Rural life is only possible because of townie generosity

When countryfolk come to London, you might think they would show some humility - or even gratitude. We townies give more than £5bn directly to farmers every year - and that's only the beginning of the cities' massive charitable give-away. We spend £450m on supporting totally uneconomic rural post offices; we let shops, pubs and petrol stations in rural areas pay 50 per cent less on their rates than us; we spend 30 per cent more per head on schools, hospitals and police stations in rural areas.

When countryfolk come to London, you might think they would show some humility - or even gratitude. We townies give more than £5bn directly to farmers every year - and that's only the beginning of the cities' massive charitable give-away. We spend £450m on supporting totally uneconomic rural post offices; we let shops, pubs and petrol stations in rural areas pay 50 per cent less on their rates than us; we spend 30 per cent more per head on schools, hospitals and police stations in rural areas.

Here is a simple fact: it is only possible for anybody to live happily in the British countryside because of the generosity of townies. And our coddling of rural communities doesn't end with our vast subsidies. In the early 1980s, farmers began to feed meat products to cows in order to save money. Predictably, this led to a disaster. How did we respond to this? We gave even more money to farmers in compensation.

Or look at our reaction to foot-and-mouth disease. On behalf of the countryside, we declared a national emergency. Predictably, this devastated Britain's tourism industry (worth a whopping £14bn a year), and all to save a tiny rural industry - livestock exports - which is worth just £2bn a year. Even worse, all development agencies now agree that the West's lavish subsidies for its farmers make it impossible for African farmers to compete.

So when the Countryside Alliance arrived in London on Wednesday, did their banners say, "Thank You, Thank You, We're Sorry?" Were they randomly embracing cityfolk and handing us flowers?

Strangely, no. In fact, they accused us of "attacking" them and - in an especially surreal accusation - "undermining our way of life". The reason? The Government is finally going to act on the will of 70 per cent of the British public and ban fox hunting. Protesters routinely claimed on Wednesday - as they howled at the police - that the ban is evidence that "the metropolitan elite" - a majority of the British people - look on country-folk with "hatred". I could only think of one response. If Britain's massive programme of political and economic redistribution from town to country is hatred, what would love look like? The talk of "civil war" and "an attack on the countryside" - used endlessly by the hunting lobby and its media cheerleaders - is simply inconsistent with the facts. A majority of people in the countryside itself consistently tell pollsters that they support a ban on the ritualised torture of foxes. The only battle going on is within the countryside itself - between the pro-cruelty minority and the majority who side with their generous and humane urban cousins.

I don't blame anyone in rural areas - even the hunters - for taking advantage of the huge amounts of cash we lavish on them. Which of us would not live uneconomic lifestyles if somebody else would pick up the tab? But if, in return, we ask for a rural minority to give up a practice we and even most country people find disgusting, they should respect our decision.

Perhaps the protesters should ask what would happen if we followed their advice and chose to "leave them alone"? Imagine the reaction if we said: okay, have your hunting. In return, we'll end our charitable donations to you. No more farm subsidy. No more extra cash for your public services. Pay the same taxes as the rest of us.

Life in the countryside would become untenable. Rural areas would rapidly depopulate - and don't fall for the argument that we would all suffer in this scenario. Rural spokesmen claim that country people are needed to maintain the environment and to keep the countryside in good shape. In fact, in the absence of much human population, the English countryside would revert to being a natural wilderness. This is the most environmentally friendly state possible. Chuck in small sums for some wilderness rangers and we've got the best tourist draw imaginable too.

If the rabid rural minority stages the programme of "massive civil disobedience" they are now threatening, we townies might begin to ask what we get for all the cash we hurl in their direction. We are generous people; we don't expect them to say thanks. We only expect them to listen to the majority of people in the countryside itself and accept the ban on hunting. If they don't, the pro-hunting lobby recklessly risks destroying the urban goodwill that keeps the British countryside inhabited at all.