In message
of
Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:08:16 in uk.transport.london, John B
writes

[snip]

The people of London didn't want Boris as their mayor. The people of
various unsavoury outposts that the Tories gerrymandered into Greater
London in the first place to end Labour's dominance of the County of
London wanted Boris as their mayor; the people of actual London voted
for Ken.

Your memory of history differs from mine.
ISTR Mrs Thatcher's government eliminated the GLC and ILEA. At the time,
I thought that adding another ring of buroughs to London could have
served her purpose, permanently gerrymandered London and be justified
from a transport perspective.

ISTR the mayoralty was created by a Labour government and the 3
elections have resulted in Independent Labour, Labour and Conservative.

Hubris is an occupational hazard for politicians. I changed my vote in
response to the westward extension of congestion charging and the
Chelsea tractor proposals. Personally, I abominate them but saw no
reason to charge them more than heavy goods vehicles. The congestion
charge was extended in directions which had little to do with
congestion.

As a motorist and cyclist, I hate bendy-buses; as a pedestrian, I love
them because fares are voluntary.
--
Walter Briscoe

Walter Briscoe wrote:

Your memory of history differs from mine.
ISTR Mrs Thatcher's government eliminated the GLC and ILEA. At the time, I
thought that adding another ring of buroughs to London could have served
her purpose, permanently gerrymandered London and be justified from a
transport perspective.

Some of the boroughs such as Watford and Epsom & Ewell had fought hard
campaigns against being added to the Greater London area in the 1960s and
would probably have done so again. But more generally the problem was that
the GLC did not deliver that high a proportion of services, especially to
the outer boroughs, with the result that politicians in the latter were
demanding its abolition regardless of which party was in County Hall. Adding
another ring of boroughs would have been very awkward, and also have had
knock-one effects on the surrounding county councils (and the division of
services in the counties was substantially different from London so this
would also have meant the boroughs taking on additional duties that weren't
always suitable for borough/district level.) It is ahistorical to see the
abolition of the GLC as being all about Thatcher trying to shut Livingstone
up.

On Oct 22, 12:58*pm, Walter Briscoe
wrote:
The people of London didn't want Boris as their mayor. The people of
various unsavoury outposts that the Tories gerrymandered into Greater
London in the first place to end Labour's dominance of the County of
London wanted Boris as their mayor; the people of actual London voted
for Ken.

Your memory of history differs from mine.
ISTR Mrs Thatcher's government eliminated the GLC and ILEA. At the time,
I thought that adding another ring of buroughs to London could have
served her purpose, permanently gerrymandered London and be justified
from a transport perspective.

I was referring to the creation of the GLC, which most commentators
suggest was carried out by the Conservative government of the time at
least partly to end Labour's dominance of the LCC.

The fact that Mrs T's government was /so/ unpopular in the mid-80s
that Labour managed to control the GLC as well, and that she was so
incapable of tolerating dissent that she abolished it as a result, is
fairly irrelevant.

....and as someone has mentioned below, the Watford-type-places that
would have permanently gerrymandered London for the Tories were
themselves strongly opposed to integration, otherwise there's a good
chance it'd've happened either in the creation of the original GLC or
during the 1980s.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

John B wrote:

The fact that Mrs T's government was /so/ unpopular in the mid-80s
that Labour managed to control the GLC as well, and that she was so
incapable of tolerating dissent that she abolished it as a result, is
fairly irrelevant.

Which is not a "fact" as I've pointed out elsewhere; the drive to abolish
the GLC predated Ken coming to power. Also the crucial election was 1981
(and won by Labour on a moderate manifesto with a moderate leader who was
promptly deposed) and wasn't that different from 1967, 1973 or 1977 when the
incumbent Westminster government lost the GLC in a mid term election.

...and as someone has mentioned below, the Watford-type-places that
would have permanently gerrymandered London for the Tories were
themselves strongly opposed to integration, otherwise there's a good
chance it'd've happened either in the creation of the original GLC or
during the 1980s.

I don't think that would have worked. Remember the GLC was elected by first
past the post, initially multi-member borough-wide then single-member from
1973, and the Labour majorities were often substantial.

FWIW here are the seat outcomes, courtesy of
http://www.election.demon.co.uk/glc/glcresults.html

From 1964 to 1973 the GLC consisted of 100 directly elected councillors and
16 Aldermen.

1964:
Elected: Labour 64, Conservatives 36
Full Council: Labour 75, Conservatives 41

1967:
Elected: Conservatives 82, Labour 18
Full Council: Conservatives 92, Labour 24

1970:
Elected: Conservatives 65, Labour 35
Full Council: Conservatives 76, Labour 40

The election system changed to single member for the 1973 election, with the
council cut to 92 elected and the Aldermen to 15.

1973:
Elected: Labour 58, Conservatives 32, Liberals 2
Full Council: Labour 67, Conservatives 38, Liberals 2

Aldermen were abolished from the 1977 election onward.

1977:
Conservatives 64, Labour 28

1981:
Labour 50, Conservatives 41, Liberals 1

Note also the maps of results. Although there's a clear outer vs inner
pattern in the years of Conservative victories, Labour victories often
carried outer east and west parts, and turn the map into a north & south vs
centre divide.

http://www.election.demon.co.uk/glc/glcmap.html

Leaving the Aldermen to one side (as they seem to have been allocated
reasonably proportionally so just reinforce the existing proportions), I
can't really see the GLC as having gone Conservative on any realistic larger
boundaries in 1964 or 1973, and even 1981 would have been difficult as not
every additional seat would have gone Conservative. On the suggestion in
this thread that the government should have expanded the boundaries to
secure a majority in a 1985 election, leaving aside both the opposition to
being added and the existing outer boroughs demand for outrigh abolition, I
don't think it would have done the trick as it would have been just another
mid-term election.

Also the website, run by a Labour councillor, has a history of the GLC that
challenges some of the myths about abolition:

http://www.election.demon.co.uk/glc/glccomment.html

On Oct 22, 2:56*pm, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
The fact that Mrs T's government was /so/ unpopular in the mid-80s
that Labour managed to control the GLC as well, and that she was so
incapable of tolerating dissent that she abolished it as a result, is
fairly irrelevant.

Which is not a "fact" as I've pointed out elsewhere; the drive to abolish
the GLC predated Ken coming to power. Also the crucial election was 1981
(and won by Labour on a moderate manifesto with a moderate leader who was
promptly deposed) and wasn't that different from 1967, 1973 or 1977 when the
incumbent Westminster government lost the GLC in a mid term election.

....? Surely your link below highlights the fact that the main drive to
abolish the GLC came in 1983, by which time Ken had been in power for
two years...

http://www.election.demon.co.uk/glc/glccomment.html

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

John B wrote:

Which is not a "fact" as I've pointed out elsewhere; the drive to
abolish
the GLC predated Ken coming to power. Also the crucial election was 1981
(and won by Labour on a moderate manifesto with a moderate leader who
was
promptly deposed) and wasn't that different from 1967, 1973 or 1977 when
the
incumbent Westminster government lost the GLC in a mid term election.

...? Surely your link below highlights the fact that the main drive to
abolish the GLC came in 1983, by which time Ken had been in power for
two years...

http://www.election.demon.co.uk/glc/glccomment.html

The drive began at the borough council level because they realised they
didn't need it and didn't get enough out of it - the GLC provided about 16%
of services at the time of "Streamlining the Cities" (and the metropolitan
county councils 26%) compared to 87% for the shire counties. The 1979
Marshall Report only narrowly recommended against abolition and the drive
was ongoing. That was a trend predating Livingstone. What you're referring
to is the pressure acted on by central government, but it would abolished
anyway regardless of who was leading it (although a populist Conservative
leader might have temporarily withstood the tide from a Conservative
government).