Academy of Ideas

A debate recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival at Church House, Westminster on Saturday 18 October 2025. ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION In recent years, Britain has been rocked by several scandals where the public has been kept in the dark. Politicians and the authorities have indulged in obfuscation, denial, cover-ups and even possible collusion – all to avoid accountability or admit responsibility.  As with previous scandals, it’s often been grassroots campaigners, victims’ groups and courageous journalists who have brought these issues to public attention. What was it like being a key player on the frontline of history in three of these recent scandals: rape gangs, the Post Office miscarriages of justice and gender self-ID in Scotland?  Journalists Charlie Peters and Nick Wallis, and Susan Smith from campaign group For Women Scotland, tell their stories of activism, investigation and holding truth to power. GB News reporter Charlie Peters, presenter of the 2023 documentary, Grooming Gangs: Britain’s Shame, has called it ‘the worst race-hate scandal and abuse scandal since the Second World War’.  Meanwhile, Conservative MP Nick Timothy, writing in response to Sir Keir Starmer’s announcement that he would – at last – commission a national inquiry on the back of recommendations in Baroness Casey’s National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (2025), stated: ‘Rape gangs are the biggest scandal of our generation.’ The Post Office Horizon IT scandal stands out as another one of the UK’s most significant miscarriages of justice. Faulty accounting software developed by Fujitsu led to the Post Office prosecuting over 900 subpostmasters for theft, fraud or false accounting, resulting in wrongful convictions, bankruptcies, imprisonments and even suicides. Nick Wallis, a freelance journalist, broadcaster and author, has been one of the leading figures in exposing and chronicling the scandal. For Women Scotland (FWS) is a women’s rights advocacy group that was set up in 2018 to oppose the SNP’s attempts to force gender self-identification through Holyrood. Even when the Gender Recognition Reform Bill was blocked by the Tory UK government, the then first minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, continued to defend the policy.  In a car-crash press conference, she famously refused to say whether double-rapist Adam Graham/Isla Bryson, who was initially sent to a female jail, was a man or a woman. The scandal caused a huge public outcry and has been partially blamed for Sturgeon’s sudden resignation a few months later. The furore also forged For Women Scotland into a formidable campaign group that eventually won a famous victory in clarifying equality law at the Supreme Court. These scandals are only three of the many that have shocked our nation, alongside the Grenfell Tower fire, the Hillsborough tragedy, the infected-blood scandal and more.  Are such scandals simply a feature of modern Britain? Do they, as many argue, implicate the state itself as negligent, incompetent and mired in the tendency to cover-up and collude? What can we learn from these brave journalists and campaigners who have stood at the frontline, challenged politicians and the authorities, and held them to account? SPEAKERS Charlie Peters GB News national reporter Susan Smith co-director, For Women Scotland; director, Beira’s Place; contributor, The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht Nick Wallis journalist, presenter, BBC Radio 4 series The Great Post Office Trial CHAIR Claire Fox director, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Recording of a debate at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House, London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION One consequence of Donald Trump’s trade war with China has been increasing attention to a group of minerals called ‘rare earths’. Rare earths are vital to the production of everything from smartphones and electric vehicles to wind turbines and advanced weapons. Despite the name, rare earths are not particularly rare. For example, cerium is more abundant in the earth’s crust than copper. But they are spread thinly as trace impurities, so to obtain usable rare earths requires processing enormous amounts of raw ore at great expense – and with considerable environmental impacts. China has been willing to massively subsidise this process to support its own industries while keeping the price low, making the processing of ore uneconomic elsewhere in the world. The potential geopolitical consequences are obvious: China’s rivals are currently utterly dependent on it. Years ago, China secured a significant proportion – almost a monopoly – of excavated rare earths in Venezuela, Brazil and other parts of South America and has now imposed export controls on many rare earth elements in response to Trump’s tariffs. China is responsible for 60 per cent of all rare earths mined but, more importantly, it controls the processing of 90 per cent of all global refined rare earth output. Given that US is reliant on production plants in in China/Taiwan for its computer chips, it was slow to respond to the geopolitical power shift. China has already flexed its muscles in this regard, having banned exports of rare earths to Japan in 2010 over a fishing dispute (subsequently overturned by the World Trade Organisation) and has imposed export restrictions on the US since 2023. In May, Ford had to stop production at a car plant in Chicago because of the shortage of magnets made with rare earths. China has also placed an export ban on the technologies used to extract and separate rare earths. A desire to open up access to these metals was said to be a major feature of Trump’s negotiations around Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. After Zelensky’s painful ambush in the White House, Trump quickly concluded a deal allowing the US access to Ukraine’s natural resources, especially the coveted rare earths. Some have also suggested that claiming these metals is one of the aims of Russia’s war. What should the rest of the world do about China’s monopoly? Is it feasible to create alternative sources of supply – and what would it cost? Can innovation reduce the need for rare earths – or can recycling save the day? What does it all mean for the direction of geopolitics? SPEAKERS Robert Fig partner, the metals risk team Animesh Jha professor, applied material science Henry Sanderson journalist; author, Volt Rush, the Winners and Losers in the Race to Go Green CHAIR Austin Williams director, Future Cities Project; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution

The Academy of Ideas team – Alastair Donald, Claire Fox, Rob Lyons and Jacob Reynolds – discuss the immediate fallout after President Trump's decision to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Why did Trump act? Is it about narcotics, oil, democracy or his desire to create a 'Don-roe doctrine' of US dominance in the Americas? What has been the role of domestic politics – is this the culture wars by other means? For those who believe in that sovereignty is a vital right for nation states, should we make an exception here given the appalling nature of Maduro's regime or must sovereignty be defended at all times? What's left of the 'rules-based international order' when Trump is not only intervening in Venezuela but threatening Denmark's control of Greenland, too? Will the reaction against Trump's actions weaken the hand of populist forces elsewhere?

In a wide-ranging interview, Andrew Doyle talks to Claire Fox about his new book, The End of Woke and why there is much still to be done to defend freedom.   Andrew notes that while some things have shifted in recent months – from the Cass Review and the UK Supreme Court judgement on the meaning of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act to the start of Donald Trump’s second presidential term – it doesn’t mean that our problems are over. The ‘new puritans’ he identified in his previous book are still very much there and clinging on to their power and influence.   It's now five years since the death of George Floyd and the hysteria around Black Lives Matter. Claire and Andrew reflect on what the hell happened and the dangers that arise from a re-racialisation of society. They also look at how identity politics and racial thinking has led to a white grievance culture and a tit-for-tat outlook, which Andrew argues has more to do with revenge than with promoting a liberal society.    Above all, the conversation focuses on the continued importance of the fight for free speech, even for 'cosplay' rebels like Irish rappers Kneecap. And they tackle the way in which woke has undermined the search for truth: when even something as common sense as biological sex is called into question, then anything goes – and society suffers.

Dave Clements is a policy adviser, writer, and parent of a child diagnosed with ADHD and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Despite a longstanding scepticism about the claims made about the increase in these and other similar conditions, since becoming a father he has been forced to question his views. Clements describes his son’s condition as something that ‘runs through him like a stick of rock’. ASD, in particular, can have a profound effect on children and their families. And yet, as Dave tells us in his forthcoming book, there seems to be something else going on, too. He is struck by the record numbers of pupils being labelled as ‘neurodiverse’, having special educational needs (SEN) or struggling with anxiety and attendance issues. Do we know what normal is anymore, he asks? The book is less about providing answers than posing uncomfortable questions. Are we in danger of making identities out of disorders? Why do some parents appear oddly eager that their children be labelled neurodiverse? Has SEN become a hold-all category for too many different kinds of issues and conditions, and thus an unhelpful term? At a time when schools struggle to fund SEN provision, is a growing ‘awareness’ of neurodiverse, and other similar conditions, part of the problem or the solution? Are there other reasons for the increasing rates of referral and diagnosis, and for rising numbers of children needing support in class? As the SEN agenda becomes a greater part of the school experience, is teacher autonomy being undermined by the expectation that they follow scripts produced by SENCOs and SEN departments for some pupils and lessons? How are mainstream schools expected to cope with students who are unable to regulate themselves against sudden, intense, and uncontrolled expressions of emotion or aggression? Instead of experts being brought in to teach teachers how to teach pupils with neurodiverse conditions or other special educational needs – wouldn’t it be better if experts taught these kids in specialist schools? Or is the problem of inclusion, and the variety and nature of the needs children bring to the classroom, more complicated than that? SPEAKER Dave Clements writer and policy adviser; contributing co-editor, The Future of Community

Claire Fox sits down with Jasleen Chaggar of Big Brother Watch and author Timandra Harkness to talk about the latest attack on our privacy. The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill does not sound like the kind of legislation that will set your pulse racing. But one part of it in particular should be more widely known and the cause of great concern: the new eligibility verification powers for welfare recipients. Essentially, if the Bill passes, the government will be able to demand that banks trawl through the accounts of anyone receiving welfare benefits and use algorithms to flag up any possible fraud or erroneous payments. The government already has the power to see bank statements from those who are suspected of welfare fraud, but these new powers go much further, automating these checks on any account receiving welfare payments AND any linked accounts, too. This is guilty-until-proven-innocent stuff. The civil liberties implications are very serious.

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. Why farmers are so angry about the Labour government's inheritance tax changes The existing difficulties with making a good living from farming, particularly the power of supermarkets Why it is unfair to blame sheep and cattle farmers for climate change The failure of many politicians to understand why a farm is more than just a business Why, despite all the difficulties, they continue to want to farm - if the government will let them.

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 Dave Clements writer and policy advisor; contributing co-editor The Future of Community Dr Jennifer Cunningham retired community paediatrician; board member, Scottish Union for Education (SUE) Dr Az Hakeem consulting psychiatrist; author, Trans and Detrans Sophie Spital speaker; writer; former editor, Triggernometry CHAIR Sally Millard director of finance; co-founder, AoI Parents Forum

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 Catherine McBride economist; fellow, Centre for Brexit Policy Ali Miraj broadcaster; founder, the Contrarian Prize; infrastructure financier; DJ Dr Thomas Sampson associate professor, LSE; associate in Trade programme, Centre for Economic Performance Gawain Towler former head of press, Reform UK CHAIR Phil Mullan writer, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

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 Lord James Bethell former health minister; member, House of Lords Andrew Doyle presenter, Free Speech Nation, GB News; writer and comedian; author, The New Puritans and Free Speech and Why It Matters Timandra Harkness journalist, writer and broadcaster; author, Technology is Not the Problem and Big Data: does size matter?; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree Sandy Starr deputy director, Progress Educational Trust; author, AI: Separating Man from Machine CHAIR Rob Lyons science and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION With concerns growing about potential blackouts on cold winter evenings with little wind, listen to this debate on what is happening to UK energy, particularly with the arrival of the new Labour government. 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 Dr Shahrar Ali former deputy leader, Green Party Lord David Frost member of the House of Lords Prof Dr Michaela Kendall CEO, Adelan; UK Hydrogen Champion for Mission Innovation, UK Government James Woudhuysen visiting professor, forecasting and innovation, London South Bank University CHAIR Rob Lyons science and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate  

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 barrister; writer, commentator and advocate, specialising in the impact of ideology on society; co-founder, Thoughtful Therapists Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain MBE chair, Dignity in Dying, the UK’s leading campaign for a change in the law on assisted dying; head of the Rabbinic Court of Great Britain; author of several books with the central theme of reforming Judaism, including The Naked Rabbi: His Colourful Life, Campaigns and Controversies and Confessions of a Rabbi. Sonia Sodha chief leader writer at the Observer and a Guardian/Observer columnist. She also makes documentaries on economic and social issues for Radio 4 and appears regularly on the BBC, Sky News and Channel 4 as a political commentator. Professor Kevin Yuill emeritus professor of history, University of Sunderland; author, Assisted Suicide: the liberal, humanist case against legalization. CHAIR Claire Fox director, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

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.

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION In 2018, the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) was introduced at the World Cup in Russia – and the arguments about it haven’t stopped since, with complaints that decisions are still often wrong while lengthy reviews cause confusion and frustration. Using technology to help referees get important decisions right seemed like such a good idea. For example, in 2010, England midfielder Frank Lampard famously had a goal against Germany in the World Cup disallowed, despite the ball clearly crossing the goal line. One result was the introduction of technology that can tell the referee instantly if the ball has crossed the goal-line. However, goal-line technology can only assist with one source of refereeing error. VAR enables a wider range of decisions to be reviewed. One criticism is that VAR is still subject to human subjectivity and fallibility, as it depends on how referees view and apply the rules, with incorrect decisions still being made and with inconsistency between matches. The most high-profile VAR error occurred last autumn, when confused communication between the on-pitch referee and the VAR meant a goal by Liverpool against Tottenham Hotspur was erroneously disallowed – despite the VAR making the correct decision. Representatives of one Premier League club, Wolves, were so incensed by a string of bad decisions that they put forward a motion to scrap VAR altogether. Secondly, VAR slows down the game as goals or penalty decisions are subject to laborious reviews, playing havoc with the emotions of players and spectators. One former England player, Paul Scholes, has complained that the ‘VAR experience is poor, the in-stadium experience for the supporter. It’s nowhere near good enough.’ However, the football authorities believe that VAR has made the game fairer by improving both decision accuracy and transparency as fans can see the video replays. Responding to the Wolves motion, the Premier League pointed out that VAR has substantially improved decision making overall, while acknowledging that decisions currently take too long. Has VAR ruined football? Why has video technology been so controversial in football when it has been much more successful in other sports, like cricket and tennis? How can we remove human error, or is human error an inevitable part of the game? Can VAR be fixed, or should it be given the red card? SPEAKERS Duleep Allirajah football writer; longterm spiked contributor; co-founder, Libero! network; season-ticket holder, Crystal Palace Jonny Gould TV and radio presenter; journalist; host, Jonny Gould's Jewish State Omar Mohamed student, Royal Holloway University Sally Taplin business consultant, Businessfourzero; visiting MBA lecturer, Bayes Business School; former board member, Lewes FC CHAIR Geoff Kidder director, membership and events, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Book Club

On the eve of the US presidential election, listen to our discussion from the Battle of Ideas festival 2024: Within days of being announced as the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris went from the most unpopular vice president in 50 years – a figure whose unpopularity reportedly led to the former president, Barack Obama, scrambling to find an alternative – to a viable presidential candidate. After slumping under Biden, polling now indicates that the Democrats have a real chance of retaining the White House. Kamala has been rebranded – the ‘brat’ candidate memifying what had previously been seen as gaffs as the imperfections of millennial women. Kamala is posed as a cross between Obama and Bridget Jones. Kamala, it seems, has been embraced as a figure of fun. Harris has made no unscripted appearances since taking up the candidacy. The Harris strategy seems to be is entirely based on Kamala the person – with the least amount of policy focus in her campaign material of any presidential candidate in history by far. It seems the Democrats hope Kamala can be entertaining enough to distract the American public for a hundred days, avoiding any real scrutiny. At the same time, the Trump campaign seems slightly at odds as to how to counter Kamala the meme. Trump has returned to X/Twitter, but doesn’t seem to have his usual talent for lampooning the opposition. Instead, he has been focused on appearing on a range of podcasts. Trump, too, seems light on policy and big ideas. Has the election then turned purely into a competition of ‘vibes’? Or are there still substantive differences between the main candidates? What does the memification of politics mean for democracy? Is Kamalamania a sincere phenomenon, an exercise in how people can change their mind out of convenience, or a complete fiction produced by the Democratic Party machine? Has Trump lost his populist touch? What does the election hold for America? SPEAKERS: Nick Dixon, comedian; presenter, GB News; host, The Current Thing Dr Cheryl Hudson, lecturer in US political history, University of Liverpool; author, Citizenship in Chicago: race, culture and the remaking of American identity Dr Richard Johnson, writer; senior lecturer in politics, Queen Mary, University of London; co-author, Keeping the Red Flag Flying: The Labour Party in Opposition since 1922 Stan Swim, chief program officer, Bill of Rights Institute Chair: Jacob Reynolds, head of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION The Online Safety Bill is causing huge concern for those who believe in free speech. But how can we protect free expression and still deal with the many problems that arise online? The Bill has passed through the House of Commons and will now be debated in the House of Lords. There are hopes that Liz Truss’s government may amend the Bill to remove the most egregious problem with it: the attempt to force tech platforms and service providers – such as Twitter, Facebook, Google and many more – to remove content and ban users from expressing ideas or views that the government deems to be ‘legal but harmful’. However, the very idea that legislation was drafted to ban legal speech as it appears in the virtual public square – including references to sex and gender, race, eating disorders or the diverse category of ‘mental health challenges’ – says much about the current attitude among politicians and regulators. Concerns remain at the wide scope of proposals in the legislation. It recommends new rules to control online services, including search engines and user-generated content. It will also affect privacy by constraining end-to-end encryption. The law will compel tech firms, who already regulate and remove content they have decided is ‘problematic’, to comply through fines and suspension, and requires they provide user tracking data on individuals who are considered to be breaking these laws. If and when the law is passed, it is now proposed that the lead time for compliance is reduced from 22 months to just two. Companies will have just over eight weeks from the royal assent of the law to make sure that they’re in full compliance to avoid penalties. Despite these potentially draconian measures, there are undoubtedly new harms created by the online world. Are free-speech advocates being insensitive to what is novel about the internet as a threat? Trolling can go beyond unpleasant abuse to threats of violence. Children are far more likely to suffer at the hands of malicious bullying online than in the playground. Worse, such abuse can go viral. What do we do about child-safety concerns, viral sexting, online anonymous grooming, bad faith con-merchants and conspiracy-mongers passing off misinformation as fact? What of the potential psychological damage, particularly for those considered more socially and psychologically ‘at-risk’? Is it good enough to argue that these ‘crimes’ are already protected by existing laws? In any event, safety issues and legislation may not even be the biggest free-speech issues online. In fact, perhaps it is Big Tech companies that have the real power. For example, Spotify has removed podcasts it deems politically unacceptable while PayPal has removed support for organisations critical of Covid policies and gender ideology. Does the online world, warts and all, present free-speech supporters with insurmountable problems? Or is free speech a fundamental societal value that must be fought for, whatever the consequences or regardless of the challenges of any new technology? SPEAKERS Lord Charles Colville Crossbench peer, House of Lords; former member, Communications and Digital Select Committee; freelance TV producer Paddy Hannam researcher, House of Commons; writer and commentator Molly Kingsley co-founder, UsForThem; co-author, The Children’s Inquiry Graham Smith tech and internet lawyer; of counsel, Bird & Bird LLP; author, Internet Law and Regulation; blogger, Cyberleagle Toby Young general secretary, Free Speech Union; author, How to Lose Friends & Alienate People; associate editor, Spectator CHAIR Dr Jan Macvarish education and events director, Free Speech Union; author, Neuroparenting: the expert invasion of family life

Media scrutiny, political scandals and electoral upsets - the Academy of Ideas team get together on the eve of the General Election for one last pre-vote discussion.