The Iranian abduction of 15 British Navy personnel last week has brought into sharp focus the daily dangers that our servicemen and women are undergoing by protecting British interests around the world. We ask so much of our armed forces and in return we spend so relatively little. Indeed, it is that apparent lack of commitment to defence spending that may have contributed to Iran’s flagrant actions last week, in that we may very well have appeared weak.

Since the taking of the 15 servicemen (including one woman), the British government has reacted with a calm firmness. So far, this approach does not appear to be bearing fruit. Today, there are further reports that the abducted Britons will be charged with espionage for having taken “an aggressive action” by “invading Iranian waters”. The ultimate penalty for this charge if convicted would be death. Now, I do not suspect that this will be the outcome, however, there is a sense that Britain alone has few options to pursue in securing the safe release of its service personnel. This state of affairs should concern us all.

I am not advocating a military solution to this situation. I am, however, suggesting that if Britain wants to continue wielding military and diplomatic strength around the world, it needs to dramatically increase its spending on conventional forces. Britain spends proportionately less of its wealth on defence than Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey. Defence spending as a percentage of the UK’s gross domestic product is at its lowest since 1930. Government figures show that 2.5 per cent of our GDP (£32 billion) was spent on defence in 2005/6 compared with 4.4 per cent in 1987/88. Our spending as a proportion of national wealth is just over half that of the USA. And this apparent lower level of funding is despite the fact that the present Labour government has presided over a big increase in operational commitments: Operation Desert Fox to destroy Saddam Hussein’s capability to produce weapons of mass destruction (1998), Kosovo (1999 – ), Sierra Leone (2000 – ), Afghanistan (2001 -) and Operation Telic in Iraq (2003 – ). The Conservative Party’s Defence Team has calculated that troop numbers have fallen from 101,360 full-time personnel in 1997 to 99,460 in 2007, while the Royal Air Force has seen offensive squadrons fall from 16 to 11, and the Navy has lost eight destroyers and six frigates. This should not be politically acceptable.

This government has been quick to place our forces in action. I would have initially supported each of the campaigns listed above, however, my support would have been qualified on the basis of a genuine government commitment to proper investment in our armed forces. Recent history teaches us that we have always compromised our defence in times of peace only to find ourselves overwhelmed by events when a war looms. Let us hope that this on-going Iranian dispute ends peacefully. However, what if it does not?

Drug addicts need help, not condemnation. They need to be understood, not locked up. It would follow, therefore, that to encourage crime amongst addicts would make little sense. Or, that is what you might think would be government policy. However, it is not.

Apparently, if a drug addict is arrested, he is entitled to immediate treatment for his addiction (that is, within 24 hours) only if the offence he has committed is NOT drug-related. Hence, if he has mugged an elderly lady, for example, he will be treated immediately. Perversely, if he is picked up in possession of a banned substance, he will have to wait up to 10 days to receive treatment. Now, I do not know why this odd situation has arisen. It is, however, indefensible. I care for some drug addicts in the Thames Valley. The last thing that these individuals need is time in prison – a place not known for preventing drug abuse.

This government, and indeed any future Conservative government, must get its drug policies right. To not do so, is socially irresponsible. All of us must recognise that drug addiction is a problem that needs to be dealt with maturely and calmly. In particular, politicians must resist the temptation to resort to empty sound-bites about being “tough on drugs”. Young people – for let us remember the majority using these drugs are under thirty years – will see through the charade of this fake toughness. Interestingly, it is these young people that all parties need to encourage to vote. Maybe if we addressed this issue appropriately (and sensibly) younger people might consider voting for us? Proper policy implementation in the realm of drugs use may lead to both better treatment of addicts and less apathy on voting day.

As with the late Russian dictator, the Chancellor’s regime has been characterised by its reliance on central planning, social engineering, suppression of debate and the annual showpiece parade – of welfare policy gimmicks rather than ballistic missiles – The Spectator (on-line)

This afternoon the Chancellor announced another tax-raising budget. The targets for his fist this year have been low earners and small business; one group in no position to pay more tax, the other the economic heart of the nation. No mention of cutting the waste in public services, such as the £500m alone spent on management consultancy fees for the NHS. No mention of the PFI contracts that essentially are mortgages on my generation’s future. And furthermore, he announced more government borrowing to pay for all of his continued largesse.

The detailed assessment of the budget, I am told, will come over the next few days. Why does a budget have to be so complicated? Why do low-income families have to pay more tax up front and then go through the laborious procedure of reclaiming it via a tax credits system? Would it not be better to remove these people entirely from the income tax system in the first place? Or, would that result in the state having to employ less people to administer the tax system? This Chancellor appears to love complexity, particularly when it creates more public-sector jobs.

A reduction in Corporation tax is welcome. An increase in defence spending, though undeniably rather late in the day, is also to be congratulated. But that is about it on the positive side. To have headlined with a reduction in the basic income tax rate and then proceed to claw the money back by removing the 10% rate is a cynical ploy. Furthermore, to increase tax on small business is quite simply stupid. Small business plays a major part in the British economy, both in terms of revenue generation and job creation. To hamper small business success is to hamper British economic success. And finally, he made no mention of the dramatic increases in council taxation rates over the last ten years. The total tax take in this country is now at an historic high.

Yet again, we have been privy to a political sleight of hand. The Chancellor is an unreformed, centralising Old Labour politician. Today’s budget is a ‘con’. It is more about pleasing his back benches (particularly those members in the South of England with wafer-thin majorities) than about improving this country’s economic position. If Comrade Gordon can deliver such a misleading representation of his economic performance as Chancellor, what sort of Prime Minister will he make?

Polly Toynbee’s column in the Guardian today is a typical rant about uncaring Conservatives cutting local services to the poor. She also took time to restate her support for Gordon Brown, remarkably claiming that he had achieved his economic ‘golden rule’ thoughout his tenure, “with only minor goal-post shunting”!

I try to read Ms Toynbee’s political rants as often as possible, if only to reaffirm my belief that it is the centre right of politics that truly (and honestly) serves the interests of all Britons. Ms Toynbee’s target today was the honourable endeavour of Conservative-run councils to lessen the burden of local taxation, a burden shared by the great majority. I have written on the subject of council tax previously. Ms Toynbee attacked the desire to lower taxes as being indefensible, since in her eyes, any cut in tax would lead to a cut in essential services, citing examples from Hammersmith and Croydon.

According to Polly, the Conservatives do not care for the poor, disabled and elderly. In Polly’s world, caring equates to state spending, even though the last ten years have given us all ample evidence of the ineffectiveness of state intervention, e.g. the NHS, reduced social mobility, etc.. What actually works are policies that encourage and support personal responsibility and local activism. Many Conservative Party members are actively involved in local charities and are members of school boards. It is this community participation that effects real change in communities and provides the service and care that Ms Toynbee so wants for the poor and disadvantaged. Just because the money (and time) comes from individuals, as opposed to the state, does not make it any less worthy.

I could accept Ms Toynbee’s constant rants against Conservatism if she practised what she preached. Like her, I was educated at a selective school. Like her, if I had children, I might choose a private education for them. And what is more, if I had the personal wealth to afford a second home in the Mediterranean like Ms Toynbee, I might very well choose to own one. The difference is that I am member of a political party that encourages that choice. I am a member of a party that truly believes in rewarding merit, and one that honestly accepts that because of the inherent competition between people, that there will always be winners and losers in life. That honesty also explains why we Conservatives believe that lowering the tax burden on the poorest and less successful in society is a moral good. Hence, my support for any council that lowers local taxation.

Ms Toynbee is clearly a hypocrite. She does, however, serve one purpose – to highlight the need for the Conservative Party to be actively seeking policies that will benefit the less well-off in our country. Conservatives have a moral duty to create a society in which these people can live securely, safe in the belief that with hard work and talent, rich rewards will follow. If a future Conservative government sets about improving social mobility levels, it will have gone a long way to proving that the poor in society will always be better off under a Conservative administration. The Labour Party’s raison d’etre will have then been removed. Where will you go then Ms Toynbee? Your villa?