I don’t think the right is wedded to those ideas. I think regardless of their original ideology, ruling parties come to regard them as useful, because they are good for getting by day-to-day and people keep stuffing money into their pockets* in return for following those policies.

*Obviously not usually directly anymore, but through understandings of good employment options for their friends and themselves later on

I’m an idealist – I still support the fundamentals of what Blair – initially (prior to 2003) – stood for.

I *still* consider Robin Cook a model for future foreign secretaries. I support the move to improve equality for gay people. And, having gone to a state school under Thatcher, I know that education improved under New Labour.

iI can understand you cheating on your wife, as you live in Estonia.

I did. Twice.

I also cheated on my [then] wife, which I’m also regretful of.

Any more personal regrets you wish to highlight?

So, Aaron, you never voted for Blair?

Now I’m not arguing for Keynsian policies (I’m talking about investment based on demonstrated returns, not public investment for employment generation), but history dictates that wealth generation was much higher when Western economies were practising Keynsian economics.

Wealth disparity has also grown in the modern, post-Milton Friedman, age.

Stating it doesn’t work, without demonstrating your reasoning, is weak.

Robert Skidelsky ::

But if we look at the historical record, the liberal regime of the 1950s and 1960s was more successful than the conservative regime that followed. Outside China and India, whose economic potential was unleashed by market economics [yet is wedded to central control and public investment projects], economic growth was faster and much more stable in the Keynesian golden age than in the age of Friedman; its fruits were more equitably distributed; social cohesion and moral habits better maintained. These are serious benefits to weigh against some business sluggishness.

Did I miss a memo? Is Ken Clarke in charge now?

I wouldn’t vote for Cameron. He’s an empty suit – a vapid populist, whose political positions are framed by the national mood. He has no ideology or apparent intellectual prowess.

Are you referring to subsidising new forms of energy?

If political parties wish to use public funds to directly fund investment in alternative energy needs, then they should run on this platform, and if elected, do so. But any technologies developed using tax-payers money, should be the property of (bar any relevant private investment returns), the taxpayer – meaning any spending is revenue neutral or better.

I would have liked to have seen an investigation into the nationalisation of Rover, with the emphasis in – working with someone like Toyota or Honda – new engine technologies. A percentage of any new patents would be the property of the British people, meaning that we could own very profitable technology.

We could also take into account any improvements to our trade balance – if we go onto import less oil as a result.

Public investment can be profitable (hell, major Western cities are often using public funds to generate wealth), if it’s managed well and financially robust.

So Thatcher was right? What about subsidies in World threatened by global warming and over-population?

Errr. What about liberal/lefties who don’t believe in big government, like me?

The thing is, I also reject subsidies, protectionism and other forms of crony capitalism that the right (in practice *winks*) seems so wedded to.

No, people just don’t make this kind of calculation, and couldn’t if they wanted to. Who knows what the balance between future tax cuts and public spending cuts might be, or over what time scale they might happen, or which taxes or areas of public spending might be affected?