Currently MPs receive a salary of £65,738, have a generous final salary pension scheme, and receive a resettlement grant of around £30,000 if they stand down or are defeated at an election. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) is proposing MPs receive a one-off uplift in basic salary to £74k which will then increase at the same rate as annual earnings, a standard pension scheme, and a much smaller resettlement grant restricted to MPs who are defeated at election. The changes will not cost any more than the existing system. Do you support or oppose IPSA's proposal?
•	If we want MPs to be more representative, they need to be paid well, and the election process needs to be less expensive for candidates.
•	Increase rate with annual earnings start from the present level; keep the redundancy pay; reduce pension plan.
•	Support in principle, but it would be difficult to justify this in current economic circumstances.
•	Timing. It is the right thing to do but absolutely the wrong time to do it.
•	support in principle but the time is not right.
•	Support – but the raise should be post dated while the resettlement etc should come into force now.
•	It may be right but it is the wrong time to propose it.
•	Good Mps are worth their weight in gold, BUT this parliament has sacked its loyal staff, belittled them as benefit scroungers, teased them with tax reductions for employed people, cut the buses, made it almost compulsory for them to buy and maintain computers if they want to get a job, and at the same time allowed executive pay to increase in peas and bounds. They have brought shame on themselves and really should not get paid a penny at his stage.
•	I support it for the most part, but unfortunately it will only lead to more hatred of the political system.
Opinion: 2014 – What's next?
There is never a 'right time' for MPs to raise their salaries(or councillors their allowances), but the point is that this is not about giving the current bunch a pay rise but about setting a fair rate of pay for the next lot.
The basic MPs' salary should be clearly tied to another salary level so that neither they not IPSA have to make these sorts of decisions.
Personally I'd set it at twice the median full time salary – clear recognition that the role of a backbench MP is an important one, but not so high that they will be seen to be out of touch. It also means that, in broad terms, their fortunes will rise and fall with those of the general population.
I'd take a similar approach with pensions, accommodation etc., MPs should get broadly the same arrangements as other full time workers – and I would move all parliamentary staff salaries to Parliament rather than calling them 'expenses'.
Not sure what part of this is confusing you Neil.
I think Peter Tyzack has got it exactly right in his comment above.