You can find our most recent videos below. To see our full archive of videos, visit our YouTube channel.

Battle of Ideas festival 2021

In this vital debate, filmed by WORLDwrite volunteers at the Battle of Ideas festival at Church House, Westminster, a highly engaging panel and audience discuss what’s happened in Afghanistan. Was intervention ever justified? Could there have been a different outcome or was disaster always on the cards? The speakers don’t all agree but share with us valuable insights.

The speakers are: 
Peymana Assad-councillor, London Borough of Harrow; first person of Afghan origin elected to UK public office; founder, Labour Foreign Policy Group
Dr Philip Cunliffe- senior lecturer in politics and international relations, University of Kent; co-founder, The Full Brexit; author, Cosmopolitan Dystopia: international intervention and the failure of the West; co-host, Aufhebunga Bunga podcast
Mick Hume-columnist, spiked; author, Revolting!: how the establishment are undermining democracy and what they’re afraid of and Trigger Warning
Bruno Maçães-senior adviser, Flint Global; author, Belt and Road: history has begun and The Dawn of Eurasia
Ali Miraj-columnist, TheArticle; founder, the Contrarian Prize; infrastructure financier; DJ
The chair is Bruno Waterfield, Brussels Correspondent, The Times

With no one paid to edit the exceptional 33 debates filmed entirely by volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2021, the charity WORLDwrite still has to pay its Volunteer centre costs and edit suite overheads. These come to £130 a day. Most people maybe don't know what it takes to get a completed video out, even a simple 1.5 hour debate. To capture, sync, (2 cameras) edit, sound clean, colour correct, add titles, straps & end credits, transcode, export, compress and upload takes a minimum of 2 days for each debate. Thirty-three debates, sixty-six days, that’s £8580 we need to raise, without paying anyone. There's some vital and fascinating debates here, well worth sharing with the world, but to get them completed we need to raise at least this target. Please chip in what you can on our editing appeal page at https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/editingappeal

In this vital debate, filmed by WORLDwrite volunteers at the Battle of Ideas festival at Church House, Westminster, a highly engaging panel and audience discuss what’s happened in Afghanistan. Was intervention ever justified? Could there have been a different outcome or was disaster always on the cards? The speakers don’t all agree but share with us valuable insights.

The speakers are:
Peymana Assad-councillor, London Borough of Harrow; first person of Afghan origin elected to UK public office; founder, Labour Foreign Policy Group
Dr Philip Cunliffe- senior lecturer in politics and international relations, University of Kent; co-founder, The Full Brexit; author, Cosmopolitan Dystopia: international intervention and the failure of the West; co-host, Aufhebunga Bunga podcast
Mick Hume-columnist, spiked; author, Revolting!: how the establishment are undermining democracy and what they’re afraid of and Trigger Warning
Bruno Maçães-senior adviser, Flint Global; author, Belt and Road: history has begun and The Dawn of Eurasia
Ali Miraj-columnist, TheArticle; founder, the Contrarian Prize; infrastructure financier; DJ
The chair is Bruno Waterfield, Brussels Correspondent, The Times

With no one paid to edit the exceptional 33 debates filmed entirely by volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2021, the charity WORLDwrite still has to pay its Volunteer centre costs and edit suite overheads. These come to £130 a day. Most people maybe don't know what it takes to get a completed video out, even a simple 1.5 hour debate. To capture, sync, (2 cameras) edit, sound clean, colour correct, add titles, straps & end credits, transcode, export, compress and upload takes a minimum of 2 days for each debate. Thirty-three debates, sixty-six days, that’s £8580 we need to raise, without paying anyone. There's some vital and fascinating debates here, well worth sharing with the world, but to get them completed we need to raise at least this target. Please chip in what you can on our editing appeal page at https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/editingappeal

13 6

YouTube Video UExVSkdPQ004Y1VKbG5iYU9YY1BFQWdOUFNaMXgxTDZUbC41NkI0NEY2RDEwNTU3Q0M2

TWENTY YEARS IN AFGHANISTAN: WHAT HAPPENED?

209 views Sunday 17 October 2021

In this debate, filmed by WORLDwrite volunteers at the Battle of Ideas festival at Church House, Westminster, a highly engaging panel and thoughtful audience share their perspectives on the Union, whether it can or should survive. 

Some argue that the impact of Brexit and the Protocol disguise deeper problems with the Union. Irish political allegiances seem in turmoil and the whole question of the North-South border is back on the agenda. Do these developments make a united Ireland inevitable in the long term? A timely, must-watch debate on the 100th anniversary of partition. Do leave your comments to continue the debate.

The speakers are: 
Mick Fealty - founding editor, Slugger O’Toole; 
Andrée Murphy - columnist; Belfast Media Group and Belfast Telegraph board member, Ireland’s Future 
Peter Ramsay - professor of law, London School of Economics and Political Science; author, The Insecurity State; founding signatory, The Full Brexit Gawain Towler - consultant; former director of communications, Brexit Party. The chair is Kevin Rooney co-author of Who’s Afraid Of The Easter Rising? 1916-2016, and editor of the Britain-based website www.irishborderpoll.com which campaigns for a border poll and Irish unity.

With no one paid to edit the exceptional 33 debates filmed entirely by young volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2021, the charity still has to pay its Volunteer centre costs and edit suite overheads. These come to £130 a day. Most people maybe don't know what it takes to get a completed video out, even a simple 1.5 hour debate. To capture, sync, (2 cameras) edit, sound clean, colour correct, add titles, straps & end credits, transcode, export, compress and upload takes a minimum of 2 days for each debate. Thirty three debates, sixty six days, that's £8580 we need to raise, without paying anyone. There's some vital and fascinating debates here, well worth sharing with the world, but to get them completed we need to raise at least this target. Please chip in what you can on our editing appeal page at https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/editingappeal

In this debate, filmed by WORLDwrite volunteers at the Battle of Ideas festival at Church House, Westminster, a highly engaging panel and thoughtful audience share their perspectives on the Union, whether it can or should survive.

Some argue that the impact of Brexit and the Protocol disguise deeper problems with the Union. Irish political allegiances seem in turmoil and the whole question of the North-South border is back on the agenda. Do these developments make a united Ireland inevitable in the long term? A timely, must-watch debate on the 100th anniversary of partition. Do leave your comments to continue the debate.

The speakers are:
Mick Fealty - founding editor, Slugger O’Toole;
Andrée Murphy - columnist; Belfast Media Group and Belfast Telegraph board member, Ireland’s Future
Peter Ramsay - professor of law, London School of Economics and Political Science; author, The Insecurity State; founding signatory, The Full Brexit Gawain Towler - consultant; former director of communications, Brexit Party. The chair is Kevin Rooney co-author of Who’s Afraid Of The Easter Rising? 1916-2016, and editor of the Britain-based website www.irishborderpoll.com which campaigns for a border poll and Irish unity.

With no one paid to edit the exceptional 33 debates filmed entirely by young volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2021, the charity still has to pay its Volunteer centre costs and edit suite overheads. These come to £130 a day. Most people maybe don't know what it takes to get a completed video out, even a simple 1.5 hour debate. To capture, sync, (2 cameras) edit, sound clean, colour correct, add titles, straps & end credits, transcode, export, compress and upload takes a minimum of 2 days for each debate. Thirty three debates, sixty six days, that's £8580 we need to raise, without paying anyone. There's some vital and fascinating debates here, well worth sharing with the world, but to get them completed we need to raise at least this target. Please chip in what you can on our editing appeal page at https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/editingappeal

35 44

YouTube Video UExVSkdPQ004Y1VKbG5iYU9YY1BFQWdOUFNaMXgxTDZUbC4yODlGNEE0NkRGMEEzMEQy

THE IRISH BORDER QUESTION: CAN THE UNION SURVIVE?

2.1K views Saturday 16 October 2021

Is ‘Nudge’ just a harmless effort by those who know best to modify our behaviour or an anti-democratic instrument that needs to be challenged? What happened to the self-directing citizen? In this excellent debate filmed by WORLDwrite volunteers at the Battle of Ideas festival at Church House, Westminster, straight-talking speakers and a feisty audience discuss what's going on.


The speakers are:
Dr NobuLali Dangazele - lecturer, Gordon Institute of Business Science; founder, ShakeXperience; co-founder, Nudgeathon
Laura Dodsworth - writer; photographer; author, A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic
Professor Frank Furedi - sociologist and social commentator; author, 100 Years of Identity Crisis: culture war over socialisation and Democracy Under Siege: don't let them lock it down!
Professor Peter John - head, School of Politics and Economics, King’s College London; author, Nudge, Nudge, Think, Think: experimenting with ways to change civic behaviour and British Politics: an analytical approach
The chair is Timandra Harkness - journalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree; comedian, Take A Risk; author, Big Data: does size matter?



Help WORLDwrite Volunteers Edit 
With no one paid to edit the exceptional 33 debates filmed entirely by volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2021, the charity still has to pay its Volunteer centre costs and edit suite overheads. These come to £130 a day. Most people maybe don't know what it takes to get a completed video out, even a simple 1.5 hour debate. To capture, sync, (2 cameras) edit, sound clean, colour correct, add titles, straps & end credits, transcode, export, compress and upload takes a minimum of 2 days for each debate. Thirty-three debates, sixty-six days, that’s £8580 we need to raise, without paying anyone. There's some vital and fascinating debates here, well worth sharing with the world, but to get them completed we need to raise at least this target. Please chip in what you can on our editing appeal page at https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/editingappeal

Is ‘Nudge’ just a harmless effort by those who know best to modify our behaviour or an anti-democratic instrument that needs to be challenged? What happened to the self-directing citizen? In this excellent debate filmed by WORLDwrite volunteers at the Battle of Ideas festival at Church House, Westminster, straight-talking speakers and a feisty audience discuss what's going on.


The speakers are:
Dr NobuLali Dangazele - lecturer, Gordon Institute of Business Science; founder, ShakeXperience; co-founder, Nudgeathon
Laura Dodsworth - writer; photographer; author, A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic
Professor Frank Furedi - sociologist and social commentator; author, 100 Years of Identity Crisis: culture war over socialisation and Democracy Under Siege: don't let them lock it down!
Professor Peter John - head, School of Politics and Economics, King’s College London; author, Nudge, Nudge, Think, Think: experimenting with ways to change civic behaviour and British Politics: an analytical approach
The chair is Timandra Harkness - journalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree; comedian, Take A Risk; author, Big Data: does size matter?



Help WORLDwrite Volunteers Edit
With no one paid to edit the exceptional 33 debates filmed entirely by volunteers at the Battle of Ideas Festival 2021, the charity still has to pay its Volunteer centre costs and edit suite overheads. These come to £130 a day. Most people maybe don't know what it takes to get a completed video out, even a simple 1.5 hour debate. To capture, sync, (2 cameras) edit, sound clean, colour correct, add titles, straps & end credits, transcode, export, compress and upload takes a minimum of 2 days for each debate. Thirty-three debates, sixty-six days, that’s £8580 we need to raise, without paying anyone. There's some vital and fascinating debates here, well worth sharing with the world, but to get them completed we need to raise at least this target. Please chip in what you can on our editing appeal page at https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/editingappeal

11 3

YouTube Video UExVSkdPQ004Y1VKbG5iYU9YY1BFQWdOUFNaMXgxTDZUbC41MjE1MkI0OTQ2QzJGNzNG

A ‘NUDGE’ TOO FAR? THE RISE OF BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOCRATIC RULE

166 views Wednesday 20 October 2021


Other videos

Claire Fox on Talk Radio discusses the Battle of Ideas festival

364 views Friday 8 October 2021

This debate was organised by the Academy of Ideas in partnership with SATSA, the voice of inbound tourism for South Africa.

The United Kingdom leads much of the world when it comes to getting Covid jabs into arms. But extensive foreign travel bans remain, justified by the government as necessary to keep the UK safe from the ongoing threat of coronavirus. As the British and Irish Lions ready their rugby jerseys to depart on a historic tour to play the world champions, South Africa, they will do so without the legions of fans who have made the tours so famous. The fans, and indeed all UK tourists, will be deprived of the rugby, wildlife and culture for which South Africa is famous.

Many insist such bans are a necessary step to avoid the spread of new variants – especially the ‘South African’ variant, which is said to render some vaccines less effective. Yet the implications of shutting our doors not just to South Africa but to a host of regions across the world have rarely been explored. As well as threatening trade links and international ambitions, such restrictions pose profound questions for international tourism and travel. Aside from the possibility of sand and sunshine, what do those restrictions mean for cultural exchange and the joy of discovery? What do new rules, such as testing and masking, mean for the fluidity, even spontaneity, of international travel?

As well as this, what do the bans mean for the UK’s aspiration of creating a ‘global Britain’ post-Brexit? What about Britain’s role in the Commonwealth? And what does this all mean for the countries affected – countries that had only recently been seen as emerging engines of global economic growth and important centres of cultural dynamism? Are they to be abandoned, excluded from the economic opportunities of trade and development as well as important travel links which support cultural exchange and ecological protection? Are such bans a necessary and reasonable precaution in the face of a still-evolving public-health challenge? Or, as some allege, is there an unsavoury undertone to dismissing many of the emerging economies as ‘unsafe’ or even ‘diseased’?

SPEAKERS
- Alastair Donald
associate director, Academy of Ideas; co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; co-director, Future Cities Project

- Sherelle Jacobs
columnist, Daily Telegraph

- Virginia Messina
senior vice president, advocacy & comms, World Travel and Tourism Council

- Michael Spicer
chair, Wesgro, the Cape Town tourism, investment and promotion agency

CHAIR
- Mo Lovatt
programme coordinator, Academy of Ideas

This debate was organised by the Academy of Ideas in partnership with SATSA, the voice of inbound tourism for South Africa.

The United Kingdom leads much of the world when it comes to getting Covid jabs into arms. But extensive foreign travel bans remain, justified by the government as necessary to keep the UK safe from the ongoing threat of coronavirus. As the British and Irish Lions ready their rugby jerseys to depart on a historic tour to play the world champions, South Africa, they will do so without the legions of fans who have made the tours so famous. The fans, and indeed all UK tourists, will be deprived of the rugby, wildlife and culture for which South Africa is famous.

Many insist such bans are a necessary step to avoid the spread of new variants – especially the ‘South African’ variant, which is said to render some vaccines less effective. Yet the implications of shutting our doors not just to South Africa but to a host of regions across the world have rarely been explored. As well as threatening trade links and international ambitions, such restrictions pose profound questions for international tourism and travel. Aside from the possibility of sand and sunshine, what do those restrictions mean for cultural exchange and the joy of discovery? What do new rules, such as testing and masking, mean for the fluidity, even spontaneity, of international travel?

As well as this, what do the bans mean for the UK’s aspiration of creating a ‘global Britain’ post-Brexit? What about Britain’s role in the Commonwealth? And what does this all mean for the countries affected – countries that had only recently been seen as emerging engines of global economic growth and important centres of cultural dynamism? Are they to be abandoned, excluded from the economic opportunities of trade and development as well as important travel links which support cultural exchange and ecological protection? Are such bans a necessary and reasonable precaution in the face of a still-evolving public-health challenge? Or, as some allege, is there an unsavoury undertone to dismissing many of the emerging economies as ‘unsafe’ or even ‘diseased’?

SPEAKERS
- Alastair Donald
associate director, Academy of Ideas; co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; co-director, Future Cities Project

- Sherelle Jacobs
columnist, Daily Telegraph

- Virginia Messina
senior vice president, advocacy & comms, World Travel and Tourism Council

- Michael Spicer
chair, Wesgro, the Cape Town tourism, investment and promotion agency

CHAIR
- Mo Lovatt
programme coordinator, Academy of Ideas

2 1

YouTube Video VVVqb0Y0alM0b1I0NzlfWTJ5OU9rc2JnLlQxN1lvbDJaUHZ3

From The Lions to the Commonwealth: ‘Global Britain’ in an age of travel bans

168 views Friday 9 July 2021

Para Mullan and Hilary Salt introduce a discussion at the Academy of Ideas Economy Forum on what the post-pandemic office means for employers, employees and the wider economy.

Apart from a brief and ill-starred campaign early last autumn to get staff back to the office, for over a year workers have been told that they should work at home if they can. Yet with Covid cases, hospitalisations and deaths now back down to the level we saw at the end of last summer, it seems workers are not exactly rushing to get back to the office.

For some, there may still be the fear of commute or the fear of catching the virus whilst working in the office. For others, there may still be difficulties in getting childcare. But it is also becoming obvious that for some, the comforts of home working are much more attractive than office life. What does this say about the quality of work to date – perhaps just that it is not as great as it is made out to be and that many jobs are not ‘real’ jobs?

Employers like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs have summoned all US staff back to the office. Others, like HSBC, have adopted a hybrid form of working. Yet other big firms, like Twitter, are allowing their staff to work from home forever if they so wish. For employers, there are multiple different factors at play in encouraging staff to carry on working on the kitchen table or in the spare room: the risk of lawsuits if employees catch the virus; the potential savings on office rents; extracting longer working hours from those who no longer have to commute.

On the other hand, all that extra distance between workers may undermine the idea of pursuing collective goals, workers bouncing ideas off each other or simply picking up on office conservations – finding out things they didn’t know they needed to know. It may also be harder for managers to manage staff at a distance.

For employees, working at home may have its comforts and conveniences, but there is much to be said for a properly thought-out office environment. If the reluctance to get back to the office is driven by disenchantment with the kind of work on offer – something that seems particularly clear with the slow return of those on furlough – will employers use this as an opportunity to reassess the kind of jobs they offer?

Yet for many employees, working from home isn’t working. For all the new buzz about ‘hybrid working’ and a ‘flexible approach’, a survey conducted by the CIPD found that 47 per cent of respondents cited mental well-being as the main challenge of working from home.

In this digital era, can employers ensure that employees do not feel burnt out by work? Is it appropriate to expect employers to adopt a paternalistic approach towards their employees, taking more responsibility for people’s health and well-being? What do these new ways of working mean for the dividing line between work and home?

More broadly, does the focus on returning to work miss the real challenges for UK businesses evident before the pandemic, particularly when it comes to low productivity: a failure to automate processes or make the most of AI, the prevalence of ‘bullshit jobs’ and a stifling aversion to taking risk?

SPEAKERS

Para Mullan fellow, Chartered Institute of Personnel Development

Hilary Salt actuary; founder, First Actuarial

Para Mullan and Hilary Salt introduce a discussion at the Academy of Ideas Economy Forum on what the post-pandemic office means for employers, employees and the wider economy.

Apart from a brief and ill-starred campaign early last autumn to get staff back to the office, for over a year workers have been told that they should work at home if they can. Yet with Covid cases, hospitalisations and deaths now back down to the level we saw at the end of last summer, it seems workers are not exactly rushing to get back to the office.

For some, there may still be the fear of commute or the fear of catching the virus whilst working in the office. For others, there may still be difficulties in getting childcare. But it is also becoming obvious that for some, the comforts of home working are much more attractive than office life. What does this say about the quality of work to date – perhaps just that it is not as great as it is made out to be and that many jobs are not ‘real’ jobs?

Employers like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs have summoned all US staff back to the office. Others, like HSBC, have adopted a hybrid form of working. Yet other big firms, like Twitter, are allowing their staff to work from home forever if they so wish. For employers, there are multiple different factors at play in encouraging staff to carry on working on the kitchen table or in the spare room: the risk of lawsuits if employees catch the virus; the potential savings on office rents; extracting longer working hours from those who no longer have to commute.

On the other hand, all that extra distance between workers may undermine the idea of pursuing collective goals, workers bouncing ideas off each other or simply picking up on office conservations – finding out things they didn’t know they needed to know. It may also be harder for managers to manage staff at a distance.

For employees, working at home may have its comforts and conveniences, but there is much to be said for a properly thought-out office environment. If the reluctance to get back to the office is driven by disenchantment with the kind of work on offer – something that seems particularly clear with the slow return of those on furlough – will employers use this as an opportunity to reassess the kind of jobs they offer?

Yet for many employees, working from home isn’t working. For all the new buzz about ‘hybrid working’ and a ‘flexible approach’, a survey conducted by the CIPD found that 47 per cent of respondents cited mental well-being as the main challenge of working from home.

In this digital era, can employers ensure that employees do not feel burnt out by work? Is it appropriate to expect employers to adopt a paternalistic approach towards their employees, taking more responsibility for people’s health and well-being? What do these new ways of working mean for the dividing line between work and home?

More broadly, does the focus on returning to work miss the real challenges for UK businesses evident before the pandemic, particularly when it comes to low productivity: a failure to automate processes or make the most of AI, the prevalence of ‘bullshit jobs’ and a stifling aversion to taking risk?

SPEAKERS

Para Mullan fellow, Chartered Institute of Personnel Development

Hilary Salt actuary; founder, First Actuarial

4 0

YouTube Video VVVqb0Y0alM0b1I0NzlfWTJ5OU9rc2JnLk04TWVMQy10VUVr

Work after the pandemic: what can office workers expect?

81 views Friday 25 June 2021