London Banter - View Single Post

Michael Bell · January 23rd 05, 04:32 PM posted to uk.transport.london

In article , Arthur Figgis
URL:mailto

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:21:17 +1030, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote:

Michael Bell wrote:
Humberside has failed, but it was conceived at a time when the population of
this country was foreseen as 90 million by 2000. Now our problem is falling
population - and London wants to grab as much of it as possible. (Birth rate
dropped to 1.7children/woman in the early 70s,

Yet they still built the Humber bridge!

Election bribe. People still aren't entirely sure they wanted it,
though!

"Humbers*de" failed as a concept not because of birth rates, but
because the overwhelming majority of residents had zero loyalty to or
identification with it. Yorkshiremen and Yellowbellies were happy
where they had been for the previous millennium or so, and didn't feel
the need for any southern politicians to b*gger about with their
identities. :-)

As an administrative area it was a totally artificial lumping together
of two unrelated areas which each had strong loyalties elsewhere. Even
with the bridge there is little communication between the sides of the
estuary. Similarly, there might be a business or political case for
running eastern Kent from Pas de Calais, or for administering the City
of London from Frankfurt, but it's probably not what the people there
want either!

It certainly is true that the Yorkshire/Lincolnshire created difficulties
for Humberside, but if we had to house another 40 million by 2000 (5 years
ago!) those difficulties would have been overcome!

Michael Bell

--