This is one of those subjects where you can see that the vast majority of people only ever read the headlines and seldom do they delve into the details.
Remember the expenses scandal? Where most voters were up in arms about MP's expenses? Well after that MP's shat themselves and decided to implement an independent body to set their pay. No longer could they vote to set their own pay.
Sounds sensible right?
Well that body has now come back and proposed that as prh47 has said, scrap certain expenses and instead get a payrise to cover that.
The important part is that this is cost neutral meaning it isn't going to cost us any more than it currently does.
But of course the headlines only lead with "MP's get a 9% payrise!" which if you only ever read the headlines sounds selfish doesn't it? But then the headline "MP's get a 9% payrise but lose a lot of expenses and in the end won't gain anything" doesn't quite have the same ring.
This is what I call the law of unintended consequences. Firstly voters rightly or wrongly don't want MP's to get any payrise. There's a whole swathe of voters who'd love to see MP's get minimum wage or less!
Secondly it's awkward now for the government. Politically it's going to go down like a lead balloon with voters. However if you overrule the independent body then it was never truly independent. If you let them proceed you look like rich boys feathering their own nests.
Lastly think about it. You get what you pay for. If we don't pay them a decent wage you will either get numpties too stupid to get a job better paid anywhere else or someone so rich they don't care about the money and is only in it for the power. I don't want either really.