Has Greater Manchester been renamed "Manchester"?

[radamfi]

It seems even government ministers now say "Manchester" when they mean Greater Manchester. That wouldn't have been the case 20 years ago.

Greater London has long been synonymous with "London". Maybe Greater Manchester should officially be renamed as "Manchester" for parity with London? So just as you have the "London borough of Croydon" you will have the "Manchester borough of Bolton"

 

[xotGD]

'Manchester borough of Manchester'

Doesn't really work.

Follow the example of the North East: Durham, County Durham

Or even New York, New York.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is a concept of "Greater London" as well, to be fair.

 

[radamfi]

There is a concept of "Greater London" as well, to be fair.

But it is rarely used in practice. People just say "London".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Oct 2020 ==

'Manchester borough of Manchester'

When the borough is also a city, that isn't an issue. It is already the "City of Manchester". Obviously London has the small "City of London" as well, although technically it is a separate ceremonial county.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But it is rarely used in practice. People just say "London".

I think there's a distinction in both cases, at least in the eyes of anyone who actually knows London (admittedly it sprawls more than Manchester does).

I think most people would say that, say, the Trafford Centre, was in Manchester, even though it's technically in Trafford. However, nobody would say Wigan was in Manchester, but it is in Greater Manchester (though if you ask the locals they'd rather it was in Lancashire, though possibly not at the moment!)

With London, many from outside would say anything inside the M25 was London, but those who know it better might say, for example, that Romford was in Greater London but not London (though might be more likely to say Essex). There are fewer examples in London, though, as it pretty much does sprawl all the way to the M25, whereas Greater Manchester does contain quite a number of distinct settlements.

 

[radamfi]

I think there's a distinction in both cases, at least in the eyes of anyone who actually knows London (admittedly it sprawls more than Manchester does).

I think most people would say that, say, the Trafford Centre, was in Manchester, even though it's technically in Trafford. However, nobody would say Wigan was in Manchester, but it is in Greater Manchester (though if you ask the locals they'd rather it was in Lancashire, though possibly not at the moment!)

With London, many from outside would say anything inside the M25 was London, but those who know it better might say, for example, that Romford was in Greater London but not London (though might be more likely to say Essex). There are fewer examples in London, though, as it pretty much does sprawl all the way to the M25, whereas Greater Manchester does contain quite a number of distinct settlements.

As you say, both (Greater) London and Greater Manchester have settlements where many if not most of the locals would prefer their area to be considered distinct, and/or in a former historic county. But official organisations drop the Greater regarding Greater London, for example Transport for London, Mayor of London etc. They would call Romford part of East London, not the east of Greater London. Whereas TfGM keeps the "G" in all correspondence. However, it has now become commonplace, even standard, for media outlets to simply refer to the whole conurbation as "Manchester", and increasingly now politicians and government.

 

[Chester1]

'Manchester borough of Manchester'

Doesn't really work.

Follow the example of the North East: Durham, County Durham

Or even New York, New York.

I think there's a distinction in both cases, at least in the eyes of anyone who actually knows London (admittedly it sprawls more than Manchester does).

I think most people would say that, say, the Trafford Centre, was in Manchester, even though it's technically in Trafford. However, nobody would say Wigan was in Manchester, but it is in Greater Manchester (though if you ask the locals they'd rather it was in Lancashire, though possibly not at the moment!)

With London, many from outside would say anything inside the M25 was London, but those who know it better might say, for example, that Romford was in Greater London but not London (though might be more likely to say Essex). There are fewer examples in London, though, as it pretty much does sprawl all the way to the M25, whereas Greater Manchester does contain quite a number of distinct settlements.

One solution would be to replace the city borough and try to balance out the populations of the 10 so they are closer to the average of 300,000. They are very unbalanced and this is becoming a problem with Manchester city borough population rocketing. It will soon exceed the government advised limit of 600,000 for a unitary authority and it doesn't make geographic sense (a very long, thin slice down the middle of the area within M60 + Wythenshawe + the airport. I think there would need to be a "Central Manchester Borough". But the rest could be carved up between the neighbouring boroughs.

The identity is very much a generational and local vs incomer split. The local identity is slowly diminishing in most of the boroughs with Wigan being an exception, probably because it is geographically separate. Some of the parts of the borough are so far from Manchester that its odd they were ever included (e.g. Orrell and Ashton-In-Makerfield). There is an argument for transferring parts of Wigan Borough into Salford and most of it (including the town itself) into Lancashire as part of the planned reorganisation into Unitary Authorities with a Combined Authority and mayor. Wilmslow (in Cheshire East) has more connections to Manchester (and is part of its continuous urban area) than Wigan!

 

[radamfi]

One solution would be to replace the city borough and try to balance out the populations of the 10 so they are closer to the average of 300,000. They are very unbalanced and this is becoming a problem with Manchester city borough population rocketing. It will soon exceed the government advised limit of 600,000 for a unitary authority and it doesn't make geographic sense (a very long, thin slice down the middle of the area within M60 + Wythenshawe + the airport. I think there would need to be a "Central Manchester Borough". But the rest could be carved up between the neighbouring boroughs.

Has Birmingham been given a "warning" to split, given it is now nearly double that recommended limit?

It is interesting to note that it is far less common to refer to the wider conurbation informally as Birmingham or Greater Birmingham, even by people in the country as a whole. The mayor of the West Midlands has far less visibility than Andy Burnham. I would bet that most people in the country don't know his name, or even that the West Midlands has a mayor just like GM. Certainly it seems that Manchester is running away with the "second city" debate at the moment.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Oct 2020 ==

Some of the parts of the borough are so far from Manchester that its odd they were ever included (e.g. Orrell and Ashton-In-Makerfield).

Ashton-in-Makerfield has even been incorporated into the Liverpool Urban Area!

Liverpool Built-up Area - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I guess the argument for Wigan's inclusion is that otherwise there would be a large population that would miss out from being in a metropolitan county, and in 1974 it was probably seen to be beneficial to include as many big urban areas as possible. SELNEC, the predecessor of GM, excluded Wigan but included Wilmslow and Glossop, and would have made a more logical Greater Manchester.

 

[Chester1]

Has Birmingham been given a "warning" to split, given it is now nearly double that recommended limit?

It is interesting to note that it is far less common to refer to the wider conurbation informally as Birmingham or Greater Birmingham, even by people in the country as a whole. The mayor of the West Midlands has far less visibility than Andy Burnham. I would bet that most people in the country don't know his name, or even that the West Midlands has a mayor just like GM. Certainly it seems that Manchester is running away with the "second city" debate at the moment.

Manchester city borough has not been given a warning but it would be at the very top end of what would be authorised if it didn't already exist. Due to its rapid growth an application would most probably be vetoed by the government. The lower advisory limit (300,000 appears to be more flexible for large geographic areas but the upper limit of 600,000 seems to be stricter. Lancashire (including unitary authorities of Blackpool and Blackburn) and North Yorkshire (+ city of York) are both likely to be reorganised soon into unitary authorities with a combined authority and mayor. There are ongoing battles between county, district and unitary authorities for what the divisions will be. There is no pressure to remap Greater Manchester but if it did happen then the city borough wouldn't survive in its current form.

 

[radamfi]

Manchester city borough has not been given a warning

But what about Birmingham? (I think you misread my post! )

 

[Chester1]

But what about Birmingham? (I think you misread my post! )

Its current borders wouldn't be accepted if it didn't already exist. They wouldn't survive a remapping (although that is not on the cards). The reform of local government is very much focused on abolishing the district and county council system and adding in Combined Authorities on top with powers currently the responsibility of central government. There are various proposals down south but I think they are behind Lancashire and North Yorkshire.

 

[xotGD]

Manchester benefits from having its name in the 'county' name, unlike Brum and West Mids or Liverpool and Merseyside.

'Liverpool City Region' is just a newly created mouthful that I can't imagine anyone uses in normal conversation.

Meanwhile on this side of the Pennines there is the ongoing campaign to have the outlying parts of Bradford borough separated off from Bradford council. Where we'd go, I've no idea.

 

[Ianno87]

I think there's a distinction in both cases, at least in the eyes of anyone who actually knows London (admittedly it sprawls more than Manchester does).

I think most people would say that, say, the Trafford Centre, was in Manchester, even though it's technically in Trafford. However, nobody would say Wigan was in Manchester, but it is in Greater Manchester (though if you ask the locals they'd rather it was in Lancashire, though possibly not at the moment!)

With London, many from outside would say anything inside the M25 was London, but those who know it better might say, for example, that Romford was in Greater London but not London (though might be more likely to say Essex). There are fewer examples in London, though, as it pretty much does sprawl all the way to the M25, whereas Greater Manchester does contain quite a number of distinct settlements.

People in Stockport, Wigan, Bolton, Bury, Rochdale and Oldham would generally say they are from the respective towns.

Salfordians would say a mix of Salford or Manchester (my Mum was born in Salford but when it was classified as Manchester).

Trafford residents would say Manchester, apart from towards Altrincham which might be Cheshire.

People in Tameside would probably say a mix of Manchester, their local town (Ashton/Stalybridge/Hyde) or 'Cheshire'.

 

[telstarbox]

One solution would be to replace the city borough and try to balance out the populations of the 10 so they are closer to the average of 300,000. They are very unbalanced and this is becoming a problem with Manchester city borough population rocketing. It will soon exceed the government advised limit of 600,000 for a unitary authority and it doesn't make geographic sense (a very long, thin slice down the middle of the area within M60 + Wythenshawe + the airport. I think there would need to be a "Central Manchester Borough". But the rest could be carved up between the neighbouring boroughs.

The identity is very much a generational and local vs incomer split. The local identity is slowly diminishing in most of the boroughs with Wigan being an exception, probably because it is geographically separate. Some of the parts of the borough are so far from Manchester that its odd they were ever included (e.g. Orrell and Ashton-In-Makerfield). There is an argument for transferring parts of Wigan Borough into Salford and most of it (including the town itself) into Lancashire as part of the planned reorganisation into Unitary Authorities with a Combined Authority and mayor. Wilmslow (in Cheshire East) has more connections to Manchester (and is part of its continuous urban area) than Wigan!

It would be a hard one to split though. However you slice it there would be a richer authority with the business rates from the city centre, and a poorer authority with a lot of deprived areas.

 

[Chester1]

People in Stockport, Wigan, Bolton, Bury, Rochdale and Oldham would generally say they are from the respective towns.

Salfordians would say a mix of Salford or Manchester (my Mum was born in Salford but when it was classified as Manchester).

Trafford residents would say Manchester, apart from towards Altrincham which might be Cheshire.

People in Tameside would probably say a mix of Manchester, their local town (Ashton/Stalybridge/Hyde) or 'Cheshire'.

Stockport is a generational thing. Older people are likely to consider themselves as from Cheshire. Younger people are more likely to say Manchester to anyone from outside the area. There is a also a split between the town itself and the Borough. Residents of Marple are more likely to identify with there and Manchester than as being from Stockport.

It would be a hard one to split though. However you slice it there would be a richer authority with the business rates from the city centre, and a poorer authority with a lot of deprived areas.

I disagree. The city centre is a lot of deprived areas near it e.g. Miles Platting, Collyhurst, Ardwick and Moss Side. A borough covering the city centre and neighbouring areas with about 300,000 people could be drew up to be well balanced. Transfering Heald Green to Stockport and Manchester Airport + Wythenshawe to Trafford for instance.

 

[radamfi]

I disagree. The city centre is a lot of deprived areas near it e.g. Miles Platting, Collyhurst, Ardwick and Moss Side. A borough covering the city centre and neighbouring areas with about 300,000 people could be drew up to be well balanced. Transfering Heald Green to Stockport and Manchester Airport + Wythenshawe to Trafford for instance.

Heald Green is already in Stockport. But your point makes sense.

 

[Chester1]

Heald Green is already in Stockport. But your point makes sense.

So it is! A problem with any changes would be having a political balance that allowed it to be approved by the government. Transferring Wythenshawe to Trafford makes sense but would make it much harder for the Tories to regain control of the borough. Boundaries that are acceptable to the Tories would probably require a massive remapping that would anger the councils.

 

[jfollows]

Stockport is a generational thing. Older people are likely to consider themselves as from Cheshire.

And, although I know it's not the same thing, those of us who do live in Cheshire still have a Stockport (SK) postcode, although interestingly I've realised that it's been a number of years since I used the word "Stockport" in my postal address.

 

[radamfi]

And, although I know it's not the same thing, those of us who do live in Cheshire still have a Stockport (SK) postcode, although interestingly I've realised that it's been a number of years since I used the word "Stockport" in my postal address.

According to

SK postcode area - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Disley and Poynton are in the Stockport post town, and so properties in those areas should include Stockport in capitals to be properly addressed.

 

[jfollows]

According to

SK postcode area - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Disley and Poynton are in the Stockport post town, and so properties in those areas should include Stockport in capitals to be properly addressed.

Yes, I lived in Poynton until 1976, and I remember being told (after the formation of Greater Manchester in April 1974) that it should be "Poynton, STOCKPORT, Cheshire" as you say, but since moving to Wilmslow (from Manchester) in 2008 I never considered using "STOCKPORT" and haven't knowingly suffered any adverse consequences!

 

[radamfi]

Yes, I lived in Poynton until 1976, and I remember being told (after the formation of Greater Manchester in April 1974) that it should be "Poynton, STOCKPORT, Cheshire" as you say, but since moving to Wilmslow (from Manchester) in 2008 I never considered using "STOCKPORT" and haven't knowingly suffered any adverse consequences!

Wilmslow is a post town in its own right.

 

[jfollows]

Wilmslow is a post town in its own right.

Ah, OK, thank you, I learned something today then! And was accidentally doing the right thing anyway for the past 10+ years, good.

 

[317 forever]

Has Birmingham been given a "warning" to split, given it is now nearly double that recommended limit?

It is interesting to note that it is far less common to refer to the wider conurbation informally as Birmingham or Greater Birmingham, even by people in the country as a whole. The mayor of the West Midlands has far less visibility than Andy Burnham. I would bet that most people in the country don't know his name, or even that the West Midlands has a mayor just like GM. Certainly it seems that Manchester is running away with the "second city" debate at the moment.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Oct 2020 ==



Ashton-in-Makerfield has even been incorporated into the Liverpool Urban Area!

Liverpool Built-up Area - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I guess the argument for Wigan's inclusion is that otherwise there would be a large population that would miss out from being in a metropolitan county, and in 1974 it was probably seen to be beneficial to include as many big urban areas as possible. SELNEC, the predecessor of GM, excluded Wigan but included Wilmslow and Glossop, and would have made a more logical Greater Manchester.

Yet Warrington missed out on becoming part of Greater Manchester or Merseyside. Halton has recently been added to Merseyside to be part of Liverpool City Region. If anything, Wigan feels more closely affiliated to the Liverpool City Region as the main roads to Liverpool are largely urban, but the main roads to Manchester include a greater rural area upon leaving Wigan.

 

[C J Snarzell]

I come from Wigan and everyone I know still refers to the town being in Lancashire, even though it was designated as part of Greater Manchester in 1974. Even Bolton, Bury and Rochdale still class themselves as Lancashire.

Stockport and Altrincham again are Greater Manchester but many locals class themselves as Cheshire. GM is not generally regarded as a English County as all ten boroughs are Metropolitan and therefore individual and not part of a wider County district.

For example, both Warrington and Halton Boroughs are no longer under the Cheshire County Council umbrella, but they do receive key Cheshire services such as the policing, fire and social services.

Wigan itself has always had strong associations with Liverpool - areas like Ashton-in-Makerfield and Winstanley are heavily populated with generations of Merseyside families and the town is easily commutable to Liverpool than it is to Manchester.

CJ

 

[xotGD]

I come from Wigan and everyone I know still refers to the town being in Lancashire, even though it was designated as part of Greater Manchester in 1974. Even Bolton, Bury and Rochdale still class themselves as Lancashire.

Stockport and Altrincham again are Greater Manchester but many locals class themselves as Cheshire. GM is not generally regarded as a English County as all ten boroughs are Metropolitan and therefore individual and not part of a wider County district.

For example, both Warrington and Halton Boroughs are no longer under the Cheshire County Council umbrella, but they do receive key Cheshire services such as the policing, fire and social services.

Wigan itself has always had strong associations with Liverpool - areas like Ashton-in-Makerfield and Winstanley are heavily populated with generations of Merseyside families and the town is easily commutable to Liverpool than it is to Manchester.

CJ

I'd be interested to know if there are any towns that don't base their county allegiance on the pre-1974 boundaries.

 

[jfollows]

I'd be interested to know if there are any towns that don't base their county allegiance on the pre-1974 boundaries.

A problem which has manifested itself recently has been that a not-insignificant number of residents of Hale, for example, really do think that they live in Cheshire, and that when there have been different restrictions imposed by council area in response to the Covid-19 epidemic they've not been aware of the correct restrictions which apply to them.

There are pros and cons to living in Cheshire (East) as I do versus living in Manchester (as I used to do) but I couldn't personally give a stuff about being seen to live in Cheshire. Until the last local elections we had a dreadful Conservative administration in Cheshire East for sure, and things have improved a little since that was voted away (now a Labour/Independent coalition).

 

[S&CLER]

Yet Warrington missed out on becoming part of Greater Manchester or Merseyside. Halton has recently been added to Merseyside to be part of Liverpool City Region. If anything, Wigan feels more closely affiliated to the Liverpool City Region as the main roads to Liverpool are largely urban, but the main roads to Manchester include a greater rural area upon leaving Wigan.

Warrington wasn't felt to belong clearly in either Merseyside or GM; it would have been detached from the rest of Lancashire, and its addition to Cheshire was also intended to compensate Cheshire for the loss of rateable value in the parts of Wirral that went into Merseyside. Warrington's suburbs had already spread south across the Mersey (the historic boundary of Lancashire and Cheshire.)

 

[HSTEd]

Really I think the whole system needs to be burned down and started again.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Really I think the whole system needs to be burned down and started again.

A bit extreme, but I certainly do think we need big reform around our cities, and to stop objecting to the idea of large unitary city councils that take in the city and its hinterland, as that's basically how just about every other country does it and it works well (including in those UK places where it is done, like MK).

Why on earth do we need 10 (or whatever it is) different bin collection systems in London? It's ridiculous - pointless duplication that costs money. You really don't need the boroughs of London at all, just a single Greater London/Manchester/Liverpool/Preston[1]/whatever Council with individual services devolved to departments as necessary, such as several bin depots, bus depots, libraries or whatever.

[1] It's ludicrous that the contiguous city area of Preston is split in two, for instance.

 

[telstarbox]

How many councillors would your Greater London Council have?