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

[GeneralPeter]

1% of UK public spending is £14bn p.a.

Doubling MPs’ pay would cost £80m (about a one-hundred-and-seventieth of that).

If it would improve policy by 1% it’s money very well spent indeed.

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.

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...

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.

I don’t think this works. Your approach is “the floggings will continue until morale improves”.

Reducing MPs’ earnings still further and subjecting them to even greater scrutiny isn’t going to improve either the mix or performance of MPs

You are right that we need to make being an MP more affordable for a wide range of people. But the main personal cost isn’t campaign expenses, which are capped and mainly paid by parties. It’s foregone earnings for many people.

That doesn’t follow.

There are different views on policy but there is also good and bad policy, good and bad scrutiny, etc.

Like if you get an interior designer. There is taste involved, but you’ll generally get better outcomes if you hire a professional than someone with no experience who is giving it their best go.

Our MPs make law on all sorts of subjects. We want people with deep experience in all those areas.

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.

Why don’t we save money then, and halve MP salaries? Actually, quartering them would save more money.

Bob chooses ultimately, and he doesn’t know the difference. So it won’t affect who we get in parliament at all.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

It’s not magic. Your own answers show you see the link between the package and who it attracts.

I agree that reducing MP pay to a stipend plus house (the house bit is a bit tricky to analyse as some MPs get a house and some don’t at the moment) would be attractive to many people struggling to survive.

I just think that attracting mainly those who are struggling to survive plus those who are already wealthy would not improve policymaking.

I also agree that having longer ministerial appointments would help. But one argument for longer appointments is that ministers need time to understand their brief. I think if we had more people with deep professional expertise in parliament across many domains, we’d help with that issue too.

No. But being a tax expert, a prison governor, a successful business owner, an economist, competition law expert, a senior academic, a leader in the arts, a head of nursing, an experienced engineer, etc etc etc will.

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.

It’s fine that we disagree but I think you know my proposal by now, and how I think it would work.

No, I’m not going to introduce a new pre-selection process or ban junior people or any of the things you raise, so you are arguing against an invented position.

Because there are so few legitimate, democratic ways to screen for competence, I’m trying to remove one barrier to people entering the selection pool.

I don’t think that raising MP salaries would harm women’s prospects, though I guess it’s possible. But if you truly think that’s a reason to oppose higher pay: would you support lowering MP salaries so that there is less competition against women who have taken time out? I don’t think that particularly helps or values women either.

I guess that depends on whether you think current MP pay is high or not.

I think that’s the heart of the issue and why it’s so thorny. It’s high compared to 95% of the UK working population.

But (imo) it’s low compared to the kind of profile of people we want in parliament.

There are some sectors where experienced, senior, successful people earn less than £100k. But there are many important fields where that is a mid-level or even a junior salary. Especially if you are looking for the most outstanding people. And we give our MPs a terrible work environment in terms of scrutiny, abuse, and job security.

I want to have MPs who have deep experience in all fields, and I will not begrudge in the slightest that this means the ex-care worker (say) MPs are earning much more than they could have earned elsewhere.

I don’t think MP salaries have gone up really. They’ve changed the formula a bit around expenses etc and moved it to an arms-length body.

This is what Claude says (MP salary as share of UK average working wage)

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Now, this makes sense.