|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Sept 5, 2020 21:06:47 GMT
That’s why I said crossing county boundaries and splitting districts should be avoided where possible, not avoided in all circumstances. In North Yorkshire the most sensible outcome would be to add Tadcaster and some surrounding villages to the city of York, add the rest of the Selby district to the East Riding and create a North Riding unitary for the remainder of the county council area. If by 'North Riding' you mean excluding Harrogate and surrounds, they yes. But the current North Yorkshire (even minus Selby) is too big. My current approximate prefered option (which is disallowed by the government rules) is something like:  Your Yorkshire Moors looks a little small - would the people of Bridlington get the pitchforks out if they were moved north to be with Filey and Scarborough? What are the local ties like around there? |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,842 
Member is Online
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Sept 5, 2020 21:15:02 GMT
If by 'North Riding' you mean excluding Harrogate and surrounds, they yes. But the current North Yorkshire (even minus Selby) is too big. My current approximate prefered option (which is disallowed by the government rules) is something like: Your Yorkshire Moors looks a little small - would the people of Bridlington get the pitchforks out if they were moved north to be with Filey and Scarborough? What are the local ties like around there? Bridlington isn't Yorkshire Moors, it's Yorkshire Wolds. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Sept 5, 2020 21:24:35 GMT
Your Yorkshire Moors looks a little small - would the people of Bridlington get the pitchforks out if they were moved north to be with Filey and Scarborough? What are the local ties like around there? Bridlington isn't Yorkshire Moors, it's Yorkshire Wolds. I realise that (though that also applies to most of Ryedale south of the A64), but would people there feel more affinity with a Scarborough-based authority than one centred on Hull (especially if it stretched all the way to Selby)? |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Sept 12, 2020 11:19:11 GMT
Centre for Cities proposal for new authorities:-
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,056
|
Post by Khunanup on Sept 12, 2020 12:59:28 GMT
Centre for Cities proposal for new authorities:- Some of those are just awful, and then there's the names... Two things to note, this is from the Centre for Cities, and you can tell and they appear to stick to existing local authority boundaries where they lose interest and don't when they're near cities who are prominent members of the group. Oh, and all mayor led. No thanks... |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,842
Member is Online
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Sept 12, 2020 15:20:34 GMT
Centre for Cities proposal for new authorities:- The Centre for Cities: "DESTROY ALL CITIES!!!!" |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Sept 12, 2020 16:16:15 GMT
Where to begin with these proposals?
The Parts of Kesteven in no way count as "Greater Lincoln" and Brighton & Hove is already large enough not to need to expand, inter alia....
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Sept 12, 2020 16:29:02 GMT
The map isn’t too bad in my view. It follows the logic of “city regions” incorporating not just the built up areas outside existing boundaries, but the dependent commuter villages and travel to work area. The rest of the country is then cobbled together into counties basically. So long of course that you dump the idea of mayors......
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,112
|
Post by ilerda on Sept 12, 2020 16:36:32 GMT
It’s not atrocious as a starting point that would be improved by local consultations.
It’s clearly very city-focussed, but that’s understandable given the authorship.
Lincolnshire and Leicestershire are abominations, and the decision to not split authorities throws up idiosyncrasies like Hucknall not being in Greater Nottingham. And I’m not sure why Cannock Chase has been excluded from the West Midlands MCA when I very clearly belongs there.
Also allowing a third of a county like Hampshire, Warwickshire or Derbyshire to keep The name of the whole county is absurd.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 12, 2020 17:29:01 GMT
What's particularly daft is that the report sets out how Long Eaton and neighbouring areas are functionally part of the same economic unit as Nottingham, and then they decide to not cross existing county boundaries. It's incredible how it manages to combine the worst elements of the thought of city-region obsessives and traditional counties bores.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Sept 12, 2020 18:30:08 GMT
What's particularly daft is that the report sets out how Long Eaton and neighbouring areas are functionally part of the same economic unit as Nottingham, and then they decide to not cross existing county boundaries. It's incredible how it manages to combine the worst elements of the thought of city-region obsessives and traditional counties bores. I wouldn’t call myself a city region obsessive, but there is a lot of sense behind linking cities (and to a lesser degree large towns) with their hinterland. We’d need to discuss what role there might be for “parishes” in such a set up. What you do with the rest of the country is trickier. I have no time for traditional county obsessives, and it’s clear that some county boundaries are obsolete. My preference would be for unitaries which are rather smaller than in this proposal, although it does recognise the need to split the larger counties. The current dual model does work up to a point, and one assumes that new unitaries would be partially decentralised for service delivery. I’ve never understood why people get hung up on names, although clearly they do. Frankly I don’t care what you call a local authority. Have a referendum if it bothers you. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 12, 2020 19:16:19 GMT
What's particularly daft is that the report sets out how Long Eaton and neighbouring areas are functionally part of the same economic unit as Nottingham, and then they decide to not cross existing county boundaries. It's incredible how it manages to combine the worst elements of the thought of city-region obsessives and traditional counties bores. And yet their West Midlands area crosses several different county boundaries, whether you're using pre--1974 or post-1974 counties. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 12, 2020 21:14:54 GMT
What's particularly daft is that the report sets out how Long Eaton and neighbouring areas are functionally part of the same economic unit as Nottingham, and then they decide to not cross existing county boundaries. It's incredible how it manages to combine the worst elements of the thought of city-region obsessives and traditional counties bores. I wouldn’t call myself a city region obsessive, but there is a lot of sense behind linking cities (and to a lesser degree large towns) with their hinterland. We’d need to discuss what role there might be for “parishes” in such a set up. What you do with the rest of the country is trickier. I have no time for traditional county obsessives, and it’s clear that some county boundaries are obsolete. My preference would be for unitaries which are rather smaller than in this proposal, although it does recognise the need to split the larger counties. The current dual model does work up to a point, and one assumes that new unitaries would be partially decentralised for service delivery. I’ve never understood why people get hung up on names, although clearly they do. Frankly I don’t care what you call a local authority. Have a referendum if it bothers you. There's a strong argument for linking towns with their hinterland, but when you're putting Alnwick and Gateshead in the same authority you're taking that to ridiculous extents. My personal preference is to not worry too much about national solutions. Different arrangements will work in different bits of the country and this shouldn't be a problem. Having one big plan is a great way to ensure that whatever you settle on doesn't work for most of the country. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,842
Member is Online
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Sept 12, 2020 21:53:36 GMT
What's particularly daft is that the report sets out how Long Eaton and neighbouring areas are functionally part of the same economic unit as Nottingham, and then they decide to not cross existing county boundaries. It's incredible how it manages to combine the worst elements of the thought of city-region obsessives and traditional counties bores. I wouldn’t call myself a city region obsessive, but there is a lot of sense behind linking cities (and to a lesser degree large towns) with their hinterland. We’d need to discuss what role there might be for “parishes” in such a set up. But you need to stop calling them 'cities'. It's "South Yorkshire", "West Riding of Yorkshire" not Sheffield City or Leeds City. FFS, West Yorkshire contains THREE SEPERATE CITIES! And "York and North Yorkshire"  York spent twenty years fighting to get its independence back, and now this proposes to rip it away again (as does the North Yorkshire districts reorganisation proposal). |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Sept 12, 2020 21:56:27 GMT
I wouldn’t call myself a city region obsessive, but there is a lot of sense behind linking cities (and to a lesser degree large towns) with their hinterland. We’d need to discuss what role there might be for “parishes” in such a set up. But you need to stop calling them 'cities'. It's "South Yorkshire", "West Riding of Yorkshire" not Sheffield City or Leeds City. FFS, West Yorkshire contains THREE SEPERATE CITIES! And "York and North Yorkshire" York spent twenty years fighting to get its independence back, and now this proposes to rip it away again (as does the North Yorkshire districts reorganisation proposal). Worse - their proposed "West Yorkshire" even includes a fourth city (albeit a tiny one), making calling it Leeds City even worse! |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069
|
Post by jamie on Sept 12, 2020 22:15:35 GMT
I’ve never understood why people get hung up on names, although clearly they doThere's a strong argument for linking towns with their hinterland, but when you're putting Alnwick and Gateshead in the same authority you're taking that to ridiculous extents. I read the forum posts before looking properly at the map and upon seeing your comment I thought it was a terrible, but at least somewhat understandable, idea to link rural Northumberland with Tyne and Wear. What I didn’t envision was that the proposed council also includes all of Durham council 😳😳 |
|
cj
Socialist
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Posts: 3,285
|
Post by cj on Sept 12, 2020 22:21:17 GMT
Looking at the map they produced looked like my neck of the woods was separated from everywhere so I had a heady 5 minutes of thinking the proposed new structure for England would revive the Corporation of Great Yarmouth. However the index made it clear we would be part of Greater Norwich, which despite being pitchfork-bait I believe is a far better fit than as it current in being tied to the county of Norfolk as a whole.
I still feel if you are going to stir up the fork wielders you would be better off with a wedge of Norwich, GY and Lowestoft all of whom have more geographically and demographically in common with each other than their surrounding counties.
We could have Norfolk, Suffolk and Urbanefolk  |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Sept 12, 2020 23:49:44 GMT
Looking at the map they produced looked like my neck of the woods was separated from everywhere so I had a heady 5 minutes of thinking the proposed new structure for England would revive the Corporation of Great Yarmouth. However the index made it clear we would be part of Greater Norwich, which despite being pitchfork-bait I believe is a far better fit than as it current in being tied to the county of Norwich as a whole.
I still feel if you are going to stir up the fork wielders you would be better off with a wedge of Norwich, GY and Lowestoft all of whom have more geographically and demographically in common with each other than their surrounding counties.
We could have Norfolk, Suffolk and Urbanefolk Presumably you'd connect up "Urbanefolk" by extending Norwich's bizzare tail along the Yare all the way to the coast? |
|
cj
Socialist
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Posts: 3,285
|
Post by cj on Sept 13, 2020 2:54:04 GMT
Looking at the map they produced looked like my neck of the woods was separated from everywhere so I had a heady 5 minutes of thinking the proposed new structure for England would revive the Corporation of Great Yarmouth. However the index made it clear we would be part of Greater Norwich, which despite being pitchfork-bait I believe is a far better fit than as it current in being tied to the county of Norwich as a whole.
I still feel if you are going to stir up the fork wielders you would be better off with a wedge of Norwich, GY and Lowestoft all of whom have more geographically and demographically in common with each other than their surrounding counties.
We could have Norfolk, Suffolk and Urbanefolk Presumably you'd connect up "Urbanefolk" by extending Norwich's bizzare tail along the Yare all the way to the coast? Just flow the imperium of the municipality across the flood-plains of the Yare and Waveney.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Sept 13, 2020 6:36:32 GMT
Looking at the map they produced looked like my neck of the woods was separated from everywhere so I had a heady 5 minutes of thinking the proposed new structure for England would revive the Corporation of Great Yarmouth. However the index made it clear we would be part of Greater Norwich, which despite being pitchfork-bait I believe is a far better fit than as it current in being tied to the county of Norfolk as a whole. I still feel if you are going to stir up the fork wielders you would be better off with a wedge of Norwich, GY and Lowestoft all of whom have more geographically and demographically in common with each other than their surrounding counties. We could have Norfolk, Suffolk and Urbanefolk Again this was exactly one of the proposals looked at under the last Labour government. It was however felt that severing Norwich from the rest of Norfolk left the latter without a centre. Merging Lowestoft and Yarmouth wasn’t a problem. Personally I thought (and think) that the idea was very sensible. As I implied in my last comment, and was said by East Anglian Lefty there is no need to impose a uniform structure, but rather to look at what works best given the geography, and to focus on service delivery - what is the right size to deliver which service here, and then build political structures round that. Looked at this way you are certain to get at least a 2-tier structure everywhere, although it can be encompassed within a decentralised “unitary” just as much as with separate political entities. |
|
York spent twenty years fighting to get its independence back, and now this proposes to rip it away again (as does the North Yorkshire districts reorganisation proposal).
