WHILST the ability to stand by one's beliefs can be an admirable trait, I feel that Mr David Herdson's view regarding Radcliffe is both inaccurate and counter-productive on at least two points.

Mr Herdson would have it that Radcliffe should be considered by the world to be in Lancashire and not in Greater Manchester, and he is obviously incensed by the refusal of Bill Stewart, producer of TV's "15 to 1" programme, to accept this point.

Bill Stewart is right and I'm sure his reaction is supported by the Post Office. Radcliffe's postcode is Manchester M26 and not Lancashire. Anyone wishing to write to an address in Radcliffe should bear this in mind.

Also, if Mr Herdson cares to consult a map he will find that the Greater Manchester boundary stretches northwards for around 15 to 20 miles (not 30 as he maintains in his letter). The boundary encompasses most of the towns which spill outwards from the city. Does Mr Herdson feel that this cluster formation of towns has come about by chance? Or is it perhaps that they have grown and prospered by their proximity to the city centre, in fact to the point of strangling the city's own growth.

It makes far more sense to consider this major urban area as a whole unit, with common policies for transport, health, housing etc, rather than as a motley collection of individual parishes, each owing allegiance to a medium-sized town many miles distant.

Furthermore, most of these districts have re-housed people from the inner city at some stage. Many are little more than dormitory towns, whose residents commute to the centre on a daily basis, for both work and pleasure (ask Mr Terry Robinson, Bury FC's chairman, who watches in despair as the footballing fans of the town vanish down Manchester Road on a Saturday afternoon).

Radcliffe doesn't have much going for it just now, but one prize it does possess is the Metrolink connection to Manchester. Would Mr Herdson have us believe that we would be better off with a direct line to Preston, the administrative centre of Lancashire?

Finally, I would just like to add an opinion of my own. For far too long the English regions have had to put up with a few crumbs from the rich man's table in London. They fare much worse than their counterparts in Europe, where national wealth is more evenly divided. Some time ago, Lord Rogers and his team was asked to draw up a list of recommendations for tackling the run-down state of England's regional centres. This completed report has been gathering dust for almost twelve months now, but the Government chooses not to act upon it. Meanwhile they pump more and more money into the overheated south east of the country.

Opera and theatre buffs there have never had it so good. The Dome soaks up funding like a sponge. Billions are spent on prestigious London offices such as the M15 and M16 buildings, Portcullis House for our MPs and the MOD. Meanwhile try driving through east Manchester on a wet Wednesday.

To return to Mr Herdson's original point, the re-introduction of historical groupings, I say that London has been able to maintain its absolute dominance in the nation's affairs because they have never had any serious competition here. The provincials have been too busy scrapping amongst themselves over the few crumbs on offer, instead of organising themselves into larger units and developing more clout in order to demand a fairer share of the nation's wealth.

I say this is the way we should be heading, not backwards to turnpike roads and outside privies.

TOM TOMKINSON,

(a citizen of Radcliffe).