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

'' and put even more pressure on scarce local resources such as doctors and schools.'

Spoken like a true Brexiteer.

You realise farmers don't just produce meat. They produce: wheat (for bread), milk, rapeseed for oil (preferable to soya), linseed, lavender, honey, fruit, hay + straw for domestic animal use, soft fruit, mushrooms etc The list goes on and on.

@twistyizzy - farming communities will have to adapt regardless as people increasingly move away from meat, as they already are.

Uh huh. So I assume YOU are a farmer then?

You betray your lack of understanding about farming there. Without farmers we rely on expensive (both environmentally and economically) imports. Young kids are being priced out of farming due to land being sold off to developers to build more housing in these desirable pretty areas. It is happening right in front of me in my village.
No farmers = no food but yeah let's just encourage more building in the countryside to create more flooding and put even more pressure on scarce local resources such as doctors and schools.
Your arrogance towards farming really shows your ignorance, maybe that's why there can be animosity towards incomers such as yourself. Families who have farmed for generations (often tenant farmers) being forced off the land so that people from the cities can have a nice view.
That's fine but then don't lament the UK as relying on foreign imports for food (especially meat when most welfare standards abroad are much power than those in UK).
"From farm to fork" and all the MN preferred artisan markets can't exist if there are no farmers.

So, I gather the proposal is that only rich people should live in the pretty places, while all the poor people should jolly well move to the 'less desirable' places and stop moaning about the loss of their ties to family and community.

Quite depressing, really.

I really think there is a big difference between properties that are let out for most of the year to holidaymakers and those whose owners leave them empty nearly the whole year round so that they and their friends and family can use them for a few weeks of the year.

Although holiday makers might be fewer during the winter months it's likely that a true holiday home will have some takers. Second home owners are much more likely to only stay during the nicer months of the year and will stay in their own homes during the colder months or go somewhere else in the world for warmth or skiiing.

Personally I would support very heavy taxation for those who own a second or third home but leave it empty for the majority of the year. At least then the money raised can be used to help those less lucky in life.

Agreed. I can bet my bottom dollar also that those ‘DFLs’ buying massive house, range rovers and being racist etc weren't born or grew up in London either.

' it is hard to allocate this fairly'
Well you seem to think just let market forces rip, and allocate it according to wealth.

In terms of who decides what cultures are worth preserving, there is a whole host of matrices and experts such as UNESCO.

I don't know which part of London you live in but I can assure you that any part is too expensive for the average youngster these days. If you're in a "highly desirable" part then it'll be out of the reach of most middle aged ones too! So that means people have to move out to places that are cheaper because that's ALL THEY CAN AFFORD. For the most part it's not because the area is "more desirable".
And even if it is just because it's just nicer - you'd have a hell of a job turning say, the Aylesbury estate, into something resembling the Peak District if it's green hills you're desperate for!

Inexpensive for who? Maybe if you see everything through an avaricious estate agents' eyes.

Same with privilege - it's to do with perspective as it could be argued that everyone is privileged in myriad ways. Add to that, privilege is often earned - for example, by people's families committing to a particular place and contributing to make it what it is. By farming the land, creating communities and so on in thousands of tiny ways. Like - I'm privileged to have an interesting job but it's also down to decisions I made, and what work I put in, and when.

This.

Well, it would be the norm,only modern practices and policies have prevented it in many situations. It's still desirable for most, though, if not their families, at least stable, reliable communities. If it's a privilege, it shouldn't be, as it's the healthy way for humans to live.

Could you not make your own area more desirable?

I live in a highly desirable area of London, but when my parents moved here it wasn't considered desirable,except by the locals. It's thanks to the generations of locals who have formed communities, worked together to keep it safe and tidy, created parks and gardens, hold festivals and events, care for one another and the environment, that it's desirable.

Then rich people come along and complain that we're here!

I actually think it is a privilege to be able to live near family, especially if you're not actually living in the same house. Much of the world probably don't get that privilege.

I think your use of the word priviledge is wrong - does a hill farmer, gathering stock off the fells, knowing the price they are going to get at market will barely cover their costs or pay for the new roof of the barn think of themselves as priviledged? Whilst gatherig those stock, it may be in stunning surroundings which is home but I do not think it will be seen as a priviledge.

You seem to equate those living in beautiful parts of the country (who defines what is beautiful?) should acknowledge the fact they must be priviledged and lucky leading to their property will be worth a lot of money therefore they are rich. It is a simplistic view, it is far more complex than that.

Look, my remote rural area is 'inexpensive' in the eyes of incomers. It's not for the people who live here! Jobs are few. Wages are low. So we have people moving here able to afford lovely houses and calling the area 'inexpensive' - great for them, but to say that a person who was born here, with concomitant issues accessing education, work, and housing, is 'privileged' because the scenery is nice is insulting.

And of course someone born here into a low wage household with few prospects of education or decent career paths is going to struggle moving to an expensive city to study or further themselves.

This post is so ridiculous and xenophobic. Why are you suggesting that people who move into an area don't become part of society? Maybe it's because people like you who think "it's a local town for local people" are too busy shunning them! And actually it's not easier to get about in a big city what are you on about? Have you ever tried to drive say 5 miles through London? And yeah we have good trains but actually if you live in the suburbs you're not connected with any other part of suburbia unless you go into central London and back out again!

No, local cultures and tradition continue with those who choose to move into an area and accept, join in with the local traditions, this they continue.

From simple things as local sayings and words, to an appreciation of local sports, even taking part.

It is all part of deciding to move to another area and become part of its community. Not everyone does this and of course not every local is welcoming of those incomers - but for the majority it does work.

In life some people do not get on with others - doesn't matter whether you are local or not.

This is not about capitalism, middle classes, inheritance tax, what car people drive - it is simply about some people choose to move to other areas which for whatever reason they deem to be better than where they are (jobs, environment, lifestyle etc) - it is a sad and dangerous society when some people decide who can and cannot live somewhere. As I said in previous post, market forces decide prices and human nature is such people will always want to achieve the highest price for property they are selling.