I READ Tom Lane’s observations about the possible outcomes of merger decisions with interest.

He made good points about the town which I agree with wholeheartedly.

Also, in rebutting my previous letter, he does make a very important point which I had omitted - that there is a third option for Christchurch and one which various councils are considering at the moment.

I mentioned the merger option: to achieve stability through economies of scale, slimming down the numbers of councillors (Bournemouth probably losing most, by the way) not to mention the additional funding and powers it could attract.

I also suggested Christchurch could try to keep its own town hall but in the fiscal climate this would inevitably mean deciding what services to trim.

Tom rightly identified a further option - to increase council taxes to avoid cuts.

Surrey is looking to approve a 15 per cent increase to achieve this, Sussex a five per cent increase this year (any more would require a local referendum) and others are doing the same.

Assets and reserves are a red herring, they cannot be used or run down to fund operational losses - it is just not permitted to use public funds in that way.

In short, Mr Chope and his followers need to be honest about the realistic cost to residents of rigid independence - their resistance is built on a narrative about conquest and takeover.

Perhaps they cannot imagine that neighbours could devise local services and representation within a larger and more empowered shared authority, but others can.

ADAM HOBBS

Wentworth Avenue, Bournemouth

Want to respond to this letter for publication? send us a letter