HAVING read Councillor Renard's recent pronouncements I found myself checking the date, only to observe it was October 1 and not April 1.

Alas, his comments were anything but a jest.

For many months the leader of the council, providing the same mantra as his predecessor, has been telling SA readers how they must prepare for change in the way local government provides council services, fewer services delivered with reduced frequency and in some cases provided by a third party charity or a not-for-profit organisation.

He and his colleagues seem to forget these services are what we pay for by way of taxation.

In his most recent announcement he says that not only will the people have less, despite paying more, the checks and balances provided by their representatives will be brought to an end as democratic elected councillors are forced to release what he refers to as "some of the formal controls."

I imagine the Euclid Street mafioso will be delighted at the thought that councillors would no longer be able to instruct officers, demand answers to questions, challenge their ineptitude or oversee the delivery of services.

Cllr Renard states: "Where once members could issue instructions, we will now only be able to invite or request support from partners."

Is this what the electorate expect our 57 local councillors to become, petitioners for favours and beggars for help?

Cllr Renard may well like the idea of reducing a politician’s role in local government, albeit I imagine the elite in the cabinet may well retain powers unto themselves, but in telling the public what is going happen he ignores the fact that he has no formal mandate to make such significant changes to a system which relies on the will of the people being expressed through the ballot box.

It is typically silly of Coun Renard to suggest his changes reflect a modern approach, whereas anyone who challenges him is living in the past.

We all know the council is not functioning as it did 100 years ago at every level conceivable.

He concludes with what can be described as the most asinine of comments, suggesting that "administrative visibility will make individuals more accountable."

Experience affords ample evidence of the amazing lengths to which councillors and officers will go to cover their mistakes, citing commercial confidentiality, the public interest or the cost of providing information as reasons not to disclose information which might be used to show their incompetence.

Sometimes the only way to cut through the fog of deception and prevarication is to enlist the support of an elected councillor.

The decision to neuter the only group capable of an effective internal challenge to the officer cadre will enable the executive to indulge in a binge of unfettered power, which I am not persuaded will serve the town well.

DES MORGAN Caraway Drive, Swindon