Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2020 9:40:31 GMT
Or even a "Mersey and Cheshire" region? It's possible! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2020 9:41:39 GMT
At very least it is an interesting exercise to show that NI is not far off the population size of some single English counties, including even a defunct one (Middlesex, and post-County of London Middx at that.) Resurrecting Middlesex wasn't intended as wholly frivolous – Greater London is at once far too large and far too small, rather like the old Seine department in France – and so this is a sort of take on the Petite Couronne. Middlesex is a good idea in the same way that Hauts-de-Seine is. Yes, I was definitely struggling for a name there! I'm not sure Severn would be much of an improvement – the river goes through all sorts of places not in that region (Worcester, Shrewsbury, Llanidloes...) and nowhere near many in it (Cirencester, Salisbury, Taunton...). There must be a good name for places within a day's travel by combine harvester from Bristol! Avon? *hides* |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jun 14, 2020 9:51:28 GMT
I'll throw in my spanner and reiterate that The Lakes and Lancashire/etc are really two different places. Yes. The problem is that Cumbria is massively undersized and has to combine with something. As far as I can see, the least bad option is south along the M6. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jun 14, 2020 10:09:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jun 14, 2020 10:10:13 GMT
At very least it is an interesting exercise to show that NI is not far off the population size of some single English counties, including even a defunct one (Middlesex, and post-County of London Middx at that.) Resurrecting Middlesex wasn't intended as wholly frivolous – Greater London is at once far too large and far too small, rather like the old Seine department in France – and so this is a sort of take on the Petite Couronne. Middlesex is a good idea in the same way that Hauts-de-Seine is. Yes, I was definitely struggling for a name there! I'm not sure Severn would be much of an improvement – the river goes through all sorts of places not in that region (Worcester, Shrewsbury, Llanidloes...) and nowhere near many in it (Cirencester, Salisbury, Taunton...). There must be a good name for places within a day's travel by combine harvester from Bristol! Yes, it's really "Bristol Channel" rather than River Severn, and that won't do, though one of the strengths of it as a region wouldI think be the existence of a strong regional "capital" in Bristol. Pete Whitehead's "Upper Wessex" is I think acceptable but I'd like to think there's something better. I am slightly reminded of when the Royal Gloucestershire Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment existed and was generally known as the M4s. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2020 10:27:54 GMT
"Lancestria"
|
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jun 14, 2020 10:31:21 GMT
I had to look that up. Old Latin term? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2020 10:35:45 GMT
Alternative regions for England, trying to get them to approximately the same population as Northern Ireland:  The West" is "The West Country" "Devon and Cornwall" is the "The South West" Large parts of Somerset belong with the South West rather than the West Country, with regional boundaries matching the isogloss of where "lush" is used at least every three words. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 14, 2020 10:42:51 GMT
Resurrecting Middlesex wasn't intended as wholly frivolous – Greater London is at once far too large and far too small, rather like the old Seine department in France – and so this is a sort of take on the Petite Couronne. Middlesex is a good idea in the same way that Hauts-de-Seine is. Yes, I was definitely struggling for a name there! I'm not sure Severn would be much of an improvement – the river goes through all sorts of places not in that region (Worcester, Shrewsbury, Llanidloes...) and nowhere near many in it (Cirencester, Salisbury, Taunton...). There must be a good name for places within a day's travel by combine harvester from Bristol! Yes, it's really "Bristol Channel" rather than River Severn, and that won't do, though one of the strengths of it as a region wouldI think be the existence of a strong regional "capital" in Bristol. Pete Whitehead's "Upper Wessex" is I think acceptable but I'd like to think there's something better. I am slightly reminded of when the Royal Gloucestershire Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment existed and was generally known as the M4s. C.B. Fawcett had broadly this region which was just referred to as the Bristol region which also makes some sense |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2020 10:48:12 GMT
Yes, it's really "Bristol Channel" rather than River Severn, and that won't do, though one of the strengths of it as a region wouldI think be the existence of a strong regional "capital" in Bristol. Pete Whitehead 's "Upper Wessex" is I think acceptable but I'd like to think there's something better. I am slightly reminded of when the Royal Gloucestershire Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment existed and was generally known as the M4s. C.B. Fawcett had broadly this region which was just referred to as the Bristol region which also makes some sense That would make a lot of people very unhappy, not least in Bath and Gloucester. As I say, "the West Country" is the best fitting name for that with Devon and Cornwall becoming the South West. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Jun 14, 2020 11:02:37 GMT
Long post...lots of maps etc. There have been so many proposals for local government reform since WW2 that it's difficult to keep track. Today's structure is a 'mish mash' and will probably not survive for another decade although I'm no expert. Two proposals for local/regional government from the late '60s when the Maud committee was sitting. (Both underwhelming). First from the Bow Group: That Northern England map is so horrifying that I'm lost for words. Much of Gateshead would be administered from South Shields, Newcastle randomly takes in Ryton and Prudhoe despite those being on the wrong side of the river, and the Cheviot district just seems cobbled together and would be hard to govern. The worst thing is that the region's external boundaries are better than the eventual North East region. It makes sense to include Carlisle in a region with Newcastle rather than Liverpool and Manchester, and annexing all the north-facing parts of Yorkshire (rather than just Middlesbrough and Redcar) also seems reasonable. But the internal boundaries are dire! |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jun 14, 2020 11:09:43 GMT
Long post...lots of maps etc. There have been so many proposals for local government reform since WW2 that it's difficult to keep track. Today's structure is a 'mish mash' and will probably not survive for another decade although I'm no expert. Two proposals for local/regional government from the late '60s when the Maud committee was sitting. (Both underwhelming). First from the Bow Group: That Northern England map is so horrifying that I'm lost for words. Much of Gateshead would be administered from South Shields, Newcastle randomly takes in Ryton and Prudhoe despite those being on the wrong side of the river, and the Cheviot district just seems cobbled together and would be hard to govern. The worst thing is that the region's external boundaries are better than the eventual North East region. It makes sense to include Carlisle in a region with Newcastle rather than Liverpool and Manchester, and annexing all the north-facing parts of Yorkshire (rather than just Middlesbrough and Redcar) also seems reasonable. But the internal boundaries are dire! There were some dreadful proposals (from all sides) in the 60s. Totally oblivious to local identity. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jun 14, 2020 16:24:05 GMT
Oh,if this was implemented, I can assure you you would be on a dartboard in an Oxon pub and possibly hitlist if the Thames Valley and South Midlands abominations went ahead. Certainly as a former resident, people in Banbury would be very unhappy with this!! People in Bicester too I think would be furious. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jun 14, 2020 16:29:57 GMT
These are much more workable and sensible regions (look at how European nations do it), although regarding this map Merseyside should be a separate region from Lancashire and Cumbria, as they have a very different regional identity to each other. It is certainly clear that the Isle of Wight, Hampshire and Dorset identify much more with each other than they do their official regions for most purposes. As your map correctly shows, they should be in their own region, not separate unwieldy larger regions. Yes, the North West is definitely the unhappiest corner on that. I don't like the artificiality of Skelmersdale being separated from Liverpool (and that Southport projection is ridiculous); so I went for one big blob; but it probably needs deblobbing like the rest of the map, with just West Lancashire going with Lancastrian Merseyside (also unsure about what to do with Widnes and Warrington). (The other things I am not quite happy with are (1) that the Midland counties are mainly slightly undersized, but pairing them would be just horrific; (2) that if we're allowing slightly undersized, then splitting Cambridgeshire off East Anglia may work (but Newmarket would look ridiculous).) And yes, Dorset going with Hampshire was one of the really obvious bits (and I find it baffling that the current Government Office Region map does what it does) – half of the population of Dorset lives right next to that boundary, and most of the trains go that way (and on to Waterloo) as well. It's really not a county that has much to do with Bristol or Exeter. Maybe someone from Sturminster Newton infiltrated the Ministry back in the day... Someone else criticised my South Midlands and Thames Valley regions. These seemed pragmatic ways of dealing with clusters of undersized counties, ending up with one region focused on Milton Keynes and another on Reading. We've seen the collapse of county governance in Berkshire, Bedfordshire, and Northamptonshire, and the perverse taking it out on the districts in Buckinghamshire. This is my attempt at getting some sort of critical mass authority above the districts. Yes,there is a way to do that. Use the NUTS regions to establish regional assemblies. Abolish all county councils and resurrect all former district or borough council in all counties for a more local level of government. The county councils are too small to fund or legislate for projects of regional significance and big enough to feel isolated from the majority of the country's residents. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jun 14, 2020 16:38:45 GMT
Yes, the North West is definitely the unhappiest corner on that. I don't like the artificiality of Skelmersdale being separated from Liverpool (and that Southport projection is ridiculous); so I went for one big blob; but it probably needs deblobbing like the rest of the map, with just West Lancashire going with Lancastrian Merseyside (also unsure about what to do with Widnes and Warrington). (The other things I am not quite happy with are (1) that the Midland counties are mainly slightly undersized, but pairing them would be just horrific; (2) that if we're allowing slightly undersized, then splitting Cambridgeshire off East Anglia may work (but Newmarket would look ridiculous).) And yes, Dorset going with Hampshire was one of the really obvious bits (and I find it baffling that the current Government Office Region map does what it does) – half of the population of Dorset lives right next to that boundary, and most of the trains go that way (and on to Waterloo) as well. It's really not a county that has much to do with Bristol or Exeter. Maybe someone from Sturminster Newton infiltrated the Ministry back in the day... Someone else criticised my South Midlands and Thames Valley regions. These seemed pragmatic ways of dealing with clusters of undersized counties, ending up with one region focused on Milton Keynes and another on Reading. We've seen the collapse of county governance in Berkshire, Bedfordshire, and Northamptonshire, and the perverse taking it out on the districts in Buckinghamshire. This is my attempt at getting some sort of critical mass authority above the districts. Yes,there is a way to do that. Use the NUTS regions to establish regional assemblies. Abolish all county councils and resurrect all former district or borough council in all counties for a more local level of government. The county councils are too small to fund or legislate for projects of regional significance and big enough to feel isolated from the majority of the country's residents. The higher-level Euro-Regions are too large, and the lower level ones still do many unnecessary arbitrary combinations. NUTS is nuts. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jun 14, 2020 16:47:41 GMT
Yes, the North West is definitely the unhappiest corner on that. I don't like the artificiality of Skelmersdale being separated from Liverpool (and that Southport projection is ridiculous); so I went for one big blob; but it probably needs deblobbing like the rest of the map, with just West Lancashire going with Lancastrian Merseyside (also unsure about what to do with Widnes and Warrington). (The other things I am not quite happy with are (1) that the Midland counties are mainly slightly undersized, but pairing them would be just horrific; (2) that if we're allowing slightly undersized, then splitting Cambridgeshire off East Anglia may work (but Newmarket would look ridiculous).) And yes, Dorset going with Hampshire was one of the really obvious bits (and I find it baffling that the current Government Office Region map does what it does) – half of the population of Dorset lives right next to that boundary, and most of the trains go that way (and on to Waterloo) as well. It's really not a county that has much to do with Bristol or Exeter. Maybe someone from Sturminster Newton infiltrated the Ministry back in the day... Someone else criticised my South Midlands and Thames Valley regions. These seemed pragmatic ways of dealing with clusters of undersized counties, ending up with one region focused on Milton Keynes and another on Reading. We've seen the collapse of county governance in Berkshire, Bedfordshire, and Northamptonshire, and the perverse taking it out on the districts in Buckinghamshire. This is my attempt at getting some sort of critical mass authority above the districts. At very least it is an interesting exercise to show that NI is not far off the population size of some single English counties, including even a defunct one (Middlesex, and post-County of London Middx at that.) I quite like most of those as it happens. It is a shame to split Bucks in two but no worse IMO than the slicing off of the Vale of White Horse from Berks and shoving it into Oxon, which has happened IRL. South Midlands is a bit ghastly but only because that part of the country lacks a strong identity IMO. "The West" is quite a sound region but I hate the name. I'm trying to think of something better but the only thing that comes to mind is Ciderland. (Perhaps you could get away with Severn?) As a Berkshire irredentist, I entirely agree with you on the Vale of White Horse but I think Bucks would be even worse because it would cut Aylesbury,the county seat I think,from the highly populated A40/M40 corridor through High Wycombe,which has the best road links in the county and which is approaching 200k in population. Oh,and I think @europeanlefty would like to suggest the proposed West region be named Avon 😂 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2020 16:51:29 GMT
As you well know, my problem is not with the name, but with the county. As I have said previously, South Gloucestershire should become a non-metropolitan district within Gloucestershire and the old county border along the Avon should be restored with North Bristol becoming a borough under Gloucestershire and South Bristol becoming one under Somerset.
|
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jun 14, 2020 16:51:46 GMT
Oh,if this was implemented, I can assure you you would be on a dartboard in an Oxon pub and possibly hitlist if the Thames Valley and South Midlands abominations went ahead. To give him his due, it's a lot better than many region models. It would be an acceptable first stab for some sort of 50-member "thing" representing England. Such as the English Tourist Board or summut. I'll throw in my spanner and reiterate that The Lakes and Lancashire/etc are really two different places. It's not too bad but there's too much variation in the size of regions,with Staffs and Derbyshire in the Midlands being left alone while Oxon and Bucks get carved up down south. It might be the makings of a plan for regions for an elected national Senate, but I'm dubious about the merits of that proposal, so,to be honest, I hadn't given it much thought.. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jun 14, 2020 16:53:08 GMT
As you well know, my problem is not with the name, but with the county. As I have said previously, South Gloucestershire should become a non-metropolitan district within Gloucestershire and the old county border along the Avon should be restored with North Bristol becoming a borough under Gloucestershire and South Bristol becoming one under Somerset. And you know that Bristol proposal is insane and will never happen. Bristol is one city and should stay in one county. Maybe it should be a county borough on it's own. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2020 16:54:06 GMT
Or alternatively, Gloucestershire, Bristol, N Somerset, BANES and Mendip become a "West Country" region with three counties. The reason being because they all use "alroigh' moi luvver/babber" instead of using "'ansum", and all know what a Bristolian means by "lush".
|
|
