Sigalon's Inspired Thinking Soup

The panel, under chair Joan Bakewell, debate the motion: The sixties weren’t the beginning of sex, but the end of civilisation.

Arguing in favour of the motion are Professor Laurie Taylor, Leonie Frieda, and Howard Jacobson.

Laurie Taylor begins by arguing that whilst people in the sixties thought that sex was a natural, original source of the ‘pure self’. However, it was the the realisation that ‘sex sells’ that really resulted in a liberation of sexual attitudes.

Leonie Frieda makes a ‘plea for sexual subtlety’. She acknowledges the social problems of the fifties, such as the treatment of homosexuals and backyard abortions, but points out that reform was coming, and that to call the changes of the sixties ‘civilised’ is nonsensical.

Howard Jacobson, in a humorous speech, details the structure of a pre-sixties relationship, declaring that, whilst couples weren’t happy, the rest of civilisation was nevertheless created whilst working under these sexual mores.

Arguing against the motion are Rosie Boycott, Christopher Booker and Claire Fox.

Rosie Boycott argues that the sixties took sex from a private act into one that can be publicly celebrated, whilst also bringing about the meritocracy, women’s rights, gay rights, civil rights and the belief that we are all equal.

Christopher Booker argues that changing sexual mores actually began in the 1950s with the beginning of rock ‘n’ roll, and that to say the breakdown of civilisation occurred in the ‘60s is ignoring history.

Claire Fox notes that if civilisation means an advanced state of social development, then the sixties were a huge step forward for mankind. She believes that the left’s mantra is ‘better safe than sorry’, while the motto of the sixties was ‘nothing ventured, nothing gained’.

First Vote: 186 For, 293 Against, 229 Don’t Know

Final vote: 319 For, 333 Against, 86 Don’t Know

The motion is defeated by 14 votes.

BUY THE DVD

Filmed: 21 Jun 2005

Length: 1 hr 39 min

IQ2 Video: 2005

The panel debate the motion: The West must stay friends with the House of Saud. Chaired by James Naughtie.

Arguing in favour of the motion are Sir Andrew Green, Robert Lacey and Senator Wyche Fowler.

Andrew Green explains that you don’t have to be a regional expert to understand the strategic, economic, and cultural importance of Saudi Arabia. He explains how Saudi Arabia is a society totally different to our own, under immense stress, and any likely alternative to House of Saud could potentially be far worse.

Robert Lacey begins with the idea that royal families are very good at surviving. He also says that the House of Saud is almost a tribe in its own right, and emphasises the fact that the House of Saud is developing the nature of that society.

Wyche Fowler maintains that reformers in Saudi Arabia are slowly making progress to overcome extremism. He particularly makes the case for the House of Saud's foreign policy in the wider region, which is essential to maintaining the West's goal of ensuring the balance of power in the Middle East, and notes their supportive role in the war on terror.

Arguing against the motion are John R Bradley, Jason Burke and Dr Mark Heller.

John R Bradley states that he does not agree with the premise of the debate: in his view there has not been a friendship between the West and the House of Saud. To support this he puts forward an alternative historical narrative in order to rebut the charge that there is no alternative to the House of Saud.

Jason Burke examines the broader situation in this age of terrorist threat based on Islamic fundamentalism. Burke believes that the House of Saud has used its prodigious profits from oil to support rigorous and conservative strands of Islam. On top of this, he emphasises that that country is horrifically mismanaged and, as an overall consequence, we need to distance ourselves from the regime.

Dr Mark Heller says there is nothing quite as scandalous as the cosy relationship between the West and Saudi Arabia. He suggests that Saudi Arabia is the richest font of anti-western terrorism in the world, pointing to evidence of Wahhabi literature in the US and Germany that spreads hate-rhetoric.

First Vote: 294 For, 189 Against, 223 Don't Know

Final Vote: 328 For, 269 Against, 70 Don't Know

The motion is passed by 59 votes.

Filmed: 23 Mar 2005

Length: 1 hr 51 min

Subjects: Politics International

IQ2 Video: 2005

The panel debate the motion: Zionism today is the real enemy of the Jews. Chaired by Richard Lindley.

Arguing for the motion are Professor Avi Shlaim, Professor Jacqueline Rose, and Amira Hass.

Avi Shlaim rejects the Zionist colonial project beyond the 1967 border, and states that Israel's occupation of Palestine has transformed Zionism from a legitimate national liberation movement to an ideology of ultra-nationalist settlers. He warns that a lot of people are upset and angry with Israel for its treatment towards Palestinians.

Jacqueline Rose points out that Zionism is a movement that has always been reinterpreted from within. On the subject of displacement of Palestinians, Rose asks how the creation of a nation on the back of another society cannot be dangerous for Jews themselves.

Amira Hass says she does not believe in such generalising statements as the motion in hand. However, she discusses the reality of life in Israel and uses her own experiences to paint a picture of the practical, if not legal, separation of Palestinians and Israelis.

Arguing against the motion are Melanie Phillips, Shlomo Ben-Ami and Professor Raphael Israeli.

Melanie Phillips says the motion wrongly suggests that Jews have no enemy but themselves. She questions whether the behaviour of Israel or the ideology of Zionism are malign. She refutes the charges made against the actions of Israel – expansion in 1967 was, in her view, not an act of aggression.

Shlomo Ben-Ami states that Israel is in a circumstantial conflict, and that the historical realities it faces were predicaments that most European nations have faced. He points out that Britain, France and Belgium set precedents for any repression that has since been used by Israel, and notes that it took Europe endless wars to end its nationalist disputes.

Raphael Israeli says there has so far been little mention of Zionism, with the previous speakers concentrating on Israel. He points out that Zionism is an ideology and Israel is a state. In his view, Zionism has enjoyed spectacular success, but all we hear of are various demonisations.

First Vote: 228 For, 227 Against, 291 Don't Know

Final Vote: 355 For, 320 Against, 40 Don't Know

The motion is passed by 35 votes.

BUY THE DVD

Filmed: 25 Jan 2005

Length: 1 hr 47 min

Subjects: Politics International

IQ2 Video: 2005

Despite generous investment, and despite children starting school young and spending long days learning. Britain, as studies keep on showing, lags behind when it comes to education. That’s why the idea of creating a voucher system, in which schools compete for pupils and the funds that come with them, has proved attractive to people from both sides of the political spectrum.

Supporters of vouchers say that they are a radical measure which will raise academic standards, provide parents with a better choice of where to send their kids, and, crucially, empower the poor. However, the idea has plenty of detractors, who question what would happen to failing schools, and where the government would find the funds.

This Controversy is part of our membership service. Existing members, please sign in. If you would like access to our regularly updated, expanding catalogue of controversies become a member now.

Controversy

Subjects: Politics UK

Russian writer and Nobel Laureate Alexandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008) delivers his commencement speech entitled 'A World Split Apart' at Harvard University, June 8, 1978. In the context of the Cold War, Solzhenitsyn identifies a world split between the two world powers (the US and Russia), both capable of destroying the other. He highlights the dangers of an autonomous world, especially one dominated by western thought, incapable of understanding Russia and blinded by superiority.

Filmed: 08 Jun 1978

Length:

Subjects: Literature

The panel debate the motion: Nuclear energy must power our future. Chaired by Martyn Lewis.

Arguing for the motion are Bruno Comby, Bishop Hugh Montefiore and Lord Parkinson.

Bruno Comby states his belief that there are very good environmental reasons to be in favour of nuclear energy, and argues that Comby says that, while wind energy and solar energy can help, and should be developed, neither come close to the potential of nuclear energy.

Hugh Montefiore says that those who are against nuclear energy are living in a time warp. He addresses the key concerns about nuclear, such as safety and disposal of waste – but he doesn't think we can point to Chernobyl, which was an experiment gone wrong.

Lord Parkinson begins with a critique of the oppositions arguments, particularly the facts that they deployed. He declares that we are light years away from viable forms of renewable energy, with an example being the conventional power stations that have to back-up wind power.

Arguing against the motion are Mycle Schneider, Zac Goldsmith, and Tony Juniper.

Mycle Schneider, having emphasised the importance of factual accuracy in this debate, begins by illustrating some of the key statistics about nuclear energy and its potential development. He mentions the long time-frames that are involved – it takes an extremely long time to build the nuclear reactors as different parts are sourced from around the world.

Zac Goldsmith begins by pointing out the dangers of aeroplane crashes: nuclear plants were not built with terrorism in mind. Given the horrors and risks involved he says you could be forgiven for thinking there must be benefits, and yet in his view there are none.

Tony Juniper claims that 75% of our emissions are not even coming from the electricity sector, so we need to distinguish between energy and climate change. He points to the fact that wind power is already beginning to meet more and more of our energy needs.

First Vote: 258 For, 155 Against, 186 Don't Know

Final Vote: 289 For, 224 Against, 63 Don't Know

The motion is passed by 64 votes.

BUY THE DVD

Filmed: 19 Apr 2005

Length: 1 hr 58 min

Subjects: Environment

IQ2 Video: 2005

Philip Larkin talks to John Betjeman in 1964 about his life, his poetry and the city of Hull, where he lived and worked as university librarian. With readings from his work, the poet explores the life of a rapidly modernising Hull.

Filmed: 1964

Length: 29 min 54 sec

Subjects: Literature

Primo Levi (1919-1987), Jewish-Italian chemist and writer, returns to Aushwitz, where he was interned for nearly a year in 1944-45, and discusses the effect the visit has on him. Here, Levi talks about the time he spent in Poland, and how he was misplaced and maltreated. His time in Auschwitz is described in the autobiographical work If This Is A Man (1958, originally published in Italian as Se questo è un uomo in 1947).

Filmed: 1983

Length: 7 min 7 sec

Subjects: Literature

In this 1937 BBC broadcast Virginia Woolf (1882-1941) looks at memories and their associations with words. She examines how they are not single or separate entities, and explains how they can be beautiful, how they can teach, write, read, criticise, and progress. For Woolf, these free and wild entities do not live in dictionaries, but in the mind.

Filmed: 29 Apr 1937

Length: 7 min 38 sec

Subjects: Literature

Nobel Prize winning American poet TS Eliot (1888-1965) wrote The Love Song Of J Alfred Prufrock between 1910 and 1911, although it was not published until 1915. The poem is Eliot's first major work, and takes the form of an internal monologue as a stream of consciousness. Strongly influenced by French Symbolists, such as Mallarmé, Rimbaud, and Baudelaire at the time of writing the poem, Eliot's speaker is an urban, isolated and sensuous man, Prufrock. As Prufrock comes to terms with his own inadequacies, the reader sees his neuroticism and his emotional isolation.

Filmed:

Length: 11 min

Subjects: Literature