Richard House [RH]: Alan, I remember in the 1970s how Keith Joseph quite deliberately set out to drag the centre-ground of politics rightwards — and to the great cost of the many, Joseph, Hayek, Thatcher, Reagan and co succeeded. I’m wondering whether Jeremy Corbyn’s great historical counter-legacy could be to drag the centre-ground to where we now realise it belongs — ie in understanding how capitalism is destroying our precious environment and global ecosystem, and how politics must now urgently facilitate a deep, successful caring for our planet. Do you see this as an accurate and useful framing for, and backdrop to, Labour’s forthcoming electoral offer?

Alan Simpson [AS]: Labour’s biggest challenge is the existential threat that stares us in the face. Our economic system is broken. If we’re not careful it will break us all too. Everyone through from Hayek and Thatcher to Johnson and Trump carries some of the blame. What the left must do is write a different economics of tomorrow. Taxing the richest and redistributing wealth is no longer enough. Chasing “growth” economics will only accelerate ecological collapse. Climate physics (as well as Extinction Rebellion and Schools Climate Protesters) are telling us we have 10 years in which to deliver a complete systems change; the shift into a much more circular economics. My worry is that if this isn’t what Labour offers the electorate, we won’t capture the votes of those who know that rapid and radical transformation is the only choice we have.

RH: That’s a resoundingly clear clarion-call, Alan. Before picking up on the detail of this rich prospectus, an expedient question immediately arises. Within the realpolitik of our electoral system, can a policy offer of this nature be framed in such a way as to convince sufficient a number of voters to get Labour into power under first-past-the-post? — especially when complacent, pro-capitalist Tories and their friendly media will no doubt do all they can to distract voters from the brute realities of possible collapse.