ESCAPE from the city rat-race to a rural idyll remains a persuasive dream for many of us. The rose-entwined cottage with the oak-beamed computer room; fresh air, fresh eggs, open spaces, less crime, less traffic . . . the vision is enduringly seductive.
Between 1981 and 1991 the rural population of most English counties south of a line between Bristol and the Humber increased by between eight and 10 per cent.
And, says Les Roberts, chief executive of the charity Action with Communities in Rural England (Acre), such growth levels are continuing.
Yet while we may all crave a place in the country, in practice it is mostly only relatively well-heeled people who can afford to move out of the urban sprawl.
And while in theory this should improve life, at least materially, for indigenous country dwellers, in practice it has had the opposite effect.
Roberts explains: "If you're well-off, with a car, you tend not to use the village shop or other local facilities like schools and transport, so the effect is that local services start to shut down."
Last year, according to the Government's Rural Development Commission (RDC), 42 per cent of parishes in England had no shop, 43 per cent no post office, 75 per cent lacked a bus service, and about half had no schools.
About four fifths were without GPs or a pharmacy. Only last month the RDC, pointing out that standards of social services and care are lower in rural areas than in the cities, added ominously: "Don't be old in the countryside." In short, life is getting worse for the rural poor - which, by some definitions, make up as many as a quarter of all those living in the countryside.
A clear and worrying gap appears to have opened between the rural rich and the rural poor, which in turn has generated social tensions.
Acre has now launched a Rural Poverty Initiative designed to stimulate debate, promote training, and help finance local organisations in the fight to improve the lot of the country poor.
Rural problems fall into much the same categories as those in the cities, but are made worse, in the experience of Roberts, "by a lack of transport, by isolation, by the extra cost of service delivery, and by ignorance and neglect of the special problems faced by the many increasingly marginalised and socially- excluded people in rural England."
Though Acre's patch is England, much the same applies in Wales.
In Scotland, however, rural life is "more coherent," Roberts concedes. There tends to be less feeling of dislocation and neglect than elsewhere in Britain.
Lately there have been signs that country-lovers are beginning to stir themselves in protest at perceived threats to their way of life. Last summer's rally in Hyde Park by the Countryside Alliance drew participants from across the social divide, and could signal the birth of an important lobby in British politics.
A second rally, ostensibly in support of foxhunting, but with application to other country pursuits, is planned for March 1.
Similarly, the recent re-positioning of both Labour and Tories over housebuilding on greenfield land suggests that the concerns of country folk are gaining new leverage in Westminster.
The long-standing belief that Whitehall always puts urban interests first may soon need revision.
The four Lloyds TSB Foundations have consistently backed grassroots projects supporting rural initiatives. Numerous small grants have also been made in recent years to Acre projects in remote areas.
