So, are we entering a new age, or a period of necessary adjustment? Was the crisis caused by banking and business systems themselves, or by the control mechanisms meant to govern those systems? Has there been too much interference, or not enough?

We must confess that at Camstrat Hall, these arguments have raged around the fireside. And we suspect that one important aspect of this recession is that, as yet, no one else is too sure either.

Answers may be easier to come by when the true nature of the crisis is known. So far, we have been mistaking early symptoms for causes; the sub-prime crisis and the credit crunch was not actually the problems – just the bits of the problem that showed up first.

An issue for a later date will be, once we know what the problem really is, do we decide it is just part of a cycle - or look for new practices and systems to replace it?

Is it us, or have people been fairly slow and reluctant to allocate blame?

Of course “the bankers” have been scapegoated, but in previous recessions, the public have been willing and ready to lash out at Governments/bosses/unions, and propose alternative visions, such as socialism, monetarism, the Third Way (remember that?).

The lack of alternative ideologies is making this the most non-partisan, Blitz-spirit economic disaster we can recall.

However, Government ministers, heads of financial institutions and public sector bosses did see problems growing, and did nothing. And they have not been held accountable.

The danger in business is that once a problem reaches a certain size, it can become no-one’s fault, and depicted as inevitable. This always arises when we are short of ideas about what to do. And it can be a disaster.

Who among us hasn't been greedy and irresponsible in our working practices over the last few years? What business hasn’t divided up its operations so that no one has proper responsibility?

The truth is that when times are good, “responsibility” seems such a dull subject that ignoring it becomes fun and chic. But when the boom that doesn't exist becomes the bust that doesn't exist, “dullness” can become “wisdom”.

Is there, in essence, a genuine difference between high street gambling and investment banking?

And if your friend was a gambling addict, and needed money because all his gambling-addict friends were refusing to lend to each other, what would you do?

Periods of mass unemployment tend to have long-lasting effects on the national culture. Recession in the Seventies and Eighties left us the underclass. The 1990s slump virtually ended the job for life, and thus the paternal, institutional role of employers.

So far, the factors determining the unique feel of this crisis have instant communication and globalisation. But one question for 2009 is, what will unemployment look like in the era of mass use of agency staff, casual labour, and self-employed contracting?

In the boom it became fashionable to say that there was no longer a working class, just one huge middle class. Anyone else find this suddenly sounds unconvincing? It looks to us as if it might be more a case of a huge working class and a tiny super class.

And we could all be about to discover which side of the divide we’re on.

In previous recessions, big, loud and shiny brands have begun to look a bit hollow, just as banks do now. Plain-but-witty honesty becomes a more respected quality - hence the ironic branding of the early 1990s, the Body Shop in the 1980s, and the supermarket own-brands of the 1970s.

What will be the first post-recession brand for the 2010s? How would one begin building such a thing?

One might start with…

It would seem that respect for corporations in general has taken a knock, and that may lead to cynicism about steps corporations have taken to demonstrate responsibility and ethics. How respected will CSR and official corporate visions be when companies with CSR programmes are sacking employees, cutting pension plans and squeezing clients?

It will be worth paying attention to such things because during tough times companies with strong, effective visions can use them to avoid panic. A lived-out, taken-seriously vision will help a business be strong after recession. Being guided solely by the balance sheet can lead to serious losses in the long term, because we lose sight of what our business is really for.

Businesses can thrive in a downturn. The question we should ask ourselves is not, “how will we cope?” but “how do we act in these circumstances?” Good businesses roll with the punches. That’s what makes them good businesses.

Organisations that succeed in tough times recognise things will get harder, but begin looking for the opportunities that changing times bring. As everyone else cuts spending on new business and developing new ideas, competition in those areas decreases. Off course they also ensure they have competitively-priced, relevant products with a strong USP.

We’ll be buying shares in businesses with products that are cheap, but also sustainable and green. Being green suddenly seems a great way to make people enjoy spending less.

The lack of knee jerk, ideological bluster and blame for the recession is to be welcomed, but at the same time it can be worrying. If we accept that there can be only one version of history, then we begin to accept all sorts of bad, avoidable things as inevitable. And for a business that is a catastrophic approach, because it means we no longer to try to run the situation, but allow the situation to run us.

Perhaps the problem is that the ethical argument for deregulated capitalism was that morally-directed government had failed, and that while business could not be moral, it could at least reflect what people are.

The trouble is, we now know that doesn’t really work either. Because left to their own devices, irresponsible people lend and borrow too much money, and that ruins it for everyone else.

So, now that self-regulation, the big idea of the Third Way, has gone, what do we replace it with?

CSC would like to advance the argument not for more regulation, but for old-fashioned supervision and wisdom; no sillier an idea, surely, than letting the bankers run the country.

In the meantime, we defiantly raise our glasses of cheap sherry skywards, wish you good luck, and say sorry, but you’re all getting home-made jam for Christmas.

Happy New Era!