"Peter Heather" wrote

Actually it was 1965. And I'm not sure it was that much of a surprise.
Further east, Caterham and Warlingham UDC succesfully campaigned to be
left out of Greater London, only to be swallowed up into the
ridiculously named Tandridge District in 1974. Pity really as I would
be entitled to a Freedom Pass by now and our roads would be maintained
to a higher standard than the pathetic Surrey County Council manage.

Knockholt was put into Greater London in 1965, and managed to get out in
1974.
Ob rail - Knockholt station is not in Knockholt, but (just) in Greater
London.

Peter

"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote:
During the last GLA count we had hilarity when one ballot came up with a
written message saying it was a disgrace the election was happening because
Chislehurst voted by 95% against the Mayor & Assembly. The world does not
revolve around Chislehurst.


To some in Chislehurst, it might.

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
And it is still ongoing with trains seemingly now running via Primrose
Road between Camden Rd and Willesden Junction. Trains aren't serving
trains west of Kentish Town West. Whatever brought the wires down at
Willesden did a good job if it can't be fixed overnight.

I was on the Pathfinder "York Flyer" charter, behind 'Deltic' 55 022 "Royal
Scots Grey". We were held at Camden Road for over half an hour from around
19:20, as we were booked via Gospel Oak and Acton Wells Jn. to gain access
to the GWML, for set down at Didcot Parkway, Oxford, Banbury, Leamington
Spa, Coventry and Birmingham stations.

Information passed to me by colleagues 'in the know' was that a class 378
had brought the wires down at the changeover point from a.c. to d.c.
traction and that the dewirement had then been run into by a service heading
in the opposite direction, causing a minor fire. As a result, neither the
booked route to the GWML nor the alternative, running via Primrose Hill and
Willesden West London Junction, were available. Consequently, the charter
was diverted non-stop down the WCML to Coventry (setting down Cov and
Birmingham passengers, for onward travel via service trains), where the
'Deltic' was run round and the train ran in the opposite direction to that
booked, setting down at Leamington Spa, Banbury and Oxford before
terminating at Didcot Parkway around three hours late at around 23:30. Taxis
were provided for those of us off the direct route, who had missed last
trains!

On Jun 3, 11:39*am, Recliner wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 03:34:41 -0700 (PDT), e27002

But, you would be paying council tax at Surrey rates instead of GLA
rates.

Surrey council tax rates are slightly higher than Sutton:
Surrey:http://www.surreyheath.gov.uk/ctbene...iltax1213..htm
Sutton:http://www.sutton.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=9145- Hide quoted text -

And Tandridge's council tax (includes Surrey CC's precept) is also
higher, by about 8%, than neighbouring Croydon's. So it seems that
those in Greater London, whether they consider themselves Londoners or
not, get a better service at less cost to themselves than those of us
outside the boundary.

Peter

In message
, at
06:56:04 on Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Peter Heather
remarked:
But, you would be paying council tax at Surrey rates instead of GLA
rates.

Surrey council tax rates are slightly higher than Sutton:
Surrey:http://www.surreyheath.gov.uk/ctbene...ciltax1213.htm
Sutton:http://www.sutton.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=9145- Hide quoted text -

And Tandridge's council tax (includes Surrey CC's precept) is also
higher, by about 8%, than neighbouring Croydon's. So it seems that
those in Greater London, whether they consider themselves Londoners or
not, get a better service at less cost to themselves than those of us
outside the boundary.

It's not surprising there are economies of scale in a dense urban
area, compared to delivering services over an area with a scattered
population.
--
Roland Perry

On 2012\06\04 15:39, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
06:56:04 on Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Peter Heather
remarked:
But, you would be paying council tax at Surrey rates instead of GLA
rates.

Surrey council tax rates are slightly higher than Sutton:
Surrey:http://www.surreyheath.gov.uk/ctbene...ciltax1213.htm

Sutton:http://www.sutton.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=9145- Hide
quoted text -

And Tandridge's council tax (includes Surrey CC's precept) is also
higher, by about 8%, than neighbouring Croydon's. So it seems that
those in Greater London, whether they consider themselves Londoners or
not, get a better service at less cost to themselves than those of us
outside the boundary.

It's not surprising there are economies of scale in a dense urban
area, compared to delivering services over an area with a scattered
population.

So if the Tories have any sense, they will offer the people of Caterham
and Ewell and a few other Tory areas just outside the boundary a
referendum to become part of London, to make sure that the London Mayor
stays Tory.

"Basil Jet" wrote

So if the Tories have any sense, they will offer the people of Caterham
and Ewell and a few other Tory areas just outside the boundary a
referendum to become part of London, to make sure that the London Mayor
stays Tory.

If they had any sense they'd be enthusiastic supporters of Scottish
Independence, as they get very few votes there, but would have a permanent
majority at Westminster if it weren't for the Scottish members.

Peter

There was a report a week or so ago that TfL are likely to bid for the
East Anglia and South Eastern rail franchises, not just have control
of the London bits. http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/tfl-seek...ises/201221325

The report says that "Both franchises will be awarded by the
Department for Transport and TfL is hoping to beat commercial train
operators in order to bring the London Overground experience to the
routes." The thread above doesn't breed confidence...

As one of the commenters on the Mayorwatch says, few seats and no bogs
London to Norwich doesn't sound fun.

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

So if the Tories have any sense, they will offer the people of Caterham
and Ewell and a few other Tory areas just outside the boundary a
referendum to become part of London, to make sure that the London Mayor
stays Tory.

If they had any sense they'd be enthusiastic supporters of Scottish
Independence, as they get very few votes there, but would have a permanent
majority at Westminster if it weren't for the Scottish members.


This is actually a myth. There have only been two occasions when Labour's
had a UK majority but the Conservatives had an majority of English seats -
1964 & Oct 1974. Much was made of 2005 when the Conservatives getting more
votes in England than Labour, but Labour still had many more seats thanks to
old boundaries, differential turnout and tactical voting.

And Scotland going independent would have ramifications for the UK far
beyond the mythical "permanent" numbers in the Westminster Parliament. The
Conservatives are a party committed to the UK as a whole and its position in
the world. They're not going to start trimming off bits for electoral
convenience.

--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c

Basil Jet wrote:

So if the Tories have any sense, they will offer the people of Caterham
and Ewell and a few other Tory areas just outside the boundary a
referendum to become part of London, to make sure that the London Mayor
stays Tory.

Epsom & Ewell (I can't really imagine them trying to split the borough) is
not a guaranteed Conservative banker in local government though. The borough
council is run by a Residents' Association since at least the early 1930s
and the same group also regularly take nearly all the E&E seats on Surrey
County Council, whilst the Conservatives are weak in E&E, despite now
putting up a proper slate at local elections. If they decided to contest GLA
elections (as their weaker Havering counterparts have) they could add little
to the Conservative result.

And the figures for successive London Mayoral elections, and more especially
London Assembly elections, are such that no one or probably even two or
three areas could be added that could guarantee to tip the balance. I can't
seriously envisage an addition referendum giving *all* the areas a
collective in or out approach - rather each individual area would be voting
on the assumption that it could be the only one to be added.

Finally whilst a Conservative government in Westminster might call the
referendums, the ground campaign would have to be fought by local
Conservative parties who would probably not be keen to see their areas added
to London, especially a London that could throw up another Zone 1
Livingstone figure. Look at the recent Mayoral referendums in the big
cities - again the Conservatives nationally were enthusiastic but the local
parties weren't all as keen, perhaps because they have a more realistic idea
about how many potential Borises there are in their cities.

--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c