Intelligence Squared

The panel debate the motion: Let's legalise cocaine. Chaired by Dame Joan Bakewell. Arguing in favour of the motion are Rosie Boycott, Jamie Whyte and Camilla Cavendish. Arguing against the motion are Dr Mark Collins, Julie Lynn-Evans and Joe Studwell.

Has the Conservative Party lost its values? Proponents of the motion argue that the party has moved away from the conservative tradition and switched to a more liberal, “soft”, position, betraying its electors in the process; its detractors say that the Party is well tied to its traditions and strengths. The panel, chaired by Polly Toynbee, share their views. Arguing in favour of the motion are Peter Hitchens and Jeremy O’Grady. Peter Hitchens begins by explaining how, from his point of view, the Tory Party has lost sight of its core values. Furthermore, he continues, the change within the party will determine the results of the next elections. Jeremy O’Grady explores what he perceives as changes in the party's interpretation of conservatism. In particular, he argues that floating voters such as himself do not care if the Tory Party should be seen as conservative or not, and provokes his opponents by asking “Can a jellyfish be conservative?”. Arguing against the motion are Charles Moore and Michael Gove MP. Charles Moore starts by making a clear distinction between what is to believe in a religion and a political party – “A political party is not a faith”. He adds an interesting comparison with modern leadership candidate David Cameron and the 1980s leader Margaret Thatcher, apoint returned to throughout the debate. Michael Gove provides a critique of Hitchens’ position earlier in the debate, defining him as “a reactionary, not a conservative”. Using a useful comparison with the English Civil War, he explains the different points-of-view held inside the Party. Finally, reversing the title of the debate, Gove suggests that, under David Cameron's leadership, the Conservative Party is back in the main stream of conservative tradition. First vote: 248 For, 196 Against, 247 Don't know. Final vote: 285 For, 338 Against, 94 Don't know. The motion is defeated by 53 votes

The panel debate the motion: We should never negotiate with terrorists. Chaired by Richard Lindley. Arguing in favour of the motion are David Trimble, Frank J Gaffney Jr and Dr Emanuele Ottolenghi. David Trimble draws on his experiences as a Northern Irish politician to propose the motion that we should never negotiate with terrorists. He states that we shouldn't see terrorists as deluded, and that instead of responding with repressive measures we should try to win the ideological war. This involves intelligence and penetration of terrorist organisations, but not negotiation. Frank Gaffney Jr then explores the context of terrorism in the modern world. He states that negotiation is especially ill-advised given that terrorists use it as a tool for a political purpose, and discusses the characteristics of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, stating that the movement is more about power than faith. He then outlines four main reasons why we should not negotiate with terrorists and ends with the warning that negotiation entails real costs we cannot afford. Dr Emanuele Ottolenghi admits that the global 'war against terror' is not working. However, he still maintains that we should never negotiate with terrorists for several reasons. First, that terrorist groups have been defeated in the past, and while there has sometimes been a heavy price, it can be done. Second, that while addressing the complex grievances of terrorism – something that is difficult in itself – we should maintain the fight against the reality of its acts of violence. Arguing against the motion are William Sieghart, Colonel Lior Lotan and Jason McCue. William Sieghart begins with the assertion that most terrorists are driven by a sense of grievance often shared by many. Therefore, we should negotiate primarily for the simple fact of realism. A war against terror has been shown to be extremely difficult while repressive measures clearly did not work in Northern Ireland. Not negotiating therefore justifies perpetual war, while dialogue with the most implacable of enemies usually proves fruitful. Lior Lotan begins by debunking the myths of negotiation upon which the proposers of the motion rely. He then puts forward the benefits of a pragmatic and practical approach to negotiation, such as the opportunity to gain access to more information, or the moral value it grants the negotiating party. Jason McCue declares that it is time for a wholesale review on the policy of fighting terror, suggesting that we need to deal with the causes rather than the effects. He draws from his legal experiences of negotiating with terrorists to put forward several reasons for dialogue. These range from a legal analogy that illustrates the importance of out-of-court settlements, an illustration of the hypocrisy shown by Western governments and the idea that common sense surely shows there must always be a preference for dialogue. First Vote: 241 For, 247 Against, 201 Don't Know Final Vote: 289 For, 381 Against, 55 Don't Know The motion is defeated by 92 vote

Should Tesco be subject to more stringent regulations, or does its large share of the market merely reflect its popularity, convenience, and friendly approach? Arguing in favour of the motion 'Long live Tesco' are are Dominic Lawson, Lucy Neville-Rolfe and Emma Duncan. Arguing against the motion are Simon Jenkins, Joanna Blythman and Giles Coren. Click here for more details

The panel debate whether it is financially and culturally worthwhile to maintain attempts to prevent Venice from subsiding. Is it possible to put a price on preserving such a beautiful and historic city? Arguing in favour of the motion are Professor Sir David King and Professor John Kay. Arguing against the motion are Professor Joseph Rykwert and A N Wilson. Click here for more details

Nine months on from the 'Danish Cartoon' controversy, the panel discuss the limits of free speech - should it include the licence to offend ? Arguing for the motion are Kenan Malik, Lisa Appignanesi and Alain Finkielkraut. Arguing against the motion are David Cesarani, Francesca Klug and Tariq Ramadan. Click here for more details.

The panel debate the motion: We are all feminists now. Chaired by Jonathan Freedland. Arguing in favour of the motion are Tim Lott, Philip Norman, and Howard Jacobson. Tim Lott suggests that the vast body of secular opinion holds that women are equal to men. He then runs through examples of inequality, and takes them on individually. He states that there are few societal restrictions left on women and that any remaining inequalities stem from much more than just gender discrimination. Philip Norman declares himself to be a male feminist and explores the reasons why that is possible. He points out how the feminist strategy has changed throughout the ages – female independence is now expressed in clothes that were previously the targets of feminist outrage. In short, he believes the fight is now clearly over. After pointing out that the more persuasive the male panel's argument, the closer the motion edges to defeat, Howard Jacobson sets out to lose the battle, but in so doing, win the war. What follows is a humorous concession to the victory of women: he points out that he has always been losing to women, apologises for the behaviour of men in the past and concedes to the power of the opposing panel. Arguing against the motion are Kathy Lette, Mariella Frostrup, and Beatrix Campbell. Kathy Lette launches a humorous assault on the idea that we are all feminists. She insists that it is still a man's world, before outlining numerous situations in which this is plainly obvious. They suffer from facial prejudice and ageism, as well as the long-suffered accusation that women have no sense of humour. Mariella Frostrup begins by exploring the global inequalities and abuses suffered by women. The fact that women's rights are restricted globally suggests that the men on the other side of the panel offer a picture of misguided new manhood. She says we need a society in which both sexes can flourish, but we remain stuck in a patriarchal world. Beatrix Campbell reaffirms Mariella Frostrup's examination of global inequality suffered by women and suggests the issue is far more serious than many take it to be. Campbell ends by stating that the journey towards equality has stalled and that we now live in a neo-patriarchal world. First Vote: 218 For, 293 Against, 196 Don't Know Final Vote: 238 For, 447 Against, 31 Don't Know The motion is defeated by 209 vote

The panel discuss the threat that Iran poses to democracy, the Middle East, and the world at large. Arguing in favour of the motion ‘The threat posed by Iran has been greatly exaggerated’ are Iradj Bagherzade, Professor Ali Ansari and Martin Woollacott. Iradj Bagherzade believes that the demonisation process of Iran is self-defeating and explains how the powers of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are actually extremely limited. He suggests that Iran poses no immediate danger of obtaining nuclear warheads. Bagherzade would encourage a policy of involvement, not isolation, in Iran, and asserts the importance of the Iranian self-perspective. Ali Ansari highlights the importance of addressing situations without hysteria and heightened emotion. He explains that in the absence of evidence, we invent threats, and that in the case of Iran, there is a sensitive issue at stake, but by exaggerating it we trivialise it. Martin Woollacott explains that weapons don’t make wars, confrontations between nations do. He asks that cool heads be maintained and threats be measured, not inflated. Woollacott believes the real threat is anxiety in Washington, not the situation on the ground in Iran. Arguing against the motion are Dr Mehrdad Khonsari, Dr Patrick Clawson and Roey Gilad. Mehrdad Khonsari believes Iran is a bastion of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism – the two largest threats to the modern world. He explains that the Islamic regime in Iran is an intimidating, blackmailing, brutalising and torturous force that should not be underestimated, as they will stop at nothing to remain in power. Patrick Clawson discusses the potential of Iran to set off a Nuclear arms race, not only in the Middle East but across the world. He explains how foreign money and advice can make a productive – and positive – difference. Roey Gilead outlines the history of terror since the revolution in Iran and the Iranian involvement with the Hezbollah in Israel. Gilead, unlike some other panelists, takes the President’s words seriously and believes Iran to be a threat to the region and to the world at large. First vote: 253 For, 268 Against, 214 Don’t know Final vote: 387 For, 293 Against, 77 Don’t know The motion is passed by 94 votes

Speakers for the motion: Tom Kremer: Born and raised in Transylvania, he was deported to Bergen Belsen, escaped to Switzerland and in 1945 emigrated to the land that emerged as Israel. A philosophy graduate of Edinburgh and the Sorbonne, he became involved in child psychology and then turned his talents to inventing games, including the Rubik's Cube. He is the author of "The Missing Heart of Europe: Does Britain hold the key to the future of the Continent?" Larry Siedentop: A fellow of Keble College, University of Oxford. In 2000 he published 'Democracy in Europe', which immediately became a classic essay on European Integration. Anatole Kaletsky: Associate Editor of The Times and one of the country's leading commentators on economics. Anatole was previously Economics Editor of The Times, and has won many awards for his financial and political journalism. Before his appointment at The Times, he worked for 12 years on the Financial Times in a variety of posts. Speakers against the motion: Giscard D'Estaing: Former President of France. A strong supporter of the European Economic Community, while in office he played a crucial role in several international initiatives including the creation of the European Council, the European Monetary System, the Disarmament Institute and the North-South Conference. Robert Cooper: Director-General for External and Politico-Military Affairs at the Council of the European Union in Brussels. His most recent publication is "The Breaking of Nations: Order and Chaos in the Twenty-First Century" (2003), a book that builds on his earlier essays on Europe and the post-modern state. The Rt Hon Kenan Clarke MP: Former President of the Union and Chairman of the University Conservative Association at Cambridge. He was also the National Chairman of the Federation of University Conservative Associations and served on many of the national committees of the Conservative Party. He was elected to the House of Commons as the Member for Rushcliffe in 1970, gaining the seat from Labour. He has held it ever since, increasing his majority at the 2005 general election. He has held ministerial office in no less than seven government departments. Chair: John Kampfner Editor of the New Statesman. He has just finished touring the country promoting his latest book, Blair's Wars - the inside account of how the Prime Minister has taken Britain into conflict five times in six years.

A distinguished panel considers the advantages and disadvantages of allowing all schools - not just independent schools - to choose their own pupils. Speaking for the proposal are Chris Woodhead and Dr Martin Stephen, and endorsing it is Lord Tebbit. Arguing against the proposal are David Blunkett MP and Fiona Millar, and endorsing it is William Atkinson.

The panel debate the motion: The time to quit Iraq is now. Chaired by James Naughtie. Arguing for the motion are Dr Rosemary Hollis, Alastair Crooke and Sir Simon Jenkins. Rosemary Hollis argues that the military contingent in Iraq should immediately prepare a military exit. She suggests that Britain should now switch the effort to a more positive, ‘hearts and minds’ emphasis on the civilian sector. Alastair Crooke points to two key developments: the perception everywhere that the US (and therefore UK) is on its way out and that the Shia victory has granted the tools of influence to the government of Tehran. Cooke breaks down the arguments in favour of staying and ends with a call for diplomacy, pointing out that we need to establish a dialogue with all countries involved. Simon Jenkins says we need to give Iraqis what we promised them, but that, at the moment, we are not doing this. Overall, he suggests that the Iraqi government will be undermined if it is seen as a puppet of the west – if it is regarded in this way, democracy will never take root. In Jenkins’ view, this is surely grounds enough for a complete military withdrawal. Arguing against the motion are Amir Taheri, Tim Spicer and William Shawcross. Amir Taheri hasn't heard requests for coalition forces to quit Iraq, either from Iraqis or from other coalition countries. Even those who opposed the invasion are not saying we should leave, but rather say that if you have broken something, you have to fix it. The only group that would benefit from immediate withdrawal of Allied forces is the insurgents. Tim Spicer notes the horrible suffering experienced by Iraqis under the rule of Saddam Hussein. He says that the insurgency comes as no surprise, describing many insurgents as no more than criminals. He suggests that, until a proper police force is in place, insurgency will continue to flourish. Spicer emphasises that there is no civil war waging in Iraq, that the Iraqi army are making great steps forward, and that we need to give them the breathing space in which to prepare. William Shawcross believes the idea that we should quit now to be frivolous. This is not an imperial venture, but a liberation. Iraqis have made an extraordinarily good start; why then are we running scared and why have we so little patience? Shawcross suggests that we should look beyond the Iraq seen in news reports and remain there until the Iraq behind the scenes is able to slowly rebuild itself. First Vote: 246 For, 283 Against, 198 Don't Know Final Vote: 272 For 431 Against, 36 Don't Know The motion is defeated by 159 vote

The panel, under chair Sir Clement Freud, debate the influence of class in modern Britain. Do we now live in an egalitarian society, or is British society still governed by the class divide? Arguing in favour of the motion ‘Apart from chavs, the British have no class’ are Deborah Moggach, Boris Johnson, and Howard Jacobson. Arguing against the motion are Kate Fox, Ferdinand Mount and Simon Fanshawe.

In the face of terrorism, should we abandon some of our hard-won freedoms? The rules of the game are changing, but should they? Are these new measures necessary to improve our defence or do they in fact represent the real threat to society? Chaired by Richard Lindley. Arguing in favour of the motion are The Rt Hon Charles Clarke MP and Alasdair Palmer. Arguing against the motion are Sir Jeremy Greenstock and Edward Fitzgerald QC.

The panel, under chair Martyn Lewis, debate whether it is the journalists, not the politicians, who have fouled our political culture. Arguing in favour of the motion are John Lloyd, Denis Macshane, and Clive Soley. Arguing against the motion are Peter Oborne, Lance Price, and Robert Fisk.

The panel debate the motion: Tyrants should be left free to tyrannise their own people. Chaired by Jonthan Freedland. Arguing for the motion are Edward Luttwak and Lord Skidelsky. Edward Luttwak uses the example of Sicily as a place of strong resistance to foreign intervention or liberation. He then discusses Iraq, exploring the different ways in which the invasion has been seen by Iraqis, above all stressing that democracy in Iraq is not understood in Western terms. He believes that the one thing you cannot achieve with military force is political change. Lord Skidelsky claims that, contrary to the opinion of James Rubin, we are indeed talking about military intervention, since sanctions do not put pressure on tyrants. He doesn't believe that tyrants should be allowed to get away with anything, especially genocide, but thinks there are many ways of bringing pressure against tyrants, including sanctions. Arguing against the motion are James Rubin and Ian Buruma. James Rubin asserts that this debate is about whether one should do anything at all to prevent tyranny, not just about whether we should intervene militarily. He believes the debate is not about the Bush administration, and has nothing to do with whether you like George Bush's aim of spreading democracy. Rubin suggests that if you supported sanctions on South Africa against apartheid, or support sanctions against the military junta of Burma, then you have to vote against the motion. Ian Buruma says the panel all agree on a number of things, including the opinion that Iraq was a mistake. He reminds the audience that the West also has a history of toppling democratically elected leaders. However, he argues, not only are there other ways of getting rid of dictators, and that American support/ intervention is often supported by local people and can achieve success. He says we cannot act aggressively against all tyrants (not dictators) in the pursuit of democracy, but do need to take action against some. He ends with one simple word of warning: Munich. First Vote: 178 For, 291 Against, 224 Don't Know Final Vote: 245 For, 393 Against, 78 Don't Know The motion is defeated by 148 votes.