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

Even if it did, which I rather doubt, how are you going to ensure such people get elected? Are you going to restrict who can stand for election? Must have a current job paying at least £100,000 or a further degree in particular specialist subjects? Introduce some pre-selection process so that only the 'right' people are allowed to stand for election? Would that still be a true democracy? You are also effectively adding a minimum age limit, no one starts at the top of their fields, people under 40 would be rare as hen's teeth. And you are ruling out many women whose careers are interrupted by having children.

But what's wrong with an actual nurse or a prison guard or a junior academic, etc, etc.

Twice in my memory MPs have voted to double their salaries. Did it improve anything? I think not.

But it wouldn't OP.

On second jobs - how about not banning them but making the MP salary means tested so they get no actual benefit from side jobs? Obv only works if the second jobs add up to less.

Why would it? Anyone can stand or be elected there is no standard you have to reach. More people might stand, in the hope of getting a hefty salary if they win, but wanting or expecting a big salary doesn't necessarily make you any better at making decisions about the way the country is run.

Paying them well does not work. It is not working.

Let those driven by money exit. You will be left with actual politicians, instead of those filling up their own pockets. Those who can actually do politics would be rewarded once the wannabes leg it.

Perhaps it should be seen as dedicating yourself to the people, you get a stipend and all expenses and a home in your constituency paid for. That would actually look pretty good to a lot of people in ordinary jobs and struggling to survive.

Or if you stand it on it's head, if you make it really lucrative to be an MP who would that attract? People who want to make a lot of money doing as little as possible, the smarmy sales people who can be all things to all people to get elected, the ones who have failed to reach the heights in business, the ones who are really successful would not be tempted by doubling the salary and would they be any good at running a government department? I just don't see the point of doubling their salary in the hope that will have some magical effect.

Keeping people in specific roles so they actually get to understand a particular area of government, rather than constant re-shuffles would be good.

The OP isn't suggesting that current MPs will magically make better decisions if they're paid more. They're saying that the role will attract a higher calibre of person in future if pay is better.

And is Bob next door an expert in builders? Does he know what your preferences are? What your budget is? Does he just pick the cheapest one? Or his mate down the road who gives him a bit off the top? Is he trustworthy?

Five random people stand in an election and a random one of the five get picked to be an MP (rich, poor, clever, stupid, principled or not) and those five have mainly been selected by political parties to represent the principles (if any) of the parties, maybe an odd independent. If you are lucky they stay in parliament long enough, and in one job long enough, that they become faintly competent, often they never do. Paying more would change none of that.

The problem with policy is that you can't keep all of the people happy all of the time. So the concept of "improving" policy isn't a strong one and definitely not paying MPs more than their present salaries for a perceived improvement.

It could even make sense to explicitly set MPs' pay as a percentage of government spending, which would a) show how little it is, b) encourage them to grow the pie...

I think they first need to prove that they are competent, able and actually interested in doing the job properly. I am hoping that Burham manages what the other six were fully unable to do: restore the trust of the UK public in their Parliament. It will not be easy. It is at a record low.
I would ban second jobs, gifts and any breach of their code, including meeting and following national or foreign companies or political organisations without full on disclosure and recording. All of them. They would get fired if they do not attend Parliament often enough, if they do not reply to the queries from their constituents. Also, regarding donations... we have to do something about that, because it easily becomes a way of bribery. We want them to be engaged, motivated, competent and free of strings to any other than the interests of UK population. Not to the interests of the local developer, or a Russian or American or whatever billionaire.
Also, to hell with the for life pensions and peerage. They have not deserved them in the near past. See Liz Truss. They will have to earn that, by proving that they can do the job.
Once upon a time in history there was a huge fight to separate the power of the Church from policy making. I think we are at the point where we would have to do the same to separate money from political power.
If presenting yourself as a candidate for MP did not cost a fortune that our local passionate and reliable guy highly interested in politics cannot afford, then we would have real politicians getting into Parliament, to do real politics. Instead of clowns. Why does a campaign cost circa a million pounds? We need to get a grip on this or we will just get wannabees instead of actual politicians.

I completely agree we set a salary that will only attract mediocre people - i think we can all see that in the performance of our MPs. Personally I'd link the salary of a typical MP to their salary for the past 5 years prior to becoming an MP. Then anyone could stand to be MP without it having a negative impact on their earnings and equality no one would stand to just to get a big pay increase.

I don't really think MPs should have second jobs.

I agree - also, their salaries should be set by an external body and they shouldn't get to vote on them. It's ridiculous that right now you can get paid more as a local council executive than an MP. Something like pegging the salary to 50% of the salary of the average FTSE 250 CEO seems about right to me (would be more than £500k).

I am absolutely happy with a wider range of people becoming MPs, that's to be encouraged.

How would this change the party political system, the policy ecosystem, and how policies get developed?

You couldn't do that, obviously, as the decisions of the governing party are not the responsibility of the opposition.

Plus when a war starts, or there's a global economic issue, or the problem is linked to an old decision (Brexit!) the (current) MPs aren't to blame.

I agree with doubling the MP’s wage but along with they their expenses have to be better scrutinised and they should not be allowed to have second jobs/roles in companies. If living in a certain radius to London why do they need a second home for example?

Also I am sick of seeing/hearing MP’s on the tv rounds/radio/podcasts and while doing all this writing books and promoting the book.

Being an MP is an honour and a full time job or it should be but so many seem to have so much time of their hands so their should be limits to this

basically it’s a role that should have a lot of boundaries around it not a role as a stepping stone to making money