On 22/01/2016 12:30, aurora wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 02:09:50 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:
On 2016\01\22 02:00, wrote:
In article , (Basil Jet)
wrote:
Middlesex still exists, it just doesn't have a council. It existed
for hundreds of years before it had a council.
We are discussing administrative areas. There is none for Middlesex. When it
was a county its HQ was in London anyway. It was wiped out by the growth of
London. It's gone. It is an ex-county as far as administration of services
for people as opposed to backward-looking sentimentality is concerned.
It's not backward or sentimental. It's a place. Same as Friern Barnet is
a place even though its former Town Hall is a block of flats now. Same
as "The West End" has been a place for centuries despite never appearing
on any map.
Time for an historic review: From the time of Edward I, the City of
London was outwith any county, it is a county in its own right if you
will.
The City was bordered to the south by the Thames and on the other
three sides by Middlesex, the territory of the Middle Saxons.
By the late 19th century, southeast Middlesex was largely urbanized,
like northeast Surrey, and northwest Kent. The northwest of
Middlesex, i.e. the Ruislip's, Uxbridge, et al, were still very rural.
Southeast Middlesex included Westminster.
In 1855 the Metropolitan Board of Works was imposed on the urbanized
parts of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent adjacent to the City. This was
an unelected, unpopular body that descended into corruption.
So, in 1889, without the consent of the governed, half of Middlese,x
and parts of neighboring Surrey, and Kent were annexed into the London
County Council Area. The London County Council was unique in being
granted powers not given to other counties. Why these powers could
not have been granted the Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent is a mystery.
So, England's historic core was being changed. The one good thing
about the LCC years was that its Boroughs were sensibly sized. One
could certainly relate to, say, The Borough of St Marylebone.
Then in 1965 came the ultimate land grab. Newly created Greater
London stretched from Chessington to Enfield. Middlesex ceased to
exist as a county authority. Most of remaining Middlesex became
Greater London, with small enclaves transferring to Surrey.
Are folks better off with these expensive monolithic structures? Let's
attribute good motives to the Whitehall instigators of this mishigas.
But, people are losing touch with their history, and who they really
are. This is not healthy.
Let's not ascribe good motives to the Whitehall crowd. They, along with
many "business" counterparts have decreed that "large is good", "small
is bad / inefficient, etc". Whether or not the people liked it (or
wanted it), in 1974, disparate towns were lumped together into invented
"boroughs" of some "ideal" size. Groups of boroughs were lumped together
into invented pseudo-counties, etc.
Now, we have one part of a government proclaiming a need for local
decision making, whilst another half (Commissar Osborne) insists that we
must have city regions, or he won't let us "play with his toys" (i.e.
money)
What we really need is smaller units, in touch with local opinion,
supplemented by a mandate to cooperate with neighbours where that can
improve efficiency of some services. In the case of London, that could
mean that counties as far away as Northamptonshire, Hampshire, Suffolk,
etc., would remain independent, but have a mandate to cooperate on (and
support) rail services in "London Commuterland" - with some independent
panel to resolve arguments on funding, etc.