At arm’s length

MODERN day councils seem hell bent on distancing themselves from the amenities they are voted into office to maintain, or not as it seems.
Police, housing, sport, (leisure), parking, street cleaning, markets, highway maintenance, rubbish collection, schools, healthcare, and public transport. Local councils have, over the years, one way or other distanced themselves from the amenities that communities rely on.
Save money is the by-line.
That being so why is council land, given away, sold for a pound or land that was a public open space handed over for housing, even affordable and social. 
Where did that council land originate from, a gracious benefactor or bought with rate payer’s money? 
What caveats are in place to stop any future sales onto private interests.
Council housing stock was handed over to trusts, one arms length. 
South Wales Argus article earlier this year, “Newport City Council will also no longer investigate complaints from people living in social housing” (Me). The arm got longer. 
A couple more voting generations and it will be forgotten the accommodation was ever owned by the rate paying voters and the council will wash its hands of responsibility completely. 
Who will profit? Rate paying voters?
As each voting generation comes along responsibilities are changed and because the younger generation know no difference they think it’s an improvement. 
Not always, nor is it, in the long run cheaper. 
Best example I can think of. 
“Watch committee” local and, I think then, unpaid councillors, keeping an eye on local police. 
Are crime commissioner’s offices better or cheaper?