There is no doubt that, after several years of budget cuts, a further period of projected 'efficiency savings' by all councils is beginning to stimulate considerable alarm.

Let us not forget, however, that cuts to local council budgets started under the last Labour government. Perhaps one can safely assume, therefore, that most, if not all, politicians at Westminster do now appreciate that borrowing and spending more to appeal to the populist vote is not the economic solution the UK needs. I believe prudent borrowing should be restricted to capital projects; wealth-creating projects. It should not be used to bolster everyday spending or working capital.

However, central government cannot afford to give local councils more money. Local councils cannot raise council tax more than two per cent without triggering an expensive referendum. Many people cannot afford to pay more council tax and, even if they can, a two per cent increase will not raise significantly more money.

Almost inevitably, therefore, we are faced with cuts in services: to subsidised bus routes, to fewer fire appliances, library closures and, of course, more staff redundancies - or the imposition of charges such as on-street and off-street parking charges, green bin collection, residents' parking fees.

I think most people would agree protecting vulnerable people - whether young, old or disabled - must be a key priority. Wher,e then, are the cuts to be made?

The councils could close libraries, recycling centres, children's centres, spend less on highways, reduce street lighting, and reduce social care. None of these measures would be popular.

Few, if any, councillors, whatever their political persuasion, want to cut local services. Most would wish to spend more.

Those who remonstrate and protest about possible cuts seem rarely, however, to offer an alternative. Well, that's not entirely true. The hoary old chestnut of cutting the number of councillors does occasionally surface.

That proposal does have potential traction. Cumbria is the second biggest county in England, but it is one of the least populated. Yet we have nine authorities governing Cumbria - each with their well-paid senior officers, Directors, Chief Executive, Lawyers, Treasurers and, between the county and district councils, 368 councillors.

Northumberland has one council (67 councillors); Cornwall has one council (123 councillors); Durham has one council (126 councillors). The plain fact is that Cumbria is grossly over-governed, over-regulated and, not least, over-taxed!

Many millions could be saved if Cumbria metamorphosed into, say, two or even three unitary authorities with power devolved to local committees to address local needs.

After an initial transition period of two to three years the potential savings would ensure that those services which we the voters think are important would not need to be axed.

I suggest the county and district councils prepare a joint feasibility study of the merits of transforming local government in Cumbria to that of unitary authorities within a given time-scale. It's time for the turkeys to vote for Christmas!

With millions more yet to find, goodness only knows what services we shall have left if we do not pursue this route.

Eddie Martin

Crosby, Maryport