What are councillors for? It should be an easy question, but it is getting harder to answer as the role of councillors becomes more complex, and more blurred. At The MJ's recent Future Forum event, one of the speakers – who shall remain nameless – pointed out that government ministers never think about local government. They may ponder who to resolve the adult care crisis, how to tackle obesity or consider ways to boost economic growth – all local government issues – but ministers rarely think about local authorities as a solution. But that goes even more for councillors. Central government knows they exist – but it's not sure exactly what to do with them, aside from delivering leaflets for elections. Under the current government, councillors can be anything from ‘glorified boy scouts' through to an elected chief executive, depending on who you talk to and what mood they are in. Over recent years, the role of elected members has been increasingly professionalised, as the role of council chief executive has been downgraded in terms of pay, position and – more worryingly – in being able to speak truth unto power. Now the Government is planning to remove councillors' right to be part of the local government pension scheme because there is a belief they should undertake public services for love, not money. It seems we want our councillors to be everything – professional, capable, infallible and free. Just how many people actually fit into all of the above? The plans show a real lack of respect for elected members in local government – but no surprise there. What is more shocking is that MPs don't seem to notice the irony that they are paid and pensioned – but don't think councillors need to be. It is up to local government to decide what the role of councillors are – but central government needs to decide what its approach to members will be: professional, amateur or something in between? Make a choice and stick to it.