion. More recently, institutionalised and ubiquitous state multiculturalism has instead encouraged British citizens to view each other through the prism of ethnic, religious and cultural difference. Combined with a more contemporary embrace of identity politics and critical race theory, which regards white people as inherently privileged, multiculturalism has been accused of dangerously stoking up fragmentation and division.

But there are shifts that imply identity politics is now being embraced across the political spectrum. The political right, in particular, reacted against the race- and identity-based grievances associated with the Black Lives Matter movement’s rise after the death of George Floyd. It rejected ‘two-tierism’, justified by DEI, whether in the criminal-justice system or in hiring practices. However, more recently, increasing sections of the right have begun to embrace similar thinking, only in reverse. A newly emerging white-identitarian sentiment now frequently suggests white victimhood must be addressed by policies, arguing white people are becoming an oppressed class, while minorities are presented as a protected elite.

Although the term itself is contested, critics of this emergent ‘woke right’ argue it has much in common with its counterpart on the left: race essentialism and identity-based grievance. They point out that while past waves of immigration were always a source of some racial tensions; crucially, movements were created that transcended difference and encouraged mass political struggles for equality and against discrimination. Yet the slogan ‘black and white, unite and fight’ – which focused on commonality of values, hopes and aspirations – seems out of sync with today’s identitarian discourse espoused by both left and right.

Is white identitarianism an understandable reaction to left-wing wokeism? Is it possible to go beyond mutually suspicious ethno-religious blocs, each armed with competing grievances and claims to victimhood? Is a framework of common values and beliefs – that enables us to treat all people equally, regardless of ethnicity – possible today?

SPEAKERS

Chris Bayliss

Sonya Douglas

Tim Samuels

Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbert

CHAIR

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

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is still being discussed in parliament. But beyond proposals for a law change, how should we tackle one of the great debates of our time: should we set up a system of assisted death and profound questions it raises about everything from whether adults have a right to assistance to end their own life to what safeguards and protections should exist between individuals and the state when death is offered as a medical option by health professionals.

Philosopher and bestselling author of Material Girls Kathleen Stock will lead a discussion raising themes in her forthcoming book Do Not Go Gentle, arguing that we should reaffirm life, rather than death and collectively, we should rage against the dying of the light.

The issue throws up many moral dilemmas worth discussing: Is the status quo a ‘cruel mess,’ to quote campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen? Is assisted death for those with a terminal illness, or suffering chronic pain or extreme mental distress, a progressive and compassionate choice as its supporters argue? Does it give a person more “freedom” or “control” over their lives, allow dignity in dying as it were? How should we square a patient’s freedom of choice with existing frameworks of medical ethics? Will having the right to take control of your death by asking a doctor to kill you, really have broader sinister outcomes for the vulnerable, the elderly, the disabled, the suicidally depressed as its opponents warn? Is it ever possible to 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? Or are such slippery slope arguments just a form of emotive scaremongering? How should we all approach our own or loved ones’ terminal illness and death?

SPEAKERS

Sonia Sodha

Dr Kathleen Stock

Professor Kevin Yuill

The implosion of the two traditional major parties and the widespread success of Reform (and, to a lesser extent, the Greens) have been widely described as historic, a shifting of the tectonic plates of British politics. But what does last Thursday’s vote mean for the present and future?

The Academy of Ideas team got together in the wake of Keir Starmer’s ‘speech of a lifetime’ to share their post-election thoughts in a wide-ranging discussion.

They also look ahead to two events:

The Academy 2026, the Ideas Matter annual residential weekend of lectures and discussions, which this year is titled ‘Hollow Leviathan: the state against the demos’, on 22 & 23 August.

The Academy 2026

The Battle of Ideas festival, the UK’s premier festival of discussion and debate, in London on 17 & 18 October.

Battle of Ideas festival

Ahead of the elections to the Scottish Parliament on Thursday 7 May, Alastair Donald and Rob Lyons talked to Dean Thomson, author of Scotland Undone: Nationalism, Dogma, and Decline in the Devolution Era. In a wide-ranging discussion, topics included:

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

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

According to the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP): ‘In 2025 to 2026 the government is forecast to spend £316.1 billion on the social security system in Great Britain. Total GB welfare spending is forecast to be 10.6% of GDP and 23.5% of the total amount the government spends in 2025 to 2026.’ Of this spending, £174.9 billion goes to pensioners and £141.2 billion to children and working age adults. Going forward, an ageing population means these costs will continue to rise – and that’s without the huge liabilities for public-sector pensions.

Moreover, does the emphasis on state-funded welfare make sense? With millions on working-age benefits for sickness and disability, many worry that too many people are being incentivised to remain out of work. A new report by Policy Exchange, Out of Control, identifies how poor incentives and ‘concept creep’ have stretched societal definitions of mental ill-health and neurodivergence so far that public services are stretched to breaking point, with costs of support spiraling to tens of billions each year.Getting people into work would make them better off, reduce the welfare bill and potentially improve the economic outlook, too.

What is to be done? Are politicians prepared to have the difficult conversations, from reducing working-age entitlements to increasing the retirement age? Is the debate unnecessarily gloomy about the UK’s ability to afford welfare in the future? Or will we face an abrupt financial reckoning if nothing is done?

SPEAKERS

Lisa McKenzie

Jean-André Prager

Gawain Towler

CHAIR

The war in Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz have focused attention on skyrocketing energy prices, leading to demands to encourage more output from the North Sea and causing travel chaos in Ireland. But bills were already high before this happened. This discussion with three experts, recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 at Church House in London, explains why - war or no war - we're all paying too much for energy.

ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION

Heating or eating? That has become a burning question for many people. From struggling households to steel works and factories, energy prices remain a hot topic. Ed Miliband’s assurance that bills would fall by £300 per year looks wildly optimistic.

The cost of energy bills became a major political issue when a combination of a post-pandemic resurgence of the world economy and war in Ukraine sent the price of energy in general, and natural gas in particular, shooting up. Prices have come down a lot since then, but remain higher than before. The Ofgem energy price cap for a ‘typical household’ increased from £1,137 per year in January 2019 to £1,720 in July 2025 – a rise of over 50 per cent.

Supporters of renewable energy argue that the UK is still at the mercy of global prices for gas because ‘gas sets the price’ in the energy market, thanks to the way the ‘merit order’ works for wholesale energy prices: the most expensive form of energy that is used sets the price for everything. Generally, that is gas. Get rid of fossil fuels, we are told, and we would have lower prices and less exposure to world markets.

However, critics point out that the wholesale price is only part of the story. The retail price of energy includes a variety of subsidies for renewable energy that mean the actual price renewable producers receive is much higher. If renewables are really as cheap as their proponents claim, why do they need to be subsidised and why do countries that use a lot of renewables also have the highest energy bills? Will prices rise further as we use even more renewables? And if energy security is so important, why would we want to rely on intermittent energy sources like wind and solar?

In this session, energy experts will explain how our energy bills remain so high and what the consequences are for household finances and the wider economy.

SPEAKERS

Kathryn Porter

David Turver

CHAIR

This debate was part of Battle of Ideas North on 7 March 2026 in Manchester.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

Is this surprising when the UK government itself seems reluctant to fully pursue implementation of the ruling? Having been in possession for months of clear recommendations from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Bridget Phillipson, the women and equalities secretary, has still to publish guidance on single-sex spaces. Similarly, the culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, has been criticised for her weak protection of women’s sport. Her stance focuses on ‘including everybody’ and continues to suggest that the issue of trans athletes competing alongside biological women is not clear cut. The Scottish government has been similarly tardy in implementing the ruling, even though the judgement was specifically against it.

What’s more, public-sector institutions, along with charities, NGOs and trade unions, seem reluctant to accept biological sex as real, and insist on an ideological commitment to trans-inclusive policies, at the expense of women. Many schools and teachers openly defy the ruling in order to support trans ideology, often acting behind parents’ backs.

Recently, trade unions and organisations such as the Royal College of Nursing and Unison have either openly supported action against gender-critical feminists and single-sex spaces or retreated into bureaucratic cowardice, saying action is not possible until guidance is issued. The recent victory at an employment tribunal of eight nurses from Darlington against their NHS trust bosses, who penalised them for challenging the use of the single-sex changing rooms by a trans-identifying male, is a positive. But why do workers need to resort to the courts and tribunals to ensure institutions and workplaces enforce the law?

Why are governments and institutions so willing to drag their feet on implementing a ruling given by the highest court in the land? What are the consequences of this for the rule of law, even democracy? How can we rescue institutions from the capture of trans and other ideologies? What is the balance between lawfare and building a wider political movement capable of pushing through change?

SPEAKERS

Bethany Hutchison

Barry Wall

Ella Whelan

CHAIR

Following the vote in the House of Lords to approve the decriminalisation of women who have abortions after the legal limit of 24 weeks, the whole issue of abortion itself has once again become highly contested. In that context, this debate – recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October – is very topical. 

ORIGINAL FESTIVAL 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 her Letter – Abortion and the Freedom to Forge Our Own Fate – Ann Furedi, an author and former chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, argues that debates about abortion often focus on when human life begins in the womb. Instead, she argues that it is important to consider a different human life – that of the woman.

Furedi argues that the future of a woman’s pregnancy should be for her alone to decide, and this decision ought to be regarded as personal and private. There is no clearer illustration of the way choice, agency and responsibility matters than the consequences of a woman’s decision about her pregnancy, she says. To prevent someone from exercising their own choice, in a personal and private matter, is to strip them of their dignity and their humanity. Most importantly, she argues, we cannot respect the principles of freedom without acknowledging the freedom of reproductive choice.

However, abortion is still regulated by law and legal limits, which can lead to a clash between an individual woman’s rights and policy priorities. This was vividly illustrated by the recent backlash after MPs voted to change abortion legislation to stop women in England and Wales being prosecuted for ending their pregnancy after 24 weeks. The landslide vote to decriminalise the procedure – considered the biggest change to abortion laws in England and Wales for nearly 60 years – was met with horror in some quarters and not confined to traditional anti-abortion circles. For example, even some feminists argued foetal viability creates a clash of rights. So, is abortion such a clear cut issue for women’s freedom?

How does a decision to continue or end a pregnancy relate to a woman’s freedom to shape her own life? With abortion regulation in many US states as well as other countries becoming more restrictive, does this reflect public sentiment? If not, how should we make the case for bodily autonomy in the twenty-first century?

SPEAKERS

Ann Furedi

Margo Martin

Jacob Phillips

CHAIR