The latest example of the mendacity of Mr Brown’s team is, I suspect, the final nail in the Prime Minister’s political coffin. My fear though, is that it will not be the British electorate who will have the pleasure of removing him from office. With evidence increasing daily of the public’s disaffection with the Brown administration, it will more likely be the Labour Party itself who rids British politics of the dour one. And this is the problem for the Conservative Party at the moment. It goes without saying that the sooner Mr Brown goes the better off everyone will be; however, if he is removed after the Euro elections by his Parliamentary colleagues, then there is a possibility that the Labour Party can mitigate its electoral losses at the next General Election. That is why Alan Milburn and Charles Clarke have been to the fore in today’s media. They both sense that Mr Brown’s days may be numbered. What price Milburn (or the one that he anoints) as the next Prime Minister of this country?

With the recent spate of so-called ‘regulatory failures’ in the public sector, from the dreadful case of the Mid-Staffordshire hospital, through the harrowing case of Baby P in Haringey, to the national economic disaster overseen by Mr Brown’s tripartite regime, it appears easy for ‘informed commentators’ to now call for more regulation. This appears all too simple for me. Having worked within the NHS for a decade, the one thing I have learnt is that good management has more to do with having good people in place rather than more regulations.

To take the Staffordshire Hospital case for starters, there were three authorities with regulatory responsibilities to guarantee that proper healthcare standards were maintained – Healthcare Commission, PCT, Hospital Trust. Seemingly, they all failed.

In the appalling case of Baby P, despite repeated warnings about the threat to that pitiful child, social services, and by default the Labour council, failed to protect him.

And finally, the on-going banking crisis was overseen by the Bank of England, the Financial Services Authority and the Treasury. Judging by the state of the books, it’s fair to say they also all failed.

My first question in each case would be: which individual(s) failed in his (her) job? My second question in each would be: who should pick up the bill for the disasters that ensued? And my final question would be: were they ‘good’ enough to do their job in the first place?

Without doubt the next Conservative government has a pretty dreadful inheritance to look forward to next year. If it was just about spending (AND saving) money, the challenge would be large, but not insurmountable. My fear is that it is more to do with people and the culture that exists within large swathes of the public sector. How many of the people employed to be regulators in the three examples I have mentioned have remained in post? How many of them have been financially penalised for failing to do their jobs properly? I suspect very few in each case, if any. And that’s the challenge we Conservatives face. To make significant changes to improve the working culture of these regulatory authorities will take a real strength of purpose and significant political will. I expect that it will involve removing (in effect, sacking) quite a few senior public sector employees. I just hope that the British people, rather like in 1979, realise the tough job at hand and give David Cameron a strong mandate to sort out this dreadful mess. For he will need all of the political capital he can muster. Our country now needs talented people able to implement effective regulations, not average people failing to implement unnecessary regulations.

Semi-urbanites like me who enjoy visiting the countryside, particularly 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, sanction financial support for the protection of the English countryside in the short to medium term, if it meant it would have a secure future for generations to come.