|
Post by lennon on Oct 14, 2015 8:12:40 GMT
I'd like to see Solent City raised again as a prospect, if only because I enjoy horrified reactions. And the further horror when you tell Pompey and Soton that Fareham will be the HQ. Although perhaps 'better Fareham than the other place...'
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 14, 2015 8:33:54 GMT
There must be a good case for separate enlarged authorities covering Portsmouth and Southampton, the first combining POrtsmouth, Havant, Gosport and Fareham with Southhampton annexing all of Eastleigh, North Baddesley, Valley Park and Chilworth from Test Valley and the 'waterside' parishes of New Forest, from Totton down to Fawley. On the subject of 'councils you would create', were I not so precious about county boundaries, I would create a big unitary combining Rushmoor district with Fleet, Church Crookham, Blackwater and Yateley from Hart district, Sandhurst from Berkshire and Camberley, Frimley, Ash, Tongham and Farnham from Surrey
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Oct 14, 2015 8:58:52 GMT
I'd like some councils to change their names to less bloodless nomenclatures. For example, I'd like Kirklees to be Huddersfield. Trafford to be something like Mersey & Irwell or Altrincham after the main settlement. And definitely a better choice for Cheshire East (Macclesfield & Congleton anyone?) Try telling that to people who live in Dewsbury.
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Oct 14, 2015 9:05:16 GMT
There must be a good case for separate enlarged authorities covering Portsmouth and Southampton, the first combining POrtsmouth, Havant, Gosport and Fareham with Southhampton annexing all of Eastleigh, North Baddesley, Valley Park and Chilworth from Test Valley and the 'waterside' parishes of New Forest, from Totton down to Fawley. Actually, I pretty much agree with that - I would just add the areas of East Hants and Winchester which are South of the South Downs National Park but North of Portsdown Hill to your enlarged Portsmouth. (ie Horndean, Rowlands Castle, Southwick etc.)
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Oct 14, 2015 9:22:21 GMT
On the subject of 'councils you would create', were I not so precious about county boundaries, I would create a big unitary combining Rushmoor district with Fleet, Church Crookham, Blackwater and Yateley from Hart district, Sandhurst from Berkshire and Camberley, Frimley, Ash, Tongham and Farnham from Surrey Obviously once you've taken Farnham out of Waverley, you may as well demolish the whole thing anyway - put Godalming to Guildford and Haslemere to East Hants. Waverley's a pretty good candidate for abolition anyway consisting of 3 towns all of which are at the very edge of the district.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 14, 2015 9:48:11 GMT
Naming councils is a minefield. There were always complaints about the name of Congleton borough, as Congleton was only one of the towns in it and also at one end of it. But attempts to rename it 'Dane Valley' never got enough support (a two thirds majority is needed). Several of the London boroughs were plainly named after compromise places in order to avoid giving offence to others. Camden Town fortunately happened to be in the middle of Holborn, St Pancras and Hampstead. Harringay is handily in the centre of the borough but the namers deliberately chose to alter the spelling to obscure it. But surely this logic fell down with Havering-atte-Bower, which is a tiny village and has no real connection to the rest of the borough it names.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 14, 2015 10:31:08 GMT
I think Havering is named after the ancient Liberty rather than the village. The 1974 reforms seemed to like picking names that hadn't been in common currency for centuries. The classic example is North Norfolk, which was named Pastonacres until the entire council agreed to a name change on its first day.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,540
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 14, 2015 11:03:30 GMT
Uttlesford is a good one in that regard (how on earth it wasn't named Saffron Walden, given that is easily the principal town there, is indeed mysterious)
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Oct 14, 2015 11:34:58 GMT
There must be a good case for separate enlarged authorities covering Portsmouth and Southampton, the first combining POrtsmouth, Havant, Gosport and Fareham with Southhampton annexing all of Eastleigh, North Baddesley, Valley Park and Chilworth from Test Valley and the 'waterside' parishes of New Forest, from Totton down to Fawley. On the subject of 'councils you would create', were I not so precious about county boundaries, I would create a big unitary combining Rushmoor district with Fleet, Church Crookham, Blackwater and Yateley from Hart district, Sandhurst from Berkshire and Camberley, Frimley, Ash, Tongham and Farnham from Surrey I like that a lot. I'd throw in Romsey and dismember TVBC.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,516
|
Post by Khunanup on Oct 14, 2015 13:22:28 GMT
Also, how about merging Fareham and Gosport? Go on, go to Sarisbury or Rowner and suggest that, I dare you! It makes perfect sense as a unitary though (if you don't do the complete Portsmouth Max in an all unitary structure).
|
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 909
|
Post by piperdave on Oct 14, 2015 18:59:09 GMT
Originally, Huddersfield and the Colne Valley was recommended to be one council and the Dewsbury area was supposed to go with parts of Wakefield as the Heavy Woollen District. I'm not sure which stroke of whose pen brought Kirklees together but it is named after a priory that's not even in the borough (it's in Calderdale).
And parts of Kirklees would be better in Bradford, thinking of Cleckheaton and Birkenshaw, others into Leeds (Ailsa Dell was a boundary nightmare), or indeed creating a Spen Valley Council to take North Kirklees into something more sensible.
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,558
|
Post by cibwr on Oct 17, 2015 19:15:58 GMT
There must be a good case for separate enlarged authorities covering Portsmouth and Southampton, the first combining POrtsmouth, Havant, Gosport and Fareham with Southhampton annexing all of Eastleigh, North Baddesley, Valley Park and Chilworth from Test Valley and the 'waterside' parishes of New Forest, from Totton down to Fawley. On the subject of 'councils you would create', were I not so precious about county boundaries, I would create a big unitary combining Rushmoor district with Fleet, Church Crookham, Blackwater and Yateley from Hart district, Sandhurst from Berkshire and Camberley, Frimley, Ash, Tongham and Farnham from Surrey There was a suggestion of a Solent Met County back in the very early 1970s prior to the big reorganisation that created the two tier system and Met Counties.
|
|
|
Post by dizz on Oct 18, 2015 9:41:01 GMT
On the subject of 'councils you would create', were I not so precious about county boundaries, I would create a big unitary combining Rushmoor district with Fleet, Church Crookham, Blackwater and Yateley from Hart district, Sandhurst from Berkshire and Camberley, Frimley, Ash, Tongham and Farnham from Surrey Obviously once you've taken Farnham out of Waverley, you may as well demolish the whole thing anyway - put Godalming to Guildford and Haslemere to East Hants. Waverley's a pretty good candidate for abolition anyway consisting of 3 towns all of which are at the very edge of the district. Councils should NOT cross county borders (shudders at the 1970s council reorganisations). In truth, and I know it very well, Waverley works well, though Farnham is on a different train line from Godalming/Haslemere. Equally, though it does have OK bus connections (never used) and, socially, is a good fit. If you were to mess with Waverley, then Cranleigh to Mole Valley (was suggested it could become part of the same constituency (Mid Surrey) as part of the abortive last constituency reviews)?
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Oct 18, 2015 10:28:39 GMT
Uttlesford is a good one in that regard (how on earth it wasn't named Saffron Walden, given that is easily the principal town there, is indeed mysterious) It won't be mysterious when I write my memoirs. The new council comprised SW Borough, SW Rural District and Dunmow RD. I was a member of the reorganisation committee, one of whose tasks was to pick a name. We from the borough unsurprisingly put forward "Saffron Walden". This caused the Dunmow Tories to go into a hissy fit. They suggested "Dunmow & Saffron Walden" or, second best "North West Essex.". The SWRD Tories were put in a quandry, but we won the vote for "Saffron Walden", narrowly. However, before the next meeting the telephones in Toryland buzzed. We on the Borough got word of this from our own Tories, so knew the vote was likely to be overturned. We were determined to stop both "SW & Dunmow" and "NW Essex". Dunmow did not deserve to be bracketed with SW - and Stansted was almost as big and likely soon to be bigger. It was also far better known. "NW Essex" sounded like a department of the remote and not-too-popular county. So we decided to have a fallback of "Uttlesford", the name of the old Saxon hundred which comprised most of the area, including a chunk of Dunmow RD. It was the name of a fairly well-known local amateur orchestra (I know that sounds feeble, but it was all we had). At the meeting, the previous decision fell as theSWRD Tories who previously supported it withdrew their support. Dunmow then put forward "North West Essex" & we put forward "Uttlesford". The vote was tied. At this point I had a flash of inspiration which I have looked back upon with pride these 40-odd years. I suggested that we forward both names to the Secretary of State, Geoffrey Rippon, for him to decide. I figured that almost anyone, politician or civil servant, would have to have a very dead soul to pick "North West Essex" over "Uttlesford". And so it proved. A few months into the life of the new council (to which I failed to be elected) a local Tory said to me "amazing how quickly the name Uttlesford has caught on".
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Oct 18, 2015 10:35:15 GMT
Uttlesford is a good one in that regard (how on earth it wasn't named Saffron Walden, given that is easily the principal town there, is indeed mysterious) It won't be mysterious when I write my memoirs. The new council comprised SW Borough, SW Rural District and Dunmow RD. I was a member of the reorganisation committee, one of whose tasks was to pick a name. We from the borough unsurprisingly put forward "Saffron Walden". This caused the Dunmow Tories to go into a hissy fit. They suggested "Dunmow & Saffron Walden" or, second best "North West Essex.". The SWRD Tories were put in a quandry, but we won the vote for "Saffron Walden", narrowly. However, before the next meeting the telephones in Toryland buzzed. We on the Borough got word of this from our own Tories, so knew the vote was likely to be overturned. We were determined to stop both "SW & Dunmow" and "NW Essex". Dunmow did not deserve to be bracketed with SW - and Stansted was almost as big and likely soon to be bigger. It was also far better known. "NW Essex" sounded like a department of the remote and not-too-popular county. So we decided to have a fallback of "Uttlesford", the name of the old Saxon hundred which comprised most of the area, including a chunk of Dunmow RD. It was the name of a fairly well-known local amateur orchestra (I know that sounds feeble, but it was all we had). At the meeting, the previous decision fell as theSWRD Tories who previously supported it withdrew their support. Dunmow then put forward "North West Essex" & we put forward "Uttlesford". The vote was tied. At this point I had a flash of inspiration which I have looked back upon with pride these 40-odd years. I suggested that we forward both names to the Secretary of State, Geoffrey Rippon, for him to decide. I figured that almost anyone, politician or civil servant, would have to have a very dead soul to pick "North West Essex" over "Uttlesford". And so it proved. A few months into the life of the new council (to which I failed to be elected) a local Tory said to me "amazing how quickly the name Uttlesford has caught on". Excellent. There must be many such stories across the country.....
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Oct 18, 2015 11:14:07 GMT
On which note, did we ever work out why Stockport was to be named Norchester?
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Oct 18, 2015 12:02:46 GMT
On which note, did we ever work out why Stockport was to be named Norchester? I have done a bit of searching but haven't managed to turn anything up apart from the fact that the vote was 16 to 5 in favour of Stockport. Wikipedia quotes a book?pamphlet? called "Greater Manchester Votes" by someone called David Clark published in 1973 but I can't find any trace of it so far (except in the BL catalogue). Maybe someone here has a copy. Searching by publisher I did find a book curiously titled "The Strange case of the counties that didn't change", published by the same people (Red Rose) in the same year and in an apparently limited edition..... EDIT: British library has the author of the latter as "Father Francis" and has a much later publication date. Might be a re-print?
|
|
|
Post by Philip Davies on Oct 18, 2015 12:19:34 GMT
On which note, did we ever work out why Stockport was to be named Norchester? I have done a bit of searching but haven't managed to turn anything up apart from the fact that the vote was 16 to 5 in favour of Stockport. Wikipedia quotes a book?pamphlet? called "Greater Manchester Votes" by someone called David Clark published in 1973 but I can't find any trace of it so far (except in the BL catalogue). Maybe someone here has a copy. Searching by publisher I did find a book curiously titled "The Strange case of the counties that didn't change", published by the same people (Red Rose) in the same year and in an apparently limited edition..... EDIT: British library has the author of the latter as "Father Francis" and has a much later publication date. Might be a re-print? My father has this book. I'm going to visit later today so may borrow it and post some scans. It is very well read! Mainly by me when I was younger. Norchester rungs a bell. Nine towns was proposed for Tameside.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,542
|
Post by john07 on Oct 18, 2015 13:03:03 GMT
On which note, did we ever work out why Stockport was to be named Norchester? I suspect that it was an artificial construction by Hazel Grove and Cheadle Tories to avoid calling the Borough Stockport. Maybe it was a attempt at North Cheshire?
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,542
|
Post by john07 on Oct 18, 2015 13:08:42 GMT
I have done a bit of searching but haven't managed to turn anything up apart from the fact that the vote was 16 to 5 in favour of Stockport. Wikipedia quotes a book?pamphlet? called "Greater Manchester Votes" by someone called David Clark published in 1973 but I can't find any trace of it so far (except in the BL catalogue). Maybe someone here has a copy. Searching by publisher I did find a book curiously titled "The Strange case of the counties that didn't change", published by the same people (Red Rose) in the same year and in an apparently limited edition..... EDIT: British library has the author of the latter as "Father Francis" and has a much later publication date. Might be a re-print? My father has this book. I'm going to visit later today so may borrow it and post some scans. It is very well read! Mainly by me when I was younger. Norchester rungs a bell. Nine towns was proposed for Tameside. I had two copies: the first one fell apart! I don't know what happened to the other or my copy of his subsequent publication 'The Battle for the Counties'. There are already a lot of extracts from both scanned and posted on this site somewhere.
|
|