If we want MPs to come from all walks of life they need to be paid properly

Yes, this column is going to argue in defence of the notion that MPs, like the rest of us, ought to be paid the right rate for the job. And no, next week's dispatch will not be positing that Nigel Farage is quite a nice bloke really, or that Scottish Labour is set for a Rocky Balboa-like comeback in the 2016 Holyrood elections. Let us, as few are wont to do on MPs' pay, keep the head here.

There never seems to be a good time to break bad news over MPs' pay. Just after an election, with the next one some time away, is as opportune a moment as any. So it emerged earlier this week that Downing Street was not minded to stand in the way of the rise recommended by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa). This is despite the Prime Minister's previous insistence that the increase was "simply unacceptable". Now, torn between irate backbenchers, incensed sections of the press, narked union leaders and a public only too willing to bash politicians at any opportunity, David Cameron is having another ponder. We shall see what results. The consultation period ends on June 30. So much for a strong Tory Government. Between U-turning on MPs' pay and ditching the Human Rights Act, the Prime Minister is spinning like a top and it is not even summer.

Members of his cabinet, meanwhile, are coming out against the rise, with one, Nicky Morgan, the Education Secretary, saying she will give the money to charity. It is now de rigueur for Labour leadership contenders south of the Border to decline the 10 per cent rise. "Cannot be justified," says Andy Burnham. And what of Scotland's new tribunes, the 56? Angus Robertson, the party leader at Westminster, has led the way by saying he favours the charity route. The troops (that's the political troops, not the actual fighting men and women who will be getting one per cent) of all parties, meanwhile, are keeping their counsels till they have spoken to their local parties/other halves.

Taking the pay rise might not win MPs many plaudits in certain parts, but it is the right thing to do for a number of reasons. First, let us not forget why Ipsa was established in the first place. For years, the annual process of setting MPs' pay was a British blood sport on a par with fox hunting. It was argued in some quarters that pressure to keep pay in check led directly to the expenses scandal, with MPs seeking to make up the shortfall in other ways. Largely nonsense, of course. The expenses scandal was about some greedy, already privileged people taking advantage because they could. Rules and structures have now been put in place to try to prevent abuses, and part of the general injection of common sense into the funding of MPs was the setting up of Ipsa. Keep chipping away at that pillar of reform and cracks will soon appear elsewhere. As Ipsa argues: "The new rules are fair to MPs and the public purse, workable and, crucially, transparent - anyone can go online and see what their MP has claimed for and what they are paid." If some MPs take the rise and others do not, what will that do for transparency?

It is a bit rich in every sense for the likes of Mr Cameron to be holier than thou on pay rises for MPs. The Prime Minister and his wife are wealthy people. I doubt that they, and many another member of the Cabinet, have ever worried where the next mortgage payment was coming from. The only people who can truly afford to be relaxed about money are those who already have plenty of it. If we want MPs to come from all walks of life, and not take second jobs or be dependent on outside wealth, they need to be paid properly. That applies especially to those new MPs who do not come from money. They need a wage that will allow them to support themselves and their families both here and in London. Where is the shame in asking for that? One thinks here of the Scottish contingent in particular. Despite being patronised half to death for such "crimes" as clapping and taking selfies, I hope Scotland's new breed of non-Home Counties types will be out and proud when it comes to taking their pay rises. Where they lead today in taking the right rate for the job, others from similarly less privileged backgrounds will hopefully follow in future.

The third reason for taking the pay rise is that, if MPs are doing their job properly, they have earned it. The role of an MP is part lawyer, part social worker, part campaigner, part advocate, part counsellor ... you name the role, your MP has probably been called upon to perform it. As all the new MPs are finding out, anyone can walk through the doors of a constituency surgery, email, phone or write, with any problem. It could be anything from objecting to a new road in the local area to securing permission to stay in the country. From trivia to life and death matters, an MP sees it all. A good one, the kind who puts their constituents first, can make a real difference to lives. It is hard to put a price on that in some instances, but £74,000 for a working week that can stretch to triple figures does not seem unreasonable compared to what others - bankers, anyone? - are paid.

For all these reasons it is to be hoped that MPs will put themselves to what we might call the L'Oreal test and decide that yes, they are worth it. There is another consideration to bear in mind. Instead of acting against the public interest in taking a pay rise, MPs could be doing ordinary families a favour. In too many businesses and organisations in this country, asking for a pay rise requires all the courage and determination of Oliver pleading for more. The recovery has been built not on something positive, such as increased productivity, but on the calculated and systematic suppression of wages. The cost of living has gone up, while wages have been stagnant, or cut. Workers have accepted this because they had to, because they were told to. Benefit claimants ditto. We have all been in it together, but we have not all suffered equally. If MPs do not take this rise then they are merely joining the race to the bottom. What chance a pay or benefits rise for anyone else after that?

Granted, they are strange people's champions, these MPs, these well-cushioned beneficiaries of the taxpayers' pounds, but if they do not take the lead it will be others who ultimately pay the price.