County boundary changes/renaming discussion.

[camflyer]

Newmarket into Cambridgeshire, please!

Yes, please. Would help with the development of Newmarket which gets ignored by Ipswich

 

[nw1]

Wonder how generational this is? I'm of the generation who can't remember pre-1974 counties and for whom unitary authorities were a good few years into adulthood.

Consequently things like Greater Manchester, West Midlands, Avon, Cleveland, etc seem natural to me as 'modern counties' centred on an urban area - but the concept of unitary authorities feels messy to me.

1974 counties with the addition of Rutland, plus Herefordshire and Worcestershire as separate counties, 'feels right' to me. (Not recommending we should actually change the admin structure to match this, though).

Unitary authorities or not, I've always considered Christchurch-Bournemouth-Poole as Dorset rather than Hampshire, as their 'feel' (seaside based) has more in common with Dorset than the more industrial and commercial coastline of Hampshire.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Wonder how generational this is? I'm of the generation who can't remember pre-1974 counties and for whom unitary authorities were a good few years into adulthood.

Consequently things like Greater Manchester, West Midlands, Avon, Cleveland, etc seem natural to me as 'modern counties' centred on an urban area - but the concept of unitary authorities feels messy to me.

1974 counties with the addition of Rutland, plus Herefordshire and Worcestershire as separate counties, 'feels right' to me. (Not recommending we should actually change the admin structure to match this, though).

Unitary authorities or not, I've always considered Christchurch-Bournemouth-Poole as Dorset rather than Hampshire, as their 'feel' (seaside based) has more in common with Dorset than the more industrial and commercial coastline of Hampshire.

I was born in the 90s, I know about all the different types of areas with the name county applied to them incorrectly, such as councils, and lieutenancies. I only regard the traditional counties as sensible and most people understand them better despite Wikipedia's attempt to confuse the issue.

Greater Manchester, West Midlands (I have to add that this name being the same as the region is down right confusing), Avon, Cleveland, Hereford and Worcester councils were all disbanded after a short time, just like the county boroughs before them, of which only Stockport County is remembered.
Ask a stranger on the street where Gloucestershire or Somerset are, then ask where Avon is.
Ask where Yorkshire is, then ask where Cleveland is. The 1974 areas are quickly falling out of use.

Poole is in Dorset, always has and will be.

 

[nw1]

I was born in the 90s, I know about all the different types of areas with the name county applied to them incorrectly, such as councils, and lieutenancies. I only regard the traditional counties as sensible and most people understand them better despite Wikipedia's attempt to confuse the issue.

Greater Manchester, West Midlands (I have to add that this name being the same as the region is down right confusing), Avon, Cleveland, Hereford and Worcester councils were all disbanded after a short time, just like the county boroughs before them, of which only Stockport County is remembered.
Ask a stranger on the street where Gloucestershire or Somerset are, then ask where Avon is.
Ask where Yorkshire is, then ask where Cleveland is. The 1974 areas are quickly falling out of use.

Poole is in Dorset, always has and will be.

But perhaps that's my point. It's my generation specifically that grew up with the 1974 areas, so perhaps the 1974 counties mean more to people my age than either older people or younger people. It's often observed that the 'norms' of your late childhood, teens and twenties tend to stick with you for the rest of your life, music being perhaps the most obvious example.

But maybe it's just me I'd have to admit I probably wouldn't use 'Avon' in a conversation, as it isn't widely used; I'd probably use a more neutral term like 'the Bristol area'. And I tend to think of Cleveland more as 'Teesside' to be honest, and would use 'Teesside' rather than 'Cleveland' - though I think Cleveland covered a wider area? On the other hand, I would use 'Greater Manchester' or 'Merseyside' because they seem to still be in wider use.

 

[XAM2175]

I was born in the 90s, I know about all the different types of areas with the name county applied to them incorrectly, such as councils, and lieutenancies. I only regard the traditional counties as sensible and most people understand them better despite Wikipedia's attempt to confuse the issue.

I'm prepared to bet money on the number of people in the general public around your age who share your particular interest in this specific topic being utterly minuscule.

 

[NorthOxonian]

But perhaps that's my point. It's my generation specifically that grew up with the 1974 areas, so perhaps the 1974 counties mean more to people my age than either older people or younger people. It's often observed that the 'norms' of your late childhood, teens and twenties tend to stick with you for the rest of your life, music being perhaps the most obvious example.

But maybe it's just me I'd have to admit I probably wouldn't use 'Avon' in a conversation, as it isn't widely used; I'd probably use a more neutral term like 'the Bristol area'. And I tend to think of Cleveland more as 'Teesside' to be honest, and would use 'Teesside' rather than 'Cleveland' - though I think Cleveland covered a wider area? On the other hand, I would use 'Greater Manchester' or 'Merseyside' because they seem to still be in wider use.

Cleveland is a wider area than the 1974 county - the Cleveland Hills stretch down to Osmotherley, Carlton-in-Cleveland is down that way too, and geologically Whitby is part of Cleveland too. The original plans for the county (as given in the Redcliffe-Maud report) would have included much more of this area, which personally I think is reasonable - while places like Stokesley and Whitby are staunchly Yorkshire, they probably look north more than they look south. Plus, you can get a decent parmo there - surely a sign they'd belong in a Teesside based county!

However, one issue with some of the artificial counties was the opposite - they extended well beyond the feature for which they were named, no doubt meaning locals struggled to identify with their new county. Cleveland county included Hartlepool, even though this isn't in Cleveland by any reasonable definition. Avon is a good example of that too - if you asked me which towns would be in a county called Avon, I'd probably name Bristol, Bath, maybe Portishead or Yate at a push. But I wouldn't think of Weston-super-Mare as being near the Avon, and I'd be slightly surprised that the West Wiltshire towns near the river (which have clear ties to Bath and Bristol) were excluded.

 

[THC]

However, one issue with some of the artificial counties

They're all "artificial" - it is simply a question of timing. Several of the "traditional" English and Welsh counties are products of the Local Government Act 1888, at least in their administrative form, whereas those you refer to were the subject of later legislation.

THC

 

[Joe Paxton]

They're all "artificial" - it is simply a question of timing. Several of the "traditional" English and Welsh counties are products of the Local Government Act 1888, at least in their administrative form, whereas those you refer to were the subject of later legislation.

Hmm...I think it's pretty well established that in 1888, the voice of God spoke through Parliament and settled the issue of the counties of England and Wales as being 'natural' and 'only right'. The idea that there could ever be anything other is of course just utterly preposterous...

 

[Killingworth]

Borders will always cause difficulty. I write from the North of former Mercia with Northumbria half a mile to the north. Derbyshire until 1934 and then West Riding of Yorkshire, and now South Yorkshire. Until quite recently we were still in rhe ecclesiastical See of Canterbury despite being in the county of York, the Church having retained that much older division.

So there's a definition of the North, the See of York, Greater Northumbria!

 

[Meerkat]

I only regard the traditional counties as sensible and most people understand them better despite Wikipedia's attempt to confuse the issue.

They aren't sensible any more though, as they aren't the shires of the city they are supposed to associate with. Big bits of Derbyshire are in Manchester or Sheffield's orbit, the northern half of Hampshire has nothing to do with Southampton, the two halves of Surrey aren't really linked, Bristol should have its own shire etc etc.

The bit I am undecided on is how much choice people should have - should the people of Bridgeford really be allowed to insist they arent Nottingham etc etc.

 

[nw1]

Cleveland is a wider area than the 1974 county - the Cleveland Hills stretch down to Osmotherley, Carlton-in-Cleveland is down that way too, and geologically Whitby is part of Cleveland too. The original plans for the county (as given in the Redcliffe-Maud report) would have included much more of this area, which personally I think is reasonable - while places like Stokesley and Whitby are staunchly Yorkshire, they probably look north more than they look south. Plus, you can get a decent parmo there - surely a sign they'd belong in a Teesside based county!

However, one issue with some of the artificial counties was the opposite - they extended well beyond the feature for which they were named, no doubt meaning locals struggled to identify with their new county. Cleveland county included Hartlepool, even though this isn't in Cleveland by any reasonable definition. Avon is a good example of that too - if you asked me which towns would be in a county called Avon, I'd probably name Bristol, Bath, maybe Portishead or Yate at a push. But I wouldn't think of Weston-super-Mare as being near the Avon, and I'd be slightly surprised that the West Wiltshire towns near the river (which have clear ties to Bath and Bristol) were excluded.

I lived in Bath for a while and used to imagine what towns a county called 'Bathshire' would include, Bath being the sort of place you can imagine as a county town. As well as the Bath and North East Somerset area, I'd have included Bradford-on-Avon, Trowbridge, perhaps even Westbury - to me, the chalk ridge south of Westbury delineates the areas that look to Bath and Bristol from those which look to Salisbury or even the south coast.

On this topic, Wiltshire is a county which seems to look to different towns/cities depending on the area, and it seems a long way both in distance and culturally from the southeast of the county (near Romsey) to the northwest (near Bath). The hilly nature of much of the county means that it feels like you're travelling a long way to get from one end to the other. You have the southern part centred on Salisbury (with some commuting to the Solent area), the northwestern part (could be part of 'Bathshire') looking to Bath/Bristol, and the northeastern part looking to Swindon, perhaps even Newbury in the extreme northeast. And the northwest of the county seems much more 'West Country' in feel than the southeast.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

They aren't sensible any more though, as they aren't the shires of the city they are supposed to associate with. Big bits of Derbyshire are in Manchester or Sheffield's orbit, the northern half of Hampshire has nothing to do with Southampton, the two halves of Surrey aren't really linked, Bristol should have its own shire etc etc.

The bit I am undecided on is how much choice people should have - should the people of Bridgeford really be allowed to insist they arent Nottingham etc etc.

Choice should have zero effect on anything, the counties are primarily for geographical reference, councils only came around hundreds of years after counties were formed, and that's what has been causing issues. It's like comparing countries to continents, such as when America is a term used for a country and two continents at the same time, it can cause confusion.

Council areas and counties should not be, and are not the same thing, we all know extremely large councils don't function well, issue is that council areas use names such as "Lancashire County Council" which includes places like Barnoldswick, a Yorkshire town, while not including half of Lancashire, such as Blackpool, Wigan, Blackburn, Southport, some of which are in Lancashire lieutenancy area, some are not.

The result of the traditional counties remaining legally existing in statute, and common life, while both lieutenancy areas and council areas also use the same names, causes great geographical confusion for everyone.
Grimsby is in Lincolnshire but not the Lincolnshire council area, Warrington is in Lancashire, not in the Cheshire council area, but in the Cheshire lieutenancy area.
Stockton is a perfect example of how county boundaries need not reflect the local council in any way at all.

 

[THC]

Choice should have zero effect on anything, the counties are primarily for geographical reference, councils only came around hundreds of years after counties were formed, and that's what has been causing issues.

No. Counties were created for the administration of justice, raising of taxes and organising the military. Later they were used at basis for local government. It is right and proper as others have suggested that boundaries and functions of local government units are apt to change over time.

It's like comparing countries to continents, such as when America is a term used for a country and two continents at the same time, it can cause confusion.

Only for the hard of thinking.

Council areas and counties should not be, and are not the same thing, we all know extremely large councils don't function well,

Where is your proof for such a bold assertion?

issue is that council areas use names such as "Lancashire County Council" which includes places like Barnoldswick, a Yorkshire town, while not including half of Lancashire, such as Blackpool, Wigan, Blackburn, Southport, some of which are in Lancashire lieutenancy area, some are not.

The result of the traditional counties remaining legally existing in statute, and common life, while both lieutenancy areas and council areas also use the same names, causes great geographical confusion for everyone.

No, it really doesn't. Few enough people understand the nuances of who provides what public service and that is despite local government serving almost everyone. That will reduce to near zero for issues of ceremony such as Lord Lieutenancy. (tl;dr - no one cares)

Grimsby is in Lincolnshire but not the Lincolnshire council area, Warrington is in Lancashire, not in the Cheshire council area, but in the Cheshire lieutenancy area.
Stockton is a perfect example of how county boundaries need not reflect the local council in any way at all.

Grimsby is served by North East Lincolnshire unitary council. Warrington is served by Warrington BC, a unitary council. Stockton is served by Stockton-on-Tees BC, a unitary council. Nothing difficult about any of that.

I wouldn't disagree that the structure of English local government is a dog's breakfast, with no consistent logic underpinning either council size, structure or function, but I really don't think the issues you raise have any bearing on why this is so. (Disclosure - I am head of policy for a local authority, with 25 years experience working in the sector, so I know of what I speak.)

THC

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

No. Counties were created for the administration of justice, raising of taxes and organising the military. Later they were used at basis for local government. It is right and proper as others have suggested that boundaries and functions of local government units are apt to change over time.

... um, that proves they were made for reference for various reasons.

Only for the hard of thinking.

So if I hypothetically said "I've been to America, but only the South", you would somehow know whether about I was referring to South America (continent) or South America (old Confederate states)?
For counties the confusion could something like saying "I climbed to the highest point in Lancashire" is it Pendle or it is Coniston? Identical names of different geographical areas is confusing to everyone.

Where is your proof for such a bold assertion?

Cumbria is a good example, being split into Cumberland, and Westmorland and Furness in the near future, but all heavily populated Metropolitan-County councils collapsed, Hereford and Worcester, Avon, Humberside, Northamptonshire, Cheshire, Leicestershire (not current council but when it included Rutland), Berkshire, and many more I can't be bothered to list all split up into smaller units. While likewise, not many unitary authorities merged together have they?

No, it really doesn't. Few enough people understand the nuances of who provides what public service and that is despite local government serving almost everyone. That will reduce to near zero for issues of ceremony such as Lord Lieutenancy. (tl;dr - no one cares)

I agree no one cares about Lord Lieutenancy, but often the answer people get when they ask the internet "what county is Birmingham in?" they will get "West Midlands" instead of the council or Warwickshire as the answer.

Grimsby is served by North East Lincolnshire unitary council. Warrington is served by Warrington BC, a unitary council. Stockton is served by Stockton-on-Tees BC, a unitary council. Nothing difficult about any of that.

I clearly know that already since I mentioned it.
All four Unitary Councils created when Humberside was abolished are referred to as counties in the act.

I wouldn't disagree that the structure of English local government is a dog's breakfast, with no consistent logic underpinning either council size, structure or function, but I really don't think the issues you raise have any bearing on why this is so. (Disclosure - I am head of policy for a local authority, with 25 years experience working in the sector, so I know of what I speak.)

THC

You have totally ignored the point of my post just to defend types of local government.
What I said was that councils need not match the counties, I was saying that there are currently three distinct areas 1; County Councils 2; Lieutenancy Areas 3; Counties, 4; other council areas that all use the same terminology and all use the same area names despite covering different areas.
That does lead to confusion whether you believe it or not, in Grimsby whenever something is announced in the news relating to Lincolnshire, such as "Ambulances in Lincolnshire have above average response times", there is ambiguity over which Lincolnshire (including or excluding Grimsby) it means, since both are covered by the same service.
Council areas and lieutenancy areas should not use those terms.

 

[adrock1976]

Choice should have zero effect on anything, the counties are primarily for geographical reference, councils only came around hundreds of years after counties were formed, and that's what has been causing issues. It's like comparing countries to continents, such as when America is a term used for a country and two continents at the same time, it can cause confusion.

Council areas and counties should not be, and are not the same thing, we all know extremely large councils don't function well, issue is that council areas use names such as "Lancashire County Council" which includes places like Barnoldswick, a Yorkshire town, while not including half of Lancashire, such as Blackpool, Wigan, Blackburn, Southport, some of which are in Lancashire lieutenancy area, some are not.

The result of the traditional counties remaining legally existing in statute, and common life, while both lieutenancy areas and council areas also use the same names, causes great geographical confusion for everyone.
Grimsby is in Lincolnshire but not the Lincolnshire council area, Warrington is in Lancashire, not in the Cheshire council area, but in the Cheshire lieutenancy area.
Stockton is a perfect example of how county boundaries need not reflect the local council in any way at all.

No. Counties were created for the administration of justice, raising of taxes and organising the military. Later they were used at basis for local government. It is right and proper as others have suggested that boundaries and functions of local government units are apt to change over time.

Only for the hard of thinking.

Where is your proof for such a bold assertion?

No, it really doesn't. Few enough people understand the nuances of who provides what public service and that is despite local government serving almost everyone. That will reduce to near zero for issues of ceremony such as Lord Lieutenancy. (tl;dr - no one cares)

Grimsby is served by North East Lincolnshire unitary council. Warrington is served by Warrington BC, a unitary council. Stockton is served by Stockton-on-Tees BC, a unitary council. Nothing difficult about any of that.

I wouldn't disagree that the structure of English local government is a dog's breakfast, with no consistent logic underpinning either council size, structure or function, but I really don't think the issues you raise have any bearing on why this is so. (Disclosure - I am head of policy for a local authority, with 25 years experience working in the sector, so I know of what I speak.)

THC

Someone who I worked alongside with during the days when I stewarded at various festivals was originally from Sunderland. This person was born in 1968 and still had an aunty who remained as a resident of Sunderland. The person who I am referring to left Sunderland in 1973 with his parents to relocate in Yorkshire.

The person who I worked alongside with never recognised Tyne & Wear as a metropolitan county. Whenever purchasing items online for delivery to his aunt in Sunderland, if the "county" field was marked as required, he would select from the options "County Durham", as that is the county of his hometown he recognises.

He does not recognise Tyne & Wear at all, similar as how I do not recognise the present occupant(s) of Buckingham Palace being as I never had a vote or say in the matter at all.

 

[THC]

... um, that proves they were made for reference for various reasons.

Yet you said "the counties are primarily for geographical reference", whatever that means.

So if I hypothetically said "I've been to America, but only the South", you would somehow know whether about I was referring to South America (continent) or South America (old Confederate states)?
For counties the confusion could something like saying "I climbed to the highest point in Lancashire" is it Pendle or it is Coniston? Identical names of different geographical areas is confusing to everyone.

Cumbria is a good example, being split into Cumberland, and Westmorland and Furness in the near future, but all heavily populated Metropolitan-County councils collapsed, Hereford and Worcester, Avon, Humberside, Northamptonshire, Cheshire, Leicestershire (not current council but when it included Rutland), Berkshire, and many more I can't be bothered to list all split up into smaller units. While likewise, not many unitary authorities merged together have they?

Metropolitan counties did not collapse but were abolished in 1986 by the Thatcher government in part to neutralise the opposition's local government power base.

And unitary authorities have not "merged together" because such structures have been the outcome rather than the starting position of every local government reorganisation since the mid-1990s.

I agree no one cares about Lord Lieutenancy, but often the answer people get when they ask the internet "what county is Birmingham in?" they will get "West Midlands" instead of the council or Warwickshire as the answer.

I clearly know that already since I mentioned it.
All four Unitary Councils created when Humberside was abolished are referred to as counties in the act.

You have totally ignored the point of my post just to defend types of local government.

I didn't ignore it. I just couldn't find it. And I don't recall "defend[ing] types of local government" either.

What I said was that councils need not match the counties, I was saying that there are currently three distinct areas 1; County Councils 2; Lieutenancy Areas 3; Counties, 4; other council areas that all use the same terminology and all use the same area names despite covering different areas.
That does lead to confusion whether you believe it or not, in Grimsby whenever something is announced in the news relating to Lincolnshire, such as "Ambulances in Lincolnshire have above average response times", there is ambiguity over which Lincolnshire (including or excluding Grimsby) it means, since both are covered by the same service.

I repeat my earlier point: "Few enough people understand the nuances of who provides what public service and that is despite local government serving almost everyone".

THC

 

[Bevan Price]

Counties were basically land stolen from the local (mainly Anglo Saxon) population and given to (mainly) Norman people willing to wipe the backside of King William 1 or his successors. Over the centuries, local populations mostly forgot about those origins, and developed an affinity to the place where they were born, and some resented that local traditions could be set aside at the whim of politicians - or, even worse to suit models devised by London-based civil servants - who did not even bother to consult local residents.

(There was sometimes consultation with local politicians, but they do not always do what is the preferred choice of residents - some do what their "party" prefers; a few others may even choose what gives them best chance of personal self-enhancement.)

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Counties were basically land stolen from the local (mainly Anglo Saxon) population and given to (mainly) Norman people willing to wipe the backside of King William 1 or his successors. Over the centuries, local populations mostly forgot about those origins, and developed an affinity to the place where they were born, and some resented that local traditions could be set aside at the whim of politicians - or, even worse to suit models devised by London-based civil servants - who did not even bother to consult local residents.

(There was sometimes consultation with local politicians, but they do not always do what is the preferred choice of residents - some do what their "party" prefers; a few others may even choose what gives them best chance of personal self-enhancement.)

The Norman invasion did result in land being stolen from the English (I suggest watching "1066, Battle for Middle Earth", as it's an interesting take on the invasion and it's lasting effects), but the areas were in most cases already in common use. They were Shires rather than ruled by a Norman Count.
Snottinghamshire for example was in use decades before the invasion, but the Normans couldn't pronounce it, so changed it to Nottinghamshire instead.
Either way, these counties are extremely long lived and have immense history and culture.

The worst horrors was when William killed hundreds of thousands and salted the ground just because the public in York didn't celebrate his 20th anniversary, truly terrible times.

 

[Acey]

I still use my old old address, ie Bromley-Kent, as do most folk who dwell here ,still lots of resentment ,mainly among the more mature ,regarding the incorporation of the town into a London Borough in 1965,having lived here all my life ,I have never felt ,like most people here ,that I am a Londoner and never call myself other than a Kentish Man,besides Bromley being the largest,greenest and the least populated of the London Boroughs does not feel like a part of London ,take a trip to Downe/Cudham or Biggin Hill and you will see what I mean !