Britannist

Thanks John C. for your comments in support of the return of the PROPER county boundaries in Great Britain and Northern Ireland . I fully support John C’s call for the restoration of the London County Council (LCC) in place of the larger and unwanted Greater London Authorityl/Area (GLA). The LCC is what everyone accepts as ‘London Proper’ today known as ‘Inner London’ and comprising 13 boroughs – mostly Labour controlled. I don’t want a Labour controlled GLA or LCC but its better to have a council that at least has a following as a legitimate body.

There are Yorkshiremen, Welshmen and even ‘Essex man and woman’. Whoever heard of someone calling themselves a ‘Greater Londoner’ :?: Nobody I know in//from Kingston Upon Thames, Richmond Upon Thames or Croydon (Surrey addresses but all officially designated as London Boroughs within the GLA area) calls themselves Londoners 8) .

Paul Birch – down on the Isle of Wight - is busy nit-picking, splitting hairs and playing with words :evil: . He carefully and deliberately avoids addressing the simple fact that the GLA is unwanted in London and is part of the EU plan to divide England up INTO phpbb_regions :evil: . P. Birch needs to be educated o on the following points:

Labour controlled Croydon wants the Borough (of Croydon) declared an equal city with the GLA. Participation as just another London Borough is no longer enough. If it doesn’t get it, there is talk of the Borough switching back INTO phpbb_Surrey and becoming the ‘capital’ of the county. Kingston O/T is so regarded as being in Surrey (and not London) that, despite its status as a GLA London borough it was, long ago, chosen as the home of the headquarters of the neighbouring Surrey County Council. The former Labour leader of Barking-Dagenham (east ‘London’/Essex) made it clear at the time of the referendum that he was opposed to his party’s policy of setting up the rival Greater London Authority. Westminster/City, Wandsworth and the Royal Borough of Kensington-Chelsea (Conservative controlled London boroughs) all called for the Greater London Council to go and opposed its successor organisation – the GLA :P .

A. The County of Middlesex (at least that part of it outside the old LCC/inner London area) must be re-established. The area from and including Finchley, Hendon and Enfield right across and down to Twickenham riverside and up to Northwood, Wembley, Harrow and Edgware must come together again as a single Middlesex county (even those areas now with London postcodes – such as Hendon/Finchley).

B. The revived Middlesex County would not control the internal domestic affairs of its component parts (presently London boroughs). It would act as a co-ordinator of cross-Middlesex transport, PR and planning matters. It would be run on a low budget, tiny staff and with very limited powers. It would act as a defender of Middlesex interests with neighbouring counties and others. Run very low budget, the new MCC would set an example to be followed by other Counties .

C. In local referendums, divorce from the Greater London area would be backed most of all by Richmond O/T in Surrey (they would vote to quit the GLA area tomorrow ), followed by Bromley and Bexley (Kent). Those are definite divorces which watchers of local affairs in London admit will happen as soon as a government gives them a say. Other so-called ‘London’ boroughts likely to demand a divorce are Havering and Redbridge (Essex). Merton (which takes in part of Surrey) is harder to predict because it has a large number of London postcode districts.

Addressing another sweeping statement made by P. Birch:

“in general, the county is no longer part of official postal addresses.” I’ve checked today with someone I know who works for the Post Office and they said to me that the remark is “rubbish :x .”

P. Birch asks if we know - off the top of our heads - what county Rickmansworth is in. It’s in Ye Olde County of Hertford, Paul – right next to Watford. I believe Rickmansworth is largely under postcode WD3. I used to live in nearby Harrow, MIDDLESEX. Paul Birch then asks about Bethnal Green. It’s in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, Paul – under postcode E2 (I think). Bethnal Green, as I recall, is one of two constituencies within the artificially-created ‘Tower Hamlets’. You see Paul, English people actually know a great deal about their country. I’ve travelled in every county of England and large parts of the rest of the UK, too. I know what people think about all this messing about with county boundaries and postal addresses (by no coincidence carried out by europhiles – Heath etc.).

Next question Paul.

As for P. Birch’s ludicrous :evil: claim that “they (the public) don’t know where the boundaries are.” This sounds like the same sort of patronising nonsense coming from the Eurocrats in Brussels who say the EU Constitution referendums were lost because the people just didn’t understand . Everyone I deal with (inside and outside work) is perfectly aware (from what they say) that the county boundaries of Kent, Surrey, Hertfordshire and Essex are well WITHIN the Greater London area.

P. Birch is quite simply out-of-touch with public opinion here in the capital (and probably with the views of many outside it). Big capital cities do not have to be organised on the Greater London Council or GLA model. Berlin City State continues to seek a merger with the huge surrounding Brandenburg region in order to form a City region about the same size as London and the Home Counties (in land area). In Paris – they do the exact opposite :shock: . Paris City Council’s catchment area is about the same size as the LCC (Inner London) area. Paris is confident enough as a capital not to formally seek to swallow up the dormitary towns (equivalent to Romford or Waltham Forest London Borough) which form the bulk of the ‘Greater Paris’ conurbation.

The GLA is a halfway house between condensed city government (like Paris) or super-regions (like the planned Berlin-Brandenburg link-up). In London, we want the LCC and Middlesex back. They worked well, had proper identities (as Middlesex still does) and neither were part of the EEC/EU plan to break the UK up INTO phpbb_artificial statelets (unlike the GLC/GLA or the rejected north-east region of England).

I don’t know what political party P. Birch is in (if any). I hope its not mine . P. Birch belongs in the Liberal ‘Democrats’ or the Labour Party – with their social engineering, bogus boundaries, proportional representation, ‘Brit-art’, subservience to EU, Dome, regional governments, enforced metrification etc :evil: .

P. Birch, on the Isle of Wight (IOW), wouldn’t be very pleased if they said his island was to be merged with Hampshire. The idea has been discussed before by the Boundary Commission (at least for parliamentary constituencies). It was rejected when there was uproar against the proposal by the people of IOW. If the people of IOW can say no to being swallowed up INTO phpbb_Hampshire – why can’t those of us in London and Middlesex say No to the GLA?

The buses in north Lincolnshire do not carry the name ‘South Humberside’ on them. The buses in the East Riding of Yorkshire do not have the ridiculous name ‘North Humberside’ on them. Why? Because THE PEOPLE complained when they tried it out (at a time when ‘Humberside’ was still operating as a County Council). Local folk rightly forced bus operators to end this nonsense :shock: . Now Humberside County Council has gone, there is no justification for keeping its unwanted (and to many, offensive) name in existence – such as on postal addresses.

‘Cumbria’, ‘Avon’ and ‘Tyne and Wear’ (and the artificial merger of Herefordshire and Worcestershire) must be obliterated from the map of England. Then we can start on getting rid of the next layer of bogus entities – local authorities with daft, false and/or incredibly boring names such as ‘east’ Staffordshire or ‘Mole Valley’. Nobody outside those localities has the slightest idea what towns come under those local authorities. Few readers of this posting up in Aberdeen, Belfast or Gateshead know that ‘East’ Staffordshire takes in the horse-racing town of Uttoxeter – or that ‘Mole Valley’ council represents the people of the smart Surrey town of Leatherhead. The public want these councils they are forced to pay for to at least have ‘real’ names .

Give the people a chance to reject artificial councils like the GLA, ‘Humberside’, north-east ‘region’ of England etc. and they will – in droves (as we saw in the ‘north-east’ of England on 4.11.2004).

nyorks-patriot

If you where born before 1974 Coventry would have had three tiers of government.
Coverntry city council.
Warwickshire County Council.
And obviously the Britihs parliament.

Under my system it would only have one more that of English parliament.

Alex McKee

Another fine post from nyorks patriot:

He must like Warwickshire as he spelt that correctly.

Paul Birch

You contradict yourself. You can't both restore old Middx and the LCC. They are mutually incompatible.

They don't. They just say they're from London. That includes many people I have known from outer London.

That's not a fact. Some people want it, some don't. Some people want to return to the GLC arrangement instead. And I seem to recall that Londoners voted to have a mayor for the whole of London.

No, it isn't. The boundaries of Greater London were defined long before we even joined the EEC.

WHY? I cannot seem to get any of you fanatics to answer that simple question.

I don't believe any referendum would be so cut and dried. Not if the London public were informed what it would cost them - as the NO campaign would surely do.

It's not rubbish. The valid postal address is the town plus the postcode. The county is an optional extra.

It's not "right next to Watford". It's five miles away and Croxley Green is in between. Also, a tiny bit of it is in London. Harefield, however is (almost) all in Middx/London. My point being that not one in twenty people knows the exact boundary.

You've ducked out of answering my question. Bethnal Green is in Middlesex. Wapping I think is in Essex, but there is an inconsistency in at least one of the old maps I checked with.

Since neither you nor John-C seems to know the precise boundaries (having made several mistakes or evasions), even though you're obviously far more concerned about it than probably 99% of the public, I don't accept that my suspicions are ludicrous at all. I would bet a substantial sum that a poll would prove me right. I'd bet another sum that most people - if they've heard of Middlesex at all - think it's just another name for the London area, and don't realise it's basically only the NW quarter.

I never said they did. However, I do say that an administrative area covering the current Greater London area, or else up to the M25, makes the most sense. Similarly for the other big British cities. Nothing you have said impacts on that opinion in the slightest. Nor does this have anything at all to do with phony regionalisation, or the ordinary traditional counties.

Look at the atavar if you can't be bothered to read my posts!

Middlesex is physically and economically part of London, and has been part of a London administrative "county" for forty years or so. There has never been a Middlesex county council with authority over all Middlesex. By contrast, the IOW is neither physically nor economically part of Hampshire, and has had its own IOW council for as long as anyone can remember. I don't think it's ever been subject to Hampshire.

So the cases are not parallel. They don't even wander in vaguely the same direction.

Let me give you a better example. Liverpool. At one time part of Lancashire, now part of Merseyside. Nobody thinks much of that invention - wandering absurdly North to Southport, West across the Wirral, East round St Helens, but excluding Ellesmere Port, Widnes and Runcorn. However, most Liverpudlians would now be happy with a unitary Liverpool Corporation out to the M27, including Speke at the bottom and Crosby at the top. They would no longer insist on being reunited with Lancashire (which most probably don't remember ever being part of).

John-C

Paul, you can restore both Middlesex and the London County Council. This is NOT incompatible at all. This would make a reasonable compromise with those who do wish to have a large London area as a distinct unit. It (the L.C.C.) would, of course, include some of the original county oif Middlesex, but it would also include parts of Essex, Kent and Surrey. It would not, however, wipe out the very (administrative) existence of the latter three counties.

Paul, I think there is a difficulty with us seeing eye-to-eye partly because of our definitions of "London". To you, it extends further than even the G.L.A. area, I think. For me, it ends at or around the old L.,C.C. area, or roughly the London postcode area.


Britannist's suggestion of a shoestring budget M.C.C. is a very senasibke one. Likewise, the idea that current "London" Boroughs could vote on their name/status couynty-wise is a very sensible one. Could we support this?.

Paul Birch

It is incompatible if you're insistent upon restoring the original county boundaries. If not, then what's so special about the LCC area? As I pointed out umpteen posts ago, it cuts through what are now continuous urban areas, and lacks any simple geographic or road boundary. I can see no justification for going back to it, when what we have now, and have had for the whole of most people's lives and for most of the lives of most of the rest, neatly embraces the whole metropolis.

WHY do you want a separate administrative county of (part of) Middlesex? WHY do you fulminate so against the existence of Greater London, yet apparently seem happy to compromise on an arbitrary bodge of a smaller London county?

It surely can't be because you love Middlesex; for those who care, its historical and cultural existence is unchanged. So why?

The London metropolis currently extends over what is called Greater London (and future expansion will bring it out a bit further to the M25). That's what the maps say. That's what the landscape says. That's what the road and transport network says. That's what the economics say. That's what its administration says. That's what most people say, nationally, internationally, and probably within London itself (I've never before heard anyone from those suburbs currently within Greater London deny he lives in London - though he may qualify it by calling it outer London).

Yet again I ask: WHY do you want to restrict it to some rather arbitrarily defined inner portion? That may have had a distinct identity a century ago, but the city has grown enormously since then (I don't know what the actual dates of the LCC are, or whether its boundaries stayed the same, but it's obviously not a "traditional" county).

Aardvark

nyorks patriot - I was born before 1974 and although my postal address was Coventry, Warks for historic reasons, Coventry itself was a City with a 600+ year old charter and was not governed by Warwickshire - hence the reason why my grammar school, King Henry VIII, was obliged to go private rather than become comprehensive as Coventry's 2 girls grammar schools did. Warwickshire retains grammar schools in some areas. Coventry is 'traditionally' Labour whilst Warwickshire is 'traditionally' Tory. Coventry was at one time (1895?) classed as a City and County in its own right.

I don't recall anyone being elected to Warwickshire County Council, and nor does my mother, a former City councillor. Coventry had its own education department, its own buses (Maudslays in disguise), its own city engineers with its own roads department to start building the bl**dy ring road. Our Council House was/is built around a mediaeaval guild hall. We had our own Freemen (my great grandfather and great great grandfather had to serve apprenticeships to obtain the title, as young people still do). Prior to 1974 we had Aldermen on our council.

John-C

Paul Birch wrote:-

"Quote:
A. The County of Middlesex (at least that part of it outside the old LCC/inner London area) must be re-established.

WHY? I cannot seem to get any of you fanatics to answer that simple question."


I have answered this in my latest post in the "Re-instate Middlesex County Council" thread, as it's about Middlesex specifically. Please reply there, Paul, if you wish to.

arden forester

The USA seems to get along OK with city and state borders being close by. For example New York City and New Jersey State along the Hudson river.

London could just be the City of London, City of Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea, and inner boroughs. All the others go back to their respective counties. Brent would be in Middlesex!

Get Elton John on side. He's a Pinner boy and was born in Middlesex!

http://www.brent.gov.uk/www.nsf/0/24...4?OpenDocument

__________________
www.ardenforester.blogspot.com
www.westminster-whispers.blogspot.com

Paul Birch

The issue was brought up in this thread, by posters attacking my general argument re old counties and big cities. Please answer my question - and this post - here. I am not interested in a debate solely about Middlesex, so I have not posted in the other thread at all, and I have no intention of doing so. You seem to be using that thread as a way of ignoring or distorting what I have said here. Your post doesn't answer my question anyway.

I didn't. I wrote that I see nothing "monstrous" about Greater London, any more than I do about Great Britain. I added that London is a great city, and asked why you want to deny this and seek to break it up?

So what? Great Britain is composed of two countries and one principality, under one sovereign authority. Greater London is composed of many districts, under one administrative authority.

Did you bother to read what I'd already written in this thread about this (on 27 June)?

I wrote: "Middlesex is physically and economically part of London, and has been part of a London administrative 'county' for forty years or so. There has never been a Middlesex county council with authority over all Middlesex. By contrast, the IOW is neither physically nor economically part of Hampshire, and has had its own IOW council for as long as anyone can remember. I don't think it's ever been subject to Hampshire.... So the cases are not parallel. They don't even wander in vaguely the same direction."

There is no comparison between the metropolitan conurbation of Greater London and some hypothetical creation crossing miles of sea to the IOW. But if the city of Portmouth (or Southampton) ever grew beyond its current limits I would indeed be likely to favour including the whole city within the same administrative area.

I continued in that post by considering a city now unhappily splintered in the fashion you design for the metropolis, a case genuinely analogous to that of London: "Liverpool. At one time part of Lancashire, now part of Merseyside ... most Liverpudlians would now be happy with a unitary Liverpool Corporation out to the M27, including Speke at the bottom and Crosby at the top. They would no longer insist on being reunited with Lancashire..."

It's not "measureless". And what do you mean by monstrosity - that it's a great city? If not, what do you mean? All cities tend to weaken the identities of the smaller towns and villages they spread over. You can't change that by pretending the growth never happened.

You're NOT answering the question! The question is WHY?