Except they do not know the number. 3 county councils are agreeing to try this out. According to the article. But nothing indicates that will lead to all district councils under them being closed.
The number you give are nationwide. This is not happening nationwide, Only with councils willing to work with them. They do not seem to know that number.
Precisely. Which is why saying “dozens of councils” made no sense. “Number of councils due to close” covers everything from just a couple to 164 or whatever the maximum number is.
“number of councils”?
The article refers to " 21 county councils operate across England, with 164 district councils acting under them".
It is district councils which may be abolished, so the maximum number can even be 164.
Except they do not know the number. 3 county councils are agreeing to try this out. According to the article. But nothing indicates that will lead to all district councils under them being closed.
The number you give are nationwide. This is not happening nationwide, Only with councils willing to work with them. They do not seem to know that number.
Read again. Instead of saying “dozens of councils” they should have said “number of councils”.
They don’t know the number closing. ATM no one dose.
Precisely. Which is why saying “dozens of councils” made no sense. “Number of councils due to close” covers everything from just a couple to 164 or whatever the maximum number is.
a number of is generally not recommended when “Some councils…” or even “An unknown number of councils” would be better.
Oh I see what you are saying now. Yeah a better word.
deleted by creator