The war in Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz have focused attention on skyrocketing energy prices, leading to demands to encourage more output from the North Sea and causing travel chaos in Ireland. But bills were already high before this happened. This discussion with three experts, recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2025 at Church House in London, explains why - war or no war - we're all paying too much for energy.

ORIGINAL FESTIVAL INTRODUCTION

Heating or eating? That has become a burning question for many people. From struggling households to steel works and factories, energy prices remain a hot topic. Ed Miliband’s assurance that bills would fall by £300 per year looks wildly optimistic.

The cost of energy bills became a major political issue when a combination of a post-pandemic resurgence of the world economy and war in Ukraine sent the price of energy in general, and natural gas in particular, shooting up. Prices have come down a lot since then, but remain higher than before. The Ofgem energy price cap for a ‘typical household’ increased from £1,137 per year in January 2019 to £1,720 in July 2025 – a rise of over 50 per cent.

Supporters of renewable energy argue that the UK is still at the mercy of global prices for gas because ‘gas sets the price’ in the energy market, thanks to the way the ‘merit order’ works for wholesale energy prices: the most expensive form of energy that is used sets the price for everything. Generally, that is gas. Get rid of fossil fuels, we are told, and we would have lower prices and less exposure to world markets.

However, critics point out that the wholesale price is only part of the story. The retail price of energy includes a variety of subsidies for renewable energy that mean the actual price renewable producers receive is much higher. If renewables are really as cheap as their proponents claim, why do they need to be subsidised and why do countries that use a lot of renewables also have the highest energy bills? Will prices rise further as we use even more renewables? And if energy security is so important, why would we want to rely on intermittent energy sources like wind and solar?

In this session, energy experts will explain how our energy bills remain so high and what the consequences are for household finances and the wider economy.

SPEAKERS Lord Mackinlay director, The Global Warming Policy Foundation

Kathryn Porter consultant, Watt-Logic

David Turver energy policy analyst, Eigen Values

CHAIR Rob Lyons science and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate

This debate was part of Battle of Ideas North on 7 March 2026 in Manchester.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court judgement in April 2025, in the case of For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers, was seen as a ‘landmark ruling’ in clarifying the definition of a woman as based on biological sex at birth. The hope was that by clarifying the law, women’s rights, including single-sex spaces, would be protected and, more broadly, gender ideology would wither on the vine. Yet, almost a year on, many institutions have failed to stand by the definition of ‘woman’ set out in the ruling, instead promoting ‘trans-inclusive culture’. They have ignored the need to provide single-sex spaces for women, and retain policies that fuel discrimination against gender-critical staff, volunteers and visitors.

Is this surprising when the UK government itself seems reluctant to fully pursue implementation of the ruling? Having been in possession for months of clear recommendations from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Bridget Phillipson, the women and equalities secretary, has still to publish guidance on single-sex spaces. Similarly, the culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, has been criticised for her weak protection of women’s sport. Her stance focuses on ‘including everybody’ and continues to suggest that the issue of trans athletes competing alongside biological women is not clear cut. The Scottish government has been similarly tardy in implementing the ruling, even though the judgement was specifically against it.

What’s more, public-sector institutions, along with charities, NGOs and trade unions, seem reluctant to accept biological sex as real, and insist on an ideological commitment to trans-inclusive policies, at the expense of women. Many schools and teachers openly defy the ruling in order to support trans ideology, often acting behind parents’ backs.

Recently, trade unions and organisations such as the Royal College of Nursing and Unison have either openly supported action against gender-critical feminists and single-sex spaces or retreated into bureaucratic cowardice, saying action is not possible until guidance is issued. The recent victory at an employment tribunal of eight nurses from Darlington against their NHS trust bosses, who penalised them for challenging the use of the single-sex changing rooms by a trans-identifying male, is a positive. But why do workers need to resort to the courts and tribunals to ensure institutions and workplaces enforce the law?

Why are governments and institutions so willing to drag their feet on implementing a ruling given by the highest court in the land? What are the consequences of this for the rule of law, even democracy? How can we rescue institutions from the capture of trans and other ideologies? What is the balance between lawfare and building a wider political movement capable of pushing through change?

SPEAKERS Emma Hilton academic scientist, University of Manchester; interim chair, Sex Matters

Bethany Hutchison NHS nurse

Barry Wall creator, the winning mindset seminars; youtuber, Court of the EDIJester

Ella Whelan co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

CHAIR Claire Fox director, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

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?

SPEAKERS Dr Piers Benn philosopher, author and lecturer

Ann Furedi author, The Moral Case for Abortion; former chief executive, BPAS

Margo Martin PhD student, Aberystwth University

Jacob Phillips professor of systematic theology, St Mary’s University, Twickenham; author, Obedience is Freedom

CHAIR Ella Whelan co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want