The ruling majority at Watford Borough Council has dismissed opposition proposals for a cut in councillors’ allowances as “gesture politics”.

At a meeting of the full council last night, opposition Labour councillors, with the backing of the Green group, put forward a motion that councillors should slash their pay by 10 per cent with senior councils and the mayor taking a 20 per cent hit.

However the move was rejected by the ruling Liberal Democrat group and Conservatives who said the allowances had been set by the previous ruling Labour administration and not risen since then.

The council did agree proposals from an independent panel to freeze all councillor and mayoral allowances for the next year.

The motion for the deeper cut was put forward by Leggatts Labour councillor, Asif Khan, who said councillors should share the pain of residents of Watford who were experiencing pay freezes and job losses.

He honed his attack on the £65,000 basic salary of Liberal Democrat Dorothy Thornhill, saying she was a luxury the council could not afford and paid more than other elected mayors in boroughs like Mansfield, who’s on £53,000.

“The bottom line is we are in favour of the mayoral system,” added councillor Khan. “Mayor Thornhill is an expensive luxury we can do without. She demands a Rolls Royce salary but performs like a broken down old Mini. We need a cheaper more efficient and reliable service.”

His comments were backed by the leader of the Labour group, Jagtar Singh Dhindsa, who argued that councillors could afford to take a pay cut. He said: “Nearly all of us have this as a second salary, whether you are retired, work or on benefits.”

Currently councillors are paid a £7,209 basic allowance, chairmen of smaller committees get an extra £2,884 and those who chair larger committees, like the budget panel, get an extra £7,930 allowance.

Senior councillors who hold a portfolio get an extra special responsibility allowance of £10,815 on top of their basic pay.

The mayor gets a salary equivalent of a backbench MP of £65,738.

Liberal Democrats hit back at the motion with Councillor Andy Wylie branding it “gesture politics” and “playing to the gallery and the press”.

He defended the cost of the mayor saying that she did not spend money on the trappings of office that other elected mayors did, such as a company car or chauffeur, pointing out she drove a Skoda Park Lib Dem George Derbyshire also came to the defence of Mayor Thornhill, calling Labour’s targeting of her salary and maligning of her record “cheap”.

He added: “If many of the people of Watford heard what you said about the mayor they would be absolutely appalled. What has been achieved in the last nine years has been astonishing and is in large part down to the remarkable leadership of Mrs Thornhill.”

Labour’s stance was also attacked by Oxhey Lib Dem Shirena Counter saying they had proposed a cut in councillor allowances last year but not imposed the cut on themselves voluntarily, to set an example.

Finally Councillor Iain Sharpe, husband of Mayor Thornhill, said councillor allowances had not risen since Labour last controlled the council nine years ago.

He said they had set the mayor’s salary and expenses thinking their own then leader, Vince Muspratt, would be donning the mayoral chain after the first election.

“We know what Labour are getting at. We know what’s motivating them and we know why they are doing it,” he said.

The debate was over recommendations made by the council’s Independent Remuneration Panel who suggested the council scrapped the mayor’s current travel allowance, where she has to provide documentation, and replaced it with a block £1,000 grant.

Other recommendations included that councillors allowances be frozen for the next year and individuals consider taking a voluntary 5 per cent cut.

Regarding the mayor’s salary, the panel recommended it also be frozen, but that its rate also be decoupled from the basic salary of MPs.

Lib Dem councillor George Derbyshire put forward that the council should accept the allowance freezes and note the suggestion of the 5 per cent voluntary cut, which was voted through by a large majority.