REGARDING the sore issue of councillors' allowances, your reporter opened his story with the crisp words, "councillors pocketed £686,000 between them last year - even though voters were forced to stomach another Council Tax rise".

Am I alone with the cynical thought, "so that is why they are so keen to stand?"

It is not as if councillors always responsibly get back to residents who have contacted them, and, as for the claim that they need to be rewarded since they lose out on promotion at work, well this doesn't apply to the many who are retired, so please don't insult our intelligence.

The figures supplied are that the basic "pay" is around £150 per week, which doubles the state retirement income. For additional duties, many councillors are on around £248-£400 per week. I can also see just why former Labour leader Bob Howarth looked so glum on election night, as he is more than £600 per week down, and his former deputy around £400 down!

The most galling claim is that the payments should really be met by central government. So that would be better then? As if still not coming from public taxation and if the Government were to find £150m or so for councillors' allowances across the country, then that is money not going on NHS dentist provision or cataract surgery, for example.

I suggest that councillors, especially the party in charge, work very hard at stripping out waste, and aim to have a Council Tax rise of inflation, or less next April. You have six months before the preliminary decision is made! Also, the deeply unpopular £10 bulky item waste removal charge should be discontinued. The numbers using the service have declined dramatically last year as a result of the charge.

If councillors can afford to pay themselves £686,000 per year, they can afford to scrap this refuse charge, which only brings in around one-tenth of the cost of councillors, and the public have already paid anyway through their Council Tax bill.

Bolton Council is one very expensive operation, and the absence of any competition is to the public's cost, in more ways than one.

(Name and address supplied)