If it would improve policymaking by 1%, we should gladly double MPs’ salaries.

Same as the rest of us. We have all seen our real earnings going down. Much of it has to do with the government doing either nothing or a superficial short lived law to address the many many issues we have.
You did use a vote indeed. Sorry about that. It was not showing on my phone when I checked before posting.

We all understand your question.
But I think you do not understand that it is crystal clear to a few of us that we will never get any better politicians, and so policies, just by paying more.
We first need politicians to do real politics. So motivated, good leaders and passionate about what they do.
Your idea of getting high earners to join politics is called Technocracy. UK is not a technocracy.
A technocracy in these days could end up with people like Musk back in politics.

We need to accept that being a politician is a job, and it needs to be treated like a job. That means, at the very least, a position description for each and every role (backbenchers, ministers, etc), and measurable KPIs. No second jobs, unless it is someone who has to put in so many hours per year to maintain a registration (e.g. health professionals). Even then, it would need to be limited to the mandatory number of hours required by the registration body.

Speaking of hours, there needs to be metrics measuring that people are actually putting in the time - including surgeries in their local constituencies. Failure to do so results first in docked wages, with escalating consequences for repeat offenders. Doesn't matter if you are a backbencher, whose party is not in government. Firstly, all non-ministers should submit a program of activities/research/projects to be undertaken (and to be approved as appropriate for their role). Then they have to actually deliver and report (like people do in "real" jobs). No free rides.

No employing family and friends (Australia bans this). In fact, staff in constituencies should be hired and overseen as part of the civil service. Definitely no donations, perks, etc.

No subsidised restaurants, and alcohol should be banned on the premises. Random drug and alcohol testing. Absolutely nil donations to political parties (including from themselves). Instead, a set re-election allowance for each seat being contested. Speaking of which, all people contesting a seat should have to undergo some form of security check before they can even stand for election.

Being banned for 10 years from taking up positions in industries related to portfolios/shadow portfolios held, while in office. Mandatory training in areas relating to any portfolios assumed, to ensure they are capable of making informed decisions.

And no more multiple holidays throughout the year. They get a set allocation of annual leave, and that is it. No extended parliamentary recesses. Mandatory attendance at a set percentage of Question Times, and parliamentary voting, unless they have verifiable reasons not to (e.g. sick leave, etc)

I am sure I can think of more, but that is a starting point. I am then happy to pay them a lot more, but only because they are then justifying their existence.

Interesting graph.

But so have millions of other workers. Where is the evidence that MPs have done worse than everyone else? Relative to average earnings, they're still paid much more that the average fulltime wage, and that's before we take into account of their defined benefit pensions and other benefits of the job.

IMO it skews the picture if we talk about "salary" without considering overall package.

GeneralPeter

Here's a thought for you.

Instead of doubling their pay, or halving their pay, why don't we give them Performance Related Pay?

They can get asseed by an independant group of teachers who will assess how well they have done their jobs and pay them accordingly.

Hi @GeneralPeter have you read Isabel Hardman’s book “why we get the wrong politicians”? It’s a good analysis of the challenge you’ve outlined - but also looks at selection process and the detail of how the way in which parliament operates impacts on this topic. I recommend it!

The above table is from the IPSA Independant Parliamentary Standards Authority, which my phone is not allowing me to link for some reason.
So they are already been paid more than last year and the year before. Still, no where good enough for the job in so many cases.

By the way, this is what the internet shows for MPs salaries. Which have clearly gone up over time.

You should have used a vote in your thread. Then you would know how many people think that paying uninterested, unable, self invested people can achieve more at their work by being paid more. Which I suspect is a very tiny proportion of the electorate.

No. Paying them more is not working.

The brightest and best people that we really need to run our country can earn far far more elsewhere. If we want to attract the right people we need to pay more.

Strangely, most MPs don’t have huge amounts of influence on policy, but ministers do and I agree that better informed scrutiny via committees etc would be good. I would not mind paying MPs and Ministers a bit more.

However, civil servants with specialisms and really good generalists have a really large influence on outcomes, and their salaries are no where near the private sector. They need to be able to attract the best, or at least to pay so things are not a barrier, in areas like AI, cyber etc.

Whilst I am in full agreement that people should receive fair remuneration for their work, in whatever trade or profession, becoming an MP requires no qualifications or skills other than the ability to persuade voters in a constituency that you will represent them.
Whether individuals "satisfy" the requirements of their constituents is only tested once every 5 years. I do not know any employment that follows the same timeline!
Sadly, in the past few decades, it would appear that there have been many career politicians. So, by all means increase the salary, but ensure that all MPs are qualified in an area that is relevant to public service and law making as well as demonstrating x years' competence/experience before seeking election.

Now, this makes sense.

MPs wages should be linked to the average UK wage. If they want to earn more then they should be making the country earn more. 3x average wage for MPs, 4x for junior ministers, 5x for senior ministers, 6x for the PM.

No extra income while an MP. It should be treated as a full time job.

The problem is that ‘IF’ is doing a lot of work in your sentence.

They are not underpaid. Most of them are far too overpaid.

Higher than what? The last guy was head of the CPS and look at what he did. There isn't a better caliber of people, politicians need two things. They need a crisis so they can be seen to do something. And they need to keep most people poor, because if we were all well off the first thing we would do is stop working. Without workers we have no tax revenue and no services.

I look at my MP and he is a lazy parasite. Left school.at 16, no further qualifications of any sort. Seems to have spent one year as a trainee reporter then became a junior advisor to an MP. Claims for a flat near the House of Commons because it's too far to travel. Funny that as half his constituents do a London commute everyday. He does do lots of all expenses paid fact finding trips abroad. I don't doubt he thinks the pay is great as I doubt he could get any other job paying more than nmw. We need to get rid of him and his ilk. Make 30 the minimum age for standing and insist on some kind of work experience outside politics.