I think most people these days are a little cynical about green taxes. Isn’t it true, they say, that green taxes are about revenue rather than behaviour? Isn’t it true that outside of London there is no viable alternative to private transport? And isn’t it true that a tax meant to disincentivise a behaviour, in the absence of an alternative, serves only to hurt the lower and middle earners?

Well Osborne’s solution is to create price stability — ensure the effective price of oil maintains a certain level and there will be a realistic chance of people investing in alternatives. Make long-term guarantees about the minimum level of landfill tax and then companies can be sure that it is worth investing in making money out of the situation.

While we would all like to believe that people and companies do the right thing because it’s the right thing, there’s absolutely no harm in allowing companies to profit from environmentally friendly practices. Even though there are arguments about the ‘green-ness’ of the Toyota Prius, no-one can claim it has been bad for the Toyota company.

Our current government announces things at pre-budget report stage and if they’re unpopular, changes its mind on the day of the budget. Osborne and co. have promised that there won’t be a raft of surprise new measures on the day of the budget which will allow companies and early-adopter consumers to know that their purchases and money-making exercises are going to have a sound-business case in five years time.

Like social welfare and the NHS, the Conservatives have taken the lead on another policy area — environmental realism.

So I am pleased to pass on this golden nugget of logic from Cameron’s leading team member:

We need to increase the supply of new housing – and that means increasing the supply of land available for development. Labour Ministers say the same thing.

“But their approach is almost tailor-made to ensure that it does not happen, because it sets out to antagonize local communities instead of working with them.

“The whole process starts with huge regional housing targets announced by Ministers. These targets are then handed down to unelected, unaccountable and unwanted regional assemblies and regional housing boards to impose on local authorities.

“I propose a totally different approach. Instead of working against local communities, let us work with them. Instead of trying unsuccessfully to use sticks, let us use carrots.

“In urban areas we need to show how new housing does not just mean yuppie flats in the city centre, but can also provide the key to much needed regeneration to our neglected suburbs.

Of course.

Take the Peers for Cash debacle: Channel 4 news were unable to obtain a Government minister to make a fool of themselves but the Conservatives were more than happy to be interviewed. Sadly the only thing either the interviewer or the interviewee could talk about was that the Conservatives, rightly in my opinion, wouldn’t name the anonymous people who gave loans to the party for the 2005 election campaign.

We have all understood that policies should be carefully considered and thought-through, but that’s exactly what Hague, IDS and Howard said. The real truth is that, while the mood-music grows the audience for Conservative policy, it takes a long time to tell people what your policies are and to convince a sceptical public that they’re right.

If we approach the next election with only six months of public exposure of our policies (as we did last time) then we can expect to be trounced again. Cameron’s Conservatives should act like a government-in-waiting declaring (bravely) their policies and, when public debate dictates, amending said policies.

As each policy decision made by Labour comes up, Cameron can publicly state (and clearly advertise on the website) what their alternative decision would be. By the time of the next election the Conservatives can tell people just exactly what the difference between Conservative-run and Labour-run England is.

Given the time of exposure to the policies, the interviewees will be able to answer, rather than avoid questions (as I am told Osborne did with Mr Paxman last night). Given that I believe Conservative principles and economic-ideology are superior we will be able to show the public of all parts of the United Kingdom what the advantages of Conservativism are.

The alternative is to continually respond to questions of principle with “Wait and see” and continue to sound like we have no basis for our opinions and policies.