I can’t argue with the aims implicit in that. But articulating demands doesn’t seem to go very far – we’ve been doing it for years and the establishment is well-practised in ignoring them and undermining them.

I’ve always been a bit surprised by the way people emphasise redistribution of wealth but ignore circulation. If (hypothetically) we were to redistribute it all today, so that everyone had an equal share, but didn’t tackle the flaws in how it circulates, we’d be back to a grossly unequal world within three or four generations. By contrast, if we fix the flaws in the way wealth circulates (for example, our perverse laws of inheritance) a fair distribution could be achieved within a generation or so, without the political hurdle of explicit redistribution.

As for demanding radical democratisation of every aspect of our shared lives, we can only do that if we have a vehicle through which we can actually make that happen. In practice, I’d say that means a political party dedicated to radical reform – but whether there are enough people interested in radical reform to even get a new party off the ground … well, I’m hoping there are but I can’t say I’m very confident.

“We need a plan, a story and a vision. Because without one we can’t win.”

We do indeed. But a coherent plan for radical reform isn’t easy to come up with. I’ve been working on mine for years, and it’s still full of holes. But if anybody has a better plan I’d be interested to see it.