Intelligence Squared

Is it simply envy that inspires hatred of public schools? Should we not applaud them as the standard bearer of all that is best in a free meritocratic society - as academies of excellence whose pupils receive not just a first class education, but also a sense of discipline, good manners and social responsibility? Or is it more accurate to view them as little citadels of privilege, sucking the talents and energies of the middle classes out of the state system? And shouldn't we acknowledge that it's not only the children of the excluded majority who get hurt in the process but also the pampered inmates of the citadels themselves, whose limited social horizons and cut-glass branded accents cut them off from the mass of their fellow citizens and make them resented strangers in their own land? Speakers for the motion: David Aaronovitch Author and columnist on The Times. Martin Rowson Satirical cartoonist and novelist. He was London's Cartoonist Laureate under former mayor Ken Livingstone. Francis Wheen Author and broadcaster. His latest book is "Strange Days Indeed: The Golden Age of Paranoia". Speakers against the motion: Mary Beard Professor of Classics at Cambridge University and author of the blog "A Don's Life" which has recently been published as a book. Felipe Fernandez-Armesto Professor of Global Environment History at Queen Mary, University of London, and William P. Reynolds Professor of History, University of Notre Dame. Formerly a history master at Charterhouse School. Barnaby Lenon Head Master of Harrow School. Chair: Francine Stock Broadcaster and novelist. She presents BBC Radio 4's "The Film Programme".

Pakistan is the world's tinderbox: a nuclear-armed state, riven by ethnic and religious conflict, home to the Taliban and al-Qa'eda, poised on a knife edge between secularism and Islamicism, an ally of America yet seething with anti-Americanism. Can America help it achieve stability, or has US intervention proved to be more of the cause of Pakistan's problems than its cure? The distinguished panel of speakers for this event includes Imran Khan, William Dalrymple, Jaswant Singh, Anatol Lieven, Farzana Shaikh, Jonathan Paris and Sir David Richards. This is the first of eight IQ² events planned for the first half of 2010, all of which will be broadcast live on this page over the coming months

Rod Liddle begins the case for the proponents of the motion. He highlights the attitudes of different genders towards sex, noting that whilst women have become less chaste in recent times, men are more single-minded in their will to sleep with as many different partners as possible. Liddle sees the concept of 'romantic love' as a veneer used by humanity - and by men in particular - to convince ourselves that we are not biologically and mechanistically driven towards sex, but insists that ultimately men are gentically driven towards this pursuit. In opposing the motion, Rowan Pelling targets the British man in particular in her argument, noting that in Britain, it is frustrated women who will do almost anything to get laid. She begins by outlining the British male's characteristic ambivalence toward sex in literature and other media, from Sherlock Holmes to Dr Who. At heart, she says, men want to live with their best friends, not with women - just look at all the things men do to make themselves less atrractive to women - trainspotting, computer games, etc. All of Britain's great historical figures, from Shakespeare to Churchill, achieved what they did because they deliberately avoided spending too much time with women. Seonding the motion, Satoshi Kanazawa points out that as humans are no different to any other species in being governed by the laws of nature, they too are driven, through evolutionary urges, towards 'reproductive success'. However, the fact that mating is essentially a female choice means that males are driven to great lengths to impress women, by writing symphonies, authoring books, or conquering lands. Rejecting the motion, Howard Jacobson begins by stating that in Britain, men do not "get laid' - "they make love". He makes the point that if all you wanted to do was "pull a bird", then there are easier ways to do it than painting the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel. Humanity has also discovered sexual activites that hold no possibility of reproduction - a man having sex with another man is not striving for reproductive success, for instance. For men, sex is something that has to be done only so it is over with, leaving them free to do other things. David Buss draws on his experience of teaching evolutionary psychology to suggest that, for females, there are many variables to consider when choosing a mate - males look for a more limited range of qualities. Men are also more inclined to sleep with strangers, and often exaggerate their athletic, intellectual, or physical prowess to impress women. Buss suggests that these differences arose because men can afford to sleep with as many mates as possible - indeed, it is in their evolutionary interests to do so. However, whilst the male's contribution to a pregnancy might only last minutes, the female has to consider her choice of mate carefully before beginning a nine-month pregnancy. This difference in attitudes towards reproduction means that men try to propagate their genes as frequently as possible. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic argues that the motion is impossible to prove or disprove scientifically. He suggests that it has no predictive value, as most of the time when people do things with a view to get laid, they don't end up achieving their goal anyway. As Chamorro-Premuzic points out, Sigmund Freud suggested that Leonardo da Vinci achieved so much because he was asexual.

Whilst the detained pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy are said to be in favour of maintaining international sanctions against the Burmese military junta, many argue that the existing ones have had no effect on the government's anti-democratic stance, and have only contributed to the suffering of the Burmese people. A panel of experts debate the effectiveness of the sanctions, and suggest alternatives. Arguing in favour of the motion are Derek Tokin, Frank Smithuis, and Thant Myint-U. Derek Tonkin proposes the motion by suggesting that, whilst the sanctions against Burma are supposed to be targeting the regime, they are making no difference. He calls for all sanctions against Burma (except the arms embargo) to be lifted, as they are harming Burma's ordinary citizens more than they are harming those in power. Frank Smithuis draws on his experience of working in Burma to suggest that sanctions have had no effect - only negative side-effects. Not only have trade sanctions led to a decrease in jobs in the textiles and tourist industries, but development and humanitarian aid has also decreased, leading to increased poverty and disease. Thant Myint-U outlines how sanctions have decimated 'employment-generating' industries such as textile manufacture and tourism in Burma. The upshot of these sanctions is that the poorest people and the middle classes have suffered, not the generals. If the West continues to isolate Burma, it is China who will shape the future of the country, and Myint-U questions whether the Chinese are the most desirable state to be in that position. Arguing against the motion are Benedict Rogers, Mark Farmaner, and Brad Adams. Benedict Rogers outlines the shocking brutality that the Burmese government is capable of, and suggests that lifting sanctions would send out the wrong message to the Burmese government. We should only lift sanctions, he says, when the government agree to measures such as releasing political prisoners and declaring a ceasefire on the ethnic nationalities. He proposes more targeted sanctions - on oil, gas, and financial institutions - to hit the generals where it really hurts: in their pockets. Mark Farmaner points to the strong support that sanctions have from Burma charities and the Burmese population themselves. Sanctions were originally introduced in response to human rights abuses, and are still in place because these abuses have not abated. He also points out that there are no sanctions on humanitarian aid – levels of aid to Burma have decreased since 1988 because of fears that it will fall into the hands of the corrupt government. Brad Adams acknowledges the failure of previous sanctions such as America's trade embargo, but says that what advocates of sanctions are calling for are more specific measures designed to force the generals to the negotiating table. Adams also advocates putting pressure on China and India to enforce sanctions on Burma. First vote: Agree 106, Disagree 98, Undecided 91 Final vote: Agree 120, Disagree 157, Undecided 23 The motion was defeated by 37 votes

The motion proposes that "atheism is the new fundamentalism", i.e., atheism has replaced religion as the new faith of the secular age, exploring the notion that modern atheism is itself guilty of the very dogma and belief in its own infallibility which it scorns in the religious community. Speaking for the motion are Richard Harries and Charles Moore. Richard Harries outlines the features and the history of fundamentalism, arguing that many of the criteria required for it are in fact apparent in today's atheists. He portrays a set of people with narrow views, arguing against a specific view of God, who forget that some of the greatest philosophy, art, poetry and music has been inspired and supported by Christianity – the very belief system that is accused of restricting the creative process by its refusal to allow for ‘the grand perhaps’ (Browning). Charles Moore insists that his opponents cannot see the true complexity of the argument, and that they emphasise the physical and the scientific aspect of humanity at the cost of any spiritual understanding. He criticises Richard Dawkins for embodying this crude and narrow pursuit of literal truth above all else. Opposing the motion are A.C. Grayling and Richard Dawkins. Professor Grayling maintains that since 9/11, the nature of the debate on religious commitment has become far more serious. He distinguishes between atheism, secularism and humanism. He refutes Moore's suggestion that atheists cannot fully understand the complexity of the religious experience, insisting that many atheists understand it all too well, having been brought up in a religious family or community. Richard Dawkins defines fundamentalism as the following: blind obedience to scripture regardless of evidence, allied to extremism. He argues that far from being entrenched fundamentalists, atheists have a commitment to exploring evidence, and a readiness to embrace change, and that we should not mistake the passion of their arguments or their refusal to remain silent for fundamentalism

In the name of combating terrorism, keeping public order and often just plain old efficiency, the modern state is slowly but surely depriving us of our fundamental freedoms. That's the common lament of self-styled lovers of liberty. But is there any truth to it? Since 1997 we've had the Freedom of Information Act, the Data Protection Act, the Human Rights Act and many other pieces of legislation designed to strengthen our civil liberties. Isn’t there a case for saying our freedoms are more secure than they've ever been? Speaking in favour of the motion are David Aaronovitch, Sir Ian Blair, and Conor Gearty. David Aaranovitch explains that over the past half century the state has become weaker, not stronger. Power has steadily been decentralised, and the government is under more scrutiny than ever before. For Aaronovitch, the citizens are the mighty, not the state. Ian Blair assesses the changing nature of contemporary crime, explaining that the collection of information via surveillance is a necessity that has solved, and will continue to solve and prevent, serious crimes that threaten society. Conor Gearty discusses different ways civil liberties can be approached. He refutes the notion that the yard stick 'golden age' ever existed and explains in detail how protective legislations have often been misunderstood. Speaking against the motion are A C Grayling, David Davis, and Shami Chakrabarti. A C Grayling discusses the fine line between civil liberties and security protection. He looks at the nature of crime and proportionality and questions the threat to society posed by terrorists, compared to the threat posed by bankers. Grayling lists the intrusive measures and Acts that the government has introduced in recent years. David Davis assesses the risk and effects of terrorism and counterterrorism laws to the individual. He criticises the detainment policy, explaining that it is no longer about security, but about politics, and that this reductionism has had dire effects of innocent people. Shami Chakrabarti explains that the motion is not simply a choice between security and liberty. She asks which is the greater risk – hyperbole or complacency, and explains that even if laws are passed with positive intentions they can be used to negative effect. First vote: 137 For, 291 Against, 106 Don’t know Final Vote: 220 For, 281 Against, 22 Don’t know The motion is defeated by 61 votes

The panel debate the motion that free-market capitalism is so 20th century. Arguing in favour of the motion are Paul Mason, Ian Bremmer and Jean Pisani-Ferry. Paul Mason begins by explaining his definition of free-market capitalism. He focuses on the ideology itself rather than the actual system of capitalism as, surprisingly; true free-market capitalism has never been put into practice. He states that actual free-market states are ‘rigged and un-free’, and believes that capitalism has been empirically proven wrong, due to its failure to warn of impending crisis. Ian Bremmer continues by stating that non-western countries are ‘moving on’ economically, yet the west is not. China, Russia and Saudi Arabia are experiencing ‘state capitalism’, where the state is the principle actor and arbiter of the economy. Therefore, power is shifting from the commercial to the political. Jean Pisani-Ferry finishes by arguing that markets and governments are both imperfect institutions. However, they must be effectively combined to promote our collective values. He also notes that western nations are entering into an economy of scarcity, which will be further affected by climate change and an aging population. Arguing against the motion are Stephen King, Kim Campbell and Vince Cable. Stephen King begins by stating that free-market capitalism did not exist in the 20th century, yet did in the 19th, as the size of the state has increased massively over the last one hundred years. He also notes that the huge tax revenues from risky bank practices encouraged governments not to intervene before the financial crisis. Kim Campbell argues that the free-market principles of Adam Smith have never been properly implemented. Furthermore, Adam Smith was deeply committed to notions of public morality, and firmly believed that capitalism should operate within an ethical framework – the kind of framework that was totally deconstructed during the Bush administration. Vince Cable argues that free-market capitalism is the world form of economic system – except for all the others. He believes that capitalism does not have to be laissez-faire, and does have a role for public goods and government intervention. The answer lies in breaking up institutions that are too big to fail and force them to compete. Cable believes that the ideal models of free-market capitalism are the systems used by the Scandinavian nations. First Vote: 178 For, 281 Against, 156 Undecided Final Vote: 162 For, 419 Against, 35 Undecided The motion is defeated by 257 votes

Chair Zeinab Badawi introduces the motion 'The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world. Initial Vote: 678 For, 1102 Against, Undecided 346 Final Vote: 268 For, 1876 Against, Undecided 34 Arguing in favour of the motion are Archbishop John Onaiyekan and the Rt Hon. Ann Widdecombe MP. Archbishop Onaiyekan begins by insisting that if the Catholic Church were not a force for good, he would not have devoted his entire life to serving it. He says that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church exists because of its 1.6 billion members worldwide, rather than in spite of them. He points not only to the spiritual assistance that his Church provides, but also to the tangible aid that is given internationally through Catholic projects. Finally, he admits that Catholics are not infallible, but are by necessity sinners trying to improve themselves through their faith. Ann Widdecombe suggests that in trawling all the way back to the Crusades to find something to blame the Catholic Church for, Christopher Hitchens merely demonstrates how flimsy his argument really is. Why would the Pope have hidden 3,000 Jews in his summer palace during the Second World War if the Catholic Church was an antisemitic organisation? Admittedly, the New Testament does blame a Jew for the death of Christ; but it also blames a Roman, Pontius Pilate. Are we to infer then that Catholicism is anti-Italian as well as antisemitic? Widdecombe insists that the actions of the Catholic Church in the past should be judged with a degree of historical relativism; they were not the only people to murder and torture those deemed guilty of wrongdoing. She entreats us to imagine a world without the benefits of the Catholic Church, which provides hope, education and medical relief all over the globe. Arguing against the motion are Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry. Christopher Hitchens asserts that any argument trying to identify the merits of the Catholic Church must begin with a long list of sincere apologies for its past crimes, including but not limited to: the Crusades; the Spanish inquisition; the persecution of Jews and the forced conversion of peoples to Catholicism, especially in South America. He illustrates the vacuity of recent Catholic apologies by drawing on the case of Cardinal Bernard Law – shamed out of office in the US for his part in covering up the institutionalised sexual abuse of children – whose punishment from the Vatican was to be appointed a supreme vicar in Rome, and who was among those assembled in the 2005 Papal Conclave to choose the next Pope. Hitchens concludes by reminding the Archbishop that his own Church has been responsible for the death of millions of his African brothers and sisters, citing the Church’s disastrous stance on Aids prevention, as well as the ongoing trials in Rwanda in which Catholic priests stand accused of inciting massacre during the 1994 genocide. Stephen Fry concedes that his opposition to the motion is a deeply personal and emotional one. He criticises the Catholic Church not only for the horrors it has perpetrated in the past, but also for its ideology, and for its sinister temerity to preach that there is no salvation outside of the Church. With two words he refutes Anne Widdecombe’s suggestion that the Catholic Church does not have the powers of a nation state: “The Vatican”. As a homosexual, Fry reflects how bizarre it is to be accused of being “immoral” and “a pervert” by an institution that has persistently hushed up the rape and abuse of children under its care, and whose leading members, abstentious nuns and priests, all share an attitude towards sex that is utterly unnatural and dysfunctional. He concludes by questioning whether Jesus, as a humble Jewish carpenter, would have approved of all the pomp and excess of the Catholic Church, and whether he would even have been accepted by such an arrogant organisation

William Dalrymple, a twenty five year resident of Delhi, discusses the city that he describes as the ‘most complicated city he knows’. Dalrymple divides his lecture into two parts. Firstly, Delhi in the time of his 1994 travelogue City of Djinns which, he argues, is a Delhi which vanished long ago. Today it is a city diametrically at odds with its historical reputation, and a deeply uncultured philistine city. He asks the question ‘where is the city of the Mughals?’. The Delhi of today is instead, a massively vibrant media centre, and a magnet for people from the south and Mumbai seeking employment. He reads from City of Djinns about meeting the author of Twilight in Delhi, which he describes as one of the great examples of Indo-Islamic culture in Delhi, and the lifestyle of the old Mughal elite. Secondly, he discusses the Delhi of his 2006 historical book The Last Mughal: The Fall of a Dynasty, Delhi 1857. He begins by reading an excerpt which describes 1850’s Delhi – that being a place lacking in any real political power, yet still having a strong sense of its own self-confidence and power as a centre of manners, poetry and civilization. He continues by discussing the role and history of the last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar, and concludes by outlining the the anti-colonial revolts, and the final downfall of the last Mughal

Four members of the James Martin 21st Century School discuss the School's work and highlight four key areas that are likely to have a huge impact on the sustainability of the world's population: global risk; energy; human modification; and population growth and demographic shifts. Dr Ian Goldin asks why predictions about the future often turn out to be wrong. He argues that the recent history of globalisation has been an incredible coming-together of humanity, and an explosion of innovation, surpassing anything seen in the last 1000 years. He claims that the biggest uncertainly is fertility, as the world is converging below replacement levels. While the ageing population will be a major burden on the youth, they may be replaced by migration. He continues by discussing the ‘information big bang’, specifically the evolution of computer power. He believes that whilst risks will continue to come from nature, they will increasingly come from human activity. The biggest threat is climate change, but these risk also include also pandemics such as H1N1. As globalisation continues to shrink the world, the frequency and severity of these threats is only likely to increase. Another great risk we face is that we are stuck with a global governance system that that has not changed since the Second World War. Finally, Goldin believes that it is in our power to eradicate poverty and disease by 2050 - but it also within our power to destroy ourselves. Dr Malcolm McCulloch notes that human energy use is rapidly increasing, and that we are on a climate change trajectory that is far worse than the worst-case scenario predicted five years ago. He notes that in nature there is a cyclical system, whereby one animal's or organism’s waste is another’s nutrition. However humanity is addicted to single use resources. If humanity continues in the manner in which it previously has then energy use will increase by three times and the temperature of the earth by six degrees. The cost of transport and food will rise massively and humanity would likely not survive past 2100. Professor Julian Savulescu discusses the human genome, personalised genomes, cloning, stem cells and purely artificial life. He believes we will see radical biological modification of humans. Any genes in the plant or animal kingdom can potentially be used to enhance humans – the vision of a hawk; the hearing of a dog; the sonar of a bat. He states that humans are altruistic, but only to about 150 people - their immediate and extended family and their friends. Yet the problems humanity faces, such as climate change, require humans to cooperate and act altruistically in ways they are not disposed to behave. In order to make progress we have to understand our own biological limitations. Savulescu believes that by 2050 there will be hope in bio-liberation, but that the root of bio-threat will remain large. Professor Sarah Harper discusses the problems that are likely to arise as the world's population continues to age. By 2050 the global population is likely to swell to 9 billion people, but 3 billion people will be aged over 50. As we witness increasing age, we will also see falling fertility in most parts of the world. As medical science constantly progresses and even chronically ill people begin to live longer, generational succession will be an issue, as wealth and status will not be handed down the family line until much later in life. Harper's greatest concern is in human longevity becoming the new global inequality - the West must ensure that a child born in Africa has the same potential longevity as a child born in the West

Winston Churchill is often held up as a champion of freedom and a symbol of Britain’s determination to defend the world from the threat of Nazism, but do we see Churchill through rose-tinted glasses? Are we forgetting his authorisation of the RAF’s ‘terror-bombing’ of German cities in World War 2, or his starvation blockade of Germany during the Great War? And what about the military catastrophes he masterminded at Gallipoli (1915) and Norway (1940)? An esteemed panel debate Churchill’s true legacy. Arguing in favour of the motion are Pat Buchanan, Nigel Knight, and Norman Stone. Pat Buchanan opens the case for the motion by acknowledging Churchill's role during Britain's 'Finest Hour' in 1940, but goes on to state that for the rest of his career, "no other career of a western statesman was more calamitous for his country and civilisation than that of Winston Spencer Churchill". Buchanan lists the gravest British military disasters of which Churchill was the architect (Gallipoli in WW1, Norway in WW2). He also cites Churchill's role in establishing the starvation blockade around Germany in WW1 and the RAF's 'terror-bombing' of German cities in WW2 as evidence that Churchill helped to precipitate the West's descent into barbarism. Nigel Knight criticises Churchill for his decision to put Britain on the gold standard - a decision which worsened the effects of the Great Depression when it eventually came. Knight also criticises Churchill's underestimation of the significance of aircraft carriers and the threat of U-boats in naval warfare, and his failure to recognise Japan as a major threat to Britain's naval superiority. Norman Stone decries the 'myth' of Churchill as a dangerous thing, and condemns Churchill's disastrous imperialist attitude, such as trying to salvage the Empire in the east whilst only just hanging on in a European war. He also questions the wisdom of the RAF's bombing of German cities in 1944-45 when Britain was shortly to become allies with Germany. Arguing against the motion are Andrew Roberts, Anthony Beevor, and Professor Richard Overy. Andrew Roberts begins by praising Churchill for ensuring that the British fleet was ready for action at the start of the Great War. He also warned Britain in the 1930s - at great political cost to himself - of the threat that Adolf Hitler posed, and in his famous 'Iron curtain' speech in 1946, warned the world of the threat that the Soviet Union posed . Roberts concedes that Churchill made mistakes but, he says, Churchill's political career spanned nearly two-thirds of a century, and he was only flesh and blood - of course he made some mistakes. Anthony Beevor focuses his argument on World War 2, beginning by stating that Churchill was correct to delay D-Day, allowing the American Army to gain experience fighting in the Mediterranean. He also notes that Churchill championed the freedom of the central and eastern European states. Firstly, he wanted to push through the Mediterranean and out of Italy to save the central and eastern European states from the perils of the Soviet Union, and secondly, at the end of the war he asked his chiefs of staff to assess the possibility of pushing the Red Army back out of these states, a measure that they decided would be impossible. Beevor lays the blame for Stalin's carving up of central Europe squarely at Franklin Roosevelt's door. Richard Overy says that Churchill cannot be blamed for all of the things of which he is accused because all of the decisions he made were as part of a committee. He decided policy by committee and he waged war by committee. Also, unlike some other leaders, such as Hitler, Churchill was amenable to advice. But most of all, Overy says, Churchill was a man driven by a love of liberty and a deep-seated hatred of tyranny. First Vote: 118 For, 1167 Against, 422 Don’t Know Final Vote: 181 For, 1194 Against, 34 Don’t Kno

The panel discuss what actually constitutes happiness, and whether we should simply be happy with what we’ve got. Speaking in favour of the motion are Rosie Boycott and Dr Anthony Seldon. Opposing the motion are Dominic Lawson and Christine Hamilton

Antony Gormley, Alain de Botton, Camila Batmanghelidjh, Grayson Perry and Stephen Bayley share their views on whether the 'facebook generation' can be taught art.

The panel discuss the theory that psychotherapy has done more harm than good. Arguing in favour of the proposal are Theodore Dalrymple, Dorothy Rowe and Jeffrey Masson. Theodore Dalrymple begins by arguing that the negative cultural effect of psychotherapy outweighs any potential good done to individual patients. He believes it elevates feelings over objective evidence, and treats human life as a technical problem to be solved - standing in the way of human happiness. Dorothy Rowe states that therapy can help, on very rare occasions; however, nobody really knows how this occurs. Whilst therapists must take account of everything in a person’s life, any therapy that is unable to do this causes harm. Finally, Jeffrey Masson states that the prejudices of the therapist affect the participants; however, participants cannot know the background of the therapist. Therapists' abilities are also deeply limited as no one is an expert when it comes to sorrow, happiness, or love. Arguing against the proposal are Andrew Samuels, Lorna Martin and Professor Lord Layard. Andrew Samuels begins by arguing that psychotherapy does not create a victim mentality - in fact, it has the opposite effect. He states that growth and risk are connected, while anti-psychotherapy belief comes from upper middle-class repression. Lorna Martin believes that psychotherapy is not a cure for the human condition, but it helps you understand what your “default position” is. She rejects the notion that it has caused the human condition to become medicalised - this has occurred from outside influences. Professor Lord Layard states that therapy is exactly the same as medicine – meaning there are good and bad practitioners. He believes that Cognitive Behaviour Therapy saves lives, and strongly supports the increased role of mental health services offered through the NHS. First vote: 167 For, 304 Against, 195 Don't Know Final vote: 204 For, 421 Against, 35 Don't Know Motion defeated by 217 votes

In the wake of the MPs' expenses scandal (May - June 2009), a panel of politicians and journalists discuss the merits and pitfalls of the current system of democracy in Britain - is the system rotten to the core, or was the expenses scandal simply a storm in a teacup? In a departure from the usual debate format, the seven panellists each present their views on the current state of affairs and suggest if, and how, the system needs to be reformed. David Cannadine begins by to growing unrest with the government in Britain, fed by scandals such MPs' expenses and the 'cash for honours', as well as the perception that both New Labour and the Conservative Party are responsible for the economic crisis. Cannadine argues that this short-term outrage is not the basis on which to base long term reforms, and that this period of transition - in all likelihood from a New Labour to a Conservative government - is not the time for radical reform. He also runs through the possible parliamentary reforms - a written constitution, a second elected house, reform of the Lords - and suggests why it is unlikely that any of them will be implemented. Helena Kennedy agrees that the public is currently disillusioned with politics and politicians, as evidenced by low voter turnouts. Politicians, she says would have us believe that these low turnouts are down to voter empathy, but surveys reveal that people feel that their votes don't count and are frustrated at the homogeneity of the political parties. In this sense, the outrage caused by the expenses scandal is symptomatic of a deeper mistrust of politicians. Kennedy calls for a great public input in the political process in Britain, and a system of representation that allows people to feel that their voices are heard even when they do not vote for a majority party. Peter Oborne accepts the fact that there is something wrong with British politics but refutes calls for root and branch reform. He emphasises the significance of the expenses scandal, suggesting that it is indicative of a higher level of fraud and corruption in the House of Commons, and that the sackings in the wake of the scandal are token gestures by Gordon Brown and David Cameron. Oborne suggests that, in the short-term, we need to clean up British politics, by making sure that individuals who defraud the taxpayers are brought to account. After a short break for questions, Vernon Bogdanor resumes the debate by citing public disillusionment as the reason for low voter turnouts in Britain, pointing to the fact that a large number of Britons regularly participate in voluntary activities and attend voluntary organisations - the problem is more people are members of, for instance, the National Trust or the RSPCA than all the polticical parties put together. Bogdanor suggests that this points to disillusionment with British politics, and calls for a more inclusive democratic system - one that does away with safe seats and makes more use of mechanisms such as referendums and primary elections. John Keane calls for a greater degree of 'monitary democracy' in British politics. He suggests that Britain has fallen behind other democracies in this respect, and cites the extra-governmental agencies used in other countries to keep parliament in check and crack down on fraud and corruption, such as the Australian 'Integrity Commissions' or Canada’s 2006 Federal Accountability Act. He parallels the current state of British politics to that of late nineteenth century America where public disillusionment at state corruption was high. But he also suggests that, like in that period of American history, positive changes can emerge from the public anger at the corruption of politicians; this will take a greater degree of public engagement with the problems, from journalists and citizens' assemblies, to blogs, and political satire. Referring again to the expenses scandal, Sir Malcom Rifkind suggests that new technologies - the internet and email - will