Unfortunately, the blog is the first thing that goes when I get swamped with work, so once again, it’s apologies for the lapse since my last post.

The big story of the weekend is the proposal to impose a windfall tax on the banks, something that is enthusiastically embraced by Labour and LibDems and “not discounted” by the Conservatives.

I argue that the Conservative leadership should tread very carefully before supporting such a move - let me explain why…

The BBC have a very sparse report on how it would operate, as the full details have yet to be announced, but the gist seems to be that all UK-based banks would be subject to the tax, either as a levy or as a special increase in employer’s National Insurance Payments.

First things first. If the tax is imposed as an NIC increase then it makes a mockery of what NICs are supposed to be for.

When the scheme was set up in 1911, it was voluntary and was then expanded under Atlee’s government in 1946. It was always meant to insure against illness, unemployment and then latterly contribute towards pensions.

Today, it is widely seen to be a tax on jobs, with little relationship between what’s paid in and what services are recouped.

If NICs are the mechanism for a windfall tax, then I would argue that this is so disingenuous, that the entire system of NICs should be revisited and reformed.

If the tax transpires to be a flat-rate increase in corporation tax, then this too, is dishonest.

Firstly, if the banks are wholly or part-owned by the Government, why not just instruct a large dividend payout rather than taxing them? If the government cannot do that as majority shareholders, then surely my arguments of last year were correct in saying that the bailouts were appallingly negotiated by the government.

Secondly, if the banks are not part-owned by the government, nor have had any taxpayer assistance, why impose the tax?

Let’s get rid of a myth here - not all banks took unnecessary risks and not all banks required help. So why should they be punished for the failures of the other establishments, when they themselves were prudent?

It would be like saying that Marks & Spencer should have to pay a windfall tax because Woolworths went under.

My third point now. Even if you agree with the concept of a windfall tax across the board to all bank that are based in the UK, why limit it only to banks?

I have long held the view that there are at least two additional groups who have got away pretty much scot-free in the current crisis. These are the auditors and the credit ratings agencies.

This tax cannot be imposed without a clear narrative on why it is being levied. The Government needs to come clean and tell the truth.

If it is because they are broke and want to raid the surpluses of the most profitable sector of the British economy, then say it and be open.

If it is to recoup some kind of restitution for taxpayer for the financial crisis, then limiting the tax to the banks makes no sense.

Fourthly, if the banks still aren’t lending because they’re worried about their cash positions and wider balance sheets, how will reducing their cash balances restore credit to the market?

Fifthly, the French have already made a play to take away the dominance of the City and Canary Wharf as Europe’s two leading financial hubs. What message is this going to send and what effect will it have on the sector, particularly if the rest the EU does not follow suit?

I cannot help but feel that a combination of the politics of envy and the Government’s financial destitution is the reason for this tax.

As Conservatives, it is our duty not to support knee-jerk politics like this without being very clear about the necessity and long-term effects of such a move.

I want Britain to come out of this recession with a stronger and more diversified economy, not as reliant on financial services. However, this means growing other sectors, not shrinking this one.

For the sake of a few votes, I would not want to see our long-term futures put at risk.