|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Oct 3, 2023 13:53:39 GMT
As an Exonian, it isn't difficult to say which set of Devon's boundaries I support. Torbay should be fully integrated again, but we've always suspected that the Janners were half Cornish, so their current status is justifiable  I suppose this will get me a 5 day ban from admin again  |
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Oct 3, 2023 14:51:19 GMT
I do like how so many people identify with the ‘historic’ counties (or the mangled forms of them) that were it seems designed specifically to crack their traditional identities. Yes, it's like subtle but irreconcilable doctrinal differences incomprehensible to the uninitiated. For instance, the posted map shows counties as they were immediately before the 1974 reforms (except that it's wrong because Warley CB was technically part of Worcs, not Staffs as shown - not that it made a jot of practical difference). But many 'historic county' advocates would want to see Middlesex on the map, with Barnet in Herts, Worcs covering much of the southern half of Birmingham, Stockton in Co. Durham; to say nothing of the various exclaves on which a true purist would insist (Dudley, Bedlingham, Norham & Islandshire, Halesowen and countless others). And they tend to ignore counties corporate, but why? They were definitely counties in a strict sense (and I don't think they have ever been officially abolished).
So 'historic county' supporters should be clear about exactly which set of boundaries they support; and why that particular one rather than any of the others. It's like engaging with supporters of voting reform. Ask whether they support PR and you'll get unanimous agreement, much fairer, only democratic way, &c. Then ask which exact form of PR they want, and watch the unanimity evaporate.
Actually, for the supporters of truly historic counties, "with Barnet in Herts" is technically right, but only on the understanding that Barnet High Street extends northwards beyond Barnet into Middlesex - with the eastern side of the Middlesex portion of the High Street being officially part of the village of Monken Hadley to its immediate north, and the western side being officially part of South Mymms, half a dozen miles to the north-west. This would, I think, come as something of a surprise to most current local inhabitants - "Barnet" (or, more specifically, "Chipping Barnet" or "High Barnet", to distinguish it from other local villages like East Barnet or Friern Barnet) had, at least for most non-official purposes, been regarded as the one place since at least the late Middle Ages (and the High Street had crossed the then county boundary since at least the 17th century). The official adjustment in 1889 of the Hertfordshire-Middlesex boundary to put the whole of the then built-up area into Hertfordshire was basically simply recognising local realities - and solving quite a few longstanding jurisdictional problems, which could then simply be forgotten about. Of course, even 1889 is late in the history of county boundaries - it is not exactly clear why the boundaries immediately preceding 1889 should be regarded as definitive, considering the amount of tidying-up of "detached parts" carried out in the early Victorian period (which itself had already been done to a large extent for electoral purposes in the 1832 Reform Act). And, for people being even more purist than that, it is surely quite correct to ignore counties corporate - after all, almost all of these date from the 13th century or later (the City of London being the obvious exception). Though at that point, one could ask why they are not, for instance, ignoring the 16th century Welsh counties as well. |
|
|
|
Post by spinach on Oct 3, 2023 15:00:41 GMT
As per the replies, most places should remain part of their historic county unless a city conurbation has complicated the county boundaries. Separate city regions can remain in place, although most of the city boundaries should be redrawn to cover only the urban areas/urban sprawl. Any rural areas or towns separate from the city due green belt should return to their historic counties.
Personally I would abolish most of the newer city county creations such as Tyne and Water, Teeside, Merseyside, West Midlands and Greater Manchester. Most of these are forced and artificial creations with little or no cultural/social identities associated with such city regions. Most could be replaced with a smaller more compact cities (Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham/Black Country and Newcastle upon Tyne) with their boundaries tightly drawn round their urban areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by spinach on Oct 3, 2023 15:22:40 GMT
And obviously Greater London should be extended to the M25 or thereabouts. That would be incredibly unpopular especially with the recent controversy. If anything the reverse would be more popular– Havering being returned to Essex for example. In southwest London there would probably be an argument for combining the rich areas on both sides of the current Greater London boundary– Richmond, Kingston, Merton, and Sutton from Greater London along with Spelthorne, Runnymede, Epsom and Ewell, Elmbridge from Surrey, into a new "North Surrey" authority area separate to Greater London. Most parts of Richmond, Kingston and Merton feel very part of London nowadays so it would be difficult to remove from Greater London. Although a new Surrey North sub-district bordered by Greater London and the M25 would be suitable. Would consist of areas such as Epsom, Ewell, Banstead, Chipstead, Ashstead and Caterham. Chessington, Malden Rushett, Coulsdon, Woodcote and the southern parts of the London Borough of Sutton could also be added. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,808 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Oct 3, 2023 16:08:42 GMT
Most could be replaced with a smaller more compact cities (Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham/Black Country and Newcastle upon Tyne) with their boundaries tightly drawn round their urban areas. Manchester/Birmingham/Liverpool/etc *ARE* drawn with tightly-drawn boundaries. Too tight, many of them should be expanded: |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Oct 3, 2023 17:35:11 GMT
I've posted this before, but these are the regions I'd advocate:  Dividing Scotland into "Greater Glasgow" and "Not Greater Glasgow" is absolutely ridiculous. Ayrshire for example has much more in common with Greater Glasgow than the Western or Northern Isles. That is not to say it should belong in the same region as Greater Glasgow, but that map is horrific. If you want to divide Scotland into regions the NHS boards is a better starting point. It would break up the SNP powerbase and create a rural-majority Scotland that would run region/county-level services sensibly. There are parallels with the German states, where Bremen and Hamburg are separate from Lower Saxony so that people in the Saxon equivalents of Ayr do not have their interests sidelined by urban interests. Greater Glasgow is designed to be a basket-case to limit contagion, much like South West Lancashire. |
|
|
|
Post by spinach on Oct 3, 2023 17:57:56 GMT
Most could be replaced with a smaller more compact cities (Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham/Black Country and Newcastle upon Tyne) with their boundaries tightly drawn round their urban areas. Manchester/Birmingham/Liverpool/etc *ARE* drawn with tightly-drawn boundaries. Too tight, many of them should be expanded:
We could create Greater City regions comparable to Greater London across the UK. However I believe the Greater City regions will always feel contrived and manufactured, will be unable to compete with London in terms of economic, cultural and population dominance, and many of the residents will have little cultural identity with such city regions. Greater London does include many historic towns (which were previously in Surrey, Kent and Essex) but mass suburban development in the Victorian/Edwardian eras and 1930s generated by the expansion of the London underground and railways means that many of such places have merged into London. No green belt divide neighbourhoods such as Enfield, Barking, Croydon and Kingston with inner London and these neighbourhoods are fully incorporated into London's transport network and London's travel to work area. On the other hand, areas such as Southport, St Helens, Wigan, Bolton and Rochdale are separate towns and unconnected to their cities built-up areas. Most are not well incorporated into their city transport networks and residents often identity with their county and town. |
|
|
|
Post by spinach on Oct 3, 2023 18:02:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 3, 2023 18:37:35 GMT
Most could be replaced with a smaller more compact cities (Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham/Black Country and Newcastle upon Tyne) with their boundaries tightly drawn round their urban areas. Manchester/Birmingham/Liverpool/etc *ARE* drawn with tightly-drawn boundaries. Too tight, many of them should be expanded: I think if you were going to significantly expand some met borough areas, one candidate might actually be St Helens - merge it with Warrington and potentially some or all of Wigan and you'd have a pretty coherent South Lancashire authority with strong internal connectivity and shared economic interests. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 3, 2023 18:40:51 GMT
That's an impressively inaccurate accent map. I particularly enjoy the suggestion that the inhabitants of Letterkenny have an Ulster Scots accent. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,044
|
Post by Sibboleth on Oct 3, 2023 18:41:12 GMT
Well, no, because that map is a joke. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Oct 3, 2023 18:56:40 GMT
That's an impressively inaccurate accent map. I particularly enjoy the suggestion that the inhabitants of Letterkenny have an Ulster Scots accent. Or that the residents of Flint, Anglesey, Montgomeryshire and Cardiganshire share a single regional accent. In either language. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Oct 3, 2023 18:58:16 GMT
Most could be replaced with a smaller more compact cities (Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham/Black Country and Newcastle upon Tyne) with their boundaries tightly drawn round their urban areas. Manchester/Birmingham/Liverpool/etc *ARE* drawn with tightly-drawn boundaries. Too tight, many of them should be expanded: What is that North Staffordshire boundary meant to represent? |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Oct 3, 2023 19:02:01 GMT
That's an impressively inaccurate accent map. I particularly enjoy the suggestion that the inhabitants of Letterkenny have an Ulster Scots accent. Or that Herefordshire is markedly different from Radnorshire, but strangely similar to Staffordshire... |
|
|
|
Post by spinach on Oct 3, 2023 19:05:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Oct 3, 2023 19:30:26 GMT
This has to be the definitive dialect map:
All you people who don't call daps daps are weird. Scousers begin at Llangurig.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,808
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Oct 3, 2023 19:36:47 GMT
Manchester/Birmingham/Liverpool/etc *ARE* drawn with tightly-drawn boundaries. Too tight, many of them should be expanded: What is that North Staffordshire boundary meant to represent? In most of these maps I found some parish boundaries that were close to something that enclosed a single conurbation with a bit of elbow room around them, some of them tweeked to follow large roads, eg as in Stoke and Reading. And these aren't city-regions, but cities themselves (or rather, city-sized single urban conurbations). City-Regions would be bigger things, a - well - *region* with one or more core cities. East Yorkshire And Hull would be a city-region, not just Hull by itself. Greater Manchester is a city-region, not just Manchester itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Oct 3, 2023 20:45:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Oct 3, 2023 22:08:46 GMT
What is that North Staffordshire boundary meant to represent? In most of these maps I found some parish boundaries that were close to something that enclosed a single conurbation with a bit of elbow room around them, some of them tweeked to follow large roads, eg as in Stoke and Reading. And these aren't city-regions, but cities themselves (or rather, city-sized single urban conurbations). City-Regions would be bigger things, a - well - *region* with one or more core cities. East Yorkshire And Hull would be a city-region, not just Hull by itself. Greater Manchester is a city-region, not just Manchester itself.
Ah, so it's your suggestion of a North Staffordshire administrative unit? I would have to say - with some local knowledge - that such a proposal would be a boost for sales of pitchforks and flaming torches. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
|
Post by maxque on Oct 3, 2023 22:15:22 GMT
|
|
England Police force regions: 
