Members of public to be selected for ‘honest conversation’ about MPs’ pay

Any conversation around salary has to include their generous pension scheme (better than civil servants), significant expenses that they are allowed to claim for their lifetime in parliament, expensive freebies such as Taylor Swift or access to an Arsenal box, subsidised food and drink, and the opportunities offered for additional salary from outside jobs and lobbying. Oh and if they lose their seat the get a decent pay out, significantly more than statutory redundancy. And for the small number who might have a baby in office, six months full pay, far more than statutory again.

Just focusing on salary when its only part of their actual net income makes it appear meaner than it actually is. They should be forced to stick to statutory requirements as that would incentivize them to improve it quicker rather than yet another exception.

The bigger issue is that the job attracts grifters who only want the job so they can enrich themselves. An educated electorate is one part of the solution (as naively fanciful as that sounds), but we also need some hard and fast regulations which are policed and enforced.

The problem isn't the reward for becoming an MP, it's the cost of campaigning. Candidates are expected to put up £10-30k of their own money to contest a seat. Some spend considerably more.

Personally, I don't think paying MPs more will do much harm, but it won't fix any of the problems with the quality of the politicians we get.

Making everything about money turns out to have been super bad for society.

As in we seem to treat money as the ultimate form of success. Sure, we pay lip service to other things, but in reality we don't really acknowledge other accomplishments on the same level.

You see it in the way the culture sector is expected to make a profit, rather than the goal being to make culture. Much like healthcare - you put money in and get a healthy population out. It's not supposed to make money!

I'm thinking that if a successful career as a politician was based more around improving our society, rather than being a great way to make pots of cash, then the goal would be to have a memorable (positive!) career in politics.

Putting money on a pedestal is such a fucking lie. It's essentially a boiled down version of the classic advertising lie - "Buy this thing and you will be happier" (perhaps not stated as such but that's the general pitch). Satisfaction and contentment isn't something that can be achieved by ticking a box - it's a journey and a learned way of framing one's life. There's plenty of ways to spend money to reduce negatives, and money can definitely lubricate the gears of life towards happiness, but ticking the boxes won't actually unlock those things.

You don't wake up one morning after achieving whatever tickbox and suddenly become a different person.
"I've got my PhD, now I'm satisfied with life!"

Doesn't work like that! You can't flip a switch in your brain and change the way you've been interpreting your situation.

It'd be lovely if it did work like that, so I can see why it's so easy to get people to buy into it. It's an easy answer to a difficult question.

Instead I think we need people chasing after different needs. The need to make a positive difference (and be known for it), to make a contribution to our culture, etc.. There's a bit of ego about it but that's humans for you. Use that lever for good!