IT IS no wonder that district councils throughout Cumbria have taken the hump over the options for local government reorganisation put forward by the Boundary Committee, bringing to mind, as they do, the old adage about a camel being a horse designed by a committee.

What the proposals fail to take into account is the human emotional response of loyalty so important to successful government anywhere.

People like to belong. If local government can reflect that feeling, then the people living in the areas will engage with the people they elect, make a contribution, not least by voting, and believe that what the authority does in their name will be relevant to their lives.

If that element is missing, then apathy gets a hold. It can be no co-incidence that the proportion of people who vote in local elections has plummeted since the last reorganisation in 1974.

In a sense the boundary committee had their collective hands tied by the guidelines agreed in advance by the office of the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, which set quotas for the number of people it would like represented by the single tier local government under regional assemblies.

The population threshold meant that the solution wanted by most district councils, a three-way split of Cumbria, was a non-starter.

The best solution of all would have been a return to Westmorland and Cumberland. Indeed the committee acknowledges that "there was some support for the revival of the historic areasas unitary authorities." That probably means that's what most people wanted.

The report goes on to say: "We received little persuasive evidence that the existing districts in Cumbria should be divided in order to facilitate recreating historical patterns of local government." In other words, we don't want traditional loyalties to play a part in the day-to-day running of people's lives. Why ever not?

There are so many questions raised by the committee's proposals that it is difficult to know how they are all going to be resolved satisfactorily before the assembly vote is taken towards the end of the year.

If the Morecambe Bay option is chosen, where will it based? What will happen to the redundant civic halls in Barrow, Kendal or Lancaster? What about Cumbria Police with all their infrastructure geared to the present county boundaries?

On the other hand if Cumbria is chosen as the preferred option, it means that all locally-provided services will be run from Carlisle. The performance of the current county council hardly gives confidence that this will enhance the quality of life this side of Orton Scar.

On balance the less bad of the two options is to put together South Lakeland with Barrow and Lancaster. At least that means the local authority will mirror the increasingly successful Morecambe Bay Health Trusts.

It also has a resonance from the days of Lancashire North of the Sands, reuniting Lancaster with Barrow and a significant part of the southern Lakes.

But what on earth happens if the people of south Cumbria vote for the Morecambe Bay option, while the people of north Lancashire want to stay with other parts of the red rose county? Or what if north Lancashire wants to come in with Barrow and Kendal, yet South Lakeland voted to stay in Cumbria?

By trying to please the deputy Prime Minster and deliver his vision, the Boundary Committee may have, in fact, ensured that it never gets off the ground, as their proposals could well guarantee a no vote to the regional assembly.

Regrettably that means that South Lakeland will be lumbered with staying in a two-tier Cumbria at least until the next time local government reorganisation is forced back to the top of the political agenda.