Letter: Position on ip&e

Whichever way ip&e's own communications company presents the case for its parent company, it is bad news in terms of its direct effect on democratic processes. However much political spin you put on it, changes to local government will mean, to paraphrase Keith Barrow, less cost because less service.

The expression often used to describe what they're doing is "transformational change". They insist that the changes they are being forced to make are actually driven by your expectations, because you expect the best; that transformational change means that your expectations will be met in a more efficient form for less cost. It is a bit like being told that the pile of lettuce leaves you have just been given is actually better for you than the steak you ordered, and cheaper.

The reality is that, for all Councillor Barrow's mystified reactions regarding opposition to his plans, ip&e is an outcome decided by force of numbers not force of argument.

Councillor Barrow appears genuinely to believe he has no influence over the forces that compel him towards ip&e.

Perhaps I shouldn't come down too hard on Keith Barrow because he's not alone. Councils across the UK are being forced to paint themselves into the same corner. I just wish he wasn't so enthusiastic about doing such a good job of it. He seems more concerned to have us admire the colour of the paint rather than protest about being placed in a position we wouldn't have agreed to if we had been told what the full implications of his re-decoration scheme really meant.

There used to be a convention that local councillors served as the bulwark against central government attempts to impose whatever party ideology happened to be flavour of the month in Westminster. .

In that sense austerity hasn't really changed things, just made them much worse by handing central government the opportunity not just to remove the bulwarks of local opposition.

But apparently "the people of Shropshire voted for this". That is an interesting take on the situation, confirming that political parties assume a mandate for everything in their manifesto, even when parts of it would be manifestly disliked if they were spelled out in detail.

As I see it, the only way to make everyone behind ip&e accountable for the outcome is to make the person driving these changes, in this case the Leader of the Council, a directly-elected chief executive and therefore accountable to all the people of Shropshire.

Now that is a corner a lot of us would not mind being painted. As we waited in that corner for the paint to dry with the person who got us there, we would have the undivided attention of someone who had something to lose if they didn't listen – very carefully.

Dave Tremellen

Member for Highley