Academy of Ideas

academyofideas

The Academy of Ideas has been organising public debates to challenge contemporary knee-jerk orthodoxies since 2000. Subscribe to our channel for recordings of our live conferences, discussions and salons, and find out more at www.academyofideas.org.uk

  1. 2d ago

    Comedy: is politics that funny?

    Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION From Yes Minister to The Thick of It, the political class has always been a go-to topic for comedians and satirists. But in a world in which political developments have become so extreme and self-satirising, is it still so easy to find laughs in the corridors of power? Regardless, politics seems to impact on how we assess comedy too. When British comedian Sam Nicoresti became the first transgender person to win the £10,000 award for Best Comedy Show at the Edinburgh Fringe, some questioned if this was more political virtue-signalling than an assessment of comedic brilliance. Nicoresti’s statement added fuel to this disquiet: ‘I did this for the queers making weird art, and it’s a privilege to share this moment with the first all-female line-up of award winners.’ Mixing comedy and politics can be a double-edged sword. In an era of identity politics and offence culture, irreverence about political orthodoxies often collides with everything from hate-speech laws to cultural taboos, leading to cancelled shows, boycotts or social media storms. Ricky Gervais’s infamous monologues mocking ‘woke’ culture regularly draw ire from celebrities and media, even if loved by millions. While humour can critique politicians effectively, be an edgy way of holding power to account and even spark public debate by saying the unsayable in an engaging way, what happens if comedy itself becomes politically partisan? After all, alternative comedy’s embrace of progressive, right-on, liberal orthodoxies has arguably become a ubiquitous way of squeezing out dissenting comic voices. What happens if anti-woke comedians stop making good jokes and simply ‘sing to the choir’? With the stakes seemingly higher than ever, and comedians taking robust political stances of their own, does comedy risk become simply another form of propaganda? SPEAKERS Steve N Allen broadcaster and comedian Nicholas De Santo comedian; TV journalist and commentator Leo Kearse comedian; writer, Breaking The News, Mock The Week and The Mash Report; co-creator, Hate 'n' Live Intel Lady satirist, performer CHAIR Andrew Doyle writer and comedian; author, The End of Woke: How the Culture War Went Too Far and What to Expect from the Counter-Revolution and The New Puritans

    1h 35m
  2. 5d ago

    Rebuilding Britain: the infrastructure crisis

    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 Paul Finch OBE programme director, World Architecture Festival Ben Flatman architectural editor, Building Design and Building; author, Birmingham: Shaping the City Shelagh McNerney head of regeneration, Manchester City Council Christopher Worrall industry fellow, Onward; commentator on housing, planning, and political realignment

    1h 33m
  3. Jun 5

    Racial grievance politics: how did we become so divided?

    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 Albie Amankona broadcaster; financial analyst; executive member, 2022 Group; champion, Next Gen Tories; general council, LGBT+ Conservatives; co-founder, Conservatives Against Racism. Chris Bayliss writer and consultant Sonya Douglas artist, poet and campaigner Tim Samuels documentary-maker; broadcaster; author Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbert director, Don't Divide Us; author, What Should Schools Teach? Disciplines, subjects and the pursuit of truth CHAIR Dr Jan Macvarish education and events director, Free Speech Union

    1h 34m
  4. Jun 4

    Is there a right to die? The moral dilemmas of assisted death

    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 Dr Az Hakeem consultant psychiatrist and medical director, Psyche Clinic; author, Trans and Detrans Sonia Sodha columnist and broadcaster Dr Kathleen Stock columnist, UnHerd; co-director, The Lesbian Project; author, Do Not Go Gentle: The Case Against Assisted Death Professor Kevin Yuill emeritus professor of history, University of Sunderland; author, Assisted Suicide: the liberal, humanist case against legalization

    1h 36m
  5. Apr 24

    Taking the PIP: who can reform welfare?

    Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Sunday 19 October at Church House, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION The government suffered serious embarrassment earlier this year when its attempts to rein in Personal Independence Payments (PIP) had to be hurriedly scaled back in the face of a backbench revolt. But the scale of welfare payments today remains a huge worry – and there seems little appetite to bring this spending under control. Earlier this year, there was a furore about the scale and availability of cars through the Motability scheme, which runs a fleet of cars said to be worth £14 billion. 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 Dave Clements writer and policy advisor; contributing co-editor The Future of Community Lisa McKenzie working-class academic; author, Lockdown Diaries of the Working Class Jean-André Prager senior fellow, Policy Exchange Gawain Towler former head of press, Reform UK CHAIR Rob Lyons science and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate

    1h 17m

Ratings & Reviews

3.9
out of 5
7 Ratings

About

The Academy of Ideas has been organising public debates to challenge contemporary knee-jerk orthodoxies since 2000. Subscribe to our channel for recordings of our live conferences, discussions and salons, and find out more at www.academyofideas.org.uk

You Might Also Like