In article ,
Martin Underwood writes
You'd think that it would make sense for the boundaries between one
"county" and another to be moved from time to time to take account of
any urban sprawl of a city on the boundary, so as always to avoid
splitting that city. The conurbation of Reading is split between
Reading, West Berkshire and Wokingham, when it would be much better for
the boundary to be moved so it runs through sparsely-populated areas
between Reading and the surrounding villages. Likewise for London -
though where you (literally!) draw the line between London and its
surroundings is a more difficult one!

This happened in Reading about a century ago. The Berks/Oxon boundary
used to be the Thames, then Caversham - the Reading suburb north of the
Thames - was moved into Berks, and into Reading.
--
Thoss

thoss wrote:
:
This happened in Reading about a century ago. The Berks/Oxon boundary
used to be the Thames, then Caversham - the Reading suburb north of the
Thames - was moved into Berks, and into Reading.

We used to live in Appleton, Cheshire, in the early 70's. When the GPO
decided Warrington was to be our postal district, we rebelled and used
to put "Appleton, Warrington, Cheshire" on our letters, which the GPO
didn't like because Warrington was in Lancashire (north of the Mersey).
Letters often arrived with Cheshire scribbled out and Lancashire added.

The situation was finally resolved when the moved the whole of
Warrington into Cheshire in 1974 having invented Greater Manchester and
Merseyside.

(Actually, I think they moved the county boundaries, as it was easier
than moving the town :-)

On 13/11/05 21:13, "matt" wrote:

We used to live in Appleton, Cheshire, in the early 70's. When the GPO
decided Warrington was to be our postal district, we rebelled and used
to put "Appleton, Warrington, Cheshire" on our letters,

Why?

Stimpy wrote:

On 13/11/05 21:13, "matt" wrote:

We used to live in Appleton, Cheshire, in the early 70's. When the GPO
decided Warrington was to be our postal district, we rebelled and used
to put "Appleton, Warrington, Cheshire" on our letters,


Why?


'cos we didn't live in Lancashire, but if we didn't put Warrington on
our letters, they ended up in Oxford. Or possibly Wisconsin.

(oh all right then, it was just snobbery :-)

Martin Underwood wrote:

You'd think that it would make sense for the boundaries between one "county"
and another to be moved from time to time

They are. Repeatedly. And it always causes arguments and wastes a lot of
time and money.

The problem is that as soon as a line is drawn on a map to enclose some
particular area or not, people notice that generally it is advantageous
to develop just outside that boundary because land or local taxes are
cheaper. Thus the sprawl develops. The only way this will stop is to
return to the days of greenbelt policy, and make the belts sufficiently
wide and well protected. Fat chance.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p14486547.html
(37 073 at Wolverhampton, 1985)

DERWENT Zone 6 conquers ten further Southern stations...
Sun, 13 Nov 2005 19:19:14 -0000, "TKD"


I'm surprised that no-one has referred to this yet, though it doesn't
seem to appear anywhere on the Southern (or any other) website(s).

I've seen a poster at a Southern station, which has been there at least
a week, that states that from 2 January 2006, when new fares are
introduced, the London's Zone 6 will be extended to include the
following stations to the south of Croydon and Sutton:

SNIP

I don't understand why they didn't just invent a zone 7.

Does this also mean that the Zone A tube stations will also be moving
into Zone 6?

Probably because TfL have a long term goal of having fewer zones, not
more.

Also the inclusion in Zone 6 seems to be a Southern idea rather than a TfL
initiative, probably just to make its charging "fairer" as it has adopted zonal
charging for all its station within London.


Bet we see the Penalty Fare area extended to cover the whole branches
then.



PRAR
--
http://www.i.am/prar/ and http://prar.fotopic.net/
As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it. --Dick Cavett
Please reply to the newsgroup. That is why it exists.
NB Anti-spam measures in force
- If you must email me use the Reply to address and not

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 19:05:44 -0000, "TKD" wrote:


"TKD" wrote in message ...

You'd think that it would make sense for the boundaries between one "county"
and another to be moved from time to time to take account of any urban sprawl of a city on the
boundary, so as always to avoid splitting that city. The conurbation of Reading is split
between
Reading, West Berkshire and Wokingham, when it would be much better for the boundary to be
moved
so it runs through sparsely-populated areas between Reading and the surrounding villages.
Likewise
for London - though where you (literally!) draw the line between London and its surroundings is
a
more difficult one!

Ken Livingstone has suggested aligning the London boundary to the M25.

Initially Epsom, and several other peripheral districts, were intended to be part
of Greater London.


Ken has had some daft ideas but I'm with him on this one. But will it
entitle all those domiciled within the M25 to have a vote in the
election for London mayor? Somehow I doubt it.

What makes you say that? If the London regional boundary is realigned
to the M25 then everyone in that boundary will have the right to vote for
the Mayor and a London Assembly candidate.

In fact some minor realignment to the M25 has already taken place, although
the number of affected population gaining (or loosing) that right has been in
single figures or zero.

An example: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1993/Uksi_19931218_en_1.htm

Another example: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1993/Uksi_19930441_en_1.htm


I was thinking of large parts of Surrey, namely Weybridge, Walton on
Thames etc, and the likes of Watford and Denham, all of which fall
inside the M25. Not all of these can be described as having a net
effect of zero...........

G

"Gavin Hamilton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 19:05:44 -0000, "TKD" wrote:


"TKD" wrote in message ...

You'd think that it would make sense for the boundaries between one "county"
and another to be moved from time to time to take account of any urban sprawl of a city on
the
boundary, so as always to avoid splitting that city. The conurbation of Reading is split
between
Reading, West Berkshire and Wokingham, when it would be much better for the boundary to be
moved
so it runs through sparsely-populated areas between Reading and the surrounding villages.
Likewise
for London - though where you (literally!) draw the line between London and its surroundings
is
a
more difficult one!

Ken Livingstone has suggested aligning the London boundary to the M25.

Initially Epsom, and several other peripheral districts, were intended to be part
of Greater London.


Ken has had some daft ideas but I'm with him on this one. But will it
entitle all those domiciled within the M25 to have a vote in the
election for London mayor? Somehow I doubt it.

What makes you say that? If the London regional boundary is realigned
to the M25 then everyone in that boundary will have the right to vote for
the Mayor and a London Assembly candidate.

In fact some minor realignment to the M25 has already taken place, although
the number of affected population gaining (or loosing) that right has been in
single figures or zero.

An example: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1993/Uksi_19931218_en_1.htm

Another example: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1993/Uksi_19930441_en_1.htm


I was thinking of large parts of Surrey, namely Weybridge, Walton on
Thames etc, and the likes of Watford and Denham, all of which fall
inside the M25. Not all of these can be described as having a net
effect of zero...........

I still don't see how or why those places could move from the South East
England or East of England regions to the London region without giving
the residents the same voting rights as those already in the London region?
There isn't any argument, benefit or precedent to support such a thing.

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 21:46:55 -0000, "TKD" wrote:


"Gavin Hamilton" wrote in message
.. .



I was thinking of large parts of Surrey, namely Weybridge, Walton on
Thames etc, and the likes of Watford and Denham, all of which fall
inside the M25. Not all of these can be described as having a net
effect of zero...........

I still don't see how or why those places could move from the South East
England or East of England regions to the London region without giving
the residents the same voting rights as those already in the London region?
There isn't any argument, benefit or precedent to support such a thing.


If Ken wants Greater London to use the M25 as THE boundary he will
have to include those areas and, I suspect, the political forces will
not want upset the current cosy voting pattern - god forbid that the
blue rinses of Walton & Weybridge should have a say in the election
of the Greater London assembly and the mayor of London. I can just
imagine some candidate saying (to paraphrase Patrica Hughit -
patronising old bag) "this electorate is too middle class".

File under "good idea - not politically acceptable".

G

I was thinking of large parts of Surrey, namely Weybridge, Walton on
Thames etc, and the likes of Watford and Denham, all of which fall
inside the M25. Not all of these can be described as having a net
effect of zero...........

I still don't see how or why those places could move from the South East
England or East of England regions to the London region without giving
the residents the same voting rights as those already in the London region?
There isn't any argument, benefit or precedent to support such a thing.


If Ken wants Greater London to use the M25 as THE boundary he will
have to include those areas and, I suspect, the political forces will
not want upset the current cosy voting pattern - god forbid that the
blue rinses of Walton & Weybridge should have a say in the election
of the Greater London assembly and the mayor of London. I can just
imagine some candidate saying (to paraphrase Patrica Hughit -
patronising old bag) "this electorate is too middle class".

File under "good idea - not politically acceptable".


For a start it will not be his decision, it will be made at Westminster level.
I'm not entirely sure why he wants to extend the border as it doesn't make
much political sense for him personally as most of the newly added London
electorate would be unlikely to vote for him, preferring a low-tax, low-spend,
"everyone have as many cars as you like" Tory mayor. The other problem will
be the local government districts which will need to be redrawn. There will
be small chunks left of districts outside the M25 that will need to absorbed
into some other entity. Which perhaps uncovers his real intention. If the
boundary is extended the existing London Boroughs will need to be reformed
and he has already suggested larger "super boroughs". The intention is
possibly to eliminate such thorns in his side as the City of Westminster London
Borough Council. Statue of Mandela anyone?