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.

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.

Over ten years I have watched energy policy go from being a relatively quiet backwater to something taking on a strategic importance that could be as crucial to our country’s future as defence.

– Tony Blair

In today’s Times, the Prime Minister argues the case for a new energy plan. It is a persuasive case. What is clear is that Britain’s future energy security has become a major issue. Indeed, I believe that energy security has become the single most important strategic challenge for the British government. Get it wrong, and we can all kiss goodbye to long-term prosperity and influence in the world.

Putting the debate on climate change to one side, for me the key question is how Britain can move towards energy independence. If one looks at a table of ownership of known oil reserves, only one country in the top ten is a stable democracy – Canada. Gas reserve ownership is little better, with only the USA featuring. Clearly, Britain needs to start now to make plans for more energy independence as The Middle East and the former Soviet Union are hardly showing signs of imminent stable democracy. In particular, Russia has recently shown an intent to use energy supply as an instrument to bully its neighbours (and the rest of the world). Britain needs to build immunity to such intimidatory tactics.

Building nuclear power station should be part of our plan for energy independence. In contrast to hydrococarbons, uranium supplies come predominantly from stable democracies that are close friends of Britain. Canada is the world’s leading uranium producer, accounting for a third of global production and 15% of global reserves. Australia is the next largest producer, with one quarter of global production and 27% of global reserves. Our relationships with both countries are strong. We once lead the way in nuclear energy technology and hence I see no reason why we cannot do so again.

It is a tough decision to commission more nuclear power stations. Hard choices are what being in government is all about. There are undeniably issues regards cost and the disposal of nuclear waste. I believe, however, that these understandable concerns are more than outweighed by the strategic benefits of ‘owning’ our own power supplies. Clearly, we must concentrate on renewable energy resources and furthermore, address the amount of energy that each Briton uses. However, to rely on those two approaches alone would still leave Britain exposed to the vagaries of global politics. I would rather have nuclear power stations than ‘go cap in hand’ to despots and autocrats.

The mission of the modern Conservative Party is to improve the quality of life for everyone, and local councils have a leading role to play in doing just that…

Our message is simple: Vote Blue, Go Green

Tomorrow’s local elections are being seen by the media and political parties as an important guide to the state of play in British politics. It is widely expected that the Labour Party will get somewhat of an electoral kicking. Indeed, I think it has been a rather good Labour tactic to pre-announce the Prime Minister’s departure – i.e. Brown’s arrival at No. 10 becomes the story, not the Labour losses. For the Conservatives, however, particularly in the South of England, the Liberal Democrats’ performance will be more closely analysed. Traditionally, the Liberals are disproportionately represented in local elections. My local district council, for example, is Lib Dem-controlled (Windsor & Maidenhead), and yet, there is not a Liberal Democrat MP in Berkshire (or Buckinghamshire). For it is the Liberal target seats that are most likely to be the toughest for us Tories to win back. And one of the main issues for residents’ in these seats will be the environment, not in a narrow ‘climate change’ way, more likely, it will encompass the broad concept of ‘quality of life’.

Since being elected as Conservative leader, David Cameron has, as promised, concentrated strongly on a ‘Quality of Life’ theme. This, he has argued, includes not just environmental issues but also effective policing and more policies to support the family. He has also highlighted links between grime and crime, emphasising that cleaner streets lead to reductions in crime and less anti social behaviour. He has promised policies in the future to deal effectively with these problems.

Before waiting for the next General Election, however, local Conservative Councillors have followed their leader’s direction. Up and down the country, Conservative Councils have been introducing locally-determined policies to improve residents’ living environment. Interestingly, of the top ten councils for recycling and composting in England, six are Conservative-controlled, none are Liberal Democrat or Labour controlled. In Conservative-controlled Hampshire, for example, Project Integra, a partnership between local authorities and a private waste contractor, has successfully provided an integrated solution to Hampshire’s waste management. As a result of this ground-breaking partnership, Hampshire now has some of the best waste infrastructure in the UK. Furthermore, local Conservative councillors have set themselves a target of a 50% recycling rate for the county by the year 2010. I believe it is this local concentration on effective, quality of life policies that will in the longer term reap electoral benefits for the Conservatives at a General Election.

By coincidence, Hampshire hosts quite a few Liberal Democrat-Conservative marginal seats. Portsmouth South, Winchester, Meon Valley (notional Tory marginal), Romsey & Portsmouth North and Eastleigh will all return to the Tory fold, if we can achieve a 7.5% swing at the next General Election. Indeed, if they do all return, then the entire County (with the exception of Southampton) will have become Conservative. Not only would that be good news for Hampshire residents and the Conservative Party, it would be catastrophic for the Liberal Democrats. For not only would they lose a strong foothold in Southern England, they would also lose one of their effective communicators, Chris Huhne. Ironically, by concentrating on the environmental issues, the Conservatives could very well guarantee the removal of the Liberal Democrats’ Environment Spokesman. Now there’s an incentive.

MALLORY
And we went to the moon. Do we really have to go to Mars?
SAM
Yes.
MALLORY
Why?
SAM
‘Cause it’s next. For we came out of the cave, and we looked over the hill, and we saw fire. And we crossed the ocean, and we pioneered the West, and we took to the sky. The history of man is hung on the timeline of exploration, and this is what’s next.

(West Wing II, Ep. 9)

The release yesterday of more stunning photographs of the surface of Mars reminds us once more of the relative insignificance of Earth. On a day when concerts to highlight the realities of climate change are announced, we must remember that Man has yet to set foot on another planet. Furthermore, the scientific endeavour and bravery of those previous generations who dared to contemplate space travel now allows us to look at our Earth from afar, to fully realise the damage we humans are doing to the global environment.

Man is nothing without endeavour. I have written previously on the importance of science. The desire to travel and discover contributes greatly to what makes us all human. For me space travel is truly inspirational. I firmly disagree with those people who think space exploration is too higher a cost to pay. For example, there are undeniably many hungry people in the world. However, I do not believe their plight has been exacerbated by Man going into space. Indeed, if we take the example of Bangladesh, one can see that Man’s ability to see the coastal erosion has vividly illustrated the urgent need to address climate change. The exploration of Space has benefitted the human race.

Man should be about pushing back frontiers. We should be about seeking new knowledge. It is for that reason that the absence of Britain at the forefront of Space exploration has always puzzled me. The ‘Great’ of Great Britain was established on the back of exploration and technological advance. It was because we went to new places first that we established an Empire. It was because we had the first industrial revolution known to Man that we became so powerful. That revolution was firmly based upon inventions such as the combustion engine, and our confidence to take on the next challenge. When did we lose the desire to be first?

Britain should make a firm commitment to explore Space. Public and private funds should be made available to put Britain back at the front of human exploration. Obviously, I recognise that we are no longer a superpower, however, that is no excuse. We should be joining with our international friends in the pursuit of putting man further into Space. So where should we go now? It has to be a planet, so therefore, it has to be Mars. Why Mars? Well, as Sam Seaborn said in my favourite political TV drama, “‘Cause it’s next”.

The WHO Roll Back Malaria partnership was founded in 1998. Its programme is planned to last the first decade of this century. Today’s announcement by George Osborne to allocate £500 million annually to fight malaria in Africa indicates the Conservative Party’s genuine commitment to both support this programme and international development in general. An economically successful Africa is a goal worth striving for. It would benefit not only Africans, but also the wider world.

The annual economic cost of malaria in Africa has been estimated to be more than US$ 12 billion in lost GDP. The frustration is that the disease could be controlled for much less than that. If the world community is serious about fighting world poverty, in particular within Africa, it must be serious about fighting malaria. It is a disease that causes, and is of, poverty. Annual economic growth in countries with high malaria transmission has been historically lower than in countries without the disease. Economists believe that in some sub-Saharan countries malaria leads to a growth penalty of over 1% per year¹.

Malaria is a preventable and curable disease. Despite this knowledge it kills more than one million people each year. The great majority of those deaths are to vulnerable African children. Wealthy Western governments share a moral responsibility to deal with this infectious disease promptly. Not only because it is needlessly killing Africans, but with on-going climate change, it may very well become our health problem soon.

And I want farmers and all those interested in the countryside to know that I care passionately about its future and success.

– David Cameron

Yesterday, David Cameron spoke at the Oxford Farming Conference. He rightly highlighted the importance of the role of farmers in the maintenance of the English countryside. Today, Clive Aslet wrote an interesting article in the Telegraph, indicating what he thinks a future government needs to do to address the lack of confidence in the rural community.

The future of the rural economy is not any easy political subject. The majority of Britons only interact with the countryside for rest and relaxation. Consequently, few of them can be expected to have any real understanding of the daily challenges facing those who work within the rural economy. They do, however, all have the right to vote.

In the last decade, the Labour government has nakedly displayed the politics of envy. They have allowed poorly-drafted anti-hunting legislation to be passed, created the debacle of the rural payments agency and ineptly overseen the management and ramifications of both BSE and foot & mouth crises. All of these events have understandably contributed to a sense of impending doom within rural communities.

The political difficulty is that the metropolitan elite that controls the Labour Party runs the country. They have never hidden their distaste for ‘country people’. They do so knowing that their Parliamentary majority is hardly touched by offending country people. For example, major strategic planning decisions have often ridden roughshod over the wishes of those who have lived in the countryside for decades. Their disregard for rural heritage and contempt for the wishes of the country-dwelling minority, however, belies their ignorance of our need as a nation to have a long-term sustainable rural economy.

For rural concerns to be heard and addressed we need a Conservative government. That Conservative government must, however, be consistent and fair in its policy-making. Consistent in supporting subsidy-free industry and guarding against monopoly abuse. And fair in the application of government legislation in the countryside. In yesterday’s speech, David Cameron called for a “paradigm shift”. He emphasised the need for the farming industry to serve the customer: to build value instead of volume. He also, just as importantly, indicated his determination to deal with the supermarkets abusing their monopoly position. By stating these two goals, David Cameron is seen to be sympathetic to both farmers and customers. It is a political direction that is right for the long-term health of the rural economy, and one that I wholeheartedly support.