Thoughts for the Day
Saturday
Contemporary Question: who are we in the 21st century?
Provocation Lecture: money is not the root of all evil
Food for thought in the café: tyranny of skills?
Sunday
Contemporary Question: are we paralysed by risk-aversion in the 21st century?
'Nuff respect? Questioning the 'respect' agenda
Food for thought in the café: nature knows best? - the organic food debate
SATURDAY
Contemporary Question: who are we in the 21st century?
In association with the Academy of Ideas Undergraduate Forum and produced by Suzy Dean
Gulbenkian Gallery, 17.15 - 18.00 on Saturday 28 October 2006
National identity is back on the agenda for British politics as the government seeks to reclaim ‘Britishness’ from the extreme right. Since 7/7, there has been much concern that we’re becoming a society of racists and suicide bombers. But how useful a tool is Britishness to bind society together? Looking back, some have argued that ‘Cool Britannia’ was just a rebranding exercise and little more than empty symbols and meaningless catchphrases. Is Brown’s ‘explicit patriotism’ any more substantial? The agonised quest for Britishness seems more driven by the political elite than a rampant nationalism or vibrant patriotism on the ground - what are they looking for? And what role should a government have in creating a sense of identity, if at all?
Sir Bernard Crick, emeritus professor of politics, Birkbeck College, University of London; author, Democracy: A Very Short Book (2002)
Adam Kuper, professor of social anthropology, Brunel University
Kenan Malik,in author, Man, Beast and Zombie: What Science Can and Cannot Tell Us About Human Nature (2000); presenter, Analysis, BBC Radio 4
Chair: Munira Mirza, freelance writer and researcher; editor, Culture Vultures: Is UK Arts Policy Damaging the Arts? (2006)
|
|
spiked recommends:
|
Recommended readings:
- Ten Core Values of the British Identity Telegraph 27 July 2005
- Bernard Crick and Kenan Malik Bernard Crick v Kenan Malik: What should integration mean in Britain today? JCWI Bulletin Winter 2004/ 2005
- Yasmin Alibhai-Brown Post-Multiculturalism and Citizenship Values Immigrant Council of
For more recommended readings please click here...
Provocation Lecture: money is not the root of all evil
Produced by
Patrick HayesLecture Theatre 1, 17.15 - 18.00 on Saturday 28 October 2006
The biblical claim 'the love of money is the root of all evil' is today held as a truism. Those desiring more money are seen as fat-cats, soulless capitalists, leftovers from the 1980s or - increasingly - suffering from a pathological condition. Those who want to show off their 'bling' are demonised as tasteless 'chavs'. Much has been written about the unhappy lottery winners being harassed by envious friends or charities, unable to handle the responsibility and yearning for their 'old lives' back. Some commentators have even gone as far as saying that poverty-stricken Ethiopians are happier without the wealth and consumerism they say brings misery to the West. But for every lottery winner who can’t handle the cash, surely there’s many more who can? Are there really any Ethiopians who wouldn’t trade their poverty for a life of fast cars and à la carte meals? Does the eagerness to stigmatise money reflect more insidious attitudes, such as snobbishness or a broader anti-materialism? Or would we all be better off if no-one wanted to be a millionaire?
Dr Julian Baggini, editor, The Philosophers' Magazine; journalist; author, The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten and 99 Other Thought Experiments (2005)
Ceri Dingle, director, WORLDwrite
Dr Raj Persaud, consultant psychiatrist, The Maudsley Hospital; author, The Motivated Mind (2005)
Chair: Patrick Hayes, promotions co-ordinator, Battle of Ideas; head of research and development, Times Educational Supplement and Times Higher Education Supplement
More speakers to be confirmed
|
|
spiked recommends:
|
Recommended readings:
- Polly Toynbee Money and Happiness Guardian 07 March 2003
- George Monbiot What do we really want? Guardian 27 August 2002
- Jane Stevenson, Consuming Passions, Guardian Aug 13 2006,
For more recommended readings please click here...
What next for...?
Produced by Philip Cunliffe
Seminar Space, 17.15 -18.00 on Saturday 28 October 2006
This session brings together a variety of Battle of Ideas speakers from other sessions to discuss a topic of immediate importance. To ensure that the most pertinent and immediate issues can be selected for discussion, the topic will be confirmed closer to the time on the Battle of Ideas website.
Chair: Philip Cunliffe, co-convenor, Sovereignty and Its Discontents working group
Speakers to be confirmed
Food for Thought in the Café: tyranny of skills?
In association with The Academy of Ideas Education Forum and produced by Dr Dennis Hayes
The Café, 17.15 - 18.00 on Saturday 28 October 2006
Reforming the further education (FE) sector is at the heart of the government’s education, economic and social policy. According to the DfES white paper, ‘Further Education: raising skills, improving life chances’, proposed reforms will make it possible, ‘for all young people to be in education and training, for all adults to be able to continue gaining new and valuable skills, and for all employers to see training as an essential investment in their workforces’.Links between secondary schools and FE colleges are to be strengthened, allowing children as young as 14 to attend vocational courses at FE colleges; while links are also to be developed between further and higher education institutions, encouraging more individuals to move seamlessly between college and university. Colleges themselves are to be reformed to understand their ‘clear economic missions’ and to deliver ‘excellence’ across a range of specialist areas, and they are to be opened up to older individuals by giving free tuition to 19-25 year olds.
If, as the reforms propose, FE is further reorganised to produce ‘young people and adults with the skills for productive, sustainable employment in the new economy’ – a mission which has gained the support of everyone from CBI Director Sir Digby Jones to TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber – does this mean the one thing FE will no longer be charged with is education. Have we moved from the promise of ‘Education, education, education’ to the more meagre reality of ‘Skills, skills, skills’? Are we giving up on young people if we push them into FE too young, ruling out A-levels and university? Or, if the proposal to strengthen links between further and higher education comes good, will this simply mean the further vocationalisation of the university system? Ultimately, are these reforms about doing the best for individuals and society, or about making people feel wanted and useful in a climate where we are unsure what to do with the increasing numbers of kids who are left behind by a failing secondary school system?
Monica Deasy, director of standards, qualifications and research, Lifelong Learning UK
Dr Kathryn Ecclestone, reader in assessment for lifelong learning, University of Nottingham; co-author with Dennis Hayes, The Dangerous Rise of Therapeutic Education: How Teaching is Becoming Therapy (2007)
Ian Nash, Further Education editor, Times Educational Supplement
Chair: Dr Dennis Hayes, joint-president, University and College Union; co-author with Toby Marshall and Alec Turner A Lecturer's Guide to Further Education (2007)
to follow shortly
|
|
spiked recommends:
|
Recommended readings:
For more recommended readings please click here...
SUNDAY
Contemporary Question: are we paralysed by risk-aversion in the 21st century?
Sponsored by cScape and produced by James Gledhill
Gulbenkian Gallery, 17.45 - 18.30 on Sunday 29 October 2006
Contemporary society seems obsessed with risk. Every aspect of modern life, from something as banal as drinking a cup of coffee (may contain hot liquids) to buying goods on the internet (is your identity secure online?) to getting on public transport in hot weather (remember to carry a bottle of water at all times) seems to come replete with potential hazards. Fears of unknown threats feature in debates ranging from how we deal with terrorism to how we rear children. New technologies, which can offer exciting new prospects in everything from communication to health, are often greeted ambiguously.
In all walks of life, from education to business, politics to technology, few activities can be undertaken without completing a full risk assessment exercise. Are the number of manufactured risks really on the increase, or have we become obsessed with risks that are more apparent than real? Does the attempt to make life a little less hazardous warrant the ever-expanding levels of bureaucracy that come with it? Is an obsession with risk likely to hold back technological developments? Doubtless this climate is good for risk managers and litigation lawyers. But is an attitude of ‘better safe than sorry’ healthy for the rest of society? In attempting to eliminate all risk, however great or small, are we in danger of social and technological paralysis?
Bill Durodié, senior lecturer in risk and corporate security, Cranfield University, UK Defence Academy
Phillip K Howard, author, The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating America (1995); chair, Common Good
Robert Killick, chief executive, cScape
Chair: James Gledhill, PhD student in political theory, London School of Economics; resources editor, Debating Matters
|
|
spiked recommends:
|
Recommended readings:
- Simon Jenkins Don’t panic – or our culture of caution will be the death of us The Sunday Times 11 June 2006
- David Runciman The Precautionary Principle
For more recommended readings please click here...
Provocation Lecture: 'Nuff respect? Questioning the 'respect' agenda
Sponsored by Generation Youth Issues, in association with the Institute of Ideas Undergraduate Forum and produced by Suzy Dean
Lecture Theatre 1, 17.45 - 18.30 on Sunday 29 October 2006
Rudeness and bad behaviour have become big issues, both in politics – with the government’s ‘respect agenda’ - and more broadly in society. Lynne Truss’ book Talk to the Hand, subtitled The Utter Bloody Rudeness of Everyday Life, for example, has become a bestseller in the UK and the US. But has society become so ‘bloody rude’, or rather have the culture of fear and the politics of behaviour created a climate within which concerns about personal behaviour and disorder have become politicised and exaggerated? The solution on offer for much of this ‘rudeness’ is to criminalise ‘antisocial behaviour’ and to develop new forms of public regulation. But can manners, civility and polite behaviour be enforced? And is the focus on the ‘The Utter Bloody Rudeness of Everyday Life’ helpful in developing a ‘pro-social’ society?
Chris Stanley, Head of Policy and Research, Nacro
Stuart Waiton, director, Generation Youth Issues
Zoe Williams, columnist, Guardian
Chair: Suzy Dean, politics student, London School of Economics
|
|
spiked recommends:
|
Recommended readings:
- Sam Knight and Agencies 'Problem' families face eviction as Tony Blair demands Respect The Times 10 January 2006
For more recommended readings please click here...
What next for...?
Produced by Philip Cunliffe
Seminar Space, 17.45 -18.30 on Sunday 29 October 2006
This session brings together a variety of Battle of Ideas speakers from other sessions to discuss a topic of immediate importance. To ensure that the most pertinent and immediate issues can be selected for discussion, the topic will be confirmed closer to the time on the Battle of Ideas website.
Chair: Philip Cunliffe, co-convenor, Sovereignty And Its Discontents working group
Speakers to be confirmed
Food for Thought in the Café: nature knows best? - the organic food debate
Sponsored by Body & Soul, the Saturday heath supplement of The Times, and produced by Justine Brian
The Café, 17.45 - 18.30 on Sunday 29 October 2006
The rising popularity of organic food is premised on the idea that it is better for human health and better for the environment. It is argued that by working with nature rather than imposing unnatural methods and substances through intensive agriculture, organic production is more sustainable. By using fewer pesticides, organic production reduces health risks and - some argue - it is more nutritious. However, ‘industrial’ food production means cheaper food, opening up the possibility of better diets for everyone, and the opportunity to devote money to other activities. Is ‘natural’ always better? Is organic food just the latest form of snobbery? Or is a return to more traditional foods and methods likely to be better for us in the long run? Join two opponents in the cafe for a final head-to-head that will provide plenty of food for thought.
Rob Lyons, writer, spiked
Robin Maynard, director of communications, Soil Association
Chair: Justine Brian, administrator, Debating Matters
|
|
spiked recommends:
|
Recommended readings:
- Lord Melchett v Peter Melchett A Green and Pleasant Use of Land? Food Illustrated 2002
For more recommended readings please click here...