LET’S start from the position that ‘something must be done.’

We are talking about the vexed subject of local government reorganisation, so please don’t turn the page just yet.

Now is your chance as residents of Dorset to have a say on whether your councils should merge. And let’s be clear.

It is in everyone’s interest that as many people as possible engage with this.

We are here because four council leaders (Bournemouth, Poole, Christchurch and East Dorset) agreed last year that, indeed, something must be done.

They grasped the nettle after years of ‘politics’ being the stumbling block to any sensible discussion.

The financial problems of councils, their long term viability, the need to cut costs, reductions in government grants and the devolution agenda have all played a part in bringing us to this point; the proposal to merge the nine existing principal local authorities into two unitaries.

Having two small unitaries like Bournemouth and Poole side by side has never made any sense from a cost perspective, in the duplication departments and the delivery of services.

Some, including former Bournemouth council leaders Douglas Eyre and David Trenchard have long argued for uniting the conurbation. We have written columns in support of this particular idea (Bournemouth and Poole together) on numerous occasions. However there is a ‘but.’

And it surrounds the current public consultation process, which has already been described by some councillors, and at least one MP, as flawed.

Council leaders and chief executives say they now want to hear from the public, after council leaders and chief officers have negotiated and agreed what should be put to the public.

We must assume they want a vibrant, extensive and well informed debate.

We must also assume they want to provide as much information as possible to that end and so that the ‘reshaping’ process can be as open and transparent as possible.

Which should mean entirely.

Clearly that’s not exactly how it all started as the original Gang of Four caught the other leaders and chief executives cold when they went public last summer.

Last week the chief executive of Dorset County Council, admitted the announcement by the four conurbation councils that they were investigating a merger “caused a few ripples.,” elsewhere. That was possibly the understatement of the year.

Critics fear the consultation process is merely a box ticking exercise and that a merger of Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch is already a “done deal”.

It’s a phrase that has been bandied about for months by some councillors in Poole, Bournemouth and Christchurch.

Council chief executives strongly rejected the notion when they launched the process.

But according to one Bournemouth councillor, the deal is very much done, at least in the minds of those pushing it forward.

Several Bournemouth councillors attended a private briefing for Christchurch councillors at Highcliffe Castle last week and showed their dismay, displeasure even, when their ancient borough colleagues indicated they were not quite so keen on the union.

Bournemouth councillors have been kept informed every step of the way, apparently.

The obvious point from the Gunning principles of consultation is that a decision maker cannot consult on a decision that it has already made.

The concerns about the consultation include the following;

The consultation document highlights one particular option (Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch) as clearly more “financially beneficial” and “provides the most effective and efficient way to deliver services in future.”

The key driver for this whole exercise is a financial one and the reader is led towards an inevitable conclusion.

The option of no change has been ruled out as has a single unitary, without any clear explanation over whose decision this was.

The documents lack identifiable ownership. No-one has signed them.

The length of the consultation, which is only eight weeks, is arguably against the spirit of the Gunning principles because of the complexity and far reaching nature of the proposals.

The main questions on the public questionnaire effectively ask respondents if they want councils to save money and protect services. It’s unlikely many people will disagree with that. So how will these obviously leading questions be assessed?

The council leaders will consider the responses - but surely all councillors should be involved?

There is no business case for the public to consider - it won’t be available until November. How does this sit with another Gunning principle that as much information as possible should be available to make an informed decision?

Councils will discuss the final options only after council leaders have come up with them. Where is the democratic mandate in this?

The consultation papers contain no detail of how key services like housing and planning will work and unless I have missed it, there has been no discussion in public on these critical matters.

The random sample of 20,000 homes is likely to elicit a 10 per cent response (if that) from residents plus a couple of hundred at best from the roadshows.

The population of Dorset is 765,000.

There is clearly time to put more facts out there. It’s difficult to understand why there is such a rush to judgement. Local government as we know it will not end if the process is longer and more rigorous.

The UK has just been through a process shot through with a lack of facts, misinformation, misdirection, reheated myths and downright lies.

The Electoral Reform Society said the EU referendum was dogged by “glaring democratic deficiencies.” People felt ill-informed by the “dire” debate.

No-one wants to do the Brexit debacle all over again.

See Monday’s paper for a response from the nine leaders of the Dorset councils.