Sort out the real politicians from those who only use politics to jump on the gravy train.

1) Fixed wages (taxable)

2) No family employed

3) No being employed on the boards of companies for extra money or leverage

4) No "perks of the job" or fact-finding trips

5) No using public funds to furnish your office or home

What does it matter if a secretary gets taken to lunch from time to time, or the official car gets used to pick up the shopping?

Put a cap on it, by all means --- but let there be perks.

UK is just too damned prudish these days.

I'm inclined to agree with Markmac and Thad's sentiments; a lot of this is down to media sensationalism and much is twisted rollocks. Remember that an MP can be in a position for just one term of office, and that is a maximum of five years before the P45 beckons, so pay should reflect this. And seeing as private firms pay for employees' home office equipment then it's a bit rich to deny this to people appointed by the public.

What is disturbing is the lack of common sense applied to a lot of the discrete allowances. For example, why on earth can a London MP still be entitled to the second home allowance when they live locally? Or the recent suggestion of receiving an attendance payment? That's absurd and they really should recognise that. That they look after their own interests only increases public cynicism. As long as this goes on then they cannot preach to others about self-regulation.

Buy or build a block of 350 furnished flats in London. They can all live there. Takes away the 'living away allowance'

Have secretarial support available when needed. Removes the need for family members.

Increase salary marginally (say £80K) then no more non-receipt backed expenses, directorships or other jobs. Takes away any accusations of conflicts of interest.

Not rocket science is it?

"compared to private-sector jobs with similar responsibility they're underpaid" NO THEY ARE NOT.

Almost everybody thinks they are underpaid for what they do and can point to someone else with less responsibility and more money. Members of Parliament are supposed to represent us, so they should be paid a representative salary, i.e. the MEDIAN (not mean) annual income. There is always an oversupply of people wanting the job, so the supply of incompetent, short-sighted, self-serving, unaccountable liars to sit at the centre of our police state will never dry up.

Douglas Adams was right; no-one capable of getting themselves elected to a position of power should ever be allowed to do the job.

You've got to be kidding me. Some arse takes my money under duress and spends it on himself, and it's 'prudish' to object?

I agree with the fixed salary suggestion. It could be quite a high fixed salary, but absolutely no perks and absolutely no other employment. And a revision of the electoral system would be welcome too.

Because I was refused costs for the eyetest I'm supposed to take. Why? Although the forms were signed, there was no till receipt. They could just freaking well check the cost ig they want to. And filling in a form fraudulently for me is a sackable offense.

So why not sack these sons of britches?

ordinary pension, minimal allowances. Frankly, MP's salary looks a little light compared to other comparable professions (Doctor, Lawyer, TV Presenter), so I'd be all for a marked improvement in their basic pay and the virtual elimination of their claimable expenses - mortgage interest (or rent) on London residencies WHERE NEEDED ONLY - I'd put a 2hour commute as the maximum an MP should be expected to travel to parliament. Up to £100K pa seems reasonable, considering both the demands and potential volatility of the job.

Who, apart from the MPs themselves, seriously think that they are comparable to doctors and lawyers? You have to go through serious education, exams & training to get those jobs. Both lawyers and doctors are accountable to professional bodies, although the effectiveness of those bodies can be questioned. When has anybody been held accountable for:

The raid on pension scheme incomes that has made final salary schemes non-viable except for goverment employees?

The lies on the WMDs in Iraq?

The declaration of an illegal war in Iraq?

The failure to resource our troops properly in Afganistan & Iraq?

The over-complicated EU farm subsidy system in the UK resulting in fines from the EU and non-payment to farmers?

The millions of pounds appropriated from taxpayers and wasted on IT cock-ups (CSA, NHS...)?

Failure to maintain diversity and security of energy supply in the UK?

No new main-line railway electrification scheme for over 10 years?

Scotish MPs votes were critical to introduce tuition fees in England, yet they do not apply to Scottich universities. Is this fair?

The creation of a de-facto police state where the police regard the law as inapplicable to them in all matters from traffic offences all the way to cold-blooded murder?

No real qualifications needed in most places to be a manager either. And that's what MPs effectively are - managers. A quick search on the web found that Richmond-on-Thames had well over £100m going through its hands each year. So, would your typical business with a turnover of £100m be paying its CEO more or less than £60k? I think it's a safe bet it'd be more, don't you?

I don't say they necessarily do a good job, but that's why we have the option of getting rid of the buggers if it turns out they've screwed it up. It's also why there's a minimum term, so that what looks like a short-term screw-up might actually be better long-term.

A CEO is responsible to the shareholders and the goverment, and will have firm targets to meet. The CEO can go to prison if their employees commit a broad range of misdeeds such as fraud, tax evasion, discrimination, health & safety violations. A CEO must finely balance the requirements of shareholders, customers, employess and regulators. In comparison an MP can do absolutley nothing and still be paid.

The comparison with a local council is apt: the councillors generally get attendance allowance and expences because there will be a professional management team doing the hard work of actually running things.

In contrast many MPs have spent their entire life climbing the greasy pole, and have never run anything in their life, and do not do so at Westminster. They are supposed to be our representatives, they cannot do this if their salary is not representative of what most people receive.