McGrath, you may move in a narrow and impoverished circle but you know very well that the "haves" of this world never have enough. And UK politicians come far down the scale in that respect.

For my part I would prefer payscales nearer the old GDR model, whereby surgeons and company bosses earned only about twice as much as the lowest paid. That might be a bit extreme, but I don't see why anyone needs more than three or four times the average wage. The argument that people would then have no incentive to rise to the top and become the boss is simply ludicrous.

But alas we don't have that system. Believe it or not, McG, I have perhaps two dozen friends and work colleagues who are on £64k or more. Many deputy headteachers, especially in London, will be on that kind of salary.

I am sorry to say that those of you who are bitter about what MPs are paid are doomed to disappointment. The decision to put their remuneration in the hands of an independent authority will quite certainly ensure that they get a substantial hike in their £64k basic pay.

There is a strong case for reducing the number of MPs, and there is an even stronger case for cutting out the real abuse whereby some MPs take on paid work outside parliament. The expenses scandal is a relatively trivial matter.