ON TUESDAY in this spot, Grant Burton addressed this Sunday's countryside march with the eye of a slightly sceptical rural bystander. Now here's another go, from the perspective of a bemused townie.

Perhaps we should get the fox-hunting over with first. After all, this rumble of rural disenchantment was set rolling in defence of hunting. The pink-clad horse riders have led the protests, and just this week their supporters gathered outside Parlia-ment while sipping champagne.

I don't know about you, but I was heartened by protesters who had the foresight to bring the bubbly. How good to see this weekend's march preceded by an advance party carrying champagne.

There used to be much disapproving chatter, probably around rural dinner tables, of champagne Socialists. And now there they were, the Bolly Bolsheviks of the Shires.

So much time and energy has been spent on hunting, so many dreary political miles trudged. Tony Blair must wish he'd never agreed to let this tiresome business continue.

Yet a ban does have something in its favour, what with hunting being a vile anachronism that upsets the majority and seems primarily to exist so that the better off can exercise their horses, with a spot of blood thrown in for free if the hounds get lucky.

For all that, fox-hunting is almost irrelevant in any wider debate about the countryside. Many more important issues will be sending the protesters to London with their Barbours and picnic hampers. These range from hunting and the foot and mouth fall-out, to petrol prices, closing shops, schools and post offices, and spiralling property prices.

The protesters blame the Govern-ment for almost everything. It clearly is Tony Blair's fault that the countryside is often to be found in such inconvenient places.

Many of the complaints from the rural lobby are reasonable enough, even if, to adapt a phrase, they do come with the muddy territory. There are pros and cons to living in the country. Remote beauty counts as a glorious advantage - but it can't be had without a car (and there are a lot of big, guzzling vehicles in the country, slurping up the expensive petrol). Live in the city and you can walk or cycle to work.

Rural houses are too expensive, yet this has benefited many wealthy landowners. Anyway, the growing crisis in rural housing is largely thanks to a shortage of council homes, far too many of which were sold off under a Conservative policy, as voted for by many in the country.

It is easy to sympathise with the truly marginalised, the farmers who are struggling to survive on £5,000 a year or the low-paid workers who haven't a chance of buying a home, thanks to property being owned by landed locals or snapped up by weekend cottage owners.

Yes, there are many worrying problems facing the countryside, but it is hard not to be suspicious of Sunday's march. It seems to have been rallied round a general sense of being fed up, a feeling that life isn't going the rural way; isn't it all a bit vague?

Any protest that comes with a Daily Mail pull-out - "Your at-a-glance guide to the big march..." - has got to be mightily suspicious.

In truth, the city needs the country and the country needs the city. Townies like to escape to rural openness (I know I do); village dwellers often turn to cities for their escape and entertainment.

Marching through London may look good on the evening news, but it's hardly likely to improve relations between town and country. Still, Sunday will be a good day for townies to get away. The country should be lovely and quiet.

Updated: 12:32 Thursday, September 19, 2002