A FEW paragraphs down, I intend to explore the vindictive nature of the debate between town and country. But first, here is a word from my sponsor, the intermittent anonymous correspondent who this week began his communication thus: "Another Thursday, another crap column by Cole".

Heigh-ho. This week, the column that aims to please would like to begin by addressing the letter Prince Charles is said to have sent to Tony Blair, in which he suggested farmers were being treated worse than blacks or gays.

It emerges that Prince Charles is always writing to the Government, fulminating about this or that. This particular letter was written last spring but only made public as a rallying call to the Countryside Alliance's big day out in London.

Prince Charles was not directly voicing his own opinions, according to assorted newspaper stories, but passing on the thoughts of a Cumbrian farmer. This charming son of the soil apparently told the Prince: "If we, as a group, were black or gay, we would not be victimised or picked on."

How alarming that Prince Charles appears happy to concur with the sort of fireside grumbling you might expect to hear when farmers gather to warm their backsides and air their prejudices (and hopefully not to warm their prejudices and air their backsides).

It is unfortunate that a man who hopes one day to rule all the people of this mixed-up country should lend his support to the ranting of those who can't see beyond the end of the next field.

To lump together "blacks and gays" in this manner apes the sour patter of comedians who have mostly gone out of style, thank heavens. Besides, it falls short of the truth, as historically gay and ethnic minority communities are precisely those who have been "victimised or picked on".

Far more State aid is and has been spent on farming than on gays or those from racial minorities. Some £3 billion a year goes on farming in direct subsidies, with price intervention payments accounting for more. This is not to say farming isn't in trouble, but it is to point out that agriculture is supported by the State like no other industry.

As for Prince Charles, the surprise is not that occasionally he says something daft, but that he doesn't do so more often. After all, it can be hard for a son to step out from his father's shadow, and Prince Philip is known and loved for his howlers.

One of the most persistent complaints from the countryside lobby has been that young people can no longer afford to buy houses, thanks to rural property inflation. This may be so but it's the same in towns and cities, including York.

This set me thinking about how this debate has been carried out, mostly in the vituperative terms of those engaged in an old class war, a them-and-us battle of ancient hatreds. And yet many of the problems facing the countryside are the same as those besetting urban people. It's called modern life.

The fast food, supermarket culture that wants everything now has helped overturn the rhythms of rural life, leading shoppers to expect seasonal food all year round, a madness that harms our own farmers.

Also, agriculture has been in slow decline since the last war, a period which has seen a move away from the land thanks to mechanisation and altered working patterns.

Rural shops and schools have been shutting down since then too, and while this might damage village life, it does need to be kept in perspective.

To blame the lot on this government, however tempting, is hardly honest. Even if your name is Prince Charles.

Updated: 10:46 Thursday, September 26, 2002