"Ben Nunn" wrote in message
...
Unless I'm very much mistaken, it was Dave
), in message
who said:
Nick writes
Would you prefer they referred to you as 'Dear resident of the and
area formerly part of the county of Middlesex, Kent, Surrey,
Hertfordshire or Essex'?

Quite frankly, that would be better.

Quite frankly that's just ridiculous and merely serves to undermine
the rest of your argument.


Indeed.

Also, how far back do these ****s want to go?

Nice attitude. Anyone who disagrees with you is a **** I assume?

There was time when the current LBoBexley wasn't part of Kent either,
because Kent didn't exist.

Yeap.

So let's refer to them as Mercia residents then, shall we?

We? You can if you want, even though that would be historically wrong.

I think it's deeply hypocritical to say that the 1963 London boundaries
are
/wrong/, but the 1900 boundaries are OK.

Maybe, but I don't recall that being said.

Personally I have several gripes with the boundary commission's work, and
believe that London is long overdue a revamp - I'd like to realign the
Greater London boundary with the M25, which is the most obvious 'natural'
border we have right now.

I think you're probably right. The London "administrative" area is too
small really, given recent growth. There will be opposition to this,
however. People will say "we don't want to be part of London". How good it
would have been to have an example such as Bexley which retained all it's
quaint Kentish ways and links, but remained under London strategic control.
It would've reassured people, and have done no harm IMO.

If the government persists with its regionalisation agenda, and there is
some kind of SE region, should somewhere like Sevenoaks be under London
control rather than, say, Southampton? Probably, I would say.

Nick