Hiking MPs’ pay is very much in vogue among certain sections of the SW1 chattering classes. The argument runs like this: politics suffers from a talent problem, parliament is packed with mediocrities. If MPs were paid more, they say, Britain might attract a higher calibre of candidate – the sort typically found in the private sector – who, while more expensive, would ultimately deliver better results for the country.

It is an argument with surface-level appeal. Politics is demanding, often thankless, and MPs’ pay has not kept pace with comparable senior roles elsewhere. But before rushing to sign off on higher salaries for politicians, taxpayers are entitled to ask a far more basic question: paid for what, exactly?

Peter Kyle, the business secretary, has reportedly suggested linking the pay of MPs to GDP. With caveats, this idea has real merit, and it is one the TaxPayers’ Alliance has argued for as far back as 2020. But done properly, it would almost certainly leave MPs worse off, not better.

MP pay should be linked to whether ordinary Britons are genuinely becoming more prosperous

Any serious discussion has to start with how MPs’ pay is currently set. Each year, the same ritual plays out: pay rises are announced, public anger follows, and MPs insist the decision was out of their hands. And for once, they have a point. Responsibility was delegated years ago to the........

© The Spectator