THE news that Worcester city councillors have moved a step closer to awarding themselves a 10 per cent increase in allowances will be greeted with howls of derision in some quarters.

At a time when the city is struggling to make £750,000 in cuts to vital services, this does not, on the face of it, seem a particularly politically astute move.

Just last week, council leader Stephen Inman was warning of "some unpleasant cuts in provision" following confirmation of the central Government grant.

The council has been awarded a 2.3 per cent budget increase from Downing Street, only just above the 2.2 per cent national minimum.

"It's a poor show, though we will naturally balance the budget somehow," we reported him saying the day after the award was announced.

How proposing to award themselves a 10 per cent rise in allowances fits into that picture, is difficult to see.

We do, of course, recognise that councillors refused any increase last year and that, given the extra responsibilities taken on by members, it is only right that they receive sufficient remuneration.

The principle that councillors are awarded enough money to ensure their ranks are drawn from all walks of society, and not just those with private means, is one very close to our hearts.

However, is a 10 per cent increase in allowances the best message to send to the council tax-paying people of Worcester at this time?

We very much doubt it.