Notebook will shortly be closing it pages for good as Councillor Lamb heads off on a well-earned retirement.

But before that happy release, we must try to answer the perennial question: What are we going to do about local government?

The public attendance at Barnet Council and committee meetings was never great, but it is fast shrinking to zero.

The introduction of a public question time at the start of many meetings has been a complete flop.

Survey after survey has shown local government is poorly regarded, as much at Westminster as among the general public who can't be bothered to vote.

The Government's answer has been to force councils to reorganise and concentrate power in a chosen few an elected mayor or a cabinet.

Either way it is a system that sidelines the majority of councillors.

Notebook would like to propose a more radical solution for London.

The present pattern of London boroughs was established in 1964. Since then we have had two revisions of local government outside London.

But within the capital the only changes have been the demise of the GLC and now its replacement by the GLA.

The fact that we once again have a London-wide authority underlines the question: Do we need 32 London boroughs?

It is a thought that keeps me awake at night.

When I think of Barnet and even more when I remember the Brent which I covered a few years ago I pull the bedclothes over my head and scream.

It is ruinously expensive to split London into 32 units and then to endlessly duplicate all the bureaucracy and red tape that goes with it.

People at the sharp end in public service are often badly paid but the officers further up the ladder do very nicely thank you.

(And there is much talk within local government that councillors and senior officers should be paid substantially more in a bid to raise standards!).

Local government is the home of political shenanigans. You would be amazed at the amount of plotting and effort that goes into tripping up opponents.

Add to this the strongest possible dose of political correctness, and the apparent necessity to observe to the letter every bit of crack-pot legislation that comes from Whitehall or Brussels, and you will understand why speed, flexibility and efficiency are not the trademarks of local government.

The big argument in favour of the present set-up is that it's democracy in action.

A group of local people, rooted in the community, decide what is best for their borough.

I fear the "local" element in local government particularly in London is in sad decline.

National government is the paymaster of councils and increasingly dictates what they do.

One of the marked trends is the externalisation (privatisation) of council services.

It began under the wicked Tories in the face of bitter Labour and union opposition. Now Labour is firmly in control it is being pushed along with some vigour.

As Notebook remarked a few weeks back we are moving towards the "enabling council".

This is a council that simply dishes out four-year contracts. Once the contracts are running the councillors can have no influence over what goes on.

The town hall spin machine is keen for it to be known that "not-for-profit" partners are preferred for these enterprises.

In fact it is still necessary to produce a surplus if these activities are to thrive. And surplus is just a polite name for profit.

But regardless of that, the terms of the contract will dictate how the service operates, and the council has no day-to-day control.

I am aware of no proof that this is what the public wants. In fact there is an undercurrent of concern. This has clearly been seen in the frosty reception to the Government plans for a "public private partnership" running the Tube.

I can see no indication that these partnerships have led to any improvement in services. Councils appear to be going down this route through financial desperation and because it reflects government policy.

But with both main parties backing this approach, there is unlikely to be any change.

Party politics have an iron grip on local government, and this certainly helps to diminish any "local" influence.

Most London boroughs are currently Labour controlled. And they seem to have very similar policies and initiatives.

It is hardly a secret that a lot of "guidance" comes straight from party HQ. Councils put out a lot of spin about consultation and meeting local needs. In fact it seems to be a case of one size fits all.

The fashion for public consultation is largely meaningless, and frequently manipulated by councils to get the results they want.

For example, any consultation on the amount of the council tax increase will mean public support for the lowest figure on offer.

So the council offers a list of possible increases, making sure the figure they want is the lowest on the list.

Even more pointless has been the recent consultation on the administrative system the councils should adopt.

Most councils, like Barnet, wanted a cabinet system and worked hard to ensure it was chosen.

Why ask the public anyway? People know little and care less about the relative merits of different systems. What the public wants is good services, and this can arguably be done best by larger units with adequate resources.

The local roots of political parties are often not as deep as they would have us believe.

The parties are famously bashful about their membership. I am told that in many wards the individual parties will be lucky to rustle up 20 members, and some of these zealots how shall we put it? hardly represent mainstream residents.

Yet it is this handful of people who select the council candidates from among themselves.

This all points to the fact there is nothing very local about the council. What it does do could just as well be administered on a much wider basis. In fact it would be significantly cheaper and with more resources available it might well be done more effectively.

An authority covering, say a quarter of London, would be the focus of much more attention and scrutiny than the present 32 boroughs.

I would like to think this would encourage greater efficiency and, hopefully, less political infighting.

So the Notebook plan for London is:

1) Give the GLA a proper role (Ken Livingstone won't be mayor for ever).

2) Have four area councils (north, south, east and west) covering the Greater London area.

If anyone says we will lose the local influence, Notebook would reply, what influence?

Certainly we should develop a network of one-stop shops to ensure local access to council services, and we could retain area forums public meetings to discuss parish problems. And planning applications should be discussed at localised planning sub-committees.

But apart from that I would sweep away councils, councillors and layers of bureaucracy by the ton.

The savings would be enormous, and a single area council would be in a brighter spotlight to encourage efficiency and minimise political shenanigans.