Richard J. writes
So perhaps we should wind back *all* the 1960s local Government
revisions and go back to having local parish councils only.

While I agree with most of your points, I don't know what you mean
here. Before the GLC was formed, we had boroughs (e.g. Bromley,
Beckenham) and urban districts (e.g. Penge, Orpington), and above them
in the hierarchy there was a county council (Kent for those areas).
That's not "having local parish councils only".

It was to save having to type; "... and go back to having local
government administration based on old parish boundaries". But I'm sure
that you knew that already didn't you?

--
Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Nick writes
Would you prefer they referred to you as 'Dear resident of the and
area
formerly part of the county of Middlesex, Kent, Surrey, Hertfordshire
or
Essex'?

Quite frankly, that would be better.

Quite frankly that's just ridiculous and merely serves to undermine the
rest of your argument.

I still thiink it would be better whether you think it's ridiculous or not.

Ever heard of the 'London Borough of Bromley'? That's its proper
name -
see the main page of www.bromley.gov.uk

Yeah, I've heard of it, it's just next door. Their website does appear
rather London-enthusiastic now (it never used to). I have never spoken
to
any Bromley councillors who are though.

Well the name of the council will have been the same since it was
formed.

I didn't claim otherewise. My point was that it was a "reluctanct" London
borough judging by the councillors I've spoken to. Note that Bexley dropped
the "London Borough" part of its name for most purposes some years ago, and
now goes under the alias of Bexley Council.

I am sure the vast majority of people in Bexley and Bromley would not
describe themselves as living "in London". All the real Londonders I
have
ever met and worked with would never regard such "outlying" areas as
Bexley
as part of London either.

And there are many residents living in the Boroughs of Bexley and
Bromley who do not regard themselves as living in Bexley or Bromley; but
living in places such as Orpington or Chislehurst. They may have
objected as strongly to being forced to become 'Bexley' or 'Bromley'
residents as you do to being addressed as a Londoner.

Yes, they might've done. So? Let local areas be called what local people
want them to be.

So perhaps we should wind back *all* the 1960s local Government
revisions and go back to having local parish councils only.

Are you saying the 1960s local Government revisions should be fixed in stone
then? Yes, of course we should review them and perhaps change them.

There has been no need to put a county as part of your address for many
years. So the correct postal address would end 'Bromley BR1...' or
'Bexley BR5...'.

Correct, but the postal county is still used extensively and I would
guess
well over 75% of all mail delivered in the UK still has a county field.
So
lots of people will see Bexley and Bromley addressed as Kent (and NEVER
London, which is not acceptable as part of the address).

Of course even when used, postal counties bore no relation to
geographical or political counties. Addresses in Cockfosters would have
a postal town of Barnet, Herts. Despite Cockfosters being in the London
Borough of Enfield and (geographically) in the County of Middlesex.

They bore a very strong relationship with almost all counties at one point.
You've merely picked out some of the (relatively few) that didn't match up.
Most did!

Part of my point in general is that it may well be sensible to include
places such as Dartford and Swanley as part of the GLA administration (so
Dartford station could be added to Zone 6 etc :-), but this is
jeopardised
by the fact that GLA will then want to take away the Kent branding and
call
the residents Londoners. People don't want it, it's not necessary, and I
believe it undermines the history and character of the areas they do this
with.

I think you're being *far* too sensitive.

I care about where I live and the the local people. Not an acceptable
characteristic of a "Londoner" I know.

The old GLC slogan was 'Working for London' and used for many years. It
appeared on everything that they made or did. I really don't see what
the difference is today with the GLA.

The GLC never referred to Bexley as "south east London" did they. The GLA
do, and intentionally so. There is a noticeable shift towards this in the
media as well, so maybe it's unfair to put all the blame the GLA for this;
but they sure as hell don't discourage it.

Let's look at some of the services provided in your area: buses will
have been 'London Transport' since 1933 (and in those days covered a far
wider area than they do today); the local TV news programmes are called
BBC London News and London Tonight; the local evening paper is the
Evening Standard, whose website is called www.thisislondon.co.uk; fires
are extinguished by the London Fire Brigade; crimes investigated by the
Metropolitan Police; even before WWII, water supplied by the
Metropolitan Water Board; accident victims are tended to by the London
Ambulance Service.

I can quote you an equally long list of services provided by Kent-based
agencies and bodies, but so what? Some of yours I would disagree with: I
wouldn't regard the Evening Standard as my local evening paper, and the BBC
only recently resurrected their "London" TV news and radio service, before
that we had proper coverage of the south-east including all home counties.
The editorial area for the London media services generally extends way
beyond GL, and so being served by London media is really not conclusive.

So the links to London are far greater than to places like Margate or
Maidstone.

Only because they have been intentionally severed and/or tampered with, and
continue to be.

I am not anti-GLA, I just don't want the London branding and to be
artificially separated from the Dartford area.

Nothing has changed in that respect since 1965.

I disagree entirely.

Nick

Unless I'm very much mistaken, it was Dave
), in message
who said:
Nick writes
Would you prefer they referred to you as 'Dear resident of the and
area formerly part of the county of Middlesex, Kent, Surrey,
Hertfordshire or Essex'?

Quite frankly, that would be better.

Quite frankly that's just ridiculous and merely serves to undermine
the rest of your argument.


Indeed.

Also, how far back do these ****s want to go?

There was time when the current LBoBexley wasn't part of Kent either,
because Kent didn't exist.

So let's refer to them as Mercia residents then, shall we?

I think it's deeply hypocritical to say that the 1963 London boundaries are
/wrong/, but the 1900 boundaries are OK.

Personally I have several gripes with the boundary commission's work, and
believe that London is long overdue a revamp - I'd like to realign the
Greater London boundary with the M25, which is the most obvious 'natural'
border we have right now.

BTN

Unless I'm very much mistaken, it was Matthew Rees
), in message
who said:
Nick wrote:
mega snip

I am not anti-GLA, I just don't want the London branding and to be
artificially separated from the Dartford area.

Nick

We have the same issue in Kingston upon Thames which we definately see
as part of Surrey even though we are a London Borough. We get round
that banding issue by being the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames
- no London there!


The situation wasn't helped by Surrey County Council housing their primary
offices there, when it wasn't even under their jurisdiction either.

For me, people who live in outlying areas who's big salary and house are
dependent upon a rapid commute into the City of London, but don't want to
live in Greater London because it's somehow vulgar/common are hypocrites of
the worst kind.

BTN

If you think local government boundaries are bad, try dealing with people who
think in postal districts. I had to call a Homebase shop once to find out why I
had waited in vain for a delivery. I happened to live about equidistant between
two stores.
When I gave my address, the manager person asked what postal district that was,
then told me triumphantly that I had got the wrong store, because the store in
my postal district was ... I had to point out that I knew which store I had
visited, and I had not posted myself to it, I got off a bus
there because it was conveniantly situated on my way home.
Regarding boundaries, once places became built up there were bound to be
oddities - our old house when I was a kid had a boundary plate on the side
wall, between Manchester and Salford. (some people assume the two cities were
separated by the river Irwell, but that was only in th e city centre. A teacher
told us about this drunk who regularly fell a kip each night on the bridge,
near Salford bus station. A passing Salford policeman would move him over to
the Manchester side. An hour or so later the Manchester policeman would come by
and would move the drunk back. Bit later the Salford guy came by again .. . and
so on. Happy innocent days).
Back to London, there may not be easy places to put boundaries. Each old
borough
and district spread out until it met the other. If you take a main road like
Kilburn High Rd. as boundary (as it is between Brent and Camden and was between
Willesden and Hampstead before that, unless I'm mistaken) then you bisect
Kilburn. But people will still say they live in Kilburn whatever side of the
road they live - except some yuppies who wanted Kilburn High Rd tube renamed
Mapesbury, the local government ward, because they thought it sounded better.
Funnily enough just down the road is Brondsbury rail station which really is
confusing, and Brondsbury was a fashionable location on the estate agents books
recently, but most people would think of it as nearer Kensal Rise. Now if you
were to start talking about how tube and rail stations got their name - like
Dollis Hill for instance, which is not on the hill, - and why saying a house is
" near such and such station" depends if you're buying or selling .. .

CharlesPottins writes
Regarding boundaries, once places became built up there were bound to
be oddities - our old house when I was a kid had a boundary plate on
the side wall, between Manchester and Salford. (some people assume the
two cities were separated by the river Irwell, but that was only in th
e city centre. A teacher told us about this drunk who regularly fell a
kip each night on the bridge, near Salford bus station. A passing
Salford policeman would move him over to the Manchester side. An hour
or so later the Manchester policeman would come by and would move the
drunk back. Bit later the Salford guy came by again .. . and so on.
Happy innocent days).

A similar story was recounted by Nicholas Rhea in his books - from which
the Heartbeat TV series derives (although they changed the characters
name to Rowan for some reason.

--
Dave

James Farrar wrote:

Dave wrote:

So perhaps we should wind back *all* the 1960s local Government
revisions and go back to having local parish councils only.

"Under the New London Plan, they're going to lump all those areas south
of the river together. They're going to call them 'Brighton'."

- Flanders and Swann, c.1960.

Colin McKenzie

Nick writes
Would you prefer they referred to you as 'Dear resident of the
area formerly part of the county of Middlesex, Kent, Surrey,
Hertfordshire or Essex'?

Quite frankly, that would be better.

Quite frankly that's just ridiculous and merely serves to undermine the
rest of your argument.

I still thiink it would be better whether you think it's ridiculous or not.

If you did a quick straw poll of people in the street and asked them if
they thought it was better - I reckon they'd all think you were a
nutter.

My point was that it was a "reluctanct" London borough judging by the
councillors I've spoken to. Note that Bexley dropped the "London
Borough" part of its name for most purposes some years ago, and now
goes under the alias of Bexley Council.

But my point was that it wasn't a 'new' thing. Not GLA propaganda as
you would believe.


I am sure the vast majority of people in Bexley and Bromley would not
describe themselves as living "in London". All the real Londonders I
have
ever met and worked with would never regard such "outlying" areas as
Bexley
as part of London either.

And there are many residents living in the Boroughs of Bexley and
Bromley who do not regard themselves as living in Bexley or Bromley; but
living in places such as Orpington or Chislehurst. They may have
objected as strongly to being forced to become 'Bexley' or 'Bromley'
residents as you do to being addressed as a Londoner.

Yes, they might've done. So? Let local areas be called what local people
want them to be.

There has been no need to put a county as part of your address for many
years. So the correct postal address would end 'Bromley BR1...' or
'Bexley BR5...'.

Correct, but the postal county is still used extensively and I would
guess well over 75% of all mail delivered in the UK still has a
county field. So lots of people will see Bexley and Bromley
addressed as Kent (and NEVER London, which is not acceptable as part
of the address).

Of course even when used, postal counties bore no relation to
geographical or political counties. Addresses in Cockfosters would have
a postal town of Barnet, Herts. Despite Cockfosters being in the London
Borough of Enfield and (geographically) in the County of Middlesex.

They bore a very strong relationship with almost all counties at one point.
You've merely picked out some of the (relatively few) that didn't match up.
Most did!

Postal counties *never* matched geographical counties. The postal
county derived from your postal town - if this was in a different county
(as it frequently was) then you had the wrong postal county.

People living in the London postal districts had London as part of their
address ever since the establishment of those districts (which mutt be
more than a 100 years). So people living in the Borough of Wood Green
in the County of Middlesex would have had their postal address as
London.

So it was a lot more widespread than you think, certainly more than just
a few. The organisation of postal districts/towns/counties was merely
for the operating convenience of the postal service - and for nothing
else.

Not an acceptable characteristic of a "Londoner" I know.

The thing is. I actually have some sympathy with some of what you say,
but when you make a stupid comment like this (which would be offensive
to many people), then it undermines the rest of your argument.

I think you are aiming at the wrong target. You're blaming the GLA for
a process which was set in stone in 1965. A process that started long
before that.

I too think its sad that local identity is being lost, but whereas you
think of it in Bexley vs London, I think of it in smaller terms. I live
in the London Borough of Haringey, I don't know of anyone who, when
asked, would say they live in Haringey - they would say they live in
places such as Tottenham, Wood Green, Crouch End, Muswell Hill, or even
Harringay - but never Haringey. However, if asked if they came from
Middlesex or London, then I reckon most would say London.

Why? Nothing to do with the GLA, just that over the past 100 years, the
area has become more Londonised (for the various reasons outlined
previously).

The old GLC slogan was 'Working for London' and used for many years. It
appeared on everything that they made or did. I really don't see what
the difference is today with the GLA.

The GLC never referred to Bexley as "south east London" did they.

I don't know. But I can't think of any other term they would have used
for it

The GLA do, and intentionally so.

Indeed. Bexley is in the south-east corner of Greater London. It seems
eminently sensible to refer to it as south east London.

Let's look at some of the services provided in your area: buses will
have been 'London Transport' since 1933 (and in those days covered a far
wider area than they do today); the local TV news programmes are called
BBC London News and London Tonight; the local evening paper is the
Evening Standard, whose website is called www.thisislondon.co.uk; fires
are extinguished by the London Fire Brigade; crimes investigated by the
Metropolitan Police; even before WWII, water supplied by the
Metropolitan Water Board; accident victims are tended to by the London
Ambulance Service.

I can quote you an equally long list of services provided by Kent-based
agencies and bodies, but so what?

But you didn't. Perhaps you couldn't think of any. I'd be surprised if
there were any that were as 'visible' as the ones I listed.

So the links to London are far greater than to places like Margate or
Maidstone.

Only because they have been intentionally severed and/or tampered with, and
continue to be.

Links such as?

I am not anti-GLA, I just don't want the London branding and to be
artificially separated from the Dartford area.

Nothing has changed in that respect since 1965.

I disagree entirely.

For 15 years, there was no level of government for the whole of Greater
London. Now there is, so you are bound to see more London-wide
material.

What I find very puzzling is why you seem to single out the GLA as some
sort of ethnic cleansing body determined to eradicate all signs of
Kentishness. That's not only bizarre but bordering on the paranoid.

--
Dave

Ben Nunn writes

Personally I have several gripes with the boundary commission's work,
and believe that London is long overdue a revamp - I'd like to realign
the Greater London boundary with the M25, which is the most obvious
'natural' border we have right now.

I'd disagree with that. If a redrawing of the GL boundary is to be
done, it should look at how well-linked (socially and economically) a
place is to London. I think that Potters Bar should be included - but
simply choosing the boundary to match that chosen by the DoT to get
their road building plans passed many years ago, would exclude it.

--
Dave

Colin McKenzie wrote:
James Farrar wrote:

Dave wrote:


So perhaps we should wind back *all* the 1960s local Government
revisions and go back to having local parish councils only.

"Under the New London Plan, they're going to lump all those areas south
of the river together. They're going to call them 'Brighton'."


- Flanders and Swann, c.1960.

The very same.