Semi-urbanites like me who enjoy visiting the countryside, particular those areas of outstanding natural beauty such as that found in Northumberland, Cumbria and the Yorkshire Dales, are often ignorant of the reality of how such stunning rural landscapes are protected and nurtured. After the Second World War, it was widely accepted that certain parts of the British countryside needed protection, not just for those people who visited for holidays from urban areas, but more importantly, to secure the nation’s rural economy. Many small farmers, particularly those in upland areas, struggle to make their businesses a success. As a free marketeer at heart, I would admit that for the government to step in to subsidise these small farming businesses would be anathema to me, however, I have recently been persuaded by farming friends that for the free market to exist in sheep farming, in particular, all of the players in the global field (so to speak!) need to be playing by the same rules. And this is where it comes becomes more complicated. Standards of animal husbandry in this country are rightly of great importance. The problem is, however, that it comes at a financial cost to the farmer. In other parts of the world, animal welfare practices are less stringent, of a lower standard, and consequently, cost less. Hence, the British farmer looks after his livestock ‘better’ but, therefore, cannot compete with the lower prices from abroad. Of particular frustration to the British farmer is that if cheap meat was all that was imported from abroad it would be just annoying. For infectious diseases such as ‘foot and mouth’ to come in as well, puts ‘salt in the wound’ (I gather that Brazil is thought to be the likely original source country for the F&M outbreak in Heddon-on-the-Wall in 2001).

Clearly, even if there was a level playing field, small upland sheep farmers would still struggle to make a profit in competition with large sheep operations in New Zealand. It then becomes more of an issue about calculating the additional income that the ‘classic rural landscape’ of upland England brings to the tourist trade. For it is in tourism that the rural economy now has such a great investment and in which the security of its long-term, economic viability resides. Helping create such a viable future for the rural economy of England is a challenge that all politicians should meet. I would be very happy to defend and, where necessary, financially support the protection of the English countryside in the medium term, if it meant it would have a secure future for future generations to enjoy.

Every part of England has different healthcare needs. The demographics of each region can vary significantly, both in ethnicity and age. Any doctor will tell you that different social groups need different types of healthcare provision. Experience tells us that there is no ‘one size fits all’ system that will work for a country as diverse as England. Being a GP locum who works in both affluent and socially-deprived areas, I know too well that local clinical priorities need to reflect these differences. And this is the rub for the old Labour party. For those Socialists who aspire to deliver an ideologically-driven, uniform healthcare service are missing a key point: that it does not allow for human behaviour. With increasing local control over healthcare services becoming the political mantra, there will come regional differences in the provision of care. Local people will want local health services to suit them, not a set of centrally-imposed, national guidelines. In semi-rural communities, such as those served by the new Hexham hospital (pictured above), an older population will want a greater emphasis placed upon rehabilitation and elderly medicine. In contrast, an urban centre such as Slough, where I often work, would demand a proportionately greater spend on drug and alcohol addiction and those conditions more associated with the relatively large ethnic minority populations. So, yes there will be differences in healthcare provision throughout England. Detractors will call it a ‘postcode lottery’. Supporters, such as myself, will argue that until local people take ownership of their own individual health and play an active role in determining the health services offered locally, the health of the nation as a whole will not improve. For I believe that taking responsibility on every level is the key to good health. I already accept that if I am selected as a Parliamentary candidate, one of my many responsibilities would be to campaign hard to deliver and protect those healthcare services most needed by the community I represented. My impression is that it will not be long before we are all referring to our LHS (Local Health Service) not the NHS.