New Thames Airport for London
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or we can just hit ignore button.
Err, is that not exactly what we've been saying about FBI all the way through the thread?
Have they written back, thanking you for pointing out the errors of their ways, sacked their engineers and given you a job yet?
The biggest danger has always been the drive to/from the airport. So longer drive to a fantasy island means an increase in net risk.
Oh do pay attention Silver! Not heard of T5 link to Reading? HS2 Old Oak proposal?
I thought you hated the French, with their 75% tax rates? Whatever happens with HS2, even if franchised out to SNCF-Keolis, it will NOT be branded TGV, because most Brits don't know what those letters stand for.
Except that they are putting Crossrail to it, through it, and perhaps even out the other side. Really oozing with facts today Silver!
About as strange as how historians will be writing about how the whole world crashed on 21st December 2012.
Already had a major train crash. Now is that spooky as well? No, just random co-incidence, so what?
Must be a pretty good secret. So well kept the only airline boss who has backed FBI is Jim French of Flybe - one of Europe's leading REGIONAL airlines! Perhaps he knows FBI would drive BA & Virgin bankrupt if they moved there!
London airport in the Channel. Nice location for an airport, depending on its weather record, but hardly suitable for surface transport to most of England.
Which is why I have written to all of these consortiums, pointing out their error and suggesting a S.W. orientation for their airport.
Only one more strip of concrete in totally the wrong location -
- with yet more noise and danger to London itself;
- with yet more noise and danger to London itself;
- at an airport that is still not linked to the rail system without passing through London;
- and has not a hope in hell of ever getting a TGV link, not even HS2;
- and was so unimportant they could not even be bothered to put Crossrail through it;
Strange how those two crashes occurred on those dates 21 and 22 December so very near there anniversarys!
and the town would not have been forever associated in our minds with <the> tragedy.
Secretly, I bet every airline manager in the world would rather they operated from a new London airport, than struggle on with LHR and all its overcrowding and slot issues.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Err, is that not exactly what we've been saying about FBI all the way through the thread?
Have they written back, thanking you for pointing out the errors of their ways.
Not heard of T5 link to Reading? HS2 Old Oak proposal?
Whatever happens with HS2, it will NOT be branded TGV
I know, lets call it the Train Very Fast (TVF), brilliant, eh?
Except that they are putting Crossrail to it, through it, and perhaps even out the other side. Really oozing with facts today Silver!
Near You - Crossrail - Crossrail
As I said before, living on a spur-line, is not 'being connected to the world'. You should try it sometime.
So well kept the only airline boss who has backed FBI is Jim French of Flybe.
As I said before, airline bosses are all waiting for someone else to blame. "Sorry, its all Boris' fault. I did warn him not to do this. I did try and stand up for you guys, but its out of my hands. Sorry."
(Followed by the muffled sound of champagne bottles being opened.......)
.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “Actually it’s the 2nd; the first was the Greater London Authority (1965-1985), then they spit the powers between Westminster and the LGA’s (1985-2000) and now we have the Greater London Authority (2000- ), look there has been once change and the only reason there was a chance entirely due to cynical political strategy”
The “inexperienced college student” (your words on another thread) clearly is not studying British constitution or government and politics.
No, had mentioned the fact that there have been four versions of Greater London government because there have been four, not two:
(1) 1965-1986 Greater London Council with 100 councillors (numbers reduced over the years) plus a separate special district for education (ILEA) for part of its area with some GLC councillors sitting on it;
(2) 1986-1990 Greater London Council disbanded, but Greater London retained, with the councils powers transferred to quangos. ILEA retained with its councillors directly elected;
(3) 1990-2000 ILEA was scrapped, its education responsibilities transferred to the boroughs in its territory;
(4) 2000- directly elected mayor and a toothless, 25 member, Greater London Assembly established.
Quote: “So they haven’t “kept changing it” and the one time they have changed it has nothing to do with the fact it was not working for “London””
It’s not just Greater London, a perfectly good and stable local government system was torn up throughout the UK and since the 1960s, there have been expensive and pointless reorganisations approximately every ten years.
There are common themes: increasing remoteness; more overpaid managers, directors and functionaries; fewer elected councillors; less scutiny; higher taxes; worse services.
Quote: “Well you still need them to understand what local services they need and how things should be run when it comes to your local area, which is why NYC still has boroughs (and yes I used their local system as the basis of my idea)
The reason our “local” boroughs are “remote” is that they are too focused on doing things they are best done at a regional level, at the expense of things they are better served by them
The boroughs in New York are quite different than those in London. In New York they are co-terminous with with the counties that make up New York city: New York county is Manhatten, Kings county is Brooklyn, etc..
They each elect one “borough president” onto New York city council, and do not run local government services. These are all run by New York city council.
Boroughs in Greater London do the full range of district functions plus some that are the job of the county council in other parts of the country, such as education, social services, highways, etc.. They certainly are not “focused on doing things they are best done at a regional level“ as you wrongly state and naturally fail to supply any examples.
Quote: “We already have regional governments; Northern Ireland has had one since 1923, along with Scotland and Wales in 1999 (which have their origins in Regional Offices set up in the late 1970s) and I haven’t even got to the autonomous governments of our (now independent) colonies like Canada, Australia, South Africa and India”
Please don’t!
Quote: “Greater London (which is a region of “England”) already has a regional government as well, it called the GLA, the trouble is that it does not cover the Home Counties (where a increasing number of “Londoners” live), but you have to note that the GLA is a far smaller body (for now) than the GLC ever was
Also London (unlike the North East) has voted in favour of regional government, hence we are the only region in England to have devolved powers and it looks like it will stay that way (even after the government scrapped legacy quangos in relation to those regions)."
Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are devolved government. greater London is NOT regional government, nor is it devolved government, that is why Boris is not “first minister” but “mayor” and elected separately.
The GLA is smaller than the GLC in numbers because it is a toothless assembly, the power rests with the mayor. Greater London has no devolved powers so it is wrong for you to say it is the only “region in England to have devolved powers”.
Quote: “By the way Catalonia want either a bailout OR independence, not both (the main issue they have is that they have to make hash spending cuts and yet give a lot of money to Madrid)”
Wrong, they want both, despite being one of the richest parts of Spain, and have just voted for it!
Quote: “Yes there should be a English Parliament without a doubt, it’s very much right, but it should not include London + South East (or Cornwall, but for separate reasons), there is too big a difference between the rest of England and this region, otherwise England will suffer from unfair domination from one region over the rest…”
This is bull. The “inexperienced college student” (your words) clearly is not studying geography either!
How could an English parliament NOT include Cornwall? How can an English parliament NOT include the “south east”? Serious credibility gap here!
Wasn’t it you who referred to Boris as an “idiot”?
The “inexperienced college student” (your words on another thread) clearly is not studying British constitution or government and politics.
No, had mentioned the fact that there have been four versions of Greater London government because there have been four, not two:
(1) 1965-1986 Greater London Council with 100 councillors (numbers reduced over the years) plus a separate special district for education (ILEA) for part of its area with some GLC councillors sitting on it;
(2) 1986-1990 Greater London Council disbanded, but Greater London retained, with the councils powers transferred to quangos. ILEA retained with its councillors directly elected;
(3) 1990-2000 ILEA was scrapped, its education responsibilities transferred to the boroughs in its territory;
(4) 2000- directly elected mayor and a toothless, 25 member, Greater London Assembly established.
Quote: “So they haven’t “kept changing it” and the one time they have changed it has nothing to do with the fact it was not working for “London””
It’s not just Greater London, a perfectly good and stable local government system was torn up throughout the UK and since the 1960s, there have been expensive and pointless reorganisations approximately every ten years.
There are common themes: increasing remoteness; more overpaid managers, directors and functionaries; fewer elected councillors; less scutiny; higher taxes; worse services.
Quote: “Well you still need them to understand what local services they need and how things should be run when it comes to your local area, which is why NYC still has boroughs (and yes I used their local system as the basis of my idea)
The reason our “local” boroughs are “remote” is that they are too focused on doing things they are best done at a regional level, at the expense of things they are better served by them
The boroughs in New York are quite different than those in London. In New York they are co-terminous with with the counties that make up New York city: New York county is Manhatten, Kings county is Brooklyn, etc..
They each elect one “borough president” onto New York city council, and do not run local government services. These are all run by New York city council.
Boroughs in Greater London do the full range of district functions plus some that are the job of the county council in other parts of the country, such as education, social services, highways, etc.. They certainly are not “focused on doing things they are best done at a regional level“ as you wrongly state and naturally fail to supply any examples.
Quote: “We already have regional governments; Northern Ireland has had one since 1923, along with Scotland and Wales in 1999 (which have their origins in Regional Offices set up in the late 1970s) and I haven’t even got to the autonomous governments of our (now independent) colonies like Canada, Australia, South Africa and India”
Please don’t!
Quote: “Greater London (which is a region of “England”) already has a regional government as well, it called the GLA, the trouble is that it does not cover the Home Counties (where a increasing number of “Londoners” live), but you have to note that the GLA is a far smaller body (for now) than the GLC ever was
Also London (unlike the North East) has voted in favour of regional government, hence we are the only region in England to have devolved powers and it looks like it will stay that way (even after the government scrapped legacy quangos in relation to those regions)."
Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are devolved government. greater London is NOT regional government, nor is it devolved government, that is why Boris is not “first minister” but “mayor” and elected separately.
The GLA is smaller than the GLC in numbers because it is a toothless assembly, the power rests with the mayor. Greater London has no devolved powers so it is wrong for you to say it is the only “region in England to have devolved powers”.
Quote: “By the way Catalonia want either a bailout OR independence, not both (the main issue they have is that they have to make hash spending cuts and yet give a lot of money to Madrid)”
Wrong, they want both, despite being one of the richest parts of Spain, and have just voted for it!
Quote: “Yes there should be a English Parliament without a doubt, it’s very much right, but it should not include London + South East (or Cornwall, but for separate reasons), there is too big a difference between the rest of England and this region, otherwise England will suffer from unfair domination from one region over the rest…”
This is bull. The “inexperienced college student” (your words) clearly is not studying geography either!
How could an English parliament NOT include Cornwall? How can an English parliament NOT include the “south east”? Serious credibility gap here!
Wasn’t it you who referred to Boris as an “idiot”?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “Once more you dodge the central issue. The whole point of making a new six-runway hub airport, is that LHR is closed down by act of Parliament. There would be no point otherwise, as everyone would try to struggle on at LHR with all the attendant noise, pollution, transport and danger issues that implies.”
You would have to the Act through Parliament first. Perhaps it’s not as simple as you imply.
Quote: “I note that another group of dreamers are proposing to build the new London Airport on the Goodwin Sands. Let us hope they salvage that Dornier Do17 before they cover the Sands with concrete.”
More desperation from those who cannot accept that there is no viable alternative to LHR expansion. It’s “Heathwick” all over again!
Quote: “If I was a Troll, I wouldn’t be here; I would be busy on Facebook…”
Who says you’re not?
Quote: “The only options are 2 more runways at LHR or closing them all down and build an 8-10 runway THA…”
There is a third, admittedly a disastrous one: do nothing.
Quote: “They are improving links to the rail network from LHR by building another link to the GWML to the West of England/South Wales/Midlands and the rest can be sorted by AirTrack”
Forget about Airtrack, it has been canned. There are too many level crossings in Egham and Virginia Water, so the frequency on that route cannot be upped by 4 trains/hour in each direction without causing gridlock on those areas‘ roads.
Quote: “What I am hoping is that Labour comes to power (after the next election), they have nothing to lose by approving the expansion of LHR and LGW…”
Quote: “This will partly change if Labour wins a majoirty at the next election in 2015, they have nothing to lose if they approve another 2 runnways at LHR (remember that they approved R3 when they where last in power...)"
No party political bias then!
In theory, maybe, but what’s to stop them dithering like they did for the 12 years between 1997 and 2009?
Let's hope we they don't start any wars.
Quote: “Can we not name THA after some member of a avation forum?”
No, it’s SILVER ISLAND! in honour of Silver’s consistant, eloquent, tenacious and usually highly entertaining advocacy of such madness.
Live with it!
You would have to the Act through Parliament first. Perhaps it’s not as simple as you imply.
Quote: “I note that another group of dreamers are proposing to build the new London Airport on the Goodwin Sands. Let us hope they salvage that Dornier Do17 before they cover the Sands with concrete.”
More desperation from those who cannot accept that there is no viable alternative to LHR expansion. It’s “Heathwick” all over again!
Quote: “If I was a Troll, I wouldn’t be here; I would be busy on Facebook…”
Who says you’re not?
Quote: “The only options are 2 more runways at LHR or closing them all down and build an 8-10 runway THA…”
There is a third, admittedly a disastrous one: do nothing.
Quote: “They are improving links to the rail network from LHR by building another link to the GWML to the West of England/South Wales/Midlands and the rest can be sorted by AirTrack”
Forget about Airtrack, it has been canned. There are too many level crossings in Egham and Virginia Water, so the frequency on that route cannot be upped by 4 trains/hour in each direction without causing gridlock on those areas‘ roads.
Quote: “What I am hoping is that Labour comes to power (after the next election), they have nothing to lose by approving the expansion of LHR and LGW…”
Quote: “This will partly change if Labour wins a majoirty at the next election in 2015, they have nothing to lose if they approve another 2 runnways at LHR (remember that they approved R3 when they where last in power...)"
No party political bias then!
In theory, maybe, but what’s to stop them dithering like they did for the 12 years between 1997 and 2009?
Let's hope we they don't start any wars.
Quote: “Can we not name THA after some member of a avation forum?”
No, it’s SILVER ISLAND! in honour of Silver’s consistant, eloquent, tenacious and usually highly entertaining advocacy of such madness.
Live with it!
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 21st Dec 2012 at 22:08. Reason: clarity
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank:
No, it’s SILVER ISLAND! in honour of Silver’s consistant, eloquent, tenacious and usually highly entertaining advocacy of such madness.
No, it’s SILVER ISLAND! in honour of Silver’s consistant, eloquent, tenacious and usually highly entertaining advocacy of such madness.
Why, Frank, I did not know you cared. You brought a tear to the eye. Snif. Snif.
.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: London
Age: 33
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which is why I have written to all of these consortiums, pointing out their error and suggesting a S.W. orientation for their airport.
This is why these airports are known as the Silver-Boris or Silver-Foster Thames airports, because they would make a complete hash of the project without my enlightened suggestions.
This is why these airports are known as the Silver-Boris or Silver-Foster Thames airports, because they would make a complete hash of the project without my enlightened suggestions.
BALHR
Too many words again, son. None of us have the time (or inclination) to plough through that lot.
Try writing bite sized replies that we can digest easily.........
Too many words again, son. None of us have the time (or inclination) to plough through that lot.
Try writing bite sized replies that we can digest easily.........
He might also want go easy on the helpful advice like telling us to
read and understand what I am saying beforehand, otherwise it makes you look incompetent and ignorant
Err, is that not exactly what we've been saying about FBI all the way through the thread?
[/quote]
Can you not refer to it as FBI, for a start it’s not impossible to do and secondly, these proposals have been around long before even Boris went to Eton…
The biggest danger has always been the drive to/from the airport. So longer drive to a fantasy island means an increase in net risk.
I thought you hated the French, with their 75% tax rates? Whatever happens with HS2, even if franchised out to SNCF-Keolis, it will NOT be branded TGV, because most Brits don't know what those letters stand for.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: London
Age: 33
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must be a pretty good secret. So well kept the only airline boss who has backed FBI is Jim French of Flybe - one of Europe's leading REGIONAL airlines! Perhaps he knows FBI would drive BA & Virgin bankrupt if they moved there!
Besides, if all of London’s airports where shut down and replaced by THA (and the whole project is done well), then it would work out very well for BA, they would gain a world class airport with more than enough capacity to compete with their rivals in Europe and the Middle East
Do you really think that Willie Walsh is going to stand up before all his personnel, who all live around Heathrow, and say "I am lobbying for a Silver-Boris Thames airport" ? He would be lynched.
As I said before, airline bosses are all waiting for someone else to blame. "Sorry, its all Boris' fault. I did warn him not to do this. I did try and stand up for you guys, but its out of my hands. Sorry."
(Followed by the muffled sound of champagne bottles being opened.......)
As I said before, airline bosses are all waiting for someone else to blame. "Sorry, its all Boris' fault. I did warn him not to do this. I did try and stand up for you guys, but its out of my hands. Sorry."
(Followed by the muffled sound of champagne bottles being opened.......)
The bigger question is, doe’s WW and BA want to move to THA in the first place?
What their response is that if THA was built and LHR remained open, then they would not be moving to THA, but if LHR (and other commercial airports in London + South East) was shut, then they would
Of course what they really want is a bigger LHR (although WW has all but given up on that…)
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: London
Age: 33
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The “inexperienced college student” (your words on another thread) clearly is not studying British constitution or government and politics.
No, had mentioned the fact that there have been four versions of Greater London government because there have been four, not two:
(1) 1965-1986 Greater London Council with 100 councillors (numbers reduced over the years) plus a separate special district for education (ILEA) for part of its area with some GLC councillors sitting on it;
(2) 1986-1990 Greater London Council disbanded, but Greater London retained, with the councils powers transferred to quangos. ILEA retained with its councillors directly elected;
(3) 1990-2000 ILEA was scrapped, its education responsibilities transferred to the boroughs in its territory;
(4) 2000- directly elected mayor and a toothless, 25 member, Greater London Assembly established.
No, had mentioned the fact that there have been four versions of Greater London government because there have been four, not two:
(1) 1965-1986 Greater London Council with 100 councillors (numbers reduced over the years) plus a separate special district for education (ILEA) for part of its area with some GLC councillors sitting on it;
(2) 1986-1990 Greater London Council disbanded, but Greater London retained, with the councils powers transferred to quangos. ILEA retained with its councillors directly elected;
(3) 1990-2000 ILEA was scrapped, its education responsibilities transferred to the boroughs in its territory;
(4) 2000- directly elected mayor and a toothless, 25 member, Greater London Assembly established.
1: Greater London Council (1965-1986) (11 years)
2: Nothing (in its place various quangos, with some powers transferred to local boroughs) (1986-2000) (14 years)
3: Greater London Authority (2000- ) (13 years)
As for the reasons why it has been changed twice well the answer is simple:
From 1 to 2: Because the GLA was a Labour-run pain to the backside for Maggie and the Tory run Westminster, so to get rid of their biggest enemy they abolished it, in other words nothing more than cynical political strategy
From 2 to 3: Of course it turns out to be a massive catastrophic mistake, because it left London runs without any sort of co-ordination strategy, not good when you have 7 million people to deal with, so they brought it back, of course it will was a labour (and later Tory) run pain to the backside for the Labour (and later Tory/Lib Dem) run Westminster
The problem with Greater London is not because it a bad idea, but with the fact it does not cover the entire urban area, metropolitan area and commuter bet and the fact it has nowhere near the amount of powers and autonomy it needs…
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: London
Age: 33
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s not just Greater London, a perfectly good and stable local government system was torn up throughout the UK and since the 1960s, there have been expensive and pointless reorganisations approximately every ten years.
There are common themes: increasing remoteness; more overpaid managers, directors and functionaries; fewer elected councillors; less scutiny; higher taxes; worse services.
There are common themes: increasing remoteness; more overpaid managers, directors and functionaries; fewer elected councillors; less scutiny; higher taxes; worse services.
As for the common themes you have mentioned, it’s not just local government, but at Regional, National and European level as well (perfectly reflected by our current government in Westminster)
The boroughs in New York are quite different than those in London. In New York they are co-terminous with with the counties that make up New York city: New York county is Manhatten, Kings county is Brooklyn, etc..
They each elect one “borough president” onto New York city council, and do not run local government services. These are all run by New York city council.
They each elect one “borough president” onto New York city council, and do not run local government services. These are all run by New York city council.
In other worlds the boroughs of London should be like the boroughs in New York, they should only be co-ordinating the operation (not running itself, which will be done by the GLA) of services that are normally done at district country level and advice the GLA in running of services and doing the full range of district and county level functions/powers
The GLA should also receive the full range of devolved powers (and maybe more) as Scotland**, not only that but it should also receive its own flag and coat of arms (which would the ones of the City of London) and annex the rest of the London Urban Area, Metropolitan Area and Commuter Belt, lastly the City of London should be abolished and replaced by a London Borough (with its city status moving to the GLA)
After all that, the “County of Greater London” should be renamed the “State of London” (and have the city status off the City of London)*, formally separate from England and become the “5th” home nations of the United Kingdom, in other words, London becomes a city-state while staying part of the UK
Would you agree this is a good idea?
Proposed flag of the State of London
Proposed coat of arms of the State of London
*As part of this the “Greater London Authority” should renamed the “Government of London” and the position of “Lord Mayor of London” should be absorbed into the position of “Mayor of London”
**Also I might suggest the amount of Devolution to the “State of London” should go even further than Scotland, maybe even looking at full control of tax and spend (with the London government deciding how much money it should contribute to Westminster) and maybe even having some form its own migration policy
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: London
Age: 33
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are devolved government. greater London is NOT regional government, nor is it devolved government, that is why Boris is not “first minister” but “mayor” and elected separately.
The GLA is smaller than the GLC in numbers because it is a toothless assembly, the power rests with the mayor. Greater London has no devolved powers so it is wrong for you to say it is the only “region in England to have devolved powers”.
The GLA is smaller than the GLC in numbers because it is a toothless assembly, the power rests with the mayor. Greater London has no devolved powers so it is wrong for you to say it is the only “region in England to have devolved powers”.
However Labours plan (in the late 1990s) was for the Regions of England to also receive devolved powers, however this plan was unpopular and was scrapped after the region of North East England rejected the idea
For more info about the Regions of England, its on this webpage:
Regions of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
However, Greater London (which is classed as a region of England) did vote in favour of a regional assembly and a mayor (the only reason he is a elected is because the role has more powers than a “First Minister” and hence can be counted as a devolved region of the UK, although it is of a limited kind compared to other devolved regions of the UK
However I feel it should gain more powers (up to a point where has similar devolved powers to what Scotland has), establish its own symbols, formally separate from England and become the “5th home nations” of the UK and annex the rest of the metropolitan area and commuter belt of London
Also when I meant the GLA is smaller than the GLC, I was not talking about the size of the assembly, rather the number of employees (or bureaucrats as they are known) as well as the powers and responsibilities (the GLA has less of all 3 than the GLC)
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: London
Age: 33
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please don’t!
1: Until 1803, Ireland (today the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland) had its own parliament (but with limited powers) when it was effectively part of the UK (and before that England) between 1542 and 1803, after that it formally (until 1922) became part of the United Kingdom itself
2: The setting up of self-governing dominions (all were at the time part of the British Empire and hence for all intents and purposes part of the UK), in Canada in 1867, Australia in 1901, New Zealand in 1907, Newfoundland in 1907 (until it became part of Canada), South Africa in 1910, Ireland (apart from the counties that remained in the UK) in 1922, Rhodesia (now split between Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi) in 1923, India (including what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh) in 1935, Burma in 1935, Sri Lanka in 1931, Kenya in the 1950s, Malaysia in 1948, Singapore in 1959, Brunei in 1959, Ghana in 1952 Nigeria after WII and The British Caribbean in 1958 (including Jamaica, Antigua, and other English Speaking Islands) and Hong Kong in the 1980s, all of which ended up independent by the 1980s (apart from Hong Kong, which ceased to be under British control in 1997)
3: The setting up of autonomous governments in our Crown and Overseas dependencies (for all intents and purposes part of the UK), in the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Bermuda, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, St Helena and several others
4: The setting up of the Northern Ireland Government (which had devolved powers) in 1923, which lasted until 1973, when the troubles took their toll and in the end a government was impossible to be established
5: The setting up of the Scottish Office and the Wales Office in those regions in 1967 for Wales and 1887 for Scotland, both of which had some sort of devolved powers and was a stop gap until they had their own parliaments/assembles (voters rejected them in the 1970s, but voted in favour in the late 1990s)
6: The setting up of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly (which previously had self-government between 1923-1973) in 1998
7: The formation of the Greater London Authority (the only regional government in England that was even established) in 2000
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: London
Age: 33
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrong, they want both, despite being one of the richest parts of Spain, and have just voted for it!
The main reasons are all economic, Spain as you know is suffering a rather bad economic crisis and that included Catalonia, this also meant that national (and regional debts) have risen quite a lot, to fix this both national and regional governments have made austerity measures which are very unpopular and have not really fix the problems of debts, this has meant Catalonia has vast debts it really needs to pay off, so that is why they have demanded a bailout, of course with the debts of Spanish Banks, its cannot really do this
So that is why there have been calls for independence (they already have significant autonomy from Madrid), so that they can use the money used to fund central government towards the paying of their debts (and thus less austerity), also they cannot hold a “referendum” on independence without Madrid’s approval and they have refused to allow one, so whatever vote there is would make little difference for the time being
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: London
Age: 33
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is bull. The “inexperienced college student” (your words) clearly is not studying geography either!
How could an English parliament NOT include Cornwall? How can an English parliament NOT include the “south east”? Serious credibility gap here!
Wasn’t it you who referred to Boris as an “idiot”?
How could an English parliament NOT include Cornwall? How can an English parliament NOT include the “south east”? Serious credibility gap here!
Wasn’t it you who referred to Boris as an “idiot”?
Cornwall is rather different to the rest of England; it has its own language, culture and even its own flag (which is flown all over the country), they are only part of England in name only and there are not too many “locals” who can say they are proud of being “English”
But that’s a separate argument completely than when it comes to London + SE…
The question is not “are Londoners proud to English/British?” they are without a doubt, the problem is that there is a growing gap between London, its metropolitan area and commuter belt and the rest of the UK (not just the rest of England), this is reflected economically, employment, tax revenue, investment, socially and even in our own aviation sector
Overall the difference is vast, such much so that a resident of Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds or Newcastle have more in common with the a resident of Cardiff, Swansea, Edinburgh, Glasgow or Aberdeen than a resident London, Brighton, Oxford and Chelmsford
How is this going to work when it comes to an English Parliament?
Would you want an English Parliament that was bias in favour of 40% of its population (London, its metropolitan area and commuter belt) over the other 60% of its population (rest of England)?
Remember the British Parliament is already bias in favour of 1/3 of its population (London, its metropolitan area and commuter belt) over the other 2/3 of its population (rest of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), this is one of the reasons (the others include nationalism and economic)
So I am suggesting devolution (separately) to both London (its urban area, metropolitan area and commuter belt) and the rest of England, for the sake of keeping the union together (unless the 5 home nations agree to end it), because there is resentment from all side of the UK about the current setup
Lastly does it matter (as a Londoner) if it’s an “English” or “London” running things where you live?
As for Boris, surely you don’t know that he is better at hosting HIGNFY, than being mayor, he has spent millions on new “Borismaster” buses, he has made sure London got a raw deal in terms of sponsoring the bike scheme and the cable car (not such a good idea); he has scraped the South London Tram and abandoned AND revived the Dagenham Dock DLR project, he got too close to Murdoch and he is popular because he a good personality, not because he has good polices (even from a right-wing perspective), may I go on…
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Cornwall is rather different to the rest of England; it has its own language, culture and even its own flag (which is flown all over the country), they are only part of England in name only and there are not too many “locals” who can say they are proud of being “English”"
nonsense - Cornish is not spoken by more than a couple of hundred idiots
most of the population were born outside the county and moved there to retire, go to college or become "artists" (hence its a minimum wage economy)
they don't have a different culture at all -a couple of special events such as the Furry dance do not a culture make I'm afraid. Otherwise they watch the same TV, movies, listen to the same music, read the same papers and drink in identical pubs to the rest of England
they complain about the UK Govt and the EU while taking more cash from both than almost anywhere else
nonsense - Cornish is not spoken by more than a couple of hundred idiots
most of the population were born outside the county and moved there to retire, go to college or become "artists" (hence its a minimum wage economy)
they don't have a different culture at all -a couple of special events such as the Furry dance do not a culture make I'm afraid. Otherwise they watch the same TV, movies, listen to the same music, read the same papers and drink in identical pubs to the rest of England
they complain about the UK Govt and the EU while taking more cash from both than almost anywhere else
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “The ILEA was not directly part of the government of Greater London, it was a quango (but still part of the GLC, like London Transport) that ran education within Inner London (in other words the former LCC area), this was due to the fact the LCC was responsible for education, yet its successor the GLC had that power removed, so I would not count no 3, so there have been 3 versions of Greater London Government which are:”
Nothing quango-astic about ILEA, it was like a county council education committee in the first version of Greater London, a directly elected education committee in the second version, and non-existant in the third and fourth.
Quote: “From 1 to 2: Because the GLA was a Labour-run pain to the backside for Maggie and the Tory run Westminster, so to get rid of their biggest enemy they abolished it, in other words nothing more than cynical political strategy”
Only in the five years of Livingstone. For much of its time the Greater London Council was Conservative controlled, with a majority of 82-18 over Labour in one election. Why do you think the Conservatives created it? Its creation was, originally, a classic exercise in party political gerrymandering (hence the crazy illogical zig-zag boundary!).
Quote: “The problem with Greater London is not because it a bad idea, but with the fact it does not cover the entire urban area, metropolitan area and commuter bet and the fact it has nowhere near the amount of powers and autonomy it needs…”
While I agree on you on the fact there have been too many (and not really needed changes), Greater London was a relativity good idea (how could the LCC run London, when they did not run areas like East Ham, Enfield, Croydon, Southall, Ilford, Dagenham and Wembley, which have been part of the London urban area since the 1930s at least), trouble is that it has been done badly, the GLC did not have enough powers, then it was abolished for no good reason, then it was brought back as the GLA, but with even less powers and after all this time still not covering all of the London Urban Area, Metropolitan Area and Commuter Belt”
That’s WHY it’s a bad idea: too small to be regional, to large to be provincial (county level). For conurbation government that works reasonably well, they should have gone down the Paris/Ile de France route, i.e the Thames Valley, from Oxfordshire to the coast, and including the "London" airports.
Quote: “When I meant London Borough’s where “focused on doing things they are best done at a regional level” I meant functions and services that are normally done by county councils (which I want transferred to the GLA)
In other worlds the boroughs of London should be like the boroughs in New York, they should only be co-ordinating the operation (not running itself, which will be done by the GLA) of services that are normally done at district country level and advice the GLA in running of services and doing the full range of district and county level functions/powers”
Functions that are “normally done by county councils” should obviously be done by county councils, which is why “Greater London” is a bad idea (it superceded the county councils).
As for New York, the “boroughs” there do nothing, they are constituencies for the election of an official (the borough president) who sits on the NY city council with the other councillors.
Quote: “The GLA should also receive the full range of devolved powers (and maybe more) as Scotland**, not only that but it should also receive its own flag and coat of arms (which would the ones of the City of London) and annex the rest of the London Urban Area, Metropolitan Area and Commuter Belt, lastly the City of London should be abolished and replaced by a London Borough (with its city status moving to the GLA)”
Be your age! If a Livingstone controlled Greater London Council was able to challenge the government of the day, there is not a cat’s chance in hell of today's version being given the kind of more powers that you advocate!
Quote: “After all that, the “County of Greater London” should be renamed the “State of London” (and have the city status off the City of London)*, formally separate from England and become the “5th” home nations of the United Kingdom, in other words, London becomes a city-state while staying part of the UK”
Why?
BTW, Greater London is not a county and can't be a "state" (there are no states in the UK).
Quote: “*As part of this the “Greater London Authority” should renamed the “Government of London” and the position of “Lord Mayor of London” should be absorbed into the position of “Mayor of London”
Why not “first minister” or “president”?
Quote: “No they did not have a vote on independence, they had a election and all that really happened was that CIU (Which is a relativity moderate Catalan nationalist party which was before the recent election the ruling party in Catalonia), which decided to adopt a platform for independence (previously they demanded more autonomy) and despite this ended up losing their majority (but still the biggest party) and the real gainers where left wing nationalist parties (Spain-wide left and right wing parties did the more or less the name as last time)
The main reasons are all economic, Spain as you know is suffering a rather bad economic crisis and that included Catalonia, this also meant that national (and regional debts) have risen quite a lot, to fix this both national and regional governments have made austerity measures which are very unpopular and have not really fix the problems of debts, this has meant Catalonia has vast debts it really needs to pay off, so that is why they have demanded a bailout, of course with the debts of Spanish Banks, its cannot really do this
So that is why there have been calls for independence (they already have significant autonomy from Madrid), so that they can use the money used to fund central government towards the paying of their debts (and thus less austerity), also they cannot hold a “referendum” on independence without Madrid’s approval and they have refused to allow one, so whatever vote there is would make little difference for the time being”
More nonsense! Catalonia did indeed vote for pro-independence parties, whist asking Madrid for a bail out. The Spanish experience shows us exactly why we should not have gone down the route of regional government/devolution. Too late now, that particular genie won’t go back in the bottle.
Quote: “Yes England CURRENTLY contains London + South East and Cornwall, however…
Cornwall is rather different to the rest of England; it has its own language, culture and even its own flag (which is flown all over the country), they are only part of England in name only and there are not too many “locals” who can say they are proud of being “English”
But that’s a separate argument completely than when it comes to London + SE…
The question is not “are Londoners proud to English/British?” they are without a doubt, the problem is that there is a growing gap between London, its metropolitan area and commuter belt and the rest of the UK (not just the rest of England), this is reflected economically, employment, tax revenue, investment, socially and even in our own aviation sector
Overall the difference is vast, such much so that a resident of Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds or Newcastle have more in common with the a resident of Cardiff, Swansea, Edinburgh, Glasgow or Aberdeen than a resident London, Brighton, Oxford and Chelmsford
How is this going to work when it comes to an English Parliament?
Would you want an English Parliament that was bias in favour of 40% of its population (London, its metropolitan area and commuter belt) over the other 60% of its population (rest of England)?
Prefer decentralisation to devolution but it's too late!
Only an English parliament or no devolution answers the West Lothian question.
Quote: "Remember the British Parliament is already bias in favour of 1/3 of its population (London, its metropolitan area and commuter belt) over the other 2/3 of its population (rest of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), this is one of the reasons (the others include nationalism and economic)
So I am suggesting devolution (separately) to both London (its urban area, metropolitan area and commuter belt) and the rest of England, for the sake of keeping the union together (unless the 5 home nations agree to end it), because there is resentment from all side of the UK about the current setup
Lastly does it matter (as a Londoner) if it’s an “English” or “London” running things where you live?
As for Boris, surely you don’t know that he is better at hosting HIGNFY, than being mayor, he has spent millions on new “Borismaster” buses, he has made sure London got a raw deal in terms of sponsoring the bike scheme and the cable car (not such a good idea); he has scraped the South London Tram and abandoned AND revived the Dagenham Dock DLR project, he got too close to Murdoch and he is popular because he a good personality, not because he has good polices (even from a right-wing perspective), may I go on…”
Forget it, it’s obviously never going to happen: as mentioned before, an English Parliament (even without Cornwall!) would be big enough to challenge the Westminster Parliament, so it will never be allowed.
Quote: “may I go on…”
No, please don’t!
Nothing quango-astic about ILEA, it was like a county council education committee in the first version of Greater London, a directly elected education committee in the second version, and non-existant in the third and fourth.
Quote: “From 1 to 2: Because the GLA was a Labour-run pain to the backside for Maggie and the Tory run Westminster, so to get rid of their biggest enemy they abolished it, in other words nothing more than cynical political strategy”
Only in the five years of Livingstone. For much of its time the Greater London Council was Conservative controlled, with a majority of 82-18 over Labour in one election. Why do you think the Conservatives created it? Its creation was, originally, a classic exercise in party political gerrymandering (hence the crazy illogical zig-zag boundary!).
Quote: “The problem with Greater London is not because it a bad idea, but with the fact it does not cover the entire urban area, metropolitan area and commuter bet and the fact it has nowhere near the amount of powers and autonomy it needs…”
While I agree on you on the fact there have been too many (and not really needed changes), Greater London was a relativity good idea (how could the LCC run London, when they did not run areas like East Ham, Enfield, Croydon, Southall, Ilford, Dagenham and Wembley, which have been part of the London urban area since the 1930s at least), trouble is that it has been done badly, the GLC did not have enough powers, then it was abolished for no good reason, then it was brought back as the GLA, but with even less powers and after all this time still not covering all of the London Urban Area, Metropolitan Area and Commuter Belt”
That’s WHY it’s a bad idea: too small to be regional, to large to be provincial (county level). For conurbation government that works reasonably well, they should have gone down the Paris/Ile de France route, i.e the Thames Valley, from Oxfordshire to the coast, and including the "London" airports.
Quote: “When I meant London Borough’s where “focused on doing things they are best done at a regional level” I meant functions and services that are normally done by county councils (which I want transferred to the GLA)
In other worlds the boroughs of London should be like the boroughs in New York, they should only be co-ordinating the operation (not running itself, which will be done by the GLA) of services that are normally done at district country level and advice the GLA in running of services and doing the full range of district and county level functions/powers”
Functions that are “normally done by county councils” should obviously be done by county councils, which is why “Greater London” is a bad idea (it superceded the county councils).
As for New York, the “boroughs” there do nothing, they are constituencies for the election of an official (the borough president) who sits on the NY city council with the other councillors.
Quote: “The GLA should also receive the full range of devolved powers (and maybe more) as Scotland**, not only that but it should also receive its own flag and coat of arms (which would the ones of the City of London) and annex the rest of the London Urban Area, Metropolitan Area and Commuter Belt, lastly the City of London should be abolished and replaced by a London Borough (with its city status moving to the GLA)”
Be your age! If a Livingstone controlled Greater London Council was able to challenge the government of the day, there is not a cat’s chance in hell of today's version being given the kind of more powers that you advocate!
Quote: “After all that, the “County of Greater London” should be renamed the “State of London” (and have the city status off the City of London)*, formally separate from England and become the “5th” home nations of the United Kingdom, in other words, London becomes a city-state while staying part of the UK”
Why?
BTW, Greater London is not a county and can't be a "state" (there are no states in the UK).
Quote: “*As part of this the “Greater London Authority” should renamed the “Government of London” and the position of “Lord Mayor of London” should be absorbed into the position of “Mayor of London”
Why not “first minister” or “president”?
Quote: “No they did not have a vote on independence, they had a election and all that really happened was that CIU (Which is a relativity moderate Catalan nationalist party which was before the recent election the ruling party in Catalonia), which decided to adopt a platform for independence (previously they demanded more autonomy) and despite this ended up losing their majority (but still the biggest party) and the real gainers where left wing nationalist parties (Spain-wide left and right wing parties did the more or less the name as last time)
The main reasons are all economic, Spain as you know is suffering a rather bad economic crisis and that included Catalonia, this also meant that national (and regional debts) have risen quite a lot, to fix this both national and regional governments have made austerity measures which are very unpopular and have not really fix the problems of debts, this has meant Catalonia has vast debts it really needs to pay off, so that is why they have demanded a bailout, of course with the debts of Spanish Banks, its cannot really do this
So that is why there have been calls for independence (they already have significant autonomy from Madrid), so that they can use the money used to fund central government towards the paying of their debts (and thus less austerity), also they cannot hold a “referendum” on independence without Madrid’s approval and they have refused to allow one, so whatever vote there is would make little difference for the time being”
More nonsense! Catalonia did indeed vote for pro-independence parties, whist asking Madrid for a bail out. The Spanish experience shows us exactly why we should not have gone down the route of regional government/devolution. Too late now, that particular genie won’t go back in the bottle.
Quote: “Yes England CURRENTLY contains London + South East and Cornwall, however…
Cornwall is rather different to the rest of England; it has its own language, culture and even its own flag (which is flown all over the country), they are only part of England in name only and there are not too many “locals” who can say they are proud of being “English”
But that’s a separate argument completely than when it comes to London + SE…
The question is not “are Londoners proud to English/British?” they are without a doubt, the problem is that there is a growing gap between London, its metropolitan area and commuter belt and the rest of the UK (not just the rest of England), this is reflected economically, employment, tax revenue, investment, socially and even in our own aviation sector
Overall the difference is vast, such much so that a resident of Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds or Newcastle have more in common with the a resident of Cardiff, Swansea, Edinburgh, Glasgow or Aberdeen than a resident London, Brighton, Oxford and Chelmsford
How is this going to work when it comes to an English Parliament?
Would you want an English Parliament that was bias in favour of 40% of its population (London, its metropolitan area and commuter belt) over the other 60% of its population (rest of England)?
Prefer decentralisation to devolution but it's too late!
Only an English parliament or no devolution answers the West Lothian question.
Quote: "Remember the British Parliament is already bias in favour of 1/3 of its population (London, its metropolitan area and commuter belt) over the other 2/3 of its population (rest of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), this is one of the reasons (the others include nationalism and economic)
So I am suggesting devolution (separately) to both London (its urban area, metropolitan area and commuter belt) and the rest of England, for the sake of keeping the union together (unless the 5 home nations agree to end it), because there is resentment from all side of the UK about the current setup
Lastly does it matter (as a Londoner) if it’s an “English” or “London” running things where you live?
As for Boris, surely you don’t know that he is better at hosting HIGNFY, than being mayor, he has spent millions on new “Borismaster” buses, he has made sure London got a raw deal in terms of sponsoring the bike scheme and the cable car (not such a good idea); he has scraped the South London Tram and abandoned AND revived the Dagenham Dock DLR project, he got too close to Murdoch and he is popular because he a good personality, not because he has good polices (even from a right-wing perspective), may I go on…”
Forget it, it’s obviously never going to happen: as mentioned before, an English Parliament (even without Cornwall!) would be big enough to challenge the Westminster Parliament, so it will never be allowed.
Quote: “may I go on…”
No, please don’t!