Is Britain facing an identity crisis? The traditional dividing lines of left and right seem to be dissolving into new political tribes – metropolitan liberals versus the culturally rooted working classes, graduates versus the uneducated, the young versus the old. In June's general election, traditional Labour heartlands like Mansfield went Conservative, while wealthy areas such as Kensington swung to Corbyn. Britain seems utterly confused about its politics. As the far left and Eurosceptic right have gained strength, much of the country has been left feeling politically homeless. So what’s going on? How will these new alignments play out as the country faces the historic challenge of leaving the EU and forging a new relationship with the rest of the world? Are the Conservatives really up to the job, as they bicker over what kind of Brexit they want and jostle over who should succeed Theresa May? Is it now unthinkable that Jeremy Corbyn could be the next prime minister? Looming over the current turmoil is the biggest question of all: What kind of Britain do we want to live in? What are the values that should hold our society together? We were joined by Ken Clarke, the most senior Conservative voice in Parliament; Hilary Benn, Labour MP and Chair of the Brexit Select Committee; and Helen Lewis, deputy editor at the New Statesman and prominent voice on the left. Alongside them was David Goodhart, author of one of the most talked about analyses of post-Brexit Britain, and Anand Menon, a leading academic thinker on Britain’s fractious relations with the EU. The event was chaired by Stephen Sackur, one of the BBC’s most highly regarded journalistic heavyweights.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/intelligencesquared.See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Where do our ideas about morality and meaning come from? Most people - from religious extremists to secular scientists - would agree on one point: that science has nothing to say on the subject of human values. Indeed, science's failure to explain meaning and morality has become the primary justification for religious faith and the reason why even many non-believers feel obliged to accord respect to the beliefs of the devout. In this podcast, recorded at our event in April 2011, Sam Harris, the American philosopher and neuroscientist, argues that these views are mistaken - that amidst all the competing arguments about how we should lead our lives, science can show us that there are right and wrong answers. This means that moral relativism is mistaken and that there can be neither a Christian nor a Muslim morality - and that ultimately science can and should determine how best to live our lives. After an opening speech, Revd Dr Giles Fraser, former-canon chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, joins Harris in conversation. The event was chaired by Jeremy O'Grady, Editor-in-chief of The Week magazine and co-founder of Intelligence Squared.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/intelligencesquared.See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It used to be so easy. You left university, came to London and got yourself a flatshare in one of the cheaper areas: Notting Hill, Maida Vale or Highgate. Living was cheap and if it took you a while to find out what you really wanted to do with your life you could drift about a bit and get by. But now thanks to vast City bonuses and the influx of foreign billionaires, London house prices have soared beyond the reach of all but the seriously rich. Parts of Notting Hill and Kensington have become ‘buy to leave’ ghost towns, the houses boarded up and showing no signs of life. Shoreditch and Hackney, not long ago the hip new outposts for musicians and artists, are now home to well-paid professionals. And London is the worse for it. That’s the argument of those who worry that London is becoming too rich to be interesting. But is there any evidence that the city is growing bland? Quite the reverse. On any evening almost wherever you go London’s streets are abuzz with life. People here crave a communal experience and the city provides it with its 600 parks, thousands of pubs and dynamic cultural scene. There’s a dynamic between wealth and creativity that keeps London exciting. If you prefer greater egalitarianism and more cycle lanes, there’s always Stockholm. Joining us to discuss the question "Is London too rich to be interesting?" were rapper and poet Akala, journalist Tanya Gold, artist Gavin Turk, and author and journalist Simon Jenkins. The event was chaired by Kieran Long, senior curator of contemporary architecture, design and digital at the V&A.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/intelligencesquared.See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Does God exist? Has atheism replaced religion as the new faith of the secular age? Are today's atheists as blinkered and dogmatic as they claim religious believers to be? This Intelligence Squared debate from November 2009 was recorded at Wellington College. Arguing for the motion were former Bishop of Oxford Richard Harries and Editor of the Daily Telegraph Charles Moore. Arguing against the motion were evolutionary biologist and science author Richard Dawkins and philospher AC Grayling. The debate was chaired by historian, author and Master of Wellington College Anthony Seldon.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/intelligencesquared.See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

No one doubts the bravery of the thousands of men who flew and died in Bomber Command. The death rate was an appalling 44%. And yet until the opening of a monument in Green Park in 2012 they had received no official recognition, with many historians claiming that the offensive was immoral and unjustified. How can it be right, they argue, for the Allies to have deliberately targeted German cities causing the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians? Even on a strategic level the offensive failed to bring about the collapse of civilian morale that was its intention. Others, however, maintain that the attacks made a decisive contribution to the Allied victory. Vast numbers of German soldiers and planes were diverted from the eastern and western fronts, while Allied bombing attacks virtually destroyed the German air force, clearing the way for the invasion of the continent. Arguing for the motion were AC Grayling, philosopher and author of 'Among the Dead Cities: Is the Targeting of Civilians in War Ever Justified?'; and Richard Overy, Professor of history at Exeter University who has published extensively on World War II and air power in the 20th century. Arguing against them were Antony Beevor, award-winning historian and author of the No. 1 international bestseller 'The Second World War'; and Patrick Bishop, historian and author of 'Bomber Boys'. The debate was chaired by Jeremy O'Grady, Editor-in-chief of The Week magazine and co-founder of Intelligence Squared.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/intelligencesquared.See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The First World War is not called the Great War for nothing. It was the single most decisive event in modern history, as well as one of the bloodiest: by the time the war ended, some nine million soldiers had been killed. It was also a historical full stop, marking the definitive end of the Victorian era and the advent of a new age of uncertainty. By 1918, the old order had fallen: the Bolsheviks had seized power in Russia; the German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires had been destroyed; and even the victorious Allied powers had suffered devastating losses. It was supposed to be the war to end all wars. And yet barely two decades later, the world was again plunged into conflict. Little wonder then that historians still cannot agree whether Britain's engagement was worth it. For some, the war was a vitally important crusade against Prussian militarism. Had we stayed out, they argue, the result would have been an oppressive German-dominated Europe, leaving the British Empire isolated and doomed to decline. And by fighting to save Belgium, Britain stood up for principle: the right of a small nation to resist its overbearing neighbours. For others, the war was a catastrophic mistake, fought at a catastrophic human cost. It brought Communism to power in Russia, ripped up the map of Europe and left a festering sense of resentment that would fuel the rise of Nazism. We often forget that, even a few days before Britain entered the war, it seemed likely that we would stay out. H. H. Asquith's decision to intervene changed the course of history. But was it the right one? Arguing for the motion in this Intelligence Squared debate were John Charmley, Professor of Modern History at the University of East Anglia; and Dominic Sandbrook, historian, columnist and broadcaster. Arguing against them were Max Hastings, historian, journalist and former newspaper editor; and Margaret MacMillan, Warden of St Antony’s College and Professor of International History at the University of Oxford. The debate was chaired by senior editor at The Economist, Edward Lucas.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/intelligencesquared.See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Marina Abramović is one of the most celebrated performance artists in the world. Over a career spanning four decades she has pioneered performance as an art form and accumulated a devoted following. Using her body as both subject and object, Abramović explores notions of nothingness and time, and draws in the audience as part of her performance. At her 2010 exhibition, ‘The Artist is Present’, at New York’s MOMA visitors were invited to sit silently opposite her and gaze into her eyes for an unspecified amount of time. Every day people broke down in tears.In conversation with the Artistic Director at the Barbican Centre, Will Gompertz, Marina Abramović tells us what she has learnt about process and people from a world in which she is interested in everything. With her characteristic strong character, intelligent wit, and radiating warmth, Abramović discusses her role as healer, art as meditation, and how her challenging childhood has given her much material to work with. This event was recorded in September 2014 at the Royal College of Music, in London and was produced by Executive Producer Hannah Kaye —We’d love to hear your feedback and what you think we should talk about next, who we should have on and what our future debates should be about. Send us an email or voice note with your thoughts to podcasts@intelligencesquared.com or Tweet us at @intelligence2. At Intelligence Squared we’ve got our own online streaming platform, Intelligence Squared+ and we’d love you to give it a go. It’s packed with more than 20 years’ worth of video debates and conversations on the world’s most important topics as well as exclusive podcast content. Tune in to live events, ask your questions or watch on-demand, totally ad-free with hours of discussion to dive into. Visit intelligencesquaredplus.com to start watching today Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In the eyes of pro-Europeans, the founding of the EU after WWII secured peace across the continent for decades. But one needn’t look further than Brexit to see that the EU is teetering on the edge. By showing itself blind to the concerns of ordinary people and incapable of reform, has the European Union failed its citizens? Or should we ignore the doomsayers and march ahead with more European integration? Listen to the arguments from our inaugural Intelligence Squared debate in Berlin.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/intelligencesquared.See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In September 2014, Professor Francis Fukuyama came to the Intelligence Squared stage to square up with one of Britain’s most brilliant political thinkers, David Runciman, to assess how democracy is faring in 2014. We certainly haven’t attained the rosy future that some thought Fukuyama was predicting in his book 'The End of History and The Last Man' in 1992: authoritarianism is entrenched in Russia and China, in the last decade the developed democracies have experienced severe financial crises and rising inequality, and Islamic State militants are wreaking havoc in Iraq and Syria. Is religion becoming the new politics? How will the technological revolution continue to impact our politics? And in the West are we in danger of becoming complacent about the challenges to democracy that we face?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/intelligencesquared.See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Earlier this week we recorded a special episode of the Intelligence Squared podcast at the Acast studio in east London. We were joined by author and activist Naomi Klein and BBC economics editor Kamal Ahmed as they discussed Klein's bestselling new book 'No Is Not Enough'. In this wide-ranging discussion, Klein sets out her view of Trump as the ultimate megabrand. To her, Trump’s presidency is not an aberration – it's the culmination of recent political trends and amounts to nothing less than a giant corporate takeover of America. Will Trump-style politics become the new normal, or – however unstable the world feels right now – can progressives unite to to defeat what Klein calls the new politics of shock and fear?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/intelligencesquared.See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices