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?

Yesterday evening on Radio 4, The World in a Briefcase told another story illustrating the brilliance of British scientific research. In 1940, a team of British scientists left these shores carrying information about a number of British scientific discoveries. Their destination was the USA. In return for this valuable information, the Americans were to supply financial and industrial help to us to fight the Nazis. One of the inventions, the cavity magnetron, has since been described by military historians as one “that changed the world”.

The cavity magnetron (pictured above) was developed by John Turton Randall and Harry Boot at Birmingham University. It was the first practical device for producing microwaves. It allowed for the development of radars that could produce clear images of distant objects. These devices were then to be placed on ships and airplanes. Their widespread use clearly played a decisive part in the outcome of World War II. The device was also the ancestor of the microwave owen beloved by most of us today.

I mention this story as it illustrates the power of ideas and inventions. The British have a proud history of innovation. That innovative prowess is dependent upon an education system that discovers, nurtures and financially supports the great thinkers of each generation. Britain’s position in the global order will not be maintained by concentrating solely upon services and what we have left of a manufacturing base. It will be supported by continuing to compete in idea development. It is consequently in the interest of all Britons that our education system finds and educates the brightest to their full potential. The success of these men and women may very well underpin the future British economy. Without a vibrant, competitive economy we can forget about more hospitals, prisons and schools. I believe that discovering and nurturing talent is the key to future British economic success.

And I want farmers and all those interested in the countryside to know that I care passionately about its future and success. – David Cameron

Yesterday, David Cameron spoke at the Oxford Farming Conference. He rightly highlighted the importance of the role of farmers in the maintenance of the English countryside. Today, Clive Aslet wrote an interesting article in the Telegraph, indicating what he thinks a future government needs to do to address the lack of confidence in the rural community.

The future of the rural economy is not any easy political subject. The majority of Britons only interact with the countryside for rest and relaxation. Consequently, few of them can be expected to have any real understanding of the daily challenges facing those who work within the rural economy. They do, however, all have the right to vote.

In the last decade, the Labour government has nakedly displayed the politics of envy. They have allowed poorly-drafted anti-hunting legislation to be passed, created the debacle of the rural payments agency and ineptly overseen the management and ramifications of both BSE and foot & mouth crises. All of these events have understandably contributed to a sense of impending doom within rural communities.

The political difficulty is that the metropolitan elite that controls the Labour Party runs the country. They have never hidden their distaste for ‘country people’. They do so knowing that their Parliamentary majority is hardly touched by offending country people. For example, major strategic planning decisions have often ridden roughshod over the wishes of those who have lived in the countryside for decades. Their disregard for rural heritage and contempt for the wishes of the country-dwelling minority, however, belies their ignorance of our need as a nation to have a long-term sustainable rural economy.

For rural concerns to be heard and addressed we need a Conservative government. That Conservative government must, however, be consistent and fair in its policy-making. Consistent in supporting subsidy-free industry and guarding against monopoly abuse. And fair in the application of government legislation in the countryside. In yesterday’s speech, David Cameron called for a “paradigm shift”. He emphasised the need for the farming industry to serve the customer: to build value instead of volume. He also, just as importantly, indicated his determination to deal with the supermarkets abusing their monopoly position. By stating these two goals, David Cameron is seen to be sympathetic to both farmers and customers. It is a political direction that is right for the long-term health of the rural economy, and one that I wholeheartedly support.

I work as a GP locum throughout the Thames Valley. Hence, I visit more than one practice. A colleague of mine in one such practice grabbed me today to express his disgust at being asked to distribute copies of a leaflet detailing the Chancellor’s recent Pre-Budget Report. Apparently, every GP to his knowledge had been sent a batch of these leaflets to be handed out in the waiting room. He informed me that this had also been the case for the last few budgets. He deeply resented his practice being used to spread political (dis)information.

So, here we have a clear example of this government taking every opportunity to spread its own interpretation of the state of the British economy. And more importantly, to charge us for the pleasure of receiving this party political literature. The leaflet is noted as being from Her Majesty’s Treasury, however, on closer inspection one sees the following headings:

• Investing in Britain’s potential
• Maintaining a stable economy (no mention of borrowing requirement being higher than expected for this year)
• Delivering high employment (?trend in recent years)
• Building a fairer society (?social mobility trend)

All rather New Labour, I think. The audacity of this approach is remarkable – vulnerable patients being hit with party political literature which they have had no choice but to pay for!

Yesterday, Gordon Brown wore a green cloak. The cloak yet again of a magician. Many times the Chancellor has managed to produce a Budget or Pre-Budget report that glosses over the economic reality and highlights his particular chosen policy areas. Education was chosen again to benefit from his (our) largesse. Emphasising the importance of education will attract no criticism from me. However, his claim to have responded to the widespread concern about climate change was pretty lame. He justified his claim to being a born-again environmentalist by raising ‘green’ taxes by 0.1% of GDP. Hardly inspiring stuff. Indeed, the idea that such a small increase was going to affect real change in people’s travelling behaviour is laughable, if it was not so serious. I do accept that Britain alone addressing CO2 emissions will only make a small impact on climate change, however, taking a lead on this issue would have served to encourage our neighbours and, in particular, China to start addressing the issue now.

The problem is that climate change is not such a clear and present danger to the British. It is, however, very much one for the people of Bangladesh. Precariously perched beside the Bay of Bengal, many Bangladeshis will have to deal with the ramifications of climate change due to rising sea levels within our lifetimes. Today in the Guardian, Veena Khaleque writes eloquently on the subject. She recognises the responsibilities that Bangladesh has but argues rightly, I feel, for the international community to urgently address the consequences of climate change. Arguments still rage about the degree to which climate change is the responsibility of man’s behaviour. The responses to the Stern Report have admittedly been mixed. There appears little doubt, however, that we in the developed world, by our behaviour, have contributed to the increase in sea levels. Consequently, we have a moral duty to implement effective policies now.