
Insights from recent episode analysis
Audience Interest
Podcast Focus
Publishing Consistency
Platform Reach
Insights are generated by CastFox AI using publicly available data, episode content, and proprietary models.
Most discussed topics
Brands & references
Total monthly reach
Estimated from 1 chart position in 1 market.
By chart position
- 🇨🇭CH · Politics#194500 to 3K
- Per-Episode Audience
Est. listeners per new episode within ~30 days
250 to 1.5K🎙 ~2x weekly·396 episodes·Last published yesterday - Monthly Reach
Unique listeners across all episodes (30 days)
500 to 3K🇨🇭100% - Active Followers
Loyal subscribers who consistently listen
200 to 1.2K
Market Insights
Platform Distribution
Reach across major podcast platforms, updated hourly
Total Followers
—
Total Plays
—
Total Reviews
—
* Data sourced directly from platform APIs and aggregated hourly across all major podcast directories.
On the show
From 10 epsHosts
Recent guests
Recent episodes
Religious fervour: the rise of faith or Cultural Christianity?
Jun 25, 2026
1h 32m 58s
Never Again – for anyone? The new Holocaust relativism
Jun 22, 2026
1h 31m 32s
What do the AoI team make of Makerfield - and what next?
Jun 20, 2026
37m 15s
World Cup Podcast of Ideas: episode 2
Jun 19, 2026
35m 05s
Letters on Liberty: The Freedom to Blaspheme
Jun 18, 2026
1h 29m 34s
Social Links & Contact
Official channels & resources
Official Website
Login
RSS Feed
Login
| Date | Episode | Topics | Guests | Brands | Places | Keywords | Sponsor | Length | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6/25/26 | ![]() Religious fervour: the rise of faith or Cultural Christianity? | Lots of people are converting to Christianity and, across the country, church attendance is increasing. While the numbers vary, one survey shows the number of people attending church at least once a month is up from eight per cent in 2018 to 12 per cent in 2024. Perhaps most notably, the survey shows a quadrupling of attendance among Gen Zers, aged 18 to 24, from four per cent to 16 per cent. The story of modern society has often been told as a rise of secularism and atheism, but after the peak of new atheism in the early 2010s, trends are now reversing. From sold-out events on faith with musician Nick Cave and historian Tom Holland to a swath of new books on the place of god in society, there is public appetite for grappling with religion. Some argue that this is a ‘quiet revival’ driven mainly by changing perceptions of religion and a collective search for meaning in modern societies that are increasingly individualistic and atomised. Others point to public figures like Jordan Peterson and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for whom Christianity is part of a larger project to save Western civilisation. Others still argue that there is something distinct and more therapeutic about modern forms of Christian worship – more focused on introspection and personal development than community and morality. Some believers are uneasy about these more pragmatic justifications for faith. What is the driving force of the resurgence of Christianity? Is this emerging Christianity different from its traditional forms? Is the Christian revival political, or are people searching for meaning? Are we seeing a rise of true faith, or merely cultural Christianity? Is there a difference? SPEAKERSDolan Cummingswriter and novelist; co-director, Manifesto Club Pamela Dowchief operating officer, Civic Future Simon Evanscomedian; GB News and BBC TV and radio regular; presenter, BBC Radio 4's Simon Evans Goes to Market Abbot Christopher JamisonAbbot President, English Benedictine Congregation; author, Finding the Language of Grace: rediscovering transcendence Emma Trimblewriter and broadcaster; fellow, New Culture Forum CHAIRDr James Pantondeputy head welfare, St Edwards School, Oxford; associate lecturer in philosophy, The Open University | 1h 32m 58s | ||||||
| 6/22/26 | ![]() Never Again – for anyone? The new Holocaust relativism | 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 | 1h 31m 32s | ||||||
| 6/20/26 | ![]() What do the AoI team make of Makerfield - and what next? | So the ‘King of the North’ has cleared the first step in his quest to be prime minister of the UK. Andy Burnham’s victory in the Makerfield by-election was certainly impressive and it looks clear that Labour will be in the midst of a leadership contest very soon. Yet Burnham rarely stuck his neck out to offer any policy alternative to Keir Starmer, merely offering a change of personnel at the top. What does that mean for his party and the country? Meanwhile, the Conservatives pulled off a victory in Aberdeen South that was almost as impressive, campaigning against shutting down North Sea oil and gas production. Clearly, there is a constituency for defending jobs and livelihoods against Net Zero policies. But will it bring any wider benefit to Kemi Badenoch and co? While Reform have, for a while, realised they wouldn’t win, but they will still feel deflated that it wasn’t even close, especially having done so well in the local council elections in the area. What does the result mean for the party’s future and what do they need to do to win hearts and minds? The AoI’s Claire Fox, Alastair Donald, Geoff Kidder and Rob Lyons got together the following day to discuss all this and more. | 37m 15s | ||||||
| 6/19/26 | ![]() World Cup Podcast of Ideas: episode 2 | 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? | 35m 05s | ||||||
| 6/18/26 | ![]() Letters on Liberty: The Freedom to Blaspheme | Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION Since 2020, the Academy of Ideas has published Letters on Liberty – a radical pamphlet series aimed at reimagining arguments for freedom today and inspiring rowdy, good-natured disagreement. In his Letter – The Freedom to Blaspheme – writer and curator Manick Govinda argues that blasphemy law has returned through the back door – with Islam, rather than Christianity, pointing the finger at heretics. From recent cases of attacks on free speech to the self-censorship of everyone from teachers to comedians, Manick argues that blasphemers are being persecuted and prosecuted across the world. While courtesy and kindness are valuable features of a free society, he writes, no religion or religious leader should be above criticism. Kowtowing to the offended, no matter how grievous the insult they may feel, weakens our liberty. Join Manick and respondents to discuss whether we should be free to criticise and mock religion. Is there a balance to be struck between tolerance of religious freedom and the right to publicly disagree with other people’s faith? Has the UK brought blasphemy law back to the statute books via the notion of ‘hate crime’? And after the stabbing of Salman Rushdie, the Charlie Hebdo massacre and other Islamist attempts to censor discussion of Islam, is the problem we’re dealing with a different idea of blasphemy to the days when the Life of Brian was banned? SPEAKERSDr Piers Bennphilosopher, author and lecturer Manick Govindaindependent writer, commentator, mentor/arts adviser and curator Khadija Khanjournalist and broadcaster; editor, A Further Inquiry; co-host, A Further Inquiry podcast John O’Brienhead of communications, MCC Brussels CHAIRRosamund Cuckstonsenior HR professional; co-organiser, Birmingham Salon | 1h 29m 34s | ||||||
| 6/15/26 | ![]() Should the West get ready for war? | 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 | 1h 32m 03s | ||||||
| 6/11/26 | ![]() Comedy: is politics that funny?✨ | comedypolitics+3 | — | Battle of Ideas festivalYes Minister+1 | Westminster | comedypolitics+5 | — | 1h 34m 33s | |
| 6/10/26 | ![]() World Cup Podcast of Ideas: episode 1✨ | World Cupsports+4 | — | — | USMexico+1 | World CupFIFA+6 | — | 36m 51s | |
| 6/8/26 | ![]() Rebuilding Britain: the infrastructure crisis✨ | infrastructureUK politics+3 | — | Battle of Ideas festivalHS2 | UKWestminster | infrastructureUK+6 | — | 1h 33m 12s | |
| 6/5/26 | ![]() Racial grievance politics: how did we become so divided?✨ | racial grievance politicsmulticulturalism+4 | — | Battle of Ideas festivalUK | — | racial grievancemulticultural policies+5 | — | 1h 34m 03s | |
Want analysis for the episodes below?Free for Pro Submit a request, we'll have your selected episodes analyzed within an hour. Free, at no cost to you, for Pro users. | |||||||||
| 6/4/26 | ![]() Is there a right to die? The moral dilemmas of assisted death✨ | assisted deathmoral dilemmas+4 | — | Labour MPDo Not Go Gentle+1 | Church HouseAbbey Centre+1 | assisted deathmoral dilemmas+5 | — | 1h 35m 51s | |
| 5/11/26 | ![]() Elections 2026: what next for populism, democracy, Starmer and the Union?✨ | populismdemocracy+4 | — | ReformGreens | — | elections 2026populism+6 | — | 59m 27s | |
| 5/2/26 | ![]() Podcast of Ideas: Has Scottish devolution been a failure?✨ | Scottish devolutionSNP+3 | Dean Thomson | Scotland Undone: Nationalism, Dogma, and Decline in the Devolution Era | ScotlandUK | Scottish devolutionSNP+5 | — | 1h 06m 03s | |
| 4/24/26 | ![]() Taking the PIP: who can reform welfare?✨ | welfare reformPersonal Independence Payments+3 | — | Department of Work and PensionsOut of Control | Great BritainChurch House, Westminster | welfarePIP+5 | — | 1h 16m 37s | |
| 4/10/26 | ![]() Why is my energy bill so high?✨ | energy pricespolitical issues+4 | — | Ofgem | IranStrait of Hormuz+3 | energy billsNorth Sea+5 | — | 1h 12m 53s | |
| 3/30/26 | ![]() Women and gender: Supreme Court ruling, one year on✨ | women's rightsgender identity+4 | — | Equalities and Human Rights CommissionFor Women Scotland+1 | UKScotland | Supreme Courtwomen's rights+6 | — | 1h 14m 38s | |
| 3/27/26 | ![]() Letters on Liberty: Abortion and the Freedom to Forge Our Own Fate | Following the vote in the House of Lords to approve the decriminalisation of women who have abortions after the legal limit of 24 weeks, the whole issue of abortion itself has once again become highly contested. In that context, this debate – recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October – is very topical. ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION Since 2020, the Academy of Ideas has published Letters on Liberty – a radical pamphlet series aimed at reimagining arguments for freedom today and inspiring rowdy, good-natured disagreement. In her Letter – Abortion and the Freedom to Forge Our Own Fate – Ann Furedi, an author and former chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, argues that debates about abortion often focus on when human life begins in the womb. Instead, she argues that it is important to consider a different human life – that of the woman. Furedi argues that the future of a woman’s pregnancy should be for her alone to decide, and this decision ought to be regarded as personal and private. There is no clearer illustration of the way choice, agency and responsibility matters than the consequences of a woman’s decision about her pregnancy, she says. To prevent someone from exercising their own choice, in a personal and private matter, is to strip them of their dignity and their humanity. Most importantly, she argues, we cannot respect the principles of freedom without acknowledging the freedom of reproductive choice. However, abortion is still regulated by law and legal limits, which can lead to a clash between an individual woman’s rights and policy priorities. This was vividly illustrated by the recent backlash after MPs voted to change abortion legislation to stop women in England and Wales being prosecuted for ending their pregnancy after 24 weeks. The landslide vote to decriminalise the procedure – considered the biggest change to abortion laws in England and Wales for nearly 60 years – was met with horror in some quarters and not confined to traditional anti-abortion circles. For example, even some feminists argued foetal viability creates a clash of rights. So, is abortion such a clear cut issue for women’s freedom? How does a decision to continue or end a pregnancy relate to a woman’s freedom to shape her own life? With abortion regulation in many US states as well as other countries becoming more restrictive, does this reflect public sentiment? If not, how should we make the case for bodily autonomy in the twenty-first century? SPEAKERSDr Piers Bennphilosopher, author and lecturer Ann Furediauthor, The Moral Case for Abortion; former chief executive, BPAS Margo MartinPhD student, Aberystwth University Jacob Phillipsprofessor of systematic theology, St Mary’s University, Twickenham; author, Obedience is Freedom CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want | 1h 19m 18s | ||||||
| 3/20/26 | ![]() Net Zero or ‘drill, baby, drill’? The future of UK energy | 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 | 1h 36m 01s | ||||||
| 3/13/26 | ![]() Island of strangers: is Britain broken? | Recorded at Battle of Ideas North on Saturday 7 March 2026 at Pendulum Hotel, Manchester. ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION From immigration to an aging population, the UK has been experiencing rapid demographic change just as many mainstays of community life – such as pubs, churches, community centres and trade unions – are in rapid decline. Consequently, while individuals share a common geographic space they seem to live parallel lives, lacking any shared outlook, values and, in some cases, shared language. As Keir Starmer stated (but later disowned), ‘in a diverse nation like ours… we risk becoming an island of strangers’. One consequence is that communities often seem about to implode. Many bemoan how once-feted towns have been replaced by low-grade sprawl. High streets now display the so-called ‘Yookay’ aesthetics of globally disparate food outlets, proliferating vape shops and barber shops of dubious legality. Young women fear for their safety amidst a series of random – and in the case of grooming gangs, organised – sexually motivated attacks. Housing illegal migrants within local communities has fuelled protests and counter-protests outside asylum hotels. British Muslim communities feel they are under threat from the backlash, especially after the 2024 Southport riots. What are the prospects then for uniting communities? Or is this fragmentation one key component of why so many feel Britain is broken? Failing communities once looked to political leadership or the state to help overcome problems. Yet as local elections approach, many worry that elected leaders will reflect and reinforce political and religious sectarian divides rather than overcome them. The police’s reputation is also tarnished. For example, the police failed to investigate grooming gangs for fear of being accused of racism. More recently, West Midlands Police were caught favouring vocal sectarian minorities over the wider interests of local communities when excluding Jewish Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from a football match in Birmingham. Meanwhile, local councils seem to entrench divides. When locals hung British and St George’s flags in local streets, rather than recognise the prospects for uniting communities around patriotic pride, officials tore down flags while labelling flaggers as ‘racist’ and ‘far-right’ for wanting to celebrate their towns and traditions. Who and what should shoulder the blame for the many recent failures? How do we create the places and communities that work for all that live there and which commit to common norms? Given cultural sensitivities and institutional failure to investigate the likes of grooming gangs, what are the prospects of the state finally getting a grip? And given the seeming drift to sectarian political divides, where pride in our communities and the nation is frowned upon rather than celebrated, how can we replace the ‘island of strangers’ and instead strengthen community and belonging? SPEAKERSDr Remi Adekoyalecturer of politics, University of York; author It’s Not About Whiteness, It’s About Wealth and Biracial Britain Ada Akpalawriter and commentator Lisa McKenzieworking-class academic; author, Lockdown Diaries of the Working Class Graham Stringer MPmember of parliament, Blackley and Middleton South CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want | 1h 21m 39s | ||||||
| 3/2/26 | ![]() After Greenland: understanding the new geopolitics | 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 | 29m 15s | ||||||
| 2/27/26 | ![]() Are the old political parties over? | Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 on Saturday 18 October at Church House and the Abbey Centre, Westminster. Victory for the Greens in the Gorton & Denton by-election is the latest sign that old political loyalties have broken down. In what was, even as recently as the 2024 General Election, a very safe Labour seat, Hannah Spencer was elected with a majority of over 4,000. Reform came second, pushing Labour into an embarrassing third place while the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats both lost their deposits. Indeed, the three mainstream parties that have governed the UK for over 100 years managed less than 30 per cent of the vote between them. What does all this mean for the future of British politics? ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION Are the mainstream parties facing extinction or can they bounce back by the time of the next General Election in 2029? Can the Tories recover from 14 years of misrule? Will the Labour Party survive from its current economic woes? Will the political vacuum be filled by Ed Davey’s Liberal Democrats or the ‘challenger’ parties like Reform or the Greens? Take the Conservative Party: the oldest party in the world currently looks as if it is facing electoral wipeout. In a recent survey, 42 per cent of Conservative voters in the 2024 General Election said that even they wouldn’t vote for them. The party that squandered Brexit is desperately looking around for a purpose. Some Tories believe that Robert Jenrick poses a more credible alternative than the current leader, Kemi Badenoch. But are they both fighting for a hopeless cause? Jenrick’s crime-fighting TikTok videos and Badenoch’s recent support of oil exploration got lots of media coverage, but Net Zero and the current failed model of policing were both introduced on their watch. Are they going back to their roots – if they can remember what those roots are – or are they simply mimicking Trump and Farage’s agendas from the sidelines? Meanwhile, Labour seems to be imploding. A recent Ipsos poll ranked the current UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, as the most unpopular leader in modern times. In July 2024, his government won almost two-thirds of all seats, with a 174 majority in the Commons, yet a year later it is collapsing in the polls. The government has presided over cuts and tax rises, strikes and bailouts, two-tier justice and a zero-growth economy. The idea that if you pinned a red rosette on a donkey in Wales, it’d get elected no longer holds true. Far from ‘smashing the gangs’, the immigration scandal that Labour inherited from the Tories means it is haemorrhaging support in Red Wall seats. Preferring Davos over Westminster, Starmer seems to prefer hob-nobbing with world leaders while taking British democracy for granted. Yet the death of both Labour and the Conservatives has been declared numerous times before, only for them to revive. Is it too soon to count them out? Is Britain’s political map being redrawn, or torn up? Might proportional representation reinvigorate the mainstream parties? Must we wait for four more years? We’ll take a vote on it. SPEAKERSRosie Duffield MPmember of parliament for Canterbury Dr Richard Johnsonwriter; senior lecturer in politics, Queen Mary University of London; co-author, Keeping the Red Flag Flying: The Labour Party in Opposition since 1922 Mark Littlewooddirector, Popular Conservatism; broadcaster, columnist, the Telegraph and the Mail Tim Montgomerieconservative journalist; founder, ConservativeHome, UnHerd and Centre for Social Justice Graham Stringer MPmember of parliament, Blackley and Middleton South CHAIRBruno WaterfieldBrussels correspondent, The Times | 1h 26m 49s | ||||||
| 2/20/26 | ![]() The rise of the workplace speech police | 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 | 1h 21m 45s | ||||||
| 2/4/26 | ![]() Rape gangs, Post Office and Scottish self-ID: an anatomy of three scandals | 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 PetersGB News national reporter Susan Smithco-director, For Women Scotland; director, Beira’s Place; contributor, The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht Nick Wallisjournalist, presenter, BBC Radio 4 series The Great Post Office Trial CHAIR Claire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive! | 1h 40m 16s | ||||||
| 1/14/26 | ![]() China's Trump card? Rare earths and geopolitics | 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 | 47m 12s | ||||||
| 1/9/26 | ![]() Podcast of Ideas: Trump's intervention into Venezuela | 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? | 43m 08s | ||||||
Showing 25 of 405
Pitch Fit is a Pro feature
See how bookable this show is for guests, which brands already advertise, the per-episode ad value, and the best-fit guest and sponsor profile. The numbers are blurred on the free plan.
How readily this show books outside guests like you.
How proven this show is for host-read sponsorships.
For Guests
ProFor Advertisers
ProUpgrade to Pro to unlock guest cadence, sponsor categories, fit scores, and per-episode ad value for this show.
Chart Positions
1 placement across 1 market.
Chart Positions
1 placement across 1 market.








