Is £7,000 a year worth it?

Or £10,000? What is the price of so much vitriol? Most MPs would accept the prospect of a large increase in their salaries with a sense of entitlement. They are, after all, lower paid than some GPs. There are head teachers and chief executives of small or medium-sized companies who out-earn them. Some civil servants do too.

It's about time, many MPs would argue privately, they drew even. They fell behind because there never was a good year to vote themselves a sufficient pay rise. To draw the difficult political sting they handed the decision of how much they should earn to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA). It seems to be backfiring.

Don't take my word for it. Look at the reaction to IPSA's rumoured support for MPs' salaries rising from £66,000 to £75,000 a year. As soon as the story broke Joe Public was up in arms. "Vile", "gravy train" and a number of impolite descriptions of MPs were being bandied about.

The gap between the electorate and its MPs seems irreconcilable. The former would probably back a 10% cut in salaries; many of the latter think a large pay rise is the least they deserve. They're human, you see. And like most of us they measure their station in the world from those above them. For the average backbencher their ranking seems too far down the scale.

They look at the yawning divide between those on big incomes and bonuses and the rest of us and feel they belong with them. The divide is never greater than in London where MPs work during the week. Our law-makers and leaders get to feel they should be positioned in the upper quadrant, with the people they rub shoulders with when they're not in their constituencies. MPs are people of note too, are they not – and yet they wallow in the lower end of middle?

Half of them would have us know that they took pay cuts of £30,000 or more just to become an MP. Unfortunately the electorate's response is unsympathetic. Wasn't it their choice to stand for election? Surely they knew the terms and conditions that came with the job. Aren't there other compensations, perks and pleasures that come with a seat in the mother of parliaments?

MPs are, after all, at the seat of power and part of the action. It's why they fight so hard at election time to retain their seat despite the long hours and time away from home.

The voters (their employers) have a different perspective on all this. They are so far down the salary scale they have cricks in their necks from looking up. From where the average citizen sits, at £25,000-£30,000 a year, their MP looks to be well paid if not on a gravy train. The idea of a 10% hike makes them seethe.

Don't take my word for it. The web and Twitter were awash with anger yesterday. One disabled voter said the increase was greater than his annual income from benefits. Another pointed out that it equated to "3 x Jobseeker's Allowance, 4 x Young Jobseeker's Allowance, almost half the median salary of UK workers" and was, in short, "an insult".

Why, asked several more, weren't MPs ranked among public sector workers who were limited to a 1% rise with 144,000 of them facing the axe?

Reading these angry comments, it surprised me there wasn't more of an uproar when the Queen's annual settlement rose by £35 million. But the Queen is respected. MPs, following the expenses scandal, have still to earn back respect.

The electorate is also out of love with the political process. People can barely be bothered to go to the polls and many of the younger generation are more engaged with political events abroad than at home.

Supporters of a pay rise say it will be hard to attract a decent calibre of prospective MPs if people fear election will impoverish them, if the rewards are set too low. Me? I have no problem with that. If money and career prospects are their motivation, let them thrive in comfort where they are. Let them stay in their well-paid private sector jobs. Let them stay out of the House of Commons.

If politics is to regain a place of honour, if people are once more to hold it in high esteem, MPs will have to restore our confidence in them. The way to do that is through conviction politics, the public service of making a difference to the lives of the people who put them in Parliament. Those are the qualities the parties should be seeking. They are the qualities the voters crave.

I'm not claiming that decent, well-qualified people should be made to suffer in order to represent a constituency. I am saying that those who are the people's representatives need to be willing to live at a level not so far removed from that of the general population. They shouldn't aim for a more exalted economic stratum. Their pay should keep them in touch with the worries and concerns of the people who come to their surgeries at weekends.

However, they can't be paid so little that Parliament becomes the preserve of only those with private incomes. But that won't happen. The present pay for backbenchers is pitched about right. In the present climate £75,000 would be on the wrong side of generous. Voters might just bear a rise of that order, determined by an independent body, during good times, very good times. If their own salaries were increasing and job opportunities were plentiful, the IPSA proposal might raise a muted growl rather than a loud outcry. Might.

But ordinary people are struggling to make ends meet. Mostly, their pay is failing to keep pace with inflation. Mostly, they're fearful for their jobs and worried about the future. I don't blame them. Every day cut-price offers from shops clog my inbox and thump through the letterbox. Things are tough out there whatever green shoots economists might be glimpsing.

People are having their hours cut back, leaving them struggling to meet the rent. Some are selling furniture to pay their bills. We know increasing numbers are relying on food banks. Cuts mean 15-minute care visits are on the increase in some local authorities. They should be called care-less visits since they disrespect the client and harass the carer.

I'm not suggesting the money saved from MPs' salary increases added to the Queen's additional £35m would come anywhere close to closing the shortfall. What I am saying is that there is a world of misery behind each and every cut. Unfairness abounds. People take it on the chin and get on with their lives.

I could break your heart with stories of the mothers who go without to stretch the food for their children. I could talk about the elderly and frail left alone day in and day out, ill-nourished and fearful of the future. I could mention large parts of the country where the job market is empty of decent prospects.

These are the vulnerable and the poor. These are the people who are being told there is no choice; there is no money, they have to pay the price. If they now see their elected representatives pocket a large salary increase, why wouldn't they be angry. Why wouldn't there be vitriol?

David Cameron described the pay rise as "unthinkable". It's certainly unacceptable and until the economy is well on the way to recovery, entirely indefensible. Austerity? It's tough. Aren't we all in this together?