Tom Richmond: Countryside suffers from capital punishment

With the region's future economic leadership in abeyance, the countryside appears to be the next victim of the coalition's cuts agenda.

If highly-damaging cuts to the national park authorities were not sufficient to satisfy Cameron's money men, the Higher Level Stewardship Scheme, an effective means of preserving rural areas, is now said to be in the firing line.

What worries me is the extent to which these decisions are being driven by London-centric politicians and advisers who have little comprehension, or knowledge, about life in the provinces.

If they actually visited the remoter parts of Yorkshire, they would, perhaps, understand that its intrinsic appeal is the careful management of land to create those enduring picture postcard scenes that sustain the entire rural economy.

This indifference is compounded by Cameron's failure to assign specific Ministers to major cities to promote the interests of the English regions; it's another sop to areas, like Yorkshire, that appears to have been left on the political back-burner.

Perhaps, therefore, the time has come to relocate an entire Whitehall department, such as the Department for Communities and Local Government, out of London and into a city like Leeds or Sheffield.

According to coalition sources, it is well run by Eric Pickles, the one-time Bradford Council leader, and it is hitting financial targets. Yet just think how much more money could be saved if it moved to the regions, and retained just a token presence in the capital?

Not only would staffing costs be considerably reduced, but such a move might just give the Government a better understanding of the need to take decisions that do not adversely impact upon the countryside, or those areas in the North where the recovery is tentative at best.

For just because the Government is traditionally based in London does not necessarily mean that the capital is the best place for policy decisions to be taken.

I'VE nothing against Lord Brittan, the former Richmond MP and Cabinet Minister who had to resign over the Westland affair that nearly brought down Margaret Thatcher 25 years ago.

Yet why has David Cameron chosen to appoint him as a trade advisor for six months before the Tory peer returns to investment bank UBS, where he is vice chairman?

What this role requires, if it is to be elevated above gimmick status, is continuity. Cameron talks of Lord Brittan's "unrivalled experience and know-how", but there's a limit to what the former EU commissioner, and mentor to one Nick Clegg, can achieve in six months.

Furthermore, isn't Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, supposed to be heading trade policy? And, if York-born Cable is too busy rebelling over cuts, isn't there a backbench MP sufficiently qualified in

commerce to take up the role?

WILLIAM Hague's decision to appoint Christopher Myers as a third adviser at the Foreign Office, at a time when the coalition is supposedly cutting down on the number of paid advisors at its disposal, has already proved embarrassing.

It was with Myers, who hails from Hague's Richmond constituency, that the former Tory leader was photographed in a baseball cap – the fashion mistake that so undermined his leadership of the Tories in the

late 1990s.

Yet what will prove even more embarrassing is the remarks that young Myers made at York racecourse in late 2005 when David Cameron and David Davis were contesting the party leadership.

According to the Yorkshire Post's archive, Myers, then 21, predicted that Cameron would be "eaten alive" by Tony Blair and had no substance, while Davis reflected the core Conservative Party much better.

Myers's mother Barbara also chipped in, saying Davis was more impressive than his rival.

All I can say is that Myers must have outstanding qualities for Hague to push the boat out in this manner.

THE control-freakery nature of David Miliband's guide to Labour activists wanting to hold a Barack Obama-inspired "house meeting" came as no surprise, even down to this 5.30pm slot: "Get in from work, give the place a quick vacuum and general tidy."

Can't Labour activists think for themselves, or be trusted to do so by Miliband's so-called "Movement for Change" that is driving his

leadership bid?

And what about this advice for 7.30pm? It reads: "Don't forget that during your House Group you may get a phone call from either David himself or one of his high-profile supporters – you will be informed beforehand if this is going to happen so make sure you factor this in."

No thanks.

DOES Labour, and the country, really need Doncaster MP Ed Miliband as Opposition leader if he's going to use the platform to destabilise the government in a scurrilous manner?

I ask the question after Miliband was accused of spreading malicious stories that Charles Kennedy, the former Lib Dem leader, was going to defect to Labour.

"The rumours are good to encourage," said Miliband. They maybe for him, but it is not the conduct that one expects of a prospective statesman.

NOW he is running his own investment bank, we, taxpayers, no longer need to pay Tony Blair his taxpayer-funded pension of 63,468 a year; an annual 84,000 allowance to run the former PM's office, and a limitless security budget necessitated by his penchant for foreign travel and deal-making to boost his personal wealth.

WITH David and Samamtha Cameron's new baby born prematurely, there's now no excuse for Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg leaving his party conference early next month "to hold the fort" while the PM is on paternity leave, is there?