On Saturday I took part in a panel discussion at the Fabian Society's annual conference, discussing David Cameron and the Conservative Party - and a very well attended session it was too: perhaps a sign that Labour have given up hope of winning the election and are shifting their attention to how they might oppose an incoming Conservative government...
The panel consisted of me, Nadine Dorries MP (pictured alongside me here), Douglas Carswell MP, Polly Toynbee and Sunder Katwala of the Fabian Society.
It was a good session with much of the banter you'd have expected with three Tories throwing themselves into the lion's den.
But the point that sticks with me is one which a Labour blogger, Paul Sagar, has blogged about here - namely a discussion about inheritance tax.
I set out my opinion (beyond the party line, of course) that inheritance tax is immoral, principally because it is a tax on money which has already been taxed as income, saving, capital gains etc.
Even more pertinent was the view I pushed that it is a tax on aspiration, given that Gordon Brown had just an hour previously delivered a speech about wanting to encourage social mobility and for people to aspire to own bigger houses.
I contested that the abolition of inheritance tax would encourage saving, self-reliance and indeed aspiration to own those bigger houses, safe in the knowledge that you could pass them on to children when you die, without the state demanding a slice. As far as I was concerned, logic dictates that the state confiscating part of the value of that bigger house is effectively a tax on aspiration.
Yet our friend Paul Sagar has branded me as "whacky" (sic) for offering this viewpoint. He also repeats the patently untrue Labour spin that current Tory policy on IHT is a "tax break for millionaires". The whole point, surely, is that under current Conservative policy it is millionaires who will still pay IHT?