For only the third time in my life (I am 47) I perceive a shift in the tectonic plates of British politics.

The first culminated in the general election of 1979 when the effect of 30 years of centralised economic control had brought the country to its knees. The central point at that stage was that the socialist economic model simply did not work, it failed to do what it said on the can (as, indeed, has been the case in every country which has adopted it before or since).

It was inevitable that: (i) it would take time to turn the ship around and, sadly, (ii) it would cause a great deal of pain to many people whose livelihoods depended on the bankrupt state industries.

Once the ship had been turned and the economy had been placed on a sensible free-market basis the argument shifted. Instead of "how should the economy be controlled?" the question became "what should be the consequences of a free-market economy?".

I believe firmly that most people have a great sense of fairness and that this gives the answer to that question.

A vast number of people (I would suggest the majority of the voting public) work hard, live honest lives and expect decent health and education provision for themselves and their families.

They do not have the means to pay for private schooling nor to pay for all the medical care their families need; but they expect, with justification, that payment of one-third or more of their income in taxes should result in schools and hospitals of a reasonable standard. They do not expect or ask for Eton and St Bartholemew's at the end of every road, simply for a reasonable standard of provision. That is the fair result of the taxes they pay, particularly when the economy is on a sound footing.

Nothing causes discontent more than a sense that we are not being treated fairly and by 1997 there was a sense of unfairness in the way the new economy was treating the majority.

Mr Blair's great skill was in identifying this and playing to it in everything he said. Even I, as a fervent supporter of the changes to the structure of the economy made since 1979, wavered in the polling booth in 1997.

The third shift in the tectonic plates is occurring now and I believe a sense of unfairness in the way the government is acting is again at the heart of the change.

This time it is not just a sense that the overall wealth of the country should be able to provide better education and health care, it goes much deeper.

On the economic front: hitting the successful with punitive taxes is economically nonsensical, but more importantly it is seen as unfair by the vast majority of people in this country. Taxing those on low and middle incomes in the name of improved public services and then increasing the effectiveness of those services in tiny proportion to the increase in taxation is seen as unfair. Increasing council taxes by double the rate of inflation and then cutting back on the single most important service – refuse collection – is seen as unfair. Taxing those on low incomes and then requiring them to fill out complex forms in order to claim some of that tax back is seen as unfair.

There are many more examples of unfairness relating to tax but I believe the feeling that we are not being treated fairly involves much more than tax.

The whole "regulation" ethos gives the impression that teachers, doctors, nurses, police officers, fire fighters and so many others cannot be trusted to perform their difficult work to a proper standard without the government looking over them all the time. The few bad ones might be discovered (although there is greater control from peer-pressure than from government threats), but all feel threatened all the time. It is unfair.

My contribution is already too long, so I will get to my central point.

I believe that the issue of greatest concern after 11 years of the current government is the need to treat everyone fairly and, in particular, to ensure that those who are most badly affected by inflation are treated fairly.

Get the hard working people on modest wages out of income tax and then get more of them out of income tax. When there is capacity to reduce higher rates of income tax, increase the lowest threshold again and again and again. Reward honest hard work, reward those for whom an extra £10 a week makes a real difference.

Allow those caught in the benefit trap to escape that trap in the knowledge that working will make a significant difference to their lives.

Since 1997, the amount raised by income tax went up 80 per cent, council tax payments rose by 100 per cent, and inheritance tax demands were up 137 per cent.

All this cash allowed Labour to go on an unprecedented spending spree. Between 1997 and 2007, Gordon Brown spent an extra £1trillion of our money on schools, hospitals, pensions, the police and social services.

We can pledge to ease the burden on the family finances by closing down many of the QUANGO’s that cost a bomb while just duplicating pointless work & providing work to talentless jobsworths who mainly support Labour and ploughing the money into raising the basic personal allowance to say £12,000 p/a . £12,000 p/a is a pittance compared to what MP’s get in expenses & it is disgusting that lower paid people & struggling folk in the middle have to pay too much tax to fund tax credits that destroy the lives of the working poor & a wasteful QUANGO state .

There is now no excuse for the Tories not heeding the anger of the electorate & offeing a remedy to the disgraceful Brownite waste that causes the high taxes blighting our economic prospects as a nation . A landslide awaits if we pledge spending cuts to fund protecting people who have paid too much tax and who cannot afford it . Faster GDP growth & more social mobility are not a bad idea after all…..

Recent conversations along the lines of "I've always voted Labour. Torries are Toffs."

My reply is always the same "yes mate, but your being fleeced"