Charles Ellson wrote on 29 Dec 2016 at 20:19 ...
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 ?

Not at all like that. You seem to be making an unwarranted assumption.

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

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 05:14:34 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

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.

Given Whitehall's track record, this is hardly surprising.

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.


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.

The Mandarins in Whitehall want a uniform county around each
metropolitan centre. In reality the world's most successful
conurbations have evolved contrary to that model.

PS. Sorry Mr. Brush.

On 2016\12\30 08:38, e27002 aurora wrote:

PS. Sorry Mr. Brush.

Sorry for what?

On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 09:52:11 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2016\12\30 08:38, e27002 aurora wrote:

PS. Sorry Mr. Brush.

Sorry for what?

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

Would have happily obliged. But, there are posters, like yourself,
worthy of a reply.

Happy New Year.