Talk:Local Government Act 1972
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance within the UK geography WikiProject. | |
 |
|||
| Archives | |||
|
|||
| About archives • Edit this box |
[edit] 1974 statement
- Just came across a section on "traditional Counties" in the Guiness Book of Answers, 9th edition, (1993). It is full of inaccuracies. For instance:
- Moreover the 1974 Act (sic!) Stated "The new county councils are solely for defining areas of first-level government of the future; they are administration areas and will not alter the traditional boundaries."
- It goes on to say that a review of local government begun in 1992 was likely to result in single-tier councils, and that
- "The traditional counties are likely to return for all other purposes."
- I've no idea who wrote this, and it gives no sources (maybe because they made it up. It gives areas for the counties in km2 and square miles, and I thought it might be the source for the figures, but on conversion to acres they don't match.
- Interesting to see factually incorrect information on trad counties from the pre Internet and Wikipedia age. Lozleader 16:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- According to [1], the government made a statement on April 1, 1974 which was quoted in The Times of that day. The person quoting it notes that it "honoured much more in the breach than in any attempt to observe it". Mr Thurnham seems further to be under the delusion that traditional county boundaries were being shown on Ordnance Survey maps prior to 1974. Morwen - Talk 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Hmm, compare and contrast
-
-
"The new county boundaries are solely for the purpose of defining areas of ... local government. They are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of Counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change." - the ABC's version
"The new county boundaries are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change, despite the different names adopted by the new administrative counties" - the version quoted in Hansard
These are clearly different versions of the same sentence (with one word recapitalised - is that a form of misquoting?). Morwen - Talk 16:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I have found the exact quote and added it to the article. The one that was made at the time, and then the one made in 1990 by Michael Portillo, who was Minister of Local Government and Inner Cities when he made it, making it explicitly clear that the "areas" are entirely administrative. Cheers. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- We resolved this in 2006. It's somewhere on a talk page, not sure where. Anyway. Hang on found it... Talk:Historic_counties_of_England/Archive_2#Government_Statements.
-
-
-
-
New areas are administrative According to a Department of the Environment official,
the new county boundaries are solely for the purpose of defining areas of first-level government of the future:
"They are administrative areas and will not alter the traditional boundaries
of counties, nor is it intended that ther loyalties of people living in them will change."
Citing Middlesex as an example, he said that although that county had been swallowed up in Greater London in 1965
and disappeared for governmental purposes, the name still exists for postal and other reasons.
>"Similarly the broad acres known as Yorkshire will remain unaltered
despite the different names adopted by the new administrative counties."
The upshot was there was no government statement, just something attributed to a civil servant (and only the bits in quotes). The bit about about them being solely for the purpose of defining areas of local government was written by the journalist. Whoever briefed Portillo obviously did a poor job.
Incidentally I found this in Hansard for February 20, 1962 (cols 324 - 325) during the debate on the London Government Bill :
Mr McLeod: Because I know that, although these questions have played only a minor part in the debate, they weigh very heavily in
people's concern about these problems, I should like first to make it clear, as the Royal Commission and the White Paper
make it clear, that we are discussing a reform of local government. Paragraph 18 of the White Paper says: In general they"—
that is the Government— wish to emphasise that they propose to make only changes which are needed to achieve their main
purpose and matters consequential to it. These proposals should not affect any existing cultural, social, sporting or
other associations or loyalties which may be based on the traditional counties. I have received a considerable number
of letters saying that these proposals Link to column 325 will, for example, greatly change the County Cricket
Championship. There has been a County of London by Statute for seventy years. Clearly it is a county for legal purposes, but
it is made absolutely clear in the laws of cricket that it is not a county for the purposes of cricket.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."]
It should be made quite clear that we are considering here local government alone.
Which of course has nothing to do with the Local Government Act 1972, so probably shouldn't be on this talk page :-) Lozleader (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree the Portillo statement should not go in the article. If a quote were to go in here, it should summarise the Act and be from someone at the time of the Acts passing. As Portillo had nothing to do with the policy process at the time, what authority is he on its provisions? Also for the purposes of WP:CITE the minority interest group used as the source are not reliable. MRSC • Talk 15:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
