... and the only people more foolish, ignorant, bigotted, arrogant and corrupt are the rest of the population.
I don't have a huge regard for many MPs (particularly, not for the 'professional' politicians who live in a politically-correct glass bubble and have never had a proper job in the real world) and I would like to see 'better' MPs. So would many other people, it appears.
However, how does anyone think we are going to get better MPs if we decide to pay them less? There seems to be a popular resentment of "toffs" or rich people who enter politics, but if you want more "ordinary" people in parliament, they need to be able to afford to be there. Anyone bright enough and industrious to make a good MP should be capable of commanding a good salary outside parliament; why should they be expected to earn less if they enter politics?
The only people who are prepared to put their politics ahead of the need to provide well for their families tend to be the fanatics, political zealots or nutters - just as undesirable and just as un-representative, in their own way, as the "toffs".
You don't always get what you pay for in this world, but you are even less likely to get what you don't pay for, and if you pay MPs badly you are likely to get bad MPs. Certainly, MPs should not set their own salaries, but the only alternative is to have an independent body to do this. And either it is independent, or it is not.
So if such an independent body as IPSA makes a decision, live with it. My view may not be a common or a popular one, but I am actually in favour of paying MPs well (and reducing or eliminating dodgy "expenses"). Look at the comparison with other countries. I am not impressed by the hypocritical posturing of the party leaders and I am inclined to support MP Charles Walker in his statement that "I am fed-up of having my pay and conditions politicised for political gain by the leaders of the three main political parties".
Just my opinion of course, and you are perfectly free to be wrong and to disagree with me.