THERE is nothing wrong in theory with wishing to modernise local government. Structures which stand still for decades gather dust.

The workings of democracy are not above a little bit of improvement.

So it is that the Government wants to update local councils. This is why nearly a year ago, a cabinet-style council was introduced for York. At the time there were reasons to agree that renovating the council might be a good idea. If local politics could be made more efficient, then local people would be better served. Or so the theory went.

The Government wants to rejuvenate the way all councils are run and City of York Council put itself at the forefront of such change by opting for a cabinet-style system a year before it actually had to.

Now the council is having to ask York people if this new system is a good idea.

As such consultation normally takes place before any change, this exercise might seem to be somewhat after the event. However, legal requirements demand the consultation takes place, so when the door-to-door survey is launched at least people will be able to register their views.

A question which needs to be answered is whether or not the streamlined cabinet-style council is good for local democracy. It is certainly worrying that decisions can now be taken by the executive members at the expense of the full council.

Does this leave non-executive councillors as impotent back-benchers with too little influence? And if so, how can this benefit democracy?

Slimming down the process might be good for efficiency but there are still fears that it could be bad for democracy.

And if there are legitimate worries about cabinet-style councils, the two other alternatives allowed by the Government, both of which feature elected mayors, are seen by many as worse options.

Such are the questions to bear in mind if the survey comes to your door.

Updated: 09:52 Friday, April 13, 2001