To detest people that think they own beautiful parts of the world?

I was actually thinking of the people who stand up in the audience on question time supporting Farage-think when I referred to bloodlines that could use some outside dilution 😅

We live in a tourist hot spot. Within our post code and the neighbouring one there are multi-million pound beach houses to small terrace houses costing <100K. A few of the multi-milion pound houses are second homes, most are owned by locals. A few of the cheap terraces are second homes, most are owned by locals. Same for the houses between.

In the summer it is busy with tourists. There is no other industry here, so I welcome, and profit from them. In the winter the facilities, the nice cafes, etc are quite and I visit them and make the most of them. They would not be here with out the tourists in summer.

Most of the locals who own expensive houses left, 'earned their fortune' and returned. I expect my children will do the same. None of the seasonal cleaners on minimum wage are homeless, but they don't live in multi-million pound beach houses. If the local nationalist papers are to be believed, that is what they seem to think they are entitled to.......

Phrases like 'contributes to his native culture' sound frighteningly close to the Farage/Reform script of 'indigenous people of Britain' to me.

@Pyroleus

While I support your desire to live here, if pushed to choose between you (who likes looking at the pretty mountains) and John from down the road (whose entire family is here and who grew up here and lives and contributes to his native culture) I'm choosing John.

That's your right, although you don't necessarily know how much an incomer would contribute (there are certainly some bloodlines in this country that could do with a bit of dilution).

But the fact is, John and the pretty mountain people are unlikely to be equal applicants and when it comes down to it. When they can sell for 3 or 4 times what John can pay, a lot of people decide the cash can be of more use to their kids than keeping the culture and area pure. No one's obligated to take the higher offer.

I generally agree with the idea that just because you were born somewhere doesn't mean you deserve to live there forever. Strangely nobody seems to complain when it's the other way and people move to big cities for work.

But sometimes it's not just 'a beautiful part' of the country it's a specific way of life and heritage. A few people have mentioned the very high ctax in part of wales, but when you get to a point where welsh-speaking locals can't afford to live in those areas anymore so the area goes from 90% welsh speaking, to 50% to 10%, you risk a language and way of life that has been in place for hundreds of years dying out completely - and once it's gone it's almost impossible to bring back.

Also without enough locals living nearby to staff the facilities and support them through the off season, eventually the things that make the places desirable for tourists won't be viable (shops, restaurants, takeaways, surfing lessons) and then it will just be a 'beautiful place' without any resources.

Like everything else, surely it's balance?

Me too, born and bred in Cumbria.

We know it's not all glitz and glamour especially when it's raining, but tourism is a lot of businesses bread and butter round here and that's fine.

Then why should people coming from places with more employment/higher wages be able to outbid locals for property? Luck of birth comes in all kinds of ways.

I disagree, housing and holiday lets should be controlled so that locals can afford to live in the area they were born.
But I think "outsiders" who want to move to the area full time and contribute should be welcome.
People also do welcome tourists but tourists are becoming increasingly rude, inconsiderate and messy - respectful tourists have always been welcomed

Has it occurred to you that those opposing opinions might not be held by the same people?

The sale of council housing has also contributed to this. Even in chocolate box villages there always used to be some council properties. I live in a very rural village in a fairly touristy part of the world. The street just along from my house used to to be solely council properties ( probably about 20 of them). Most are now in private ownership.

The bottom line is that if you have money you have a lot more choice than those who do not but not everyone can just get a higher paying job and work to afford an expensive property. It used to be that council properties were available for those who were on lower incomes but this is not so much the case now, especially in more "desirable" areas of the country so more and more people are being forced out. As always those on lower incomes have to make way for the wealthy. It has always been this way (Highland Clearances anyone?) but because of the terrible state of housing in the UK and the ever increasing gap in wealth between rich and poor it has become so much worse.

Gentrification affects all areas of the country especially in London. When I lived there in the 80s I remember a friend buying a 2 bed mansion flat in Balham for £60,000. We all joked about her being brave for living there. I imagine it's probably worth 10 times the amount now and the average first time buyer could never afford that.

There are so many strands to this problem but one thing is for certain the housing situation is a mess.

It’s the capital city. It’s where most company HQs are.

They earn more, so pay more tax. They disproportionately fund everything technically.

My point is that if it's OK to migrate within a country then logically it's OK to migrate between them. I can't see how you can be in favour of one without the other and yet so many people are anti immigration

Indeed. Lots of very picturesque places have deep seated problems with poverty, unemployment, or lack of services, for example.

Of course tourists and visitors value the place for its scenery, but people who've lived there longer often are grappling with other problems that may be exacerbated by more tourists or, for example, retirees adding strain to already stretched health services. And may value their home for family and friends as much as for the prettiness of the place.

State subsidies are disproportionately funded by Londoners? FFS, I’ve heard it all now.

Affordable housing, at least here, is for those who prove a connection or need to the area, so yes it means locals but also will cover those who work here. Many of the restrictions on the local housing say if a person can provide proof they are moving for a local job then they can rent or purchase the property subject to the restrictions.

The law of averages say it will more likely be locals though just by them being local! There is nothing wrong with that. The difficulty arises when the housing is oversubscribed and someone has to decide on the local v incomer coming to work - whatever decision is made someone is going to be unhappy.

That's called migration, also been happening since the dawn of time. People have plenty of opinions on it already.

And what of people born in an 'ugly and undesirable' part of the world

What makes you more entitled to live in the U.K. than them just because you were lucky to be born here....

I mean that's the logical extension of your argument isn't it?

And they weren’t buying houses either. Majority rented. You’re comparing apples with pears.

You just keep talking about 'attractiveness' but you're completely ignoring the other values that people from a place might connect with it, the most significant of which is a sense of home and belonging. Many people in the UK identify almost more strongly with their local area, region or city than with their nationality. To be priced out of that or disconnected from it can be extremely painful. You should try to be more empathetic instead of insisting that you're completely right. It's a really complex situation.

And long time Londoners will recall the East End borough who brought in a policy which gave an advantage to existing family members to access social housing.
This was found to be discrimination.

Don’t worry, UK villages already have perfected this one. DM has lived in the same village since 1987, and she is still “an incomer from the new housing estate”.