By George! England's traditional counties can return to English roads

[Inseriousity.]

Is this a northern thing? Can't say I've noticed it or that it's a problem down south.

I think so, it's so confusing up here lol, in our local paper there was a time when the letters page was just people sending in letters debating what county we should be. We've got Cleveland, Teesside, North Yorkshire and that's just my area, not sure about others.

Not that I'd really call it a 'problem' imo. call it what you like, as long as the letters end up where they need to go I couldn't give a damn.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Neither are counties.

That's true - but that doesn't mean they should have been changed in the first place.

Unlike many on here, I actually have pride in where I come from and it's history... and it pisses me off when politicians meddle in it.

Is this a northern thing? Can't say I've noticed it or that it's a problem down south.

The two best examples I hear about and notice (although that could be because i'm from the north) are Lancashire/Liverpool and Cumberland.

[GommeInc]

It must be, we don't have these issues in the midlands either.

What they need is a nice long bath (barth) instead of one of those baff things

Thinking about Liverpool... I've never associated it with a county and just think of it as just the city. It makes sense it being Lancashire since one of my friends is from neighbouring Lancaster. What's strange (just learnt this just now) is that Lancaster is the county town of Lancashire, yet there are bigger cities and even in the HQ is in Preston. Is that part of the problem? No central, economic/administrative towns or cities in the counties? Down south it's pretty straightfoward. Essex has Chelmsford, Suffolk has Ipswich, Norfolk has Norwich, Kent has Canterbury etc.

[karter]

Why do you say that Pakistan isn't a country? Only because of its partition from India because of religion?

and what about Bangladesh

[Kardan]

What they need is a nice long bath (barth) instead of one of those baff things

Thinking about Liverpool... I've never associated it with a county and just think of it as just the city. It makes sense it being Lancashire since one of my friends is from neighbouring Lancaster. What's strange (just learnt this just now) is that Lancaster is the county town of Lancashire, yet there are bigger cities and even in the HQ is in Preston. Is that part of the problem? No central, economic/administrative towns or cities in the counties? Down south it's pretty straightfoward. Essex has Chelmsford, Suffolk has Ipswich, Norfolk has Norwich, Kent has Canterbury etc.

Maybe. It's even more simple in the midlands. The biggest city in Leicestershire is Leicester, likewise for Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.

[-:Undertaker:-]

What they need is a nice long bath (barth) instead of one of those baff things

Thinking about Liverpool... I've never associated it with a county and just think of it as just the city. It makes sense it being Lancashire since one of my friends is from neighbouring Lancaster. What's strange (just learnt this just now) is that Lancaster is the county town of Lancashire, yet there are bigger cities and even in the HQ is in Preston. Is that part of the problem? No central, economic/administrative towns or cities in the counties? Down south it's pretty straightfoward. Essex has Chelmsford, Suffolk has Ipswich, Norfolk has Norwich, Kent has Canterbury etc.

Yeah, it's pretty much a disaster. I am sure I read when I was looking up on this that parts of former Lancashire (historic Lancashire) were still included in the ceremonial designations, but then in terms of administration they were not. It's the same for Liverpool and the neighbouring Wirral across the war - before Heath and his ilk meddled around with it, it was simply Lancashire on the Liverpool side of the Mersey and Cheshire on the Wirral side.

Why do you say that Pakistan isn't a country? Only because of its partition from India because of religion?

and what about Bangladesh

Pakistan because of the tribalism that exists there, mainly regarding the seperation of the Pashtun people between the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Had the British got the area right when drawing the borders, then Pakistan should have been carved off the Raj (as it was, and I agree with that) but the area of Pakistan and Afghanistan should have been drawn up taking into consideration the tribes and language groups there.

Bangladesh I don't know much about, although generally speaking it appears pretty peaceful and wholesome.

[GommeInc]

Yeah, it's pretty much a disaster. I am sure I read when I was looking up on this that parts of former Lancashire (historic Lancashire) were still included in the ceremonial designations, but then in terms of administration they were not. It's the same for Liverpool and the neighbouring Wirral across the war - before Heath and his ilk meddled around with it, it was simply Lancashire on the Liverpool side of the Mersey and Cheshire on the Wirral side.

It just seems like mindless tampering. The only time counties really need to change is when settlements around the borders begin to expand and locals want to be administrated by a different county and the county letting go of the area is fine to let it happen provided voters don't mind. The actual Government getting involved seems a bit of a brash way of doing it.

Was Lancaster the "capital" of Lancashire before this? The name suggests it but from what I remember Liverpool was a powerful city before this. Usually the capitals of counties are the busiest. It seems Preston, Liverpool and Lancaster are perhaps too close to be properly independent.

Maybe. It's even more simple in the midlands. The biggest city in Leicestershire is Leicester, likewise for Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.

And for East Anglia - Cambridge in Cambridgeshire

[-:Undertaker:-]

It just seems like mindless tampering. The only time counties really need to change is when settlements around the borders begin to expand and locals want to be administrated by a different county and the county letting go of the area is fine to let it happen provided voters don't mind. The actual Government getting involved seems a bit of a brash way of doing it.

Yeah, it was done to centralise local government. I can tell this affect it's had for example because the area in which I live (and it's not a huge area, it's urban but you know it's not a population centre) used to have a grand Victorian town hall (which was replaced by a horrid 1970s by-pass) that was just for this area. Nowadays my whole area is classed as one constituency in terms of city council whereas it used to be - I assume - administered by numerous wards in this one area who then went and sat in the town hall.

The Tories like to harp on about localism but it was they who gutted, sliced and ground-up localism.