--- Nick said...


we have a right to label our area as Kent if we wish.
(*snip*)
don't deny my neighbours'
and my right to choose our county affiliation.

Is this really a right? Is it mentioned anywhere in the Charter of
Human Rights or enshrined in an act of Parliament or anything like that?

I only ask because when people are trapped in a losing argument
(especially in Usenet) they normally start bluffing about non-existent
rights. It's the stage before mentioning Nazis. So I do tend to get a
bit cynical when people start mentioning strange rights that no-one's
ever heard of before...

In message , Nick
writes

How can I explain this: when I visit somewhere like Maidstone it feels
very similar; when I visit somewhere like Lewisham, New Cross, or
Deptford, they seem so entirely different.

And yet Deptford, Lewisham and most of New Cross were all in Kent for
centuries, of course.

--
Paul Terry

Nick:
Postal counties still exist and are maintained, they just aren't one
of the
mandatory address fields. However, as far as I am aware, the RM
*still*
recommend the use of the postal county for places such as "Rainham,
Essex"
and "Rainham, Kent" to avoid any potential confusion.

[sorry if the formatting's screwed - googlegroups confuses me]

Just as an aside, National Rail refer to them as Rainham, London and
Rainham, Kent...

Jonn

Nick:
Postal counties still exist and are maintained, they just aren't one
of the
mandatory address fields. However, as far as I am aware, the RM
*still*
recommend the use of the postal county for places such as "Rainham,
Essex"
and "Rainham, Kent" to avoid any potential confusion.

[sorry if the formatting's screwed - googlegroups confuses me]

Just as an aside, National Rail refer to them as Rainham, London and
Rainham, Kent...

Jonn

"Nick" wrote in message
...
"A H" wrote in message
...

...

What I loathe is people within the GLA boundary denying they are part of
London. Places like Bexley, Bromley etc only exist in their present form
because of London, not the neighbouring county of Kent.

If the people of Bexley want to be associated with and branded as part of
Kent, who are you to force them to share your London identity? I never
understand why Londoners always want to conquer yet more and more
territory
and smear their London branding ever more thinly over areas who actively
reject it.

What annoys me most about this "London" mindset is the staggeringly wrong
assumption that somehow London is the best place on the planet and
everyone
within the boundary should somehow consider themselves lucky to be here
(and
that everyone else outside the boundary must be dying to join, right?!).
Much of London is a polluted, grim urban toilet that festers with high
levels of anti-social behaviour, and is characteried by a total absence of
community.

I wager that Sevenoaks, Swanley, and Dartford are all as dependent on the
London economy as Bexley is. Do you loathe them being allowed to remain
in
Kent (even if that's what they want?)

Sevenoaks and Swanley are not part of the metropolitan built up area, they
are seperate from London. Bexley and Bromley are part of London.


All these people in outer London suburbs who like to deny they are part
of
the metropolis and think they live in rural Kent, Surrey, Essex, Herts
or
'Middlesex' should take their heads out of the sand.

It is entirely up to us, the local people, to choose what we want to be
described as. Nobody is pretending that suburban Bexleyheath is rural
Kent - that hasn't been said, and I'm sure you know that. But the
character
of somewhere like Bexeyheath and Sidcup I find *much* closer to the
character and ambience of say, the suburban housing developments on the
edge
of places like Tonbridge, Dartford, High Brooms, Maidstone. How can I
explain this: when I visit somewhere like Maidstone it feels very similar;
when I visit somewhere like Lewisham, New Cross, or Deptford, they seem so
entirely different. Superficially, Bexley is on the edge of the urban
sprawl that includes these latter places, but it is so entirely different
in
character.

You are clearly in denial and living in the past. You live in suburban
London, *not* in a town in Kent.


The only reason they
can still cling to outdated county identities was due to the Post
Office/Royal Mail insisting after 1965 (wrongly) that large chunks of
London
were actually in Kent, Surrey, Essex, Herts or 'Middlesex' when they
weren't.

And, of course, another reason being we have a right to label our area as
Kent if we wish. You'll just have to understand that everyone doesn't
want
to be part of your area or share your identity.

Even this requirement has been dropped by Royal Mail, as always it
will takes generations to catch up...

Postal counties still exist and are maintained, they just aren't one of
the
mandatory address fields. However, as far as I am aware, the RM *still*
recommend the use of the postal county for places such as "Rainham, Essex"
and "Rainham, Kent" to avoid any potential confusion.

I understand why some people like London and understand why others like
Kent. Each to their own. If you want to be part of London and enjoy what
it has to offer then that's just fine with me, but don't deny my
neighbours'
and my right to choose our county affiliation.

Nick

If you feel so strongly anti-London (which is what clearly comes across)
then why are you still living in suburban London, within the Greater London
boundary (GLA area)? Why have you not moved out to your beloved Kent so that
you can really say you live there - not pretend your Bexley, outer London
house is in Kent when it is not?

You're fighting a losing battle. Your refusal to face up to reality i.e.
that cities expand and surrounding hamlets, villages and towns get swallowed
up and become part of the city which fuelled their suburban growth in the
first place, is just sad. Get over it, you live in the London Borough of
Bexley, not a small town in Kent (Kent County Council area).

Andy

"Tony Wilson" a@a wrote in message
...

"Nick" wrote in message
...


London heritage??? We have been part of Kent for generations, and only
sucked into the Greater London experiment so the Tories could take
control
of London government (well, mostly). I am sure the overwhelming majority
of
residents in Bexley describe, and want to describe themselves as living
in
Kent (me included). Maybe those of us in metropolitan Kent will one day
escape from the clutches of central London and determine our own affairs
without inteference.

I loathe Bexley being described as "south London", it really is NOT. We
are
part of the Greater London administrative area, that's all, for all other
purposes we are people of Kent. I know "Londoners" find this hard to
believe, but many of us don't wanty to be part of your high-density
overpopulated sprawling urban gloom.

Nick



Blimey, got home form work and found that I never got my original question
answered, but am glad to have kicked off such a lively debate!

I am afraid that I have to wade in and take issue with my fellow Bexley
person. The heritage in question is London's world-famous red buses. Their
expansion into Bexley did not occur with the creation of the GLC but has
existed as long as London's transport has been co-ordinated, whether by
LPTB, LT, TfL etc. Indeed, it predates centralisation and nationalisation
of
bus services, as the private London General Omnibus Company opened Sidcup
garage with red buses in 1924.

Agreed, that's true, just as Dartford and Swanley have been served by LT for
generations. In particular, there was actually an LT tram depot at Dartford
if I'm not mistaken?

So, Bexley was a part of London's transport network generations before the
GLC was created. Hence, taking our red buses away went against our local
heritage as a part of the London transport network.

I understand what you mean, and have some sympathy for that, but being part
of the London transport network seems somewhat different from being a
"Londoner" in my mind.

Actually, I think a locally-run bus service like Bexleybus could have been
really great; unfortunately it was just a cost-cutting experiment by LT
that, not surprisingly, failed miserably. Bad management, low budgets and
ancient vehicles; Bexleybus was doomed before it even started. Localised
branding seems quite appealing now I think about it, even at level of local
red buses being labelled SELKENT district to distinguish those from other
LRT areas.

(Note that Bexley was always going to be a part of the Greater London
county
due to its location within the metropolitan built-up area, which was on
the
cards from the 1930s as the LCC couldn't do a proper job when they only
collected rates from the poorer inner city and was unwinnable for the
Tories; the Tories did however try to elbow more of Surrey inside the GLC
boundary such as Epsom and Banstead to make it safer Tory ground, but
those
areas resisted and hence the GLC became marginal.)

I think I'd disagree with that. Nothing was invevitable about Bexley being
part of a "Greater London" county. OK, there might be an argument about
"strategic" planning and transport matters, but in terms of a strategic area
I think you need to go much further out than the immediate suburbs anyway.
In terms of an "operational" area, GL is arguable far too big and populous.

In terms of your general criticism that Bexley is not in London, can I put
the following forward (and much of this goes for other parts of outer
London):

1) The suburban sprawl across Bexley did not arise out of thin air, but
occurred solely as a result of the accessibility of cheap housing close to
the railways into London. The population of Bexley did not materialise out
of thin air, but people moved out from other parts of London where
conditions were poorer and more crowded. Thus demograpically in the 1920s
and 1930s the borough changed from a rural area where most people were
brought up locally to one with a population massively imported from
outside
the area.

Yes, true, but other areas with stations and rail access to London all over
the SouthEast experienced this phenonmenon without being stripped of their
county label. Sevenoaks has been heavily dependent on its commuter link to
the City and the London area for decades; is it therefore London and are
they Londoners?

This distinguishes the population enormously from 'other' parts of Kent
outside the metropolis, where growth was slower and more organic, based
more
upon the growing populaiton generally and drift towards the nearest
town/industry.

I don't agree that this is an enormous "distinction" compared to other areas
of Kent, particularly other areas of west Kent that grew at the same time,
eg developments near Gravesend and Dartford (Istead Rise etc). If you look
at the ads and promotional materials for the big suburban swathes of Bexley
that were produced at the time you will see them specifically promoted as
"move out of London into Kent", very much that the move to Bexley was a
leaving behind of the urban values of London. It just so happens that the
development adjoined the LCC boundary, but so what?

And the situation still exists today. People move to Bexley, I wager, to
achieve a greater distance from London and/or a closer affinity with Kent -
people do *not* move to Bexley to "live in London". Take a look at any
estate agent; not a single one woud ever promote a Bexley property as "in
London", but always as "in Kent", simply because that it what Bexley people
want to be affiliated with.

Already you have a situation where not only is Bexley
physically joined to London (which should be sufficient in anyone's book
to
make it a part of the metropolis)

So you would say that Dartford is in London too? The boudary with Crayford
is absurd, in the one street in Crayford their are houses with garages in
Dartford district (KCC) but the main house is in Bexley (GL).

but there was by WW2 a cultural difference
between metropolitan Kent (Bexley, Bromley etc) which largely grew as a
result of an influx of polulation from the inner London and the rest of
Kent
(i.e. outside Greater London today).

What about the cultural differene now today though? Bexley's static
population of largely non-ethnic origin is much closer to the population
characteristics of Kent, and far removed from the diverse population found
in most of proper "London".

2) The 20 years up to WW2 both physically and culturally changed Bexley,
so
much so that when the country's civil defences were being organised,
Bexley
and Bromley were under the control of the London Civil Defence Region, not
the South Eastern Region which was responsible for the rest of Kent. One
reason for this was that Bexley and Bromley have always been a part of the
Metropolitan Police District, another generations-old distinction between
the heritage of the metropolitan and rural Kents which predates not only
the
GLC but also the LCC.

Granted, but strategic areas do not a Londoner make :-)

You say that Bexley is a part of Kent for "all other purposes". What are
these purposes? As far as I can tell Bexley is in Kent for:

a- Postal address. Although as another poster pointed out, the county can
be
omitted, or indeed London can be used provided the postcode is correct-
this
precedent was established by the Royal Mail due to the number of county
changes that followed a decade after London in 1974 when a great many
people
demanded the right to choose to use either the traditional or new county

Strictly speaking "London" would be wrong as far as I'm aware. The
administrative county is "allowed", so "Greater London" could be used (but I
have only ever seen this once on a local business sign and it has since
changed to Kent [no doubt following an avalanche of complaints ;-)])

b- Cricket. No county of (Greater) London exists, hence (broadly) SE
London
is covered by Kent (who have had grounds in Blackheath, Catford and
Beckenham) , SW London by Surrey (The Oval), W and N London by Middlesex
(Lords, Southgate, Uxbridge) and E London by Essex (Ilford, Leyton).

You missed out coverage by Kent Messenger group newspapers and Kent radio
and TV, and lots of other organisations and charities. Local media is
particularly important I feel. Listen to Radio Kent and you will often hear
about a third of the callers actually from Bexley or Bromley, Invicta FM
plays in shops and pubs around here (Old Bexley).

Wheras I can count these for London:

a- Administration. London Borough of Bexley, Greater London Authority,
London Mayor, London Region European Constituency.

Only relatively recently, but these are still just "administrative" areas
that have little meaning to ordinary people up and down my road.

b- Civil organisations. Metropolitan Police, London Fire Brigade, London
Ambulance Service, NHS.

Yes, but this is partly as a result of he Met's relatively large area that
was established many moons ago (long before suburban Bexley came into
being). Not surprisingly, other civil organisations adopted a similar area.
But note the "Metropolitan Police" was not and still isn't called the
"London Police".

c- Transport (already waffled on about that above!).

d- Culturally. Yes, I'm sure some will raise eyebrows at that (!), but
while
Bexley residents may not have much in common with the average resident of
inner city London, they certainly have more in common with fellow
commuterland residents of Bromley, or Sutton, or Finchley etc. than they
do
with the countryfolk in the county of Kent across the M25.

Having many friends down in Kent, I partly agree, partly disagree. Do we
have much in common with the high-density urban dwellers of cental London?
Agreed not. Do we have much in common with other commuterland areas like
Bromley and Sutton? Yes, I'm sure in general that would be true. But do we
also have much in common with other London commuters from Sevenoaks,
Tonbridge, Dartford, Swanley, Medway, Faversham and beyond? Well, yes, I
think we do. We have a lot in common with other people in SouthEast england
who live in suburban areas and who commute to jobs in central London, but
that doesn't make us all Londoners, I say. We all still have our own town
centres and neighbourhoods and our own distinct local identities.

Indeed, as many
of the people who populated the thousands of new houses in the 1920s or
1930s as commuters came from inner London, many more have historic family
roots in inner London than in Kent whether they realise it or not, whereas
most residents of Kent itself can probably go back many generations in the
county.

But see my point above about how Bexley was promoted to these people. The
very benefit of moving out was to escape London and enjoy a less urban way
of life. And by your reckoning, then, Medway and Maidstone should be merged
into Greater London now as well then? I notice Ken Livingstone takes this
line, but the truth is that there are thousands of ex-Londoners and those
with a London family history who live all over Kent; does this make Kent
less Kent???

e- Economically. Suburban Bexley is entirely dependent on the economy of
London, whereas Kent itself has a stronger relationship with agriculture
in
the centre/south, tourism in the 'Garden of Kent', some traditional
industry
(incl shipping) along the Thames and Channel coast and towns are
self-sufficient to a much larger extent. Bexley is a suburb, which has
little industry and sugnificantly fewer jobs than its population requires,
hence the dominance of commuting to the centre of London, which makes it a
suburb and not a distinct self-sufficient urban settlement.

Compare and contrast with Sevenoaks and Dartford (and Watford, St Albans,
Hatfield etc). Did you know that less than 50% of Bexley workers commute to
"London" for work? I bet you thought it was higher than that though (as
this is often the impression given). Plus with any new large scale work
opportunities arising in the Thames Gateway, more Bexley people may end up
working to the east rather than in London, who knows. Bexley has some light
industy and a relatively large local retail economy. Compare this with
somewhere like Sevenoaks. Few urban settlements within moderately distance
of London are truly self-sufficient without London commuting, but that
doesn't make them all "London".

f- Telecoms. Don't know about anyone else, but I think our FOOts Cray
phone
number was replaced with an 01- code at the same point in the 1960s as
everyone else in London's. (I realise that due to the nature of the
telecom
lines, this is not a very precise measure, with bits of Greater London
still
outside 020 (Erith, Uxbridge etc) and bits outside within (Ewell,
Loughton);
but clearly there's a very good match with the Greater London boundary.)

In terms of area, I think about 50% of Bexley has an 01322 (Dartford) area
code, not London. Me included :-) Sidcup and Bexleyheath exchanges are
020, with Slade Green, Erith and Crayford assigned to 01322. So actually a
majority of exhanges in Bexley are non-London?

g- Geographically. Well, just look at a map- Bexley is a part of the
built-up area of London, which should really settle the issue regardless
of
the above.

So is Dartford (and within the M25) but is it London? I think "London" the
label should be used for the middle part where residents identify with and
want to be part of the London brand. I am happy to be part of any Greater
London government area (assuming they work for Bexley and don't spend all
the time dwelling on central London - something I suspect at present) and
adopt some kind of compromise branding like "metropolitan Kent" to mean
Bexley, Bromley, Dartford etc, but I don't want to be called a Londoner or
be described as living in SE London - EVER! :-)

I am sure there is a compromise here somewhere.

I have missed out a whole section on one of the most important aspects
though - planning and nightmare documents like the London Plan that read
like a death sentence for the suburbs. Ken's phrases like "London has to
intensify and increase housing densities within its own boundaries" I think
is extremely dangerous talk indeed, given that the boundary is fairly
arbitrary and has not been reviewed for some time AND given the fact that
there' so much more space outside GL to develop rather than the tiny pockets
of open space we have left within! But it's late so that'll have to wait
for another time...

Nick

Nick wrote:
(a great deal of snip)
I have missed out a whole section on one of the most important aspects
though - planning and nightmare documents like the London Plan that read
like a death sentence for the suburbs. Ken's phrases like "London has to
intensify and increase housing densities within its own boundaries" I think
is extremely dangerous talk indeed, given that the boundary is fairly
arbitrary and has not been reviewed for some time AND given the fact that
there' so much more space outside GL to develop rather than the tiny pockets
of open space we have left within! But it's late so that'll have to wait
for another time...

That doesn't really mean building on open spaces; it means brownfield
high-density development and intensification of existing "brown" areas,
rather than building on "green" areas.

The premise is that the suburbs are unsustainable if/when oil prices
skyrocket (and with regard to environmental issues), as low-density
development depends a lot on the use of the car, whereas high-density
areas can be well-served by public transport, or since facilities will
be nearer to homes, simply by walking.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

"Tony Wilson" a@a wrote in message
...
Of all the horrors of the early years of tendering in London, something
which really bugged me (out of all proportion if I'm honest!) was the
taking
away of our red buses. This was particularly true where I lived at the
time
as even the route London Buses retained were transformed into the
horrendous
Bexlybus operation. It really felt like they were taking some of our
London
heritage away, which is all the more sensitive when the Royal Mail tells
everybody you live in Kent.

So, I was delighted when Ken reversed the livery requirement and was
wondering...

1) What percentage of routes are now red liveried?
2) How long until they are all red? If an existing non-red operator, such
as
Metrobus on the 161, has modern low-floor buses and retains the route with
existing vehicles, do they have to repaint or is it only on new bus
orders?

Thanks


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Wilson" a@a
Newsgroups: uk.transport.london
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 7:50 AM
Subject: Red buses


Of all the horrors of the early years of tendering in London, something
which really bugged me (out of all proportion if I'm honest!) was the
taking
away of our red buses. This was particularly true where I lived at the
time
as even the route London Buses retained were transformed into the
horrendous
Bexlybus operation. It really felt like they were taking some of our
London
heritage away, which is all the more sensitive when the Royal Mail tells
everybody you live in Kent.

So, I was delighted when Ken reversed the livery requirement and was
wondering...

1) What percentage of routes are now red liveried?
2) How long until they are all red? If an existing non-red operator, such
as
Metrobus on the 161, has modern low-floor buses and retains the route with
existing vehicles, do they have to repaint or is it only on new bus
orders?

Thanks


Broadly speaking I agree with your observations about red livery in London,
although there are a few cases where the blanket policy ought to be
questioned, Metrobus for instance, whose livery was part of the build up a
very strong and respected local image.

I don't believe however that LBSL have got it right in the way it is being
implemented - all over red needs some sort of relief even if it is just a
central band.

There were also some very attractive liveries lost, personally I think
London United had a very nice livery and would have liked to see this
adopted as the London standard! But that's down to personal taste.

I can't answer your question about percentages, but it should take no longer
than 7 years from the original policy decision to get to 100% red, based on
contract renewals and possible extensions under the Quality Incentive
regime. In reality probably most will have been done within 5 years. The
repainting of existing buses would always be negotiated as a contract
requirement for a renewal, and in any case no bus should go without a
repaint for more than 5 years which helps facilitate this.

Finally, you mention Bexleybus as an example - I agree with you about the
gruesome colour scheme however by far the worst thing that happened as a
result of Bexley and other similar "low cost" operations in the 80's was
what the staff were put through in terms of worsening of pay and conditions.

Rob L.

"Rob Latchford" {rob}.latchford{@}ntlworld{.}[com] wrote
Broadly speaking I agree with your observations about red livery in
London,
although there are a few cases where the blanket policy ought to be
questioned, Metrobus for instance, whose livery was part of the build up a
very strong and respected local image.

I don't believe however that LBSL have got it right in the way it is being
implemented - all over red needs some sort of relief even if it is just a
central band.

There were also some very attractive liveries lost, personally I think
London United had a very nice livery and would have liked to see this
adopted as the London standard! But that's down to personal taste.

I can't answer your question about percentages, but it should take no
longer
than 7 years from the original policy decision to get to 100% red, based
on
contract renewals and possible extensions under the Quality Incentive
regime. In reality probably most will have been done within 5 years. The
repainting of existing buses would always be negotiated as a contract
requirement for a renewal, and in any case no bus should go without a
repaint for more than 5 years which helps facilitate this.

Finally, you mention Bexleybus as an example - I agree with you about the
gruesome colour scheme however by far the worst thing that happened as a
result of Bexley and other similar "low cost" operations in the 80's was
what the staff were put through in terms of worsening of pay and
conditions.

Rob L.


Thanks, glad someone read the actual question in my post!

Interesting point about the need to repaint every 5 years, didn't realise
they needed it that regularly. And I agree about London United; you'd think
that as that has a long London pedigree they might have got an exemption,
though I expect that others would complain.

And again, I agree about Bexleybus; as I said, the colour thing was
something which probably bugged me out of proportion, by which I mean that
there were more serious flaws than this. However thankfully the position of
pay and conditions for drivers has changed much for the better since then,
as has reliability!