IT sounds very democratic, almost New Labour in concept. Swindon residents are to be asked whether they prefer a council tax hike this spring of five, 7.5 or 10 per cent, as reported in yesterday's Advertiser.

Some people might say that it is no more than a choice between which way taxpayers would prefer to be bled to death - a quick kill or a slower haemorrhage.

However, this is not another Government initiative but the decision of Swindon's Tory-dominated council cabinet.

And even though the public's verdict will not be binding, council leader Mike Bawden (Con, Old Town and Lawn) insists this consultation is no gimmick.

Coun Bawden has been in politics too long to fall into the trap that bedevilled Bristol City Council three years ago.

Bristol invited its residents to nominate how much an increase should be levied and pledged to honour the majority verdict. Surprise, surprise - people power plumped overwhelmingly for a fat zero, resulting in the collapse of many services.

"In the end it has to be the council's decision," said Coun Bawden.

"We cannot let people down, especially the vulnerable, just to try to make ourselves popular.

"We are elected to make hard decisions and we can't pass the buck back to the public. However, it's our duty to consult and we genuinely want to find out the public mood.

"Inevitably, there's a breaking point and we need to identify what that is."

Although councils are obligated in law to have a consultation process, the method is left to individual authorities. Asking the public to nominate its own preferred tax rise is still novel, in spite of - or in view of - the Bristol experiment.

But Coun Kevin Small (Western), the leader of the council's Labour group, is not impressed, fearing a sham.

"I warned of cuts to come and that's the reality," he said.

"Consultation is pointless unless the public has a real choice and are told where the cuts will be made if they opt for a low percentage rise.

"Libraries, recreational services and community centres will all be on the chopping block unless the budget is realistic and responsible."

Liberal Democrat leader Mike Evemy (Eastcott) is also calling for greater transparency and for the public to be under no illusion about what services will suffer if the budget is pruned to meet popular demand.

5%

To keep an increase pegged to five per cent, additional savings of £4.534 million would have to be found.

The council's finance officers have reported that a rise of 13.1 cent is needed to provide acceptable services.

The figure of £4.534 million to be slashed from the budget to keep a rise held down to five per cent is based on 13.1 per cent being the target. If five per cent wins the day, then a number of frontline services could be compromised.

Refuse collection could go from weekly to fortnightly, recycling collections might become less frequent and a big question mark would hang over street cleaning and road maintenance.

Approximate bill to D band payers: £1,100.

7.5 %

A 7.5 per cent increase would demand savings of £3.127 million over and above the 13.1 per cent notional figure.

Although cutbacks in frontline services would be less severe, some rationing would have to be invoked.

However, social services would be left alone, but there would almost certainly be less frequent refuse and recycling collections and street cleaning. The maintenance of council-owned grounds and leisure facilities might also suffer.

Approximate bill to D band payers: £1,127.

10%

A 10 per cent rise would mean cuts from the budget of £1.721 million again above and beyond the 13.1 per cent.

This would be achieved by tinkering with a number of services, but avoiding the more draconian measures associated with large-scale cost-cutting.

Even with a 10 per cent rise, the quality of a number of services would be at risk, including the repair and upkeep of public buildings and the council-owned housing stock.

Approximate bill to D band payers: £1,153.

Michael Litchfield