I am disappointed that IPSA are continuing down this route.No other public servant is being considered for a back-dated cost of living rise, and to argue that by giving them more money in salary will prevent abuse of the expenses system sounds like it is rewarding fraud, to me.
Nor do I quite understand this argument that by offering bigger salaries that will balance out the number of rich people in parliament. When talking about the salaries of MPs, and salary comparisons, people always, always forget to factor in the other elements of the remuneration package - the very generous expenses schemes, the free travel, the very generous pension, the estimated 100K a year in addition to their 65K salary they get to cover office expenses, the fact that the vast majority of MPs hire family members or spouses as assistants and pay them generous salaries out of the public purse - MPs like Nadine Dorries, for instance, who has hired both her daughters as her office manager at salaries of 45K a year.
This is all just for being a bog-standard MP - if you are appointed a minister you get an additional salary, so a cabinet minister will be getting, on top of their 65K a year salary, their all-encompassing expenses and generous pension and 100K a year office allowance, an additional 100K a year or so.
Let them introduce a performance related element to their pay first - how many sittings of the HoC do they attend. How quick are they to respond to a constituents issues. Lets open up the hiring and firing practices of MPs for their assistants first, so we are not funnelling more tax-payers money into their pockets.Lets see a change in their pension arrangements to better reflect the current economic realities.
Then and only then should they be considered for a pay rise.