"This forum is for discussions on the pros and cons of metric and imperial. Unlike the other discussion boards run by BWMA, this forum is not geared to a particular topic. You may raise any issue you wish, for instance: the ease of use of the two systems, the relevance of the European Union, history and culture, scientific/mathematical points, the role of bureaucracy, or comparisons to other campaigns, such as ***restoring the traditional (pre-1974) counties.*** Please post new discussion topics by clicking on Post New Topic to the right."


I live in Middlesex, so feel this particularly accutely. Maybe we should restore the old counties. I'm surprised no one has started this topic already.

The agenda for the complete destruction of British counties has now been revealed in the amazing article by Christopher Booker in this Sunday's 'Sunday Telegraph', which included a map drawn by the E.U. as long ago as 1971 showing England carved up into 9 Regions. This was revealed the other day under the '30-year-rule'.

The question always was - how to make progress towards Regional Assemblies without the people protesting too much?

Answer: first of all reoraganise local government, as Heath did, under the pretext that some Counties are now too large and others too small. Create new Counties like 'Cleveland', 'Avon', 'West Midlands' etc. Abolish former Counties like Middlesex, Cumberland and Westmorland.

Then, later, start developing 'unitary' authorities, on the pretext that some areas are best suited to unitary local government - in the process taking away functions from the Counties and weakening them, e.g. remove Luton from Bedfordshire, remove Peterborough from Cambridgeshire, remove Southend and Thurrock from Essex. Gradually develop more and more unitary authorities, as in the North West and North East.

Then - hey presto! - you can say that the North West and North East are 'nearly all unitary'. You claim that the Counties in those regions are half on the way to being abolished anyway - clearing the way for Regional Assemblies to gradually take over the government of England.

Oh, and on the way, make a special example of the 'Royal' County of Berkshire - make sure that's carved *completely* up into unitary authorities (it alreday has been, Berkshire County Council no longer exists).

Of course, in anticipation of Regional Assemblies, the government has already set up regional record offices, regional archiving and regional musuems structures which are quietly re-assigning all collections to the new regional structures - yes, County Archives, County Museums and County Record Offices will all go, to be replaced by Regional Archives, Museums and Record Offices. Working parties have been beavering away on this for 15 years behind our backs.

Look at the proposed detailed E.U. map of the future South West Region, for when it has its own Regional Assembly (not long to wait now). No single County remains intact - Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Wiltshire, Somerset and Gloucester will all be broken up - never to be Counties again. The old Anglo-Saxon Counties and all their traditions will soon just be a matter of irrelevant history, kept alive only perhaps by the County Cricket Championship and a few 'County' magazines.

Yes, there should most definitely be a 'Keep the Counties' campaign.

T Bennett

Thanks for the response, and I too read that article. As I said, living in Middlesex, I feel it particularly accutely, and I believe that the counties, for the most part should be restored.

Just to note- Yes, I am against this "regionalisation" in the form of parliaments, assemblies, mayoral sub-wotsits of a mayoral wotsit, monkeys....

The Scottish parliament is the only one I'm not fundamentally against ideologically, but I can see where the problems may arise- give it time- but as for the rest....... abolish them!

I'm not against the scots one as that would be politically incorrect (give me credit!( but it is after all, so very very far up there...

There a BWMA member keenly involved in the campaign for (I think) East Yorkshire. His name escapes me at present.

I, too, am dismayed by the possible loss of the counties. I also live in Middlesex, which is very much alive at the local, and informal, if not the official, level. We find the same distinction between the legal position and the popular response, in several areas of life now, including metrication. Clearly, this is common on the continent where such day to day avoidance is a necessity for the smooth running of society. This gives some cause for encouragement. Clearly many people are not the willing lambs that the political classes imagined them to be. Just how much confidence can we place in the 'good sense' of the British? What do readers think? Can they be relied upon as in past ages, or has consumerism bought them off?

The Chinese Cultural Revolution was substantially about trying to eradicate old Chinese traditions - under a brand of 'political correctness' and indoctrination far worse than what is beginning to happen here.

The Chinese however maintained their traditions orally and secretly during this period - and now many of these tradions have re-emerged into the open again. A similar observation applies to the Communists' attempt to eradicate religion in the Soviet Union.

As the political elite continue their process of erasing national cultures and identity in Europe, various traditions will continue to be kept alive orally - one hopes. The continued strong preference of British people for our system of weights and measures is one example of that - though their use is so ingrained that most of this is unconscious. Many people are refusing to change to metric just as a reaction to the powers-that-be wanting us to think metric all the time and trying to make its use compulsory.

Similarly, the increasing willingness of the English to describe themselves as such flows from a feeling that England as a unit and the English as a people and nation are under some kind of threat.

Writing 'English' on a census form or continuing to use one's original county on letters despite the Post Office having officially transferred you to another county are examples of this quiet rebellion against our political masters. Only in today's 'Daily Telegraph', there is a report of a parish poll held in Tidenham, Gloucestershire, on the continuing row over the village being given a postcode in Newport, Monmouthshire (now officially part of Wales); they voted 458-295 against the Post Office. The Post Office won't budge; they said: "It is just a code to help us deliver post in the most efficient way possible". [Note: their Welsh postcode means they get Channel 4 programmes in Welsh!]

Renan said: "A nation identifies itself by its history". Wherever you look, attempts are being made to disconnect the English from that history

T Bennett

"Voting" against a new postcode ?
Who cares about a number assigned to your city, you can't really call that "cultural heritage", can you ?

Cheers,
Ralf
P.S.: Just because you live in a democracy doesn't mean that every single bit of change is open to public discussion and voting. Some things you just have to accept, and in most of the cases it is better that way (because those people introducing the change have a better idea of what is better than the general public).

If your postcode falsely tells you you're Welsh when you're actually English that is most definitely a violation of your cultural heritage.

What I think the Tidenham, Gloucestershire villagers ought to do now is to pick a set of postcodes based on the appropriate English town and simply use them. Enter them on forms whenever they're asked for their address and postcode. Give them to their friends and other correspondents. If enough of them do that, the GPO (or whatever stupid name it calls itself this week) will have little option but to accept the English codes as valid.

{(because those people introducing the change have a better idea of what is better than the general public).}

That is quite impossible. The government cannot know better than the people--that way of thinking is native to socialism, communism, and absolute monarchy and has no place in a democratic society.

You have quite an idealistic notion of democracy.
The only reason why democracy works at all is because we elect representatives who then spend their time on topics of public interest to get an informed and educated opinion on them.
They then make a decision for us we (the public) could never do because we don't have the time (and also interest) to dig into those subjects that deeply.
Only in the fewest cases the public actually has enough information AND understanding to have a respectable opinion on a topic.

Believing for example you could make a sound judgement on the pros and cons in atomic energy vs. coal energy is pure delusion.

Ralf

Ralf, it would appear that if Yardstick has an idealistic notion of democracy, you also have quite an idealistic notion of government. Politicians base their "judgements" on what seems best for their party or their own careers, on what will buy the most votes or offend the fewest marginal supporters. What may be objectively best hardly enters the equation. On the question of coal versus nuclear power, to take your own example, I'd trust neither politicians nor opinion polls; neither the politicians nor the public have the requisite understanding.

About the only way one can generate efficient outcomes is through the market, where persons voluntarily choose from a range of options, and poor choices are progressively winnowed out through competition. When governments try to make the choices for everyone instead they almost invariably make bad choices - this is as true for democratic forms of government as for any other.

I agree.
However, if people had the vote on everything, it would be society's ruin.

Agreed.

{I agree.
However, if people had the vote on everything, it would be society's ruin.}

That may be true. However, it was still irresponsible of the British government to screw with the counties without a vote.

But this isn't my fight.