At least that's one thing we can all be happy about.

We're all in it together.

I'd be OK with it if it also came with a bar on outside earnings while in office and stricter rules on expenses. But it doesn't. So I'm not.

11% for them and 1% for some of us.

Indeed.

It's still not a lot for the stature of people you would ideally want in such a role.

Whilst we might ideally love for MPs to perform for their beliefs rather than money, really we will get:
Those rich enough not to need the money.
MPs taking outside work to generate pay.
A dodgy expense system used to subsidise an inadequate pay scheme.

Sir Ian Kennedy says what with other reforms around pay and expenses this increase will not cost the taxpayer an extra penny.
So just what is the problem?
Yeah,sure Sir Ian.

The "extra penny" bullcrap seems to basically be saying that it "won't cost any extra" only on the basis that the extras perks and scams some of them fiddle at the moment will instead be converted to salary. Great. You no longer need to scam it, cos we're giving you all an extra 11% so you don't have to.

That's a similar excuse to the one used to justify paying CEOs £sqillions and it's utter bullcrap.

Without the increase, MPs are on a basic that is more than twice the average wage and is similar to recently qualified doctors, better than the vast majority of teachers and lawyers all of whom do not enjoy an expense system that would make an oligarch envious.

If MPs reckon they're struggling financially and could earn more elsewhere, let them resign. There'd be no shortage of applicants to replace them

But would the applicants be any good? Is the skill set of a recently qualified doctor, majority of teachers or lawyers adequate for that kind of position?

If the incumbents are any indicator of required skills, I reckon I could get 650 equally qualified candidates straight off the dole queue

....and isn't that exactly where I started this?