London Metropolitan line Watford
 

On 12/28/2016 10:53 PM, Recliner wrote:
michael adams wrote:

"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
...

TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.

With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.

Now what could possibly go wrong ?

Good point! TfL seems to be a lot better at running, and granting
conessions to run, railways than the DfT, regardless of which individuals
or parties temporarily occupy the mayor's and SoS's offices. And London
mayors stay in the job much longer than any transport secretary.

I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary point in
history, presumably the day he was born.

Government of what later became Greater London by parish vestries was
not a great success.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

On 12/28/2016 11:44 PM, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\12\28 22:53, Recliner wrote:

I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary
point in
history, presumably the day he was born.

Don't rehash this one again, or I'll send you to Warwickshire.

My part of Northwest Birmingham was in Staffordshire, while most of what
became the enlarged Birmingham in 1911 was in Warwickshire.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

On 12/29/2016 7:20 AM, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 28/12/2016 22:53, Recliner wrote:
michael adams wrote:

"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
...

TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.

With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.

Now what could possibly go wrong ?

Good point! TfL seems to be a lot better at running, and granting
conessions to run, railways than the DfT, regardless of which individuals
or parties temporarily occupy the mayor's and SoS's offices. And London
mayors stay in the job much longer than any transport secretary.

I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary
point in
history, presumably the day he was born.


The conventional answer is people like him want to freeze the world at
the time they lost their virginity. Hence all the old fogeys harking
back to a mythical golden age in the 1960s.

It took me till 1970.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

On 2016\12\29 07:20, Graeme Wall wrote:

The conventional answer is people like him want to freeze the world at
the time they lost their virginity.

That explains my complete lack of nostalgia.

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 00:07:07 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, 29 December 2016 07:20:15 UTC, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 28/12/2016 22:53, Recliner wrote:
michael adams wrote:

"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
...

TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.

With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.

Now what could possibly go wrong ?

Good point! TfL seems to be a lot better at running, and granting
conessions to run, railways than the DfT, regardless of which individuals
or parties temporarily occupy the mayor's and SoS's offices. And London
mayors stay in the job much longer than any transport secretary.

I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary point in
history, presumably the day he was born.


The conventional answer is people like him want to freeze the world at
the time they lost their virginity. Hence all the old fogeys harking
back to a mythical golden age in the 1960s.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Either that or imagining that there was some mythical golden age just before they were born. When I was younger, I used to get very fed up of elderly relatives saying how much better things were in the "old days", which by their definition were before my time (1965 in my case) so I had no way of disproving them. ("Ooooohhh, isn't that book so **dear**! In my day, it would only have cost 1/6..." etc etc etc. Does anyone say "dear" to mean expensive these days?)

That harking back to some mythical golden age is, unfortunately, a very powerful electoral weapon, as Donald Trump has just proved. I am waiting for Farage to say we should bring back £sd!

That may be true for some. I do logic for a living, and observe what
works. So, tThere are several reasons I believe London's present
structure is contrived.

Let's start with history, geography, and civic pride. No-one in
Croydon, Kingston-Upon-Thames, or Romford believes he is in London
proper.

Ask anyone in Amersham, Aylesbury, or Buckingham where he is, he
knows, and is happy to belong to the county of Buckingham. Time has
built a common identity and with it local pride.

However hard Whitehall tries to make Middlesex go away, it just will
not. Middlesex was London's county, save for the City itself.
You will notice it is not the"GLA Cricket Club".

That said the London Borough's worked well. When I lived in the
Borough of Paddington, I was happy to do so. Something was amiss when
we were arbitrarily annexed to the City of Westminster. The new
boroughs are altogether unwieldy.

Then there is the competition thing. I notice that the Borough of
Camden now has sizable signs where one passes from Westminster into
their borough. That tells us that Camden sees its own worth a local
ID is starting to develop.

The 89 municipalities within the County of Los Angeles compete for
jobs and residents and each has a unique style. This is healthy for
business. Said municipalities are keen to increase their tax base and
will incentivise desirable businesses to locate within their city
limits.

Then there is the diminution of power. No one Borough or County
leader is all powerful. IMOH north of the Thames unitary authorities
within a ceremonial Middlesex would restore civic pride, and provoke
competition to attract desirable employment. Although would work
better if local authorities had more access to taxes raised within
their bailiwick.

With regrets to Mr. Brush, where it just Nigel, I would have been
happy to comply with your wish to drop the subject. However, I
respect fellow ferroequinologist, Gardener, and would not want to
ignore his contribution.

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 00:07:07 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, 29 December 2016 07:20:15 UTC, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 28/12/2016 22:53, Recliner wrote:
michael adams wrote:

"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
...

TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.

With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.

Now what could possibly go wrong ?

Good point! TfL seems to be a lot better at running, and granting
conessions to run, railways than the DfT, regardless of which
individuals or parties temporarily occupy the mayor's and SoS's
offices. And London mayors stay in the job much longer than any
transport secretary.

I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial
county? Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some
arbitrary point in history, presumably the day he was born.


The conventional answer is people like him want to freeze the world at
the time they lost their virginity. Hence all the old fogeys harking
back to a mythical golden age in the 1960s.

Either that or imagining that there was some mythical golden age just
before they were born. When I was younger, I used to get very fed up of
elderly relatives saying how much better things were in the "old days",
which by their definition were before my time (1965 in my case) so I had
no way of disproving them. ("Ooooohhh, isn't that book so **dear**! In my
day, it would only have cost 1/6..." etc etc etc. Does anyone say "dear"
to mean expensive these days?)

That harking back to some mythical golden age is, unfortunately, a very
powerful electoral weapon, as Donald Trump has just proved. I am waiting
for Farage to say we should bring back £sd!

That may be true for some. I do logic for a living, and observe what
works. So, tThere are several reasons I believe London's present
structure is contrived.

Unfortunately, the general public doesn't do logic at all, refuses to
believe experts or be rational at all much of the time.

Let's start with history, geography, and civic pride. No-one in
Croydon, Kingston-Upon-Thames, or Romford believes he is in London
proper.

Ask anyone in Amersham, Aylesbury, or Buckingham where he is, he
knows, and is happy to belong to the county of Buckingham. Time has
built a common identity and with it local pride.

However hard Whitehall tries to make Middlesex go away, it just will
not. Middlesex was London's county, save for the City itself.
You will notice it is not the"GLA Cricket Club".

That said the London Borough's worked well. When I lived in the
Borough of Paddington, I was happy to do so. Something was amiss when
we were arbitrarily annexed to the City of Westminster. The new
boroughs are altogether unwieldy.

Then there is the competition thing. I notice that the Borough of
Camden now has sizable signs where one passes from Westminster into
their borough. That tells us that Camden sees its own worth a local
ID is starting to develop.

The 89 municipalities within the County of Los Angeles compete for
jobs and residents and each has a unique style. This is healthy for
business. Said municipalities are keen to increase their tax base and
will incentivise desirable businesses to locate within their city
limits.

Then there is the diminution of power. No one Borough or County
leader is all powerful. IMOH north of the Thames unitary authorities
within a ceremonial Middlesex would restore civic pride, and provoke
competition to attract desirable employment. Although would work
better if local authorities had more access to taxes raised within
their bailiwick.

With regrets to Mr. Brush, where it just Nigel, I would have been
happy to comply with your wish to drop the subject. However, I
respect fellow ferroequinologist, Gardener, and would not want to
ignore his contribution.

These arguments were done to death in the Herbert report. After that, a ring
of authorities round London, including Epsom and Watford, fought
successfully to stay out of Greater London and the result was the London
Government Act 1963 with only minor adjustments to the boundary since.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

e27002 aurora wrote on 29 Dec 2016 at 09:57 ...
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 00:07:07 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, 29 December 2016 07:20:15 UTC, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 28/12/2016 22:53, Recliner wrote:
michael adams wrote:

"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
...

TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.

With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.

Now what could possibly go wrong ?

Good point! TfL seems to be a lot better at running, and granting
conessions to run, railways than the DfT, regardless of which individuals
or parties temporarily occupy the mayor's and SoS's offices. And London
mayors stay in the job much longer than any transport secretary.

I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary point in
history, presumably the day he was born.


The conventional answer is people like him want to freeze the world at
the time they lost their virginity. Hence all the old fogeys harking
back to a mythical golden age in the 1960s.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Either that or imagining that there was some mythical golden age just before they were born. When I was younger, I used to get very fed up of elderly relatives saying how much better things were in the "old days", which by their definition were before my time (1965 in my case) so I had no way of disproving them. ("Ooooohhh, isn't that book so **dear**! In my day, it would only have cost 1/6..." etc etc etc. Does anyone say "dear" to mean expensive these days?)

That harking back to some mythical golden age is, unfortunately, a very powerful electoral weapon, as Donald Trump has just proved. I am waiting for Farage to say we should bring back £sd!

That may be true for some. I do logic for a living, and observe what
works. So, tThere are several reasons I believe London's present
structure is contrived.

Let's start with history, geography, and civic pride. No-one in
Croydon, Kingston-Upon-Thames, or Romford believes he is in London
proper.

I was brought up in Orpington and Bromley in the 1940s and '50s. As far
as I was concerned, they were London-centric suburbs, and I have always
been proud to be a Londoner.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 13:28:26 +0000, "Richard J."
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote on 29 Dec 2016 at 09:57 ...
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 00:07:07 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, 29 December 2016 07:20:15 UTC, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 28/12/2016 22:53, Recliner wrote:
michael adams wrote:

"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
...

TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.

With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.

Now what could possibly go wrong ?

Good point! TfL seems to be a lot better at running, and granting
conessions to run, railways than the DfT, regardless of which individuals
or parties temporarily occupy the mayor's and SoS's offices. And London
mayors stay in the job much longer than any transport secretary.

I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary point in
history, presumably the day he was born.


The conventional answer is people like him want to freeze the world at
the time they lost their virginity. Hence all the old fogeys harking
back to a mythical golden age in the 1960s.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Either that or imagining that there was some mythical golden age just before they were born. When I was younger, I used to get very fed up of elderly relatives saying how much better things were in the "old days", which by their definition were before my time (1965 in my case) so I had no way of disproving them. ("Ooooohhh, isn't that book so **dear**! In my day, it would only have cost 1/6..." etc etc etc. Does anyone say "dear" to mean expensive these days?)

That harking back to some mythical golden age is, unfortunately, a very powerful electoral weapon, as Donald Trump has just proved. I am waiting for Farage to say we should bring back £sd!

That may be true for some. I do logic for a living, and observe what
works. So, tThere are several reasons I believe London's present
structure is contrived.

Let's start with history, geography, and civic pride. No-one in
Croydon, Kingston-Upon-Thames, or Romford believes he is in London
proper.

I was brought up in Orpington and Bromley in the 1940s and '50s. As far
as I was concerned, they were London-centric suburbs, and I have always
been proud to be a Londoner.

So a bit like US wannabes who've never set foot in the place ?

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 07:40:47 +0000, Martin Edwards
wrote:

On 12/28/2016 10:53 PM, Recliner wrote:
michael adams wrote:

"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
...

TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.

With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.

Now what could possibly go wrong ?

Good point! TfL seems to be a lot better at running, and granting
conessions to run, railways than the DfT, regardless of which individuals
or parties temporarily occupy the mayor's and SoS's offices. And London
mayors stay in the job much longer than any transport secretary.

I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary point in
history, presumably the day he was born.

Government of what later became Greater London by parish vestries was
not a great success.

Probably why they were stripped of their civil government functions
the century before Greater London was thought of.

London Metropolitan line Watford
 

In article ,
(Charles Ellson) wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 07:40:47 +0000, Martin Edwards
wrote:

On 12/28/2016 10:53 PM, Recliner wrote:
michael adams wrote:

"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
...

TfL is back under the control of the tin pot mayor of an artificial
county. Given the national importance of London's transport
infrastructure TfL ought to answer to Parliament.

With Chris Grayling in overall charge presumably.

Now what could possibly go wrong ?

Good point! TfL seems to be a lot better at running, and granting
conessions to run, railways than the DfT, regardless of which
individuals or parties temporarily occupy the mayor's and SoS's
offices. And London mayors stay in the job much longer than any
transport secretary.

I'm also curious about what constitutes a real vs an artificial county?
Adrian seems to want to freeze the political map at some arbitrary
point in history, presumably the day he was born.

Government of what later became Greater London by parish vestries was
not a great success.

Probably why they were stripped of their civil government functions
the century before Greater London was thought of.

No actually. Greater London was first /thought of/ before the Metropolitan
Board of Works was created in 1854. The idea of a more extensive area was
considered then but not adopted, apart from strange exceptions like the
Wimbledon & Putney Commons Conservators, a public body which, unusually,
straddled the London boundary.

--
Colin Rosenstiel