THE public’s instinctive reaction to any calls from politicians saying they want more money usually brings about the use of words such as ‘snout’, ‘trough’ and gravy train’.

None of these sneering terms can be applied to the latest proposals for allowances paid to members of Kirklees Council – an increase of 2.475%.

Councillors who meet tomorrow to decide on the level of their rise are not bound by the recommendation of an independent panel.

But they would be well advised to go along with it – or face a public outcry.

Many tax payers are struggling to cope with the massive increases in the cost of living and it would be a kick in the teeth if councillors were to award themselves above-inflation hikes.

Many people believe that councillors should not receive anything at all, beyond out-of-pocket expenses, arguing that the public service ethos should be the primary reason for standing.

However, there’s a very good case for giving basic allowances to councillors.

The simple rationale behind it is that younger people in full-time jobs who want to become councillors are being put off because of the loss in wages.

Holding an elected post involves a lot of time if it is to be done properly and nobody should lose out financially because of it.

The one big fault of the present system is that individual councils set their own allowances, with the result that the scale varies widely across the country.

It would be better to have a nationwide independent remuneration panel to recommend a framework.

Not only would it bring standardisation, but it would also mean councils no longer needing to set up and pay for local panels, which can cost as much as the average annual allowances of two councillors.