"Tony Wilson" a@a wrote in message
...

"Nick" wrote in message
...


London heritage??? We have been part of Kent for generations, and only
sucked into the Greater London experiment so the Tories could take
control
of London government (well, mostly). I am sure the overwhelming majority
of
residents in Bexley describe, and want to describe themselves as living
in
Kent (me included). Maybe those of us in metropolitan Kent will one day
escape from the clutches of central London and determine our own affairs
without inteference.

I loathe Bexley being described as "south London", it really is NOT. We
are
part of the Greater London administrative area, that's all, for all other
purposes we are people of Kent. I know "Londoners" find this hard to
believe, but many of us don't wanty to be part of your high-density
overpopulated sprawling urban gloom.

Nick



Blimey, got home form work and found that I never got my original question
answered, but am glad to have kicked off such a lively debate!

I am afraid that I have to wade in and take issue with my fellow Bexley
person. The heritage in question is London's world-famous red buses. Their
expansion into Bexley did not occur with the creation of the GLC but has
existed as long as London's transport has been co-ordinated, whether by
LPTB, LT, TfL etc. Indeed, it predates centralisation and nationalisation
of
bus services, as the private London General Omnibus Company opened Sidcup
garage with red buses in 1924.

Agreed, that's true, just as Dartford and Swanley have been served by LT for
generations. In particular, there was actually an LT tram depot at Dartford
if I'm not mistaken?

So, Bexley was a part of London's transport network generations before the
GLC was created. Hence, taking our red buses away went against our local
heritage as a part of the London transport network.

I understand what you mean, and have some sympathy for that, but being part
of the London transport network seems somewhat different from being a
"Londoner" in my mind.

Actually, I think a locally-run bus service like Bexleybus could have been
really great; unfortunately it was just a cost-cutting experiment by LT
that, not surprisingly, failed miserably. Bad management, low budgets and
ancient vehicles; Bexleybus was doomed before it even started. Localised
branding seems quite appealing now I think about it, even at level of local
red buses being labelled SELKENT district to distinguish those from other
LRT areas.

(Note that Bexley was always going to be a part of the Greater London
county
due to its location within the metropolitan built-up area, which was on
the
cards from the 1930s as the LCC couldn't do a proper job when they only
collected rates from the poorer inner city and was unwinnable for the
Tories; the Tories did however try to elbow more of Surrey inside the GLC
boundary such as Epsom and Banstead to make it safer Tory ground, but
those
areas resisted and hence the GLC became marginal.)

I think I'd disagree with that. Nothing was invevitable about Bexley being
part of a "Greater London" county. OK, there might be an argument about
"strategic" planning and transport matters, but in terms of a strategic area
I think you need to go much further out than the immediate suburbs anyway.
In terms of an "operational" area, GL is arguable far too big and populous.

In terms of your general criticism that Bexley is not in London, can I put
the following forward (and much of this goes for other parts of outer
London):

1) The suburban sprawl across Bexley did not arise out of thin air, but
occurred solely as a result of the accessibility of cheap housing close to
the railways into London. The population of Bexley did not materialise out
of thin air, but people moved out from other parts of London where
conditions were poorer and more crowded. Thus demograpically in the 1920s
and 1930s the borough changed from a rural area where most people were
brought up locally to one with a population massively imported from
outside
the area.

Yes, true, but other areas with stations and rail access to London all over
the SouthEast experienced this phenonmenon without being stripped of their
county label. Sevenoaks has been heavily dependent on its commuter link to
the City and the London area for decades; is it therefore London and are
they Londoners?

This distinguishes the population enormously from 'other' parts of Kent
outside the metropolis, where growth was slower and more organic, based
more
upon the growing populaiton generally and drift towards the nearest
town/industry.

I don't agree that this is an enormous "distinction" compared to other areas
of Kent, particularly other areas of west Kent that grew at the same time,
eg developments near Gravesend and Dartford (Istead Rise etc). If you look
at the ads and promotional materials for the big suburban swathes of Bexley
that were produced at the time you will see them specifically promoted as
"move out of London into Kent", very much that the move to Bexley was a
leaving behind of the urban values of London. It just so happens that the
development adjoined the LCC boundary, but so what?

And the situation still exists today. People move to Bexley, I wager, to
achieve a greater distance from London and/or a closer affinity with Kent -
people do *not* move to Bexley to "live in London". Take a look at any
estate agent; not a single one woud ever promote a Bexley property as "in
London", but always as "in Kent", simply because that it what Bexley people
want to be affiliated with.

Already you have a situation where not only is Bexley
physically joined to London (which should be sufficient in anyone's book
to
make it a part of the metropolis)

So you would say that Dartford is in London too? The boudary with Crayford
is absurd, in the one street in Crayford their are houses with garages in
Dartford district (KCC) but the main house is in Bexley (GL).

but there was by WW2 a cultural difference
between metropolitan Kent (Bexley, Bromley etc) which largely grew as a
result of an influx of polulation from the inner London and the rest of
Kent
(i.e. outside Greater London today).

What about the cultural differene now today though? Bexley's static
population of largely non-ethnic origin is much closer to the population
characteristics of Kent, and far removed from the diverse population found
in most of proper "London".

2) The 20 years up to WW2 both physically and culturally changed Bexley,
so
much so that when the country's civil defences were being organised,
Bexley
and Bromley were under the control of the London Civil Defence Region, not
the South Eastern Region which was responsible for the rest of Kent. One
reason for this was that Bexley and Bromley have always been a part of the
Metropolitan Police District, another generations-old distinction between
the heritage of the metropolitan and rural Kents which predates not only
the
GLC but also the LCC.

Granted, but strategic areas do not a Londoner make :-)

You say that Bexley is a part of Kent for "all other purposes". What are
these purposes? As far as I can tell Bexley is in Kent for:

a- Postal address. Although as another poster pointed out, the county can
be
omitted, or indeed London can be used provided the postcode is correct-
this
precedent was established by the Royal Mail due to the number of county
changes that followed a decade after London in 1974 when a great many
people
demanded the right to choose to use either the traditional or new county

Strictly speaking "London" would be wrong as far as I'm aware. The
administrative county is "allowed", so "Greater London" could be used (but I
have only ever seen this once on a local business sign and it has since
changed to Kent [no doubt following an avalanche of complaints ;-)])

b- Cricket. No county of (Greater) London exists, hence (broadly) SE
London
is covered by Kent (who have had grounds in Blackheath, Catford and
Beckenham) , SW London by Surrey (The Oval), W and N London by Middlesex
(Lords, Southgate, Uxbridge) and E London by Essex (Ilford, Leyton).

You missed out coverage by Kent Messenger group newspapers and Kent radio
and TV, and lots of other organisations and charities. Local media is
particularly important I feel. Listen to Radio Kent and you will often hear
about a third of the callers actually from Bexley or Bromley, Invicta FM
plays in shops and pubs around here (Old Bexley).

Wheras I can count these for London:

a- Administration. London Borough of Bexley, Greater London Authority,
London Mayor, London Region European Constituency.

Only relatively recently, but these are still just "administrative" areas
that have little meaning to ordinary people up and down my road.

b- Civil organisations. Metropolitan Police, London Fire Brigade, London
Ambulance Service, NHS.

Yes, but this is partly as a result of he Met's relatively large area that
was established many moons ago (long before suburban Bexley came into
being). Not surprisingly, other civil organisations adopted a similar area.
But note the "Metropolitan Police" was not and still isn't called the
"London Police".

c- Transport (already waffled on about that above!).

d- Culturally. Yes, I'm sure some will raise eyebrows at that (!), but
while
Bexley residents may not have much in common with the average resident of
inner city London, they certainly have more in common with fellow
commuterland residents of Bromley, or Sutton, or Finchley etc. than they
do
with the countryfolk in the county of Kent across the M25.

Having many friends down in Kent, I partly agree, partly disagree. Do we
have much in common with the high-density urban dwellers of cental London?
Agreed not. Do we have much in common with other commuterland areas like
Bromley and Sutton? Yes, I'm sure in general that would be true. But do we
also have much in common with other London commuters from Sevenoaks,
Tonbridge, Dartford, Swanley, Medway, Faversham and beyond? Well, yes, I
think we do. We have a lot in common with other people in SouthEast england
who live in suburban areas and who commute to jobs in central London, but
that doesn't make us all Londoners, I say. We all still have our own town
centres and neighbourhoods and our own distinct local identities.

Indeed, as many
of the people who populated the thousands of new houses in the 1920s or
1930s as commuters came from inner London, many more have historic family
roots in inner London than in Kent whether they realise it or not, whereas
most residents of Kent itself can probably go back many generations in the
county.

But see my point above about how Bexley was promoted to these people. The
very benefit of moving out was to escape London and enjoy a less urban way
of life. And by your reckoning, then, Medway and Maidstone should be merged
into Greater London now as well then? I notice Ken Livingstone takes this
line, but the truth is that there are thousands of ex-Londoners and those
with a London family history who live all over Kent; does this make Kent
less Kent???

e- Economically. Suburban Bexley is entirely dependent on the economy of
London, whereas Kent itself has a stronger relationship with agriculture
in
the centre/south, tourism in the 'Garden of Kent', some traditional
industry
(incl shipping) along the Thames and Channel coast and towns are
self-sufficient to a much larger extent. Bexley is a suburb, which has
little industry and sugnificantly fewer jobs than its population requires,
hence the dominance of commuting to the centre of London, which makes it a
suburb and not a distinct self-sufficient urban settlement.

Compare and contrast with Sevenoaks and Dartford (and Watford, St Albans,
Hatfield etc). Did you know that less than 50% of Bexley workers commute to
"London" for work? I bet you thought it was higher than that though (as
this is often the impression given). Plus with any new large scale work
opportunities arising in the Thames Gateway, more Bexley people may end up
working to the east rather than in London, who knows. Bexley has some light
industy and a relatively large local retail economy. Compare this with
somewhere like Sevenoaks. Few urban settlements within moderately distance
of London are truly self-sufficient without London commuting, but that
doesn't make them all "London".

f- Telecoms. Don't know about anyone else, but I think our FOOts Cray
phone
number was replaced with an 01- code at the same point in the 1960s as
everyone else in London's. (I realise that due to the nature of the
telecom
lines, this is not a very precise measure, with bits of Greater London
still
outside 020 (Erith, Uxbridge etc) and bits outside within (Ewell,
Loughton);
but clearly there's a very good match with the Greater London boundary.)

In terms of area, I think about 50% of Bexley has an 01322 (Dartford) area
code, not London. Me included :-) Sidcup and Bexleyheath exchanges are
020, with Slade Green, Erith and Crayford assigned to 01322. So actually a
majority of exhanges in Bexley are non-London?

g- Geographically. Well, just look at a map- Bexley is a part of the
built-up area of London, which should really settle the issue regardless
of
the above.

So is Dartford (and within the M25) but is it London? I think "London" the
label should be used for the middle part where residents identify with and
want to be part of the London brand. I am happy to be part of any Greater
London government area (assuming they work for Bexley and don't spend all
the time dwelling on central London - something I suspect at present) and
adopt some kind of compromise branding like "metropolitan Kent" to mean
Bexley, Bromley, Dartford etc, but I don't want to be called a Londoner or
be described as living in SE London - EVER! :-)

I am sure there is a compromise here somewhere.

I have missed out a whole section on one of the most important aspects
though - planning and nightmare documents like the London Plan that read
like a death sentence for the suburbs. Ken's phrases like "London has to
intensify and increase housing densities within its own boundaries" I think
is extremely dangerous talk indeed, given that the boundary is fairly
arbitrary and has not been reviewed for some time AND given the fact that
there' so much more space outside GL to develop rather than the tiny pockets
of open space we have left within! But it's late so that'll have to wait
for another time...

Nick