LABOUR councillors toed the party line yesterday, offering a warm welcome to the prospect of regional assemblies. But behind the public facade of a united front, a free-for-all is beginning to determine which councillors will be left in a job when the assembly sits in three or four years' time.

To make way for the assemblies, and to justify their expense, a tier of local government will be stripped away. This means that, for the second time in eight years, district and county councils in our region are left fighting for survival.

In 1994, the Local Government Commission, headed by Sir John Banham, examined on the structure of councils in England. Arising out of its deliberations emerged the abolition of Cleveland, and the upgrading of Middlesbrough, Stockton, Hartlepool and Redcar to unitary authorities.

County Durham retained its two-tier structure everywhere except Darlington, where there was a vociferous case for unitary status and independence.

In North Yorkshire, too, there was status quo save for York being granted unitary status.

This mishmash of district, county and unitary councils will not survive the imminent review by the Boundary Commission, which will pave the way for the establishment of regional assemblies in the North-East and in Yorkshire. There will be no scope for a fudge this time round.

But as Banham discovered, there are no easy answers to reform. His instinct was to create large unitary authorities.

In County Durham, this instinct led him to propose a unitary authority for Darlington and one for the rest of the county, making district councils extinct.

In Yorkshire and Humberside, he adopted a similar approach, resurrecting the North, East and West Ridings and the City of York as unitary entities.

In the end he was beaten by public opinion, by polls which displayed a remarkable affinity with local district councils and local services. This was reflected in the half-hearted reform which eventually was borne out of the Banham Commission.

The Government's push for regional assemblies does not allow any room for such sentiment this time round. Local government reform will be based strictly on pragmatic and practical considerations.

One question posed will be are the district councils big enough to justify elevation to unitary status? Another will be are the county councils too remote to be responsible for local services? Is it practical, for example, for the same council to be responsible for emptying bins at a remote farmhouse near Middleton-in-Teesdale and a council estate in Seaham?

It is plain that the remaining district councils, on the grounds of economies of scale, are not big enough to go-it-alone. For instance, there are some who think Darlington's recent round of big council tax increases is because the town is not big enough to warrant control over its schools and social services. What chance is there for Teesdale or Chester-le-Street to survive?

Durham County Council leader Ken Manton seems confident of victory in the review. "A single countywide council was our preferred unitary option in the last reorganisation and we shall be pressing for it again," he says.

He gets support from Newcastle council leader Tony Flynn, chairman of campaign group the North-East Assembly. He predicts that yesterday's announcement does not mean the abolition of Northumberland and Durham county councils.

But torn between the conflicting yet legitimate claims of the districts and the counties, the Boundary Commission may opt for a compromise. A 'third way' in New Labour language..

At one stage in its deliberations, almost a decade ago, the Banham Commission not only revived the Ridings of Yorkshire, but it also actively considered the abolition of Durham County Council in favour of a merger of Sedgefield, Wear Valley and Teesdale, the joining of Durham City and Easington, and the amalgamation of Chester-le-Street and Derwentside as three unitary authorities.

There are already signs of a movement for merger within the district councils which will see the extinction of Durham County Council.

Wear Valley District Council leader Olive Brown says: "Each district will be fighting tooth and nail to survive, but at some stage along the line, there'll have to be some sort of coming together of local authorities."

Teesdale District Council chairman Newton Wood sees the writing on the wall for one of the country's smallest local authorities. "Whichever way they decide, it looks pretty ominous for Teesdale. If they get rid of county councils we will more than likely be phased into another district council."

Durham City Labour group spokesman Mick Bennett says: "We already have experience of working with other authorities through our concordat with Easington and Sedgefield councils." The merger of districts, rather than their destruction, is a compromise which may win favour with a Government desperate to have a central plank of its devolution programme up and running before the next General Election.

It will also leave Durham County Hall vacant, ready for a new lease of life as the home of England's first regional assembly.