The Bridge: a Disagreeing Well podcast

How can we disagree well about the UK's future? In this episode of The Bridge: A Disagreeing Well Podcast from UCL and Students’ Union UCL, we examine the long-term impact of Brexit 10 years after the referendum. 

While the past decade has brought significant shifts in trade, immigration, and sovereignty, the debate remains deeply polarised. Some view the current economic landscape as proof that the decision was a mistake, while others maintain that Britain is only beginning to find its feet as a sovereign nation. 

In this episode of The Bridge we dive into the heart of this divide. We explore the practical realities of rejoining the bloc versus the potential risks of entering another decade of political instability. 

UCL student host Diego Lacheze-Beer facilitates a conversation between two guests who both recognize the challenges of the last decade but disagree profoundly on the road ahead: 

• Madeleina Kay, artist, campaigner, and Youth Engagement Officer for the Young European Movement, argues that Brexit has disproportionately damaged the prospects of young people. She advocates for a step-by-step alignment with the EU, viewing full membership as the ultimate path to a better future. 
• Peter Heaton-Jones, a former Conservative MP and public affairs professional, voted to remain in 2016 but now believes rejoining would be "nonsensical" and damaging. He suggests that the UK can reclaim many benefits, such as youth mobility and research collaboration, through specific negotiations without the "protracted process" of rejoining. 

Our resident UCL expert mediator, Dr. Melanie Garson, utilised techniques to help the guests look past the "remain vs. leave" labels to find the underlying values at play. She encouraged the guests to step into each other's shoes, helping them acknowledge the human impact of the debate - from the "cruel" reality of divided families to the economic need for national stability. 

Key takeaways from this episode: 

• Is it time for a second Brexit referendum? Our guests debate whether another vote would provide clarity or simply "suck the air out" of other vital public policy issues like housing and growth. 
• Acknowledge the Human Element: Melanie highlighted that this debate isn't just about GDP; it’s about personal identity and the real-life consequences of borders on families and relationships. 
• The "Hokey Cokey" Risk: Both guests agreed that constant vacillation is harmful. Peter emphasized that a "permanent cycle" of referendums would be damaging to national progress. 
• Finding Technical Overlap: Despite their disagreement on the final goal, both guests found common ground in supporting schemes like Erasmus+ and the Youth Experience Scheme as practical ways to help the next generation. 

Listen now to hear how we can bridge the generational and political divide over Britain's place in Europe. 

This production was led by UCL student presenters, Diego Lacheze-Beer and Marva Khalid, who are participants on Students’ Union UCL’s Impartial Chairs Programme. Find out more about the programme and, if you are a UCL student, how you can apply here.  

This is a Research Podcasts production.  

Episode Credits 

Presenter:  Diego Lacheze-Beer, Students’ Union UCL Impartial Chair 

Guests:  Madeleina Kay and Peter Heaton-Jones 

Producer and editor: Research Podcasts 

Music: The Investigation by Pixabay  

Artwork: Johnson Banks and Indianna Dimmer 

In recent months, the debate over asylum has moved beyond the corridors of Westminster to the heart of local communities. Across the country, the raising of St George’s flags in various towns and the significant unrest in Epping surrounding the use of ‘asylum hotels’ have highlighted a deeply polarised public. While these events are seen by some as a manifestation of community anxiety and a sense of powerlessness, others view them as a confrontational escalation that complicates an already sensitive humanitarian issue. 

As the UK continues to navigate the tension between international obligations and national border control, the core question remains: does the UK do enough for asylum seekers? 

In this episode of The Bridge: A Disagreeing Well Podcast from University College London and Students’ Union UCL, we examine whether the current system is grounded in reality or driven by "policy myths". UCL student host Diego Lacheze-Beer facilitates a nuanced discussion between two guests who, despite deep ideological differences, find common ground:

• Amina Khanom, Director of the charity Reset Communities for Refugees, argues that the UK is not doing enough. She contends that "pull factors" - the idea that welfare or work rights attract refugees - are myths unsupported by data. For Amina, the focus should be on creating safe, regular routes and fixing a "slow and under-resourced" system that pushes people into the hands of smugglers. 
• Eric Kaufmann, Professor of Politics at the University of Buckingham, believes the UK is doing enough for those who arrive, but should shift its focus. He argues that while people have a right to asylum (safety), they do not have an inherent right to settlement in a wealthy country. He advocates for offshore processing and strict annual quotas to disincentivise those he views as primarily economic migrants. 

Key Takeaways from this Episode: 

• Understand the "Why": Melanie encouraged the guests to share their personal motivations - Amina’s lived experience as a Bangladeshi immigrant and Professor Kaufmann’s academic interest in national identity - to humanise the roots of their disagreement. 
• Challenge the Binary: The discussion moves beyond the simple "genuine vs non-genuine" refugee label, exploring how conflict, economic collapse, and instability are often interconnected, making simple categorisation difficult. 
• Identify Common Solutions: Despite opposing views on settlement, both guests agreed on the necessity of funding better facilities and infrastructure in countries geographically closer to conflict zones, such as Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. 
• The Power of Curiosity: The guests reflected on the importance of approaching "hotly debated" topics with curiosity rather than a need to "win," emphasising that open dialogue in a university setting is vital for taking the "venom" out of public discourse. 

Listen now to hear how we can bridge the divide on one of the most polarising issues in modern British politics. 

This production was led by UCL student presenters, Diego Lacheze-Beer and Marva Khalid, who are participants on Students’ Union UCL’s Impartial Chairs Programme. Find out more about the programme and, if you are a UCL student, how you can apply here.  

This is a Research Podcasts production.  

Episode Credits 

Presenter:  Diego Lacheze-Beer Students’ Union UCL Impartial Chair 

Guests:  Amina Khanom and Eric Kaufmann 

Producer and editor: Research Podcasts 

Music: The Investigation by Pixabay  

Artwork: Johnson Banks and Indianna Dimmer 

Further reading and resources  

• Kaufmann, E. (2018) Whiteshift: populism, immigration and the future of white majorities 
• Reset Communities for Refugees 
• The Migration Observatory (2025) Changes to settlement: what do they mean?.  

Is the global target of net zero carbon emissions enough to stave off the climate crisis, or has it become a convenient excuse for doing the bare minimum? While the term has galvanised international climate policy, a deeper look reveals a significant tension between the physics of our warming planet and the practical realities of global implementation. 

Grounded in host and co-producer Marva Khalid’s firsthand experience of the climate crisis in Pakistan, this episode of The Bridge: A Disagreeing Well Podcast from University College London and Students' Union UCL moves past corporate pledges to ask a fundamental question: are we engineering our actual survival, or simply buying time? 

In this thoughtful and urgent discussion, Marva facilitates a nuanced conversation where both environmental experts examine the limitations of our current climate targets and discover unexpected areas of alignment: 

• James Dyke, Assistant Director of the Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter, takes a sceptical view of net zero. He argues it has failed because it relies too heavily on unproven, large-scale carbon removal technologies rather than forcing a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels. He cautions that the framework has replaced a difficult political problem with an intractable engineering one, masking the immediate need for aggressive mitigation and adaptation.  
• Dr. Emma Fieldhouse, Director of Future We Want and sustainability advocate, offers a more pragmatic perspective, viewing net zero emissions targets as a vital, globally agreed-upon starting point established by the 2015 Paris Agreement. While acknowledging it is imperfect and ultimately needs to transition into net negativity, she emphasises its success in instigating global behavioural change and providing a levelled framework for reducing societal emissions. 

Our resident UCL expert mediator, Dr. Melanie Garson, helps the guests navigate past a rigid, definition-heavy debate to bridge the gap between academic theory and practical climate action. By challenging the guests to reframe the terminology and explore the underlying anxieties driving public perception, she guides the conversation towards a broader, shared vision of planetary survival and climate justice. 

Key Takeaways from this Episode: 

• The Power of Reframing: Getting stuck in a rigid definition like "net zero" can restrict creative problem-solving and polarise a debate. The guests demonstrated that by stepping away from tech-heavy jargon and reframing the goal around a "liveable planet" or "rebalanced economics," you can bypass semantic stalemates and connect on a human level.  
• Bridge the Spheres of Practice: Friction often arises when people are rooted too deeply in their specific domains, such as academic research versus practical, on-the-ground activism. True progress happens when you bridge these spheres by recognising how high-level data can interplay with and validate localised, everyday implementation.  
• Harness Agency Over Anxiety: Climate disagreement is frequently driven by underlying fear, anger, and anxiety. Melanie highlights that the minute a conversation flips from overwhelming global systems to tangible, collective human agency, such as localised community energy initiatives, paralysis is replaced with shared hope.  
• Identify Systemic Agreement: Often, what looks like a fundamental disagreement about a new target is actually a shared frustration with an old system. While the guests clashed on the efficacy of the net zero framework, they found profound alignment in their desire to outmanoeuvre the political and economic structures keeping society hooked on fossil fuels. 

Listen now to hear how we can look past the political noise and embrace a bit of Emma's "hopeium" to find a collective, transformative path towards a liveable planet. 

This production was led by UCL student presenters, Diego Lacheze-Beer and Marva Khalid, who are participants on Students’ Union UCL’s Impartial Chairs Programme. Find out more about the programme and, if you are a UCL student, how you can apply here.  

This is a Research Podcasts production.  

Episode Credits 

Presenter:  Marva Khalid Students’ Union UCL Impartial Chair 

Guests:  James Dyke and Emma Fieldhouse  

Producer and editor: Research Podcasts 

Music: The Investigation by Pixabay  

Artwork: Johnson Banks and Indianna Dimmer 

Further reading and resources  

• Dyke, J., Watson, R. and Knorr, W., “Climate scientists: concept of net zero is a dangerous trap”, (22nd April 2021) The Conversation. 
• Dyke, J., Knorr, W., and Watson, R. (2021), “Why net zero policies do more harm than good” in S. Böhm & S. Sullivan (eds.), Negotiating Climate Change in Crisis (pp. 39 - 52). Open Book Publishers. https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0265 
• Dyke, J., Overshoot (and other lazy plot devices in climate policy) talk, (2024). 
• The Future We Want - science=backed climate education and training  

Is the rise of Generative AI a genuine threat to how we learn, or simply the next tool in the educational shed? While it is certainly changing the conversation in staffrooms and lecture halls, there is a lot of nuances to uncover between the headlines and the reality of the classroom. 

This episode of The Bridge: A Disagreeing Well Podcast from University College London and Students' Union UCL looks at the tension between the convenience of AI and the "productive struggle" of traditional learning. We explore whether we are at risk of losing something essential in our pursuit of efficiency. 

UCL student host Diego Lacheze-Beer facilitates a thoughtful discussion between two experts who, despite their different starting points, find some surprising areas of alignment: 

• Dan Fitzpatrick, educational strategist and author of The AI Classroom, sees AI as a supportive partner that can help manage the heavy lifting for teachers and provide students with a personalised way to engage with complex ideas. He argues that we should focus on how these tools can be used to augment human potential rather than replace it. 
• John Warner, writer and author of More Than Words, is more cautious about the "frictionless" nature of AI. He suggests that the effort required to write and think for oneself is where the actual education happens, and he worries that outsourcing this work to an algorithm might devalue the human experience of discovery. 

Our resident UCL expert mediator, Dr. Melanie Garson, helped the guests move beyond a simple pro or anti debate. She used the technique of identifying underlying fears and "drivers" to open up the conversation. By doing so, she helped the guests move from debating the technology itself to discussing the bigger picture: how the education system operates in a world permeated by AI and whether our current models of schooling are still meeting the current and future needs of students. 

Key takeaways from this episode: 

• Identify the "Driver": Melanie highlighted that our stances are often driven by personal roles - such as Dan’s perspective as a parent wanting his children to be ready for the future, versus John’s focus on protecting the creative process. 
• Look for Systemic Agreement: Often, a disagreement about a new tool is actually a shared frustration with an old system. Both guests agreed that the current "transactional" model of schooling often prioritises grades over actual learning. 
• Value the "Friction": In a world that prizes speed, there is a case for "disagreeing well" by defending the slow, difficult parts of learning that lead to genuine human insight and self-formation. 

Listen now to hear how we can find a sensible path forward for AI in education. 

This production was led by UCL student presenters, Diego Lacheze-Beer and Marva Khalid, who are participants on Students’ Union UCL’s Impartial Chairs Programme. Find out more about the programme and, if you are a UCL student, how you can apply here.  

This is a Research Podcasts production.  

Episode Credits 

Presenter: Diego Lacheze-Beer, Students’ Union UCL Impartial Chair 

Guests: Dan Fitzpatrick and John Warner 

Producer and editor: Research Podcasts 

Music: The Investigation by Pixabay  

Artwork: Johnson Banks and Indianna Dimmer 

Further reading and resources  

• Fitzpatrick, D., (2025), Infinite Education: The Four-Step Strategy for Leading Change in the Age of Artificial Intelligence 
• Fitzpatrick, D., (2025), The AI Classroom: The Ultimate Guide to Artificial Intelligence in Education 
• Fitzpatrick, D., (2025), The Educators’ AI Guide 2026 
• Stephenson, R., and Armstrong, C., (12th March 2026) “Student Generative Artifical Intelligence Survey 2026”, Higher Education Policy Institute 
•  Warner, J., (2025), More Than Words: How to Think About Writing in the Age of AI  

In this episode of The Bridge: A Disagreeing Well Podcast, we tackle a question at the heart of the UK's identity as a global education leader. While the debate often focuses on migration statistics, the human element is frequently lost: the fact that international students are a vital part of the UK’s academic and social fabric.  

As the UK navigates new immigration frameworks, we ask: how can the country maintain its reputation as a welcoming destination while ensuring growth is sustainable for local communities?  

In this discussion from University College London and Students’ Union UCL, host and co-producer Marva Khalid facilitates a nuanced conversation where both guests agree that international students are welcome and bring immense value to the UK. However, they disagree fundamentally on whether a cap is the right tool to manage that value:  

• Jamie Arrowsmith, Director at Universities UK International, argues that caps are "blunt tools" used by governments that lack better ideas. He contends that international recruitment is already naturally falling and that adding a cap would be a "disastrous" signal that harms the UK’s reputation and ignores the existing controls already in place.  
• Jonathan Thomas, Senior Fellow at the Social Market Foundation, believes that because students are so "welcome and important," we must ensure their arrival serves the interests of local communities and infrastructure. He argues that while a general cap is difficult, specific controls or caps in certain circumstances are necessary to manage "externalities" like housing shortages and public perception.  

Key Takeaways from this Episode: 

• Don’t Solve "Yesterday’s Problems": Jamie highlights that international student numbers are already in reverse; he argues that imposing a cap now would be a reactive mistake to a trend that has already shifted.  
• The "Social License" to Practice: The guests explore whether universities have lost public trust by growing too fast. Jonathan suggests that "aggressive" advocacy from the sector has sometimes ignored legitimate local concerns about housing and infrastructure.  
• Lessons from Abroad: Both guests look at the "unintended consequences" seen in Canada and Australia. While they agree these examples show that caps can be "too effective" at killing recruitment, they disagree on whether the UK can find a more "nuanced" version of these controls.  
• Identifying Common Solutions: Despite their disagreement on caps, both guests find common ground in the need for a "compact" - a better partnership between universities, government, and local residents to manage growth sustainably.  
• The Power of Curiosity: The guests reflect on the importance of approaching "hotly debated" topics with a desire to understand the other’s "strategy source" rather than simply needing to "win."  

Listen now to hear how we can bridge the divide and ensure the UK remains a top-tier, welcoming home for international students.  

This production was led by UCL student presenters, Diego Lacheze-Beer and Marva Khalid, who are participants on Students’ Union UCL’s Impartial Chairs Programme. Find out more about the programme and, if you are a UCL student, how you can apply here.  

This is a Research Podcasts production.  

Episode Credits 

Presenter: Marva Khalid Students’ Union UCL Impartial Chair 

Guests:  Jamie Arrowsmith and Jonathan Thomas 

Producer and editor: Research Podcasts 

Music: The Investigation by Pixabay  

Artwork: Johnson Banks and Indianna Dimmer 

Further reading and resources  

• Universities UK International 
• Social Market Foundation  
• Dolen, Z. (2024) Too much of a good thing? International students and the financial stability of English higher education 
• Thomas, J. (2024) Crazy for you: What just happened, and where next, for the UK's switchback policy on international students? 

Is populism a vital expression of democracy in action, or a method used to undermine it from within? Writing in 1999, political theorist Margaret Canovan described populism as the "shadow of democracy" - an ever-present reflection of the system's own internal tensions. In this episode of The Bridge: A Disagreeing Well Podcast from University College London and Students' Union UCL, we explore how that shadow has lengthened in the decades since. We ask whether modern populism is the inevitable result of a democracy that has stopped listening to its citizens, and whether the real threat comes from these grassroots movements or the "anti-populists" who seek to restrain them. 

UCL student host Marva Khalid facilitates a deep dive between two experts with opposing viewpoints who find unexpected common ground on the importance of free debate: 

• Marc Froese, Professor of Political Science and author of Has Populism Won the War on Liberal Democracy?, views populism as a powerful method of message framing. He argues that while it can rally people against threats, it is often used by elites to create polarisation and insecurity to drive specific electoral outcomes. 
• Frank Furedi, Emeritus Professor of Sociology and author of In Defence of Populism, sees populism as an essential driver of democratic rights that "comes from below". He suggests that "anti-populists" are the true threat to democracy, as they question the moral capacity of citizens to make their own decisions. 

Our resident UCL expert mediator, Dr Melanie Garson, helped the guests navigate beyond their publicly stated academic positions. By encouraging them to share personal experiences and ask each other non-topic-related questions, she created space for a "grown-up discussion" that moved past standard political caricatures. 

Key Takeaways from this Episode: 

• Humanise the Opponent: Melanie used "off-topic" questions - asking about retirement or past research - to break down academic barriers and establish a personal connection before tackling the main disagreement. 
• Identify the "Double Standard": The guests explored how populist movements are often judged more harshly than liberal or conservative ones, with any mistake seen as a defining feature rather than a simple error. 
• Value the Friction of Debate: Both guests lamented the rise of "bubbles" and self-censorship. They agreed that true education and democracy require the "tension of disagreeing well" - the ability to hold strong, even unpopular opinions while remaining open to learning from opponents. 
• Question the Label: A significant part of the disagreement stems from the fact that "populist" is rarely a self-chosen title; it is often a term of "pathologisation" used by critics to label movements they dislike. 

Listen now to hear how we can bridge the divide and protect democracy in an age of intense political polarisation. 

This production was led by UCL student presenters, Diego Lacheze-Beer and Marva Khalid, who are participants on Students’ Union UCL’s Impartial Chairs Programme. Find out more about the programme and, if you are a UCL student, how you can apply here.  

This is a Research Podcasts production.  

Episode Credits 

Presenter:  Marva Khalid Students’ Union UCL Impartial Chair 

Guests:  Marc Froese and Frank Furedi 

Producer and editor: Research Podcasts 

Music: The Investigation by Pixabay  

Artwork: Johnson Banks and Indianna Dimmer 

Further reading and resources  

• Canovan, M. (1999), ‘Trust the People! Populism and the Two Faces of Democracy’, Political Studies, 47(1), pp. 2–16. 
• Drache, D., and Froese, M. (2022) Has Populism Won? The War on Liberal Democracy 
• Furedi, F. (2026), In Defence of Populism 
• Furedi, F. (2024) The war on the past 
• Mouffe, C. (2018) For a left populism 
• Mudde, C. (2004) ‘The populist zeitgeist’, Government and Opposition, 39(4), pp. 541–563 

How good are you at discussing, debating and disagreeing with people who hold different views to your own? Are you tired of hearing the same well-rehearsed arguments on an important issue without also hearing those involved seek any understanding of their opponent's perspective. 

The fact is, if we want to get along better, coexist as communities and find solutions to the challenges we face, we need to learn to disagree better. 

I'm Diego Lacheze-Beer and I'm Marva Khalid. We're both University College London students and co-producers of the second series of The Bridge; A Disagreeing Well podcast from UCL and Students' Union UCL. 

As you'll know if you've listened to series one, The Bridge tackles hotly debated issues of our time and seeks to provide us with the tools and techniques to disagree about them better. 

In series two, we'll be asking more tough questions, including: does the UK do enough for asylum seekers? Does populism threaten democracy? And 10 years on from Brexit, is it time Britain rejoined the EU? 

We'll be discussing these and more with the help of UCL based conflict resolution expert, Dr Melanie Garson, who will mediate between our guests using tried and tested communication techniques to find common ground. 

We need to have tough debates, but we need to do so in a way that builds mutual respect, not further division. So if you're interested in learning how to disagree better and build consensus, not conflict, make sure you listen to Series 2 of The Bridge. 

Episodes will be published weekly from 7th May and will be available wherever you receive your podcasts.  

This production was led by UCL student presenters, Diego Lacheze-Beer and Marva Khalid, who are participants on Students’ Union UCL’s Impartial Chairs Programme. Find out more about the programme and, if you are a UCL student, how you can apply here.  

This is a Research Podcasts production.  

Episode Credits 

Presenter:  Diego Lacheze-Beer and Marva Khalid Students’ Union UCL Impartial Chair 

Producer and editor: Research Podcasts 

Music: The Investigation by Pixabay  

Artwork: Johnson Banks and Indianna Dimmer 

Is a blanket social media ban for children the best way to mitigate its harmful impact? 

Join host Lea Hofer in the inaugural episode of Disagreeing Well, the podcast from University College London and Students' Union UCL that equips you with tools and techniques to navigate challenging conversations. This episode dives into the hotly debated question of a blanket social media ban for children. 

We hear from two guests with sharply contrasting views: 

• Professor Daniel Angus from the Queensland University of Technology, who argues a social media ban is a "blunt instrument" that won't address the root causes of issues like cyberbullying or body image concerns and could even exacerbate them. His research emphasises a nuanced, evidence-based approach to digital media and society. 
• Jennifer Powers, founder of the Unplugged Coalition, who believes a social media ban for under 16s is a crucial step to protect children from the "addictive by design" nature of platforms and their proven negative impacts on mental health and educational attainment. She highlights a growing parental movement calling for stricter boundaries on internet-enabled devices. 

UCL's resident expert mediator, Dr. Melanie Garson, guides the discussion, helping to unpack the underlying anxieties and different perspectives on children's agency and responsibility in the digital world. The episode concludes with reflections on the mediation techniques used and tips for disagreeing better.

Key takeaways from this episode: 

• Understanding diverse perspectives: Explore the complex arguments for and against a social media ban, rooted in different research, experiences, and concerns. 
• The role of emotion in debate: Discover how underlying anxieties and emotions can influence how we approach difficult topics and our ability to find common ground. 
• Techniques for constructive disagreement: Learn about the "stepping back" technique used by our mediator to encourage a broader view of the problem and identify shared goals, even amidst strong disagreements. 

Tune in to gain insights into this critical debate and equip yourself with the skills to engage in more fruitful conversations.

This production was led by our student presenters, Lea Hofer and Tara Constantine, who are participants on Students’ Union UCL’s Impartial Chairs Programme. Find out more about the programme and how to apply if you are a student - visit Impartial Chairs Programme.

This is a Research Podcasts production for UCL. 

Episode Credits

Presenter:  Lea Hofer, UCL Impartial Chair

Guests: Daniel Angus and Jennifer Powers

Producer and editor: Research Podcasts

Music: The Investigation by Pixabay

Artwork:  Mayuko Yamaguchi, UCL undergraduate student

Further reading and resources 

Demystifying the Teen Social Media ban resources from QUT Digital Media Research Centre.

Dezuanni, M. et al (2023) “Digital Child Working Paper 2023-11, Manifesto for a Better Children’s Internet”, Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child, Queensland University of Technology.

Haidt, J., (2024) The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness. 

Unplugged Coalition, unites people and organizations committed to protecting childhood from addictive technology. 

Can the interests of ethnic minority voters truly be represented by right-wing parties? This episode dives into one of the most polarising questions in modern politics, demonstrating how to navigate deep ideological divides and find common ground for constructive change.

Welcome to the latest episode of The Bridge; A Disagreeing Well Podcast from University College London and Students' Union UCL, designed to arm you with the tools needed to navigate the trickiest conversations. Hosted by UCL student Tara Constantine, this episode tackles the complex intersection of identity and political alignment. Our aim isn't just to land on an answer, but to dissect the techniques for having truly productive discussions that push boundaries instead of shutting them down, even when dealing with highly sensitive topics.

Tara leads a compelling discussion with two political commentators, each bringing a sharp, contrasting view: 

• Albie Amankona argues that there's no monopoly on values like fiscal discipline, respecting tradition, patriotism, or strong defences. He suggests that ethnic minority voters can indeed find their interests aligned with right-wing parties based on these shared principles. 
• Nels Abbey challenges this perspective, delving into the historical context and lived experiences that complicate the representation of ethnic minority interests within right-wing political frameworks. His arguments highlight the deep-seated issues that often prevent genuine alignment. 

Our resident UCL expert mediator, Dr Melanie Garson, guides the conversation by focussing on a critical mediation technique: separating interests from positions. Melanie works to help Albie and Nels articulate their core interests beyond their stated political positions, revealing potential pathways for understanding and collaboration that might otherwise remain hidden. This technique is crucial for moving past sticking points and exploring what truly matters to each party.

Key takeaways from this episode:  

• Distinguishing interests from positions: Learn to identify the core needs and desires (interests) that underpin stated viewpoints (positions), a powerful technique for unlocking seemingly intractable disagreements. 
• Finding common ground in ideological divides: Witness how a skilled mediator can reframe a polarising debate to reveal shared goals and potential areas for collaborative vision, even when fundamental beliefs differ. 
• Embracing disagreement as progress: Understand that true progress isn't always about achieving total consensus, but about deeply understanding the various perspectives and using that insight for constructive change. 

Listen now to understand this key debate and develop your abilities for richer, more meaningful conversations.

This production was led by our student presenters, Lea Hofer and Tara Constantine, who are participants on Students’ Union UCL’s Impartial Chairs Programme. Find out more about the programme and how to apply if you are a student - visit Impartial Chairs Programme.

This is a Research Podcasts production for UCL.

Episode Credits
Presenter: Tara Constantine, UCL Impartial Chair
Guests: Albie Amankona and Nels Abbey
Producer and editor: Research Podcasts
Music: The Investigation by Pixabay
Artwork: Mayuko Yamaguchi, UCL undergraduate student

Further Reading and resources  
Abbey, N. (2019) Think Like a White Man: A Satirical Guide to Conquering the World . . . While Black
UK in a Changing Europe. (2024) Minorities report: The attitudes of Britain’s ethnic minority population. London: UK in a Changing Europe.
Conservatives Against Racism for Equality (CARFE). 

Ever wondered if your photos ‘for the gram’ actually contribute to local problems? This episode tackles a massive question: Is tourism inherently exploitative and destructive to local communities? We enter the debate with the aim of showing you how to disagree better on the pros and cons of mass tourism and globalisation.

Welcome to the latest episode from The Bridge; A Disagreeing Well Podcast from University College London and Students' Union UCL, designed to arm you with a range of approaches you can draw on when navigating tricky conversations. Our goal isn't to make people agree but to explore techniques that can be used to have productive conversations, enable deeper understanding and empathy for those with different perspectives. 

UCL student host Lea Hofer leads a compelling discussion with two key stakeholders in the tourism industry, each with strong views: 

• Chris Christou, host of The End of Tourism podcast, argues that while tourism isn't inherently bad, the way we do it often creates major issues. He breaks down how the rise of short-term rentals (think Airbnb) can push locals out of housing, how "culture" can become a frozen spectacle for tourists, and the ecological damage from rapid development. Chris's take is all about giving local communities a real voice and democratic choice in how tourism impacts them. 
• Mark Worden, from MiHi digital and Visit Cornwall, champions a balanced approach to tourism. He highlights its power to create jobs (like for the 30% of people in Cornwall’s hospitality industry) and boost local infrastructure. Mark admits that "overtourism" is a real problem, especially with too many short-term rentals, but advocates for solutions like statutory registration schemes and prioritising sustainable, restorative tourism. He also suggests tourists should make the most of domestic tourism options. 

Our resident UCL expert mediator, Dr. Melanie Garson, masterfully guides the conversation. Even when Chris and Mark seemed to be on the same page, Melanie used "clarifying questions" to dig deeper, revealing subtle but important differences in their perspectives and visions for the industry. She reflects on how this technique allowed them to understand more what is behind each other's perspectives, proving that understanding how you disagree is key to constructive dialogue.

Key takeaways from this episode:  

• Mastering clarifying questions: Learn how to ask the right questions to genuinely understand someone else's viewpoint, even when their initial statements seem to align with yours. 
• Deconstructing complex debates: See how two experts, with different experiences (one living in a tourist hot spot, the other working in the industry), can hold seemingly opposing views but still seek common ground. 
• Embracing disagreement as progress: Understand that true progress isn't always about achieving consensus, but about deeply understanding the various perspectives and using that insight for constructive dialogue. 

Dive in to refine your ability to engage in productive disagreement.

This production was led by our student presenters, Lea Hofer and Tara Constantine, who are participants on Students’ Union UCL’s Impartial Chairs Programme. Find out more about the programme and how to apply if you are a student - visit Impartial Chairs Programme.

This is a Research Podcasts production for UCL.

Episode Credits
Presenter: Tara Constantine, UCL Impartial Chair
Guests: Albie Amankona and Nels Abbey
Producer and editor: Research Podcasts
Music: The Investigation by Pixabay
Artwork: Mayuko Yamaguchi, UCL undergraduate student

Further Reading and resources
The End of Tourism podcast hosted by Chris Christou
Visit Cornwall