Tory party policymakers who had harboured hopes of packing themselves off for carefree annual holidays, had better think again. Their breaks in the sun in the high summer of 1996 are certain to be overshadowed by increased pressure on the Government to step up its efforts to convince the populace that the "feel-good factor" is being revived. Thus John Major's advisers can expect to pack their laptops alongside their buckets and spades as the need to bribe the electorate goes onto the autumn agenda. An issue which will loom large in their deliberations is the Budget which, although four months away, is already taxing the minds of the liquor and tobacco industries. Uppermost, of course, is the usual plea for duty issues to go top of the Chancellor's priority list as cross-border shopping strangles the UK's drinks trade and some #620 million is lost in annual tobacco revenue. But, this time Ken Clarke's decision-making process will create an even larger headache at Number 11. On the one hand, two hard-pressed sectors are urging him to save their livelihoods - not to mention hundreds of jobs - by making large concessions. On the other, there is the need to appease the anti-alcohol lobby which is quick to spotlight the social difficulties caused by alcohol abuse. Add the looming General Election and you have the size of our Ken's dilemma. Although earlier it was assumed the Budget would contain the traditional bag of pre-election goodies, recent Treasury utterances have suggested otherwise. However, some prefer to believe the stern warnings are merely further examples of news management, causing the worst to appear in our minds before pleasant surprises in November. In 1995, the Chancellor acknowledged the threat from cheaper duties across the Channel when he froze the levels on beer, wine and hand rolling tobacco and cut those on spirits. There is a view that the hard-pressed drinks and tobacco sectors have a stronger case. With the pressures higher this year, can he really afford to ignore the pleas?