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

One of the issues surely is that (in the vast majority of cases) in order to be an MP you need to be selected by a political party. The sort of professional people that we might want to encourage to become MPs may be more likely to be independent critical thinkers and less likely to be party loyalists happy to vote blindly with their party whatever the issue.

We need a wide range of different inputs yes.

But we do also need the people who understand the mechanics of both national and international politics.

Pensions linked to future prosperity. They would be keen to hand over a prosperous country to the next party if their pension was affected.

I do believe many use it as a stepping stone to an advisory career for a multinational. I’ll be shocked if some are not in parliament working to ensure the multinational is looked after - not on the payroll yet, but paving the way to be on the payroll.

Edited to say if not a multinational than maybe another countries aid / investment package.

We need different experience.

The people with "experience in politics" are demonstrably not doing a good job.

We have had among the lowest investment in the industrial world for decades & instead of tackling that with a UK equities ISA or a requirement for public sector works to use UK contractors or a min 10% uk pension holding regulation, we have politicans capping bus fares at £2. Our whizzy startups leave because to go where they can access investment and take their value driving IP with them.

Meanwhile in other countries, there is investment which drives growth, wages grow and they can simply afford the bus fare at £3.

I would hope MPs do the job because they want to improve the lives of everyone and society as a whole. If you make pay the main incentive, you will get people who are more interested in making money money and themselves. Do the massive bonuses paid to the water bosses improve the water infrastructure and supply?

This

It is easy to disparage those who've done politics as a career, but other sector experienced but politically inexperienced people can bring other problems.

Politics is a huge ecosystem, you need the think tanks etc.

Working at senior level in any other industry is so different.

No, you are putting out an open call for people to bid to do your roof work, with an offer salary on it thats too low to attract any experienced roofers. So bob next door who loves DIY applies, and in the absence of any competition from actual roofers, he appears to be the better bet vs the racist old guy who's usually 3 pints deep at the bowls club and is the only other person to go for the job.

I agree they are underpaid, and this creates problems.
They should receive a higher salary plus a housing/travel allowance for those out of range of Westminster, this could be zoned.

Overhaul expenses.
Second jobs permitted but always declared.
Personal donations never permitted.
Political donations to e.g. leadership campaigns, party funds are standard and should continue but with revised rules.

It’s a good salary but not very competitive if you consider OP’s question of ‘how do we attract the best talent for the role’.

You can make a lot more in finance / consulting / law / tech etc - how do you get that talent working as MPs, when they can make double that salary (or more) elsewhere.

MPs are elected by the population not chosen for their expertise in any particular field, they are amateurs. You are asking Bob next door to do your building work, which he may or may not be any good at.

Why would it make any difference if it's the same people making the decisions? It won't improve their IQ or level of common sense.

It would attract smarter,more capable politicians with more diverse experience.

Yes. For a lot of people who've reached a senior role in almost anything - business, education, law, healthcare etc, being an mp is a long hours, inflexible, london based job on a mediocre wage.

Its not going to attract the talent & expertise we need.

I'm a tax specialist with over 20 years experience. My peers and i would probably be genuinely useful, knowledgable & experienced in roles like exchequer secretary or financial secretary to the treasury. We understand HMRC & their international equivalents & work with them regularly.

However, if any of us ran for election & actually succeeded in being voted in as an mp, our wage would be cut in half, for an insecure job in the public eye. We have mortgages & kids, we can't afford it.

So instead, we tend to get a lot of people who've studied PPE and predominantly worked in political spheres - policy think tanks, charities, political parties, trade unions. Often they've worked in something non politics related but only for maybe 5 or 6 years after uni and moved into policy etc before they ever reached a remotely senior level in a non political career.

We need more people with 15 plus years experience outside politics. Former head teachers or university department heads, business leaders, senior nurses, doctors. People who've run divisions in a pharma company or major engineering contractor. People who've overseen a large building site or steel works, tradespeople who've built up business & created jobs, senior military & police.

If they increase every other skilled public servant’s wages, or reverse the ridiculous mismatch between wages and cost of living that’s built up over the last 25 years now, then yes. Otherwise no. They should practice what they preach. The rest of the public sector has had to do more with less and so should they.

They shouldn’t have second jobs though, any more than the rest of us do.

How would more pay make them them make better decisions?

If you think the logic doesn’t hold, would you support halving MPs’ salaries?

That's a very strange take on something that I have never mentioned.

Just like you haven't mentioned how doubling the money that MPs take home will stop the nepotism and old boy network from selecting the same dross that we have now.