Academy of Ideas

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION Genocide, Holocaust, Never Again. Phrases that once conjured up only one image: the Nazis’ systematic attempt to eliminate the entire Jewish people and eradicate Jewish culture, identity and future generations of Jews from the face of the earth. It was once held that the Holocaust was unique in its horror with no precedent in history. Can we confidently say this view still holds today? Today, the word ‘holocaust’ is increasingly used as a free-floating catch-all to describe many geopolitical events or even general human evil. Even Auschwitz, a death camp designed for the genocide of the Jews, has been turned into an all-purpose symbol of human cruelty. The proposed Learning Centre to be built as part of the controversial Holocaust Memorial in Victoria Garden, next to Parliament, promises a ‘high-tech immersive experience’, expected to last only 45 minutes, that will reference a wide range of other international atrocities, such as Rwanda and colonial-era massacres, with the aim to promote equality and diversity in general. More specifically, these terms are being applied to the war in Gaza – particularly since Hamas’s attack on 7 October 2023. Israelis are increasingly likened to Nazis, guilty of war crimes and ethnic cleansing, or settler-colonists aiming at the complete destruction and replacement of Palestinians and their culture. The United Nations, Amnesty International, Médecins Sans Frontières and countless individual governments have proclaimed a genocide in Gaza, a claim strongly denied by Israel and its supporters who condemn the veracity of these accusations and what they refer to as ‘Holocaust relativism’. In a new book, The World After Gaza, author Pankaj Mishra brings together the narratives of both the Holocaust and slavery-colonialism, arguing Nazism is simply the logical extension of colonialism. The Israeli government, according to Mishra, is guilty of both. Celebrity social-justice activist Naomi Klein wrote in the Guardian last year that we are entering a new intellectual era, one in which people are openly asking if the Holocaust should ‘be seen exclusively as a Jewish catastrophe, or something more universal’. Klein goes on to argue that perhaps the Holocaust was not ‘a unique rupture in European history’ but rather ‘a homecoming of earlier colonial genocides’. What are the consequences of this ‘dejudification of the Holocaust’, as Brendan O’Neill calls it in his recent book, After the Pogrom? How can the public, especially new generations, understand the true nature of this industrialised act of anti-Semitic barbarism – and to even remember that the Jews were the targets – when the Holocaust is wrenched out of its historical context? Are authors like Mishra and Klein right when they say it is this very sanctifying of the Holocaust in Western history that wilfully ignores crimes of equal magnitude, including what is happening in Gaza today? SPEAKERSDaniel Ben-Amijournalist; creator, Radicalism of Fools project on rethinking anti-Semitism; author, Ferraris for All: in defence of economic progress Naomi Grynwriter; filmmaker Samuel Rubinsteinpostgraduate historian and writer Dr Jake Wallis Simonsauthor, Never Again? How the West betrayed the Jews and itself CHAIRSimon McKeonfounder member, Our Fight UK; QPR season ticket holder; archivist

We've had a full week of action now and every team has made its first appearance. In this episode, the regular team of Rob Lyons, Geoff Kidder and Jake Weston are joined by special guest Denis Russell to offer a viewpoint from Ireland. The team offer their impressions of the tournament so far. Who has impressed and who has disappointed? With England winning a seemingly tricky opening match against Croatia 4-2, can the Three Lions go deep into the tournament again? As for Scotland, does a scrappy win over Haiti offer much hope for tougher matches against Morocco and Brazil? Along the way, they discuss the cost of the World Cup for fans, but also how those fans have made a real impression on the host countries. Did America know what was going to hit it? We also return to the thorny issue of VAR and the controversy over the innovation of hydration breaks, effectively turning a game of two halves into a game of four quarters. What has Ireland’s reaction been after failing to qualify for the tournament? Are the Football Association of Ireland – and the Irish elites in general – more concerned with the upcoming game against Israel than with getting the national team back to qualifying for major tournaments, as they did so often in the past?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION The past year has seen a flurry of announcements about military investment in Western countries. Following Trump’s re-election, and his blunt demand that European countries invest more in their militaries, the EU announced €800 million of funds for defence in a package called ReArm Europe (later renamed Readiness 2030 after backlash that the package sounded too militaristic). NATO members then agreed to bump defence spending to five per cent of GDP – although some, like Spain, secured opt-outs, and members will be able to count certain infrastructure spending towards the target. Aside from Trump, the calalyst has been Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and a more uncertain and dangerous geopolitical situation around the world. From clashes between India and Pakistan to continuing war in Gaza, threats from China about Taiwan, instability in the Balkans and rising tensions in South America – few deny the world is a more unstable place than it was a decade ago. The question is how Western countries should respond. Many suggest that the new period of rearmament is a necessary corrective to a longstanding vacation from geopolitical realities. In recent decades, weapons stockpiles have shrunk, armed forces have been reduced and industrial capacity has declined – to the point where few Western countries except America or Poland could sustain a serious conflict, or even a minor one. While Western states have let military spending fall down the list of priorities, newly emboldened countries like China, Turkey, the Gulf States and India have grown their armed forces. But others worry this new talk of militarism risks fanning the embers it is supposed to contain. Some joke that it could be dangerous for Germany, which has spent the postwar years being told to constrain its military, to now be encouraged to spend hundreds of billions of euros on its armed forces. Newly furnished militaries could be like Chekov’s Gun – just waiting to go off. Others point to the loss of progress on arms-reduction treaties, or the dangerous rhetoric of civilisational competition. Burgeoning social-welfare commitments, skyrocketing energy prices, decades of infrastructure decay, and a lack of critical raw materials make rearmament more difficult than simply declaring a new target. But perhaps the most biting criticism is the gap between these new military ambitions and the reality at home. Western countries cannot defend their borders against illegal migration, let alone foreign adversaries. Young people profess less and less desire to identify with their country, let alone fight for it. And whatever the talk of strategic adversaries, Western countries are still dependent on Russia, China and other competitors for basic and crucial goods, from oil to batteries. Should the new talk of military rearmament be welcomed, feared or perhaps even ridiculed? When the countries comprising the West seems to be in constant tension over Ukraine, free speech or attitudes to Chinese investment, is there even a West to speak of? Is it high time to get serious about the military and prepare for war? Or do we need to cool off? SPEAKERSDr Tim Blackbooks and essays editor, spiked Mary Dejevskyformer foreign correspondent in Moscow, Paris and Washington; special correspondent in China; writer and broadcaster Virginie JoronFrench member of the European Parliament, Patriots for Europe Group Tim Scottexecutive director, The Freedom Association Charlie Winstanleyauthor, Bricking it: The UK Housing Crisis and the Failure of Policy; public affairs & social policy development professional CHAIRJacob Reynoldshead of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

With the war in Iran leading to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, preventing or restricting oil and gas being exported from many of the Gulf states, the UK's energy policy has come to the fore once more. Proponents of renewables claim that a rapid shift to homegrown wind and solar power will spare us from the volatility of international supplies of fossil fuels. Critics argue the UK will need oil and gas for decades to come, but we can produce more, either in the North Sea or by fracking on land. This debate from the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 is, therefore, highly topical. Where should future energy policy go? ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION In June 2019, the Conservative government amended the Climate Change Act to insert a target of ‘net zero’ emissions by 2050. At the 2024 General Election, all the major political parties, with the exception of Reform, promised to back the goal, with any differences being about when to implement various policies, such as gas-boiler and petrol-car bans. Reform is well ahead in the opinion polls, and calling for the end of Net Zero and the resumption of fracking. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has said: ‘We’ve got to stop pretending to the next generation… Net Zero by 2050 is impossible.’ Is Net Zero gradually being ditched? For proponents of the policy, climate change remains a clear and present danger. The energy and climate change secretary, Ed Miliband declared in May that Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are still backing Net Zero: ‘It’s absolutely central to their economic growth and energy security, as well as climate agenda … So as far as I’m concerned, they are 100% committed to this agenda.’ Labour has stopped new licences for gas and oil production in the North Sea and is committed to expanding renewable energy, with Miliband claiming: ‘People recognise that cheap, clean renewables beat expensive, insecure fossil fuels.’ But fuel bills haven’t fallen as the gas-price crisis of 2022 has faded. UK energy prices remain high by international standards, despite (or because of) the expansion of renewables, something highlighted by the need to rescue Scunthorpe steelworks. In June, it was reported that the government was planning to subsidise energy costs for energy-intensive industries. Sky News reported that in 2023, British businesses paid £258 per megawatt-hour for electricity compared to £178 in France and £177 in Germany, according to International Energy Agency data. Will the Net Zero consensus break down further – and should it? At a time when China’s greenhouse gas emissions dwarf those of the UK and are still rising, does it make economic or environmental sense to decarbonise? Or does the threat of climate change demand that the UK takes a lead and we accept lower living standards to save the planet? SPEAKERSJonny Ballcontributing editor, UnHerd Dr Caspar Hewettlecturer, School of Engineering, Newcastle University; co-director, NERC FLOOD-CDT; director, The Great Debate Ruari McCallionfreelance writer Ali Mirajbroadcaster; founder, the Contrarian Prize; infrastructure financier; DJ Kathryn Porterconsultant, Watt-Logic CHAIRAustin Williamsdirector, Future Cities Project; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution

This is an extract from the Academy of Ideas Economy Forum discussion 'After Greenland: understanding the new geopolitics', which took place on Tuesday 24 February 2026. First, economist and author Phil Mullan offers his analysis of what the Greenland affair tells us about the present and future of international politics. Then James Woudhuysen explores the changing nature of warfare today. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION President Trump’s insistence that the US must take control of Greenland has caused a furore, particularly among America’s NATO allies. Many are scratching their heads about why Trump went in so hard – including threatening new tariffs and even military action against America’s supposed friends on the world stage. After all, the US already has the power to station troops and weapons systems in Greenland thanks to a decades-old treaty. Just weeks after the capture of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, the Greenland controversy was widely seen as the assertion of a ‘Don-roe doctrine’, with America asserting itself in its own ‘backyard’. One thing for sure is that the notion of a ‘rules-based international order’ – more convention than reality – has not been called into question as much in decades. Trump’s over-riding concern seems to be China as an international rival. The Chinese government continues to demand control over Taiwan and has been marking out a zone of influence in the South China Sea and elsewhere. Meanwhile, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was viewed by many as the return of Great Power politics. Signs that Trump is more interested in settling the conflict than in supporting Ukrainian sovereignty only strengthen that belief. How can we understand these new developments? Is this a sign of American strength or weakness? Is the world going to be divided into rival regional power blocs? With Europe now unable to assert itself, will it be marginalised now? Is there any chance of a new, stable international settlement? SPEAKERSPhil Mullanwriter, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents James Woudhuysenvisiting professor, forecasting and innovation, London South Bank University

Debate recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House, Westminster. This week, Reform's Suella Braverman declared that if the party were elected to government it would 'repeal the Equality Act, because we are going to work to build a country defined by meritocracy not tokenism, personal responsibility not victimhood, excellence not mediocrity, and unity not division'. In response, Prime Minister Keir Starmer told the BBC that the Act represented 'basic values, one of which is should women be treated equally with men... I think it actually rips up something that goes to who we are as a country because I believe passionately that to be tolerant, compassionate and diverse is what it is to be British'. What has been the impact of the Equality Act on British workplaces? ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION The British workplace is now too often a toxic environment, a hotbed of grievance culture, lawfare and an ever-expanding number of disciplinary codes unrelated to the nature of specific jobs. Over the past year, there’s been a 23 per cent rise in cases at employment tribunals and a two-year waiting list, due to a growing backlog, with workplace conflicts estimated to now cost businesses £28.5 billion annually. How did this come about? The UK is a world leader in human relations (HR). With over half a million HR workers – almost double the number of 15 years ago – Britain stands second in the global league table for size of HR sector as a share of all occupations. Over seven in 10 FTSE 100 companies now boast a ‘chief HR officer’ on their executive committee, reflecting the elevated status of this newfound ‘profession’. We might expect this might lead to happier more productive workers, fewer grievances and higher job retention. Yet the growth of the HR industrial complex doesn’t appear to have led to better workplace outcomes or harmony. Arguably, HR is as much the problem as the solution. HR departments – until recently humdrum administrative hubs managing payrolls, processing sick notes and checking firms complied with employment law – have now morphed into real centres of power. They are the enforcers of workplace orthodoxies, controlling what workers can say or do, who keeps their job, and even shaping corporate missions. For example, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) is charged with versing workers in new values, from DEI literacy to managing emotional security. What’s more, the traditional defenders of workers’ rights – trade unions – are increasingly acting in lockstep with HR managers’ priorities. A recent paper by the Free Speech Union, Shopped Stewards, revealed the divisive nature of union bureaucrats’ adherence to identity politics, which means they often side with the DEI initiatives of their employers, as opposed to defending their members’ rights. For example, teacher Simon Pearson was fired by Preston College after a complaint from a Muslim representative of the National Education Union (NEU). Pearson was accused of being ‘Islamophobic’ and ‘racially discriminatory’ for social-media posts, such as saying Lucy Connolly ‘should not have been jailed’. Another report suggests that specific legislation has led to a deterioration in workplace relations. The Don’t Divide Us report, The Equality Act Isn’t Working, reveals the ‘expansionary logic’ of the Equality Act 2010 has provided the legal scaffolding that supports a surge in (largely unsuccessful) workplace race–discrimination claims. This, DDU argues, contributes to a grievance culture where people resort to ‘lawfare’ to resolve ‘petty disputes and imagined slights’, while empowering thin-skinned employees to wilfully misinterpret perfectly innocent comments or interactions. Can the workplace be detoxified? How can we tame the HR monster? Can trade unions return to a ‘one for all, all for one’ role of protecting workers’ rights? Can laws that are divisive in workplaces be reined in? SPEAKERSPamela

Recording of a debate at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House, London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTIONOne 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? SPEAKERSRobert Figpartner, the metals risk team Animesh Jhaprofessor, applied material science Henry Sandersonjournalist; author, Volt Rush, the Winners and Losers in the Race to Go Green CHAIRAustin Williamsdirector, Future Cities Project; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution