Now that they are in the same basket as everyone else I wonder if they will change their tune.

It's always funny when someone who thinks they are a above the law they are creating end up subject to it.

All MPs official business should be a matter of open, transparent public record. Nothing they do as part of their every day work should be encrypted or private. The singular exception should be matters of national security, and even then their communications should be recorded in a secure manner with full accountability under the law if there's any suspicion of wrongdoing (e.g. lying to parliament about another countries WMDs).

Public office should be public.

In this sense, the MP is acting more like a journalist with a source. The source should be protected.

Would you raise issues with your representative if the tabloid press could harvest it and selectively quote you to monster you.

E.g. lets say a drug addict who has successfully managed hid their addiction wants to offer their perspective of new drug legislation to their MP. Or a paedophile who wants to gather support for promising treatment option. Or someone with family or community ties to extremists of some shade or the other wants to propose ways of reducing their influence.

There are a multitude of situations where there might be bad fallout from public knowledge about what a persons raises with their MP even if what they raised is positive for the wider community.

Yes, secrecy also allows for negative effects, but it's not nearly as simple as just writing off the benefits of being able to guarantee privacy.

And of course in NI you might get much worse. As might a moderate reporting problems at a local Mosque

Things that one may argue should be public: Financial backing of legislators, minutes of official meetings and hearings, votes, legal arguments for spying, and so on.

But the conversations occurring behind the scenes which ALWAYS facilitate dealmaking will never be public. It wil happen in backrooms of pubs if you insist they communicate via telnet.

Treatment of constituents issues needs to be private as these are often sensitive and personal (housing, family law and benefits issues).

Official business should be on the record. In part the Alistair Carmichael trial is about the boundary between political and official.

They should probably do that, especially for anything sensitive, whether or not GCHQ monitoring them is legal, both because the GCHQ might do illegal things and because the GCHQ might not be the only entity surveilling them.

OTOH, given Parliamentary sovereignty, its fairly trivial for Parliament to deal with the problem that GCHQ monitoring of their communications is currently legal, and this doesn't seem to be something where just the opposition is unhappy (while the government has been positive on the ruling so far, at least some Conservative MPs have been quoted as concerned about the ruling in some of the published reports.)

I'm actually fine with that. in fact, public officials should probably use open communication. it's the save rule that allows my employer to read my work email as they wish.