In message , Rich Mallard
writes
But the trouble is Greater London, in transport terms amongst others,
is an artificial cut-out of the South East of England.

Indeed it is.

But that applies to any territorial authority; there will always be a
boundary *somewhere* and it will always throw up anomalies. Ewe see
this now with borderline cases such as Romford, Croydon, Dartford and
Watford.

If we create a Greater South East body, exactly how far would it
stretch? Would Luton be included? How about Oxford? Or Chelmsford?
Or Brighton? All of these places are recognisable at the end of a
"commuter line" [1] but making them part of a Greater Greater London [2]
would throw up a hornets nest of its own problems.

For the record, I feel that Greater London probably ought to include
Dartford and Watford but little more. It would be interesting to see a
map of the boundary of London's Green belt (I've never seen such an
animal, at least not in detail). That *ought* to be a good GLA area
boundary. But these things are always arbitrary and one has only to
look at the recent thread concerning whether places are "London" or
"Kent" or "Essex" to see what this throws up in terms of local
allegiances.


[1] In the widest sense of the word

[2] So to speak

--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk