"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 20:50:13 +0100, "tim......"
wrote:


"Aurora" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:20:13 -0000, "Peter Masson"
wrote:

"Aurora" wrote

However, the real issue here is that Westminster was thrust upon the
inhabitants of the neighboring boroughs. Had there been a ballot
option, offering the choice, there would be no problem here. The
residents would have decided to maintain their old local borough, or
join the nearby City. As it is we will never know.

You are one the finest usenet contributors. So, one heitates to
disagree!

The decision to reorganise London local government was taken at national
level, and it was true that there were no ballots as to which new London
Borough the old Metropolitan Boroughs would go into. Keeping the old
boroughs was not an option -

IMHO units of governement should be sized according to the electorate
contained therein. OTOH, folks should be prepared to pay for their
chosen parish, municipality, and county

But the electorate wont understand the financial consequences of their
"vote" and wont consider it when making their decisions

and the Politicians with the vested interest wont tell them, just look at
the lies being told in Scotland about how much better off financially they
are going to be if they vote yes!

What about the blatant lies and unsubstantiated claims by the "No"
campaign ?

I wouldn't know what the no campaign is saying

they are conspicuous by the absence down south

whereas everything the Salmon says seems to get reported by the (English)
nationals

tim