Talk:London boroughs

Misquoting a Reference

One of the sources referenced has been quite seriously mis-quoted, and I've had to amend it. Previously, the article read:

"Major issues

Because of high housing costs in London and the impact of welfare reforms enacted by the Coalition Government, there are many challenges for local government in London. Local Government Guru, Richard Cressey, when addressing an audience of like-minded people in 2013, asserted that such issues could not be addressed "on a borough by borough basis". Instead, Cressey argued for it to be dealt with on a "pan-London basis". Everyone else agreed."

Quite simply, the quoted reference does not say that.

The source quoted does was a round table discussion, with multiple contributors from different backgrounds.

• Firstly there is no reference, from any contributor, to "welfare reforms enacted by the Coalition Government". This is because the piece is not a discussion about Welfare reform, which is mentioned nowhere in the article. There is a discussion on long term HOUSING policy, with a perspective back to the 1960s and 1970s, but no discussion of current government welfare policy.
• Secondly, Richard Cressey's comment was not about Welfare reform, but about the boroughs ability to borrow money to fund infrastructure development - this is the quote in full:

"We're constrained in that we can only borrow against our own borough's size or scale," explained Cressey, who recommended that borrowing could be more efficient if authorities were allowed to borrow against other boroughs in accordance with their housing need. "The issue of housing is not on a borough-by-borough basis, it's on a pan-London basis," he added."

• Finally, the comment "Everyone else agreed" 'Everyone else agreed' to a subject that wasn't being discussed? In fact, there is no reference in the article to 'Everyone else' coming to an agreement on any particular point at all - it was a round-table discussion.

This man's comments have been attributed to a completely different subject, one that wasn't even discussed in the article quoted.

This is very, VERY serious. The article completely mis-quotes not only a source, but an individual. I'm going to assume good faith, but we all have a responsibility to ensure that Wikipedia articles are backed up by references, and that those references are quoted correctly. This was quite a lapse.

Indisciplined (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Outer Boroughs - these were not part of the County of London but remained in their original counties until 1965.

New (London) Borough	Old Boroughs/Urban Districts
Barking and Dagenham	Essex: Barking, most of Dagenham (rest to Redbridge)
Barnet	Herts: Chipping Barnet (Urban District), East Barnet (UD). Middlesex: Finchley, Hendon, Friern Barnet (UD).
Bexley	Kent : Bexley, Erith, Clayford (UD), Sidcup from Chislehurst and Sidcup (UD)
Brent	Middlesex: Wembley, Willesden
Bromley	Kent: Orpington, Penge, Chislehurst from Chislehurst and Sicup (UD)
Croydon	Surrey: Croydon, Coulsdon and Purley (UD)
Ealing	Middlesex: Acton, Ealing, Southall
Enfield	Middlesex: Edmonton, Enfield, Southgate
Haringey	Middlesex
Harrow	Middlesex
Havering	Essex: Hornchurch (UD), Romford
Hillingdon	Middlesex: Uxbridge, Hayes and Harlington (UD), Ruislip-Northwood (UD), Yiewsley and West Drawyon (UD)
Hounslow	Middlesex
Kingston Upon Thames	Surrey: Kingston, Malden and Combe, Surbiton
Merton	Surrey: Mitcham, Wimbledon, Merton and Morden (UD)
Newham	Essex: East Ham, West Ham, Barking (west of River Roding), Woolwich (north of Thames)
Redbridge	Essex: Ilford, Wanstead, Woodford, northern part of Dagenham, part of Chigwell (UD)
Richmond upon Thames	Surrey: Barnes, Richmond upon Thames, Twickenham
Sutton	Surrey: Beddington, Carshalton (UD), Cheam, Wallington
Waltham Forest	Middlesex and Essex: Chingford, Leyton, Walthamstow

secretlondon, and morwen 14/9/03

Borough	Executive Party	Council make-up
Barking & Dag	Labour	42 Lab, 4 Residents, 3 LD, 2 Con
Barnet	Con	Lab 24, Con 33, LD 6
Bexley	Labour	Lab 32, Con 30, LD 1
Brent	Labour	Lab 35, Con 16, LD 9
Bromley	Con	Lab 6, Con 41, LD 13
Camden	Lab	35 Lab, Con 11, LD 8
Croydon	Labour	Lab 37, Con 32, LD 1
Ealing	Labour	Lab 48, Con 17, LD 4
Enfield	Con	Lab 24, Con 39
Greenwich	Labour	Lab 38, Con 9, LD 4
Hackney	Labour	Lab 45, Con 9, LD 3
Hamm & Fulham	Labour	28 Lab, 18 Con
Haringey	Labour	Lab 42, LD 15
Harrow	Labour	Lab 31, Con 29, LD 3
Havering	Con	Lab 9, Con 26, LD 1, Other 18
Hillingdon	Con	Lab 27, Con 31, LD 7
Hounslow	Labour	Lab 36, Con 15, LD 5, Other 4
Islington	LD	10 Lab, 38 LD, 0 Con
Ken & Chel	Con	42 Con, 12 Lab
Kingston	LD	Lab 3, Con 15, LD 30
Lambeth	joint LD/Con	28 LD, 28 Lab, Con 7
Lewisham	Labour	Lab 45, Con 2, LD 4, Other 3
Merton	Labour	Lab 32, Con 25, LD 0, Other 3
Newham	Labour	Lab 59, Other 1
Redbridge	Con	Lab 21, Con 33, LD 9
Richmond	Con	Lab 0, Con 39, LD 15
Southwark	LD	Lab 28, Con 5, LD 30
Sutton	LD	Lab 3, Con 8, LD 43
Tower Hamlets	Labour	Lab 35, LD 16
Waltham Forest	joint Labour/LD	Lab 29, Con 18, LD 13
Wandsworth	Con	Lab 10, Con 50
Westminster	Con	Lab 12, Con 48

Smaller Map

Is there any way to shrink the map, or get a smaller map? The page doesn't quite fit into an 800x600 Explorer window.

Former units

Are the remaining selection of former municipal and other components going to be developed, rather than redirecting to the modern geographical places?

I will add some details as and when they are (as I "collect" historical survivals etc).

Jackiespeel 18:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello. Some have already been started and were hiding:

• Municipal Borough of Barnes
• County Borough of Croydon
• Municipal Borough of Hendon
• Chislehurst and Sidcup Urban District

The rest could all make good articles. MRSC 18:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of boroughs

Why do you Londoners need so many? New York does just fine with five of 'em! 204.52.215.107 21:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, not a bad question, but it's been a rather different pattern of development. Brooklyn was a whole other city until 1898, after all. London has never had to absorb a complete rival city, really. It's also worth noting that an NYC borough corresponds to a US county. Equating this with Britain (it's a bit facile, because our counties differ, but still...), the true equivalent of your five boroughs would be the subsumed areas of nearby counties that became part of London in 1899 - then lost more area later in 1965) - all of Middlesex by 1965, plus parts of Kent, Essex, Herts, Surrey - curiously enough, six entities counting London itself... (In fact, only five in 1899 - none of Essex was included until 1965 - so there you go, 1899 London consisted of five 'counties' just like NYC...)

Interesting to note that NYC and London both underwent significant reorganisation in 1898-99, hadn't realised the parallels. Tarquin Binary 02:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The percentage of ethinicity is utterly wrong for nearly all of the London boroughs and now some1 has changed it so you cannoy edit it

something needs to be done —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjbb66 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

'City' of Westminster

Hi, the 'City of Westminster' has the status of London Borough - no more, no less. The same applies to the 'Royal Boroughs'. The 1965 Act makes no distinction, and the names were adopted by the new authorities from the warrants granted to prior authorities. The City of Westminster, derives its claim from privileges granted by Henry VIII; it was revived soon after it became a metropolitan borough around 1900. Most other UK cities were forced to reapply for their status in the local government reforms of 1975, but not in London - because the reorganisation had occurred ten years earlier. The City of London is the only authority with formal City status in London; and its also a ceremonial county and uniquely sui generis. ergo, the lead should read:

The administrative area of Greater London contains thirty-two London boroughs. Inner London comprises twelve of these boroughs plus the City of London. Outer London comprises the twenty remaining boroughs of Greater London.

If only because the sentence doesn't otherwise add up! (ie not 11 + 2 cities). Kbthompson (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the UK government Westminster is a city see the national archives (62.189.169.182 (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC))

"Possible Status" should read 2 cities not 1

Both the City of Westminster and the City of London retain City status in the United Kingdom.108.196.40.52 (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

But the City of London isn't a "London Borough". (See the first sentence of the article.) -- Dr Greg  talk  18:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on London boroughs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008081545/http://www.thesystemsthinkingreview.co.uk/index.php?pg=18&utwkstoryid=266 to http://www.thesystemsthinkingreview.co.uk/index.php?pg=18&utwkstoryid=266
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130421042212/http://opinion.publicfinance.co.uk/2012/07/shared-illusions/ to http://opinion.publicfinance.co.uk/2012/07/shared-illusions/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding a gallery for ward results across Greater London

Recently an editor, Ralbegen, created this great image File:Citywide ward results of the 2018 London local elections.svg and used it on the last two local election articles (2018 and 2022). There isn't really an article for the borough council elections specifically, but I think this article would be a good space to add in a gallery of images similar to this. What are other's thoughts? --Jonjonjohny (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jonjonjohny, I'm pleased you like the ward map! I'd be happy to make more for previous elections if I can find suitable shapefiles for them (or if other can provide shapefiles for them). I have an old enough version of Boundary-line that I could produce a results map for 2014 without too much trouble, but unless I can get shapefiles for the wards for 2010 and earlier then it would necessitate quite a lot more work. Ralbegen (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

(I had some time this evening and made a map for 2014, which I've put on the page for the 2014 elections). Ralbegen (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It's excellent work thank you for making them, and I like the way they're incorporated into the election articles. It wasn't to put pressure on you to track the last 10 Local Elections, I just think it would be good to have a space on an article that displays them all together. --Jonjonjohny (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I think a gallery of ward maps on this page would be nice. I've completed the series back to 2002 now, which will be as far as I'll go for now. Please feel free to implement something here! Ralbegen (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Added. Jonjonjohny (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Typo?

The article says there are 32 boroughs but the list contains 33. Can someone knowledgeable fix that conflict and provide the correct number (or explain the reason for such a difference). 77.57.33.67 (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Ely Asher

The first item in the list is "1. City of London (not a London Borough)". Does that not answer your question? -- Dr Greg  talk  16:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)