And fails to even note the correct starting point, let alone a decent end result.
Talking about MPs\’ pay she ponders on their worth. The amount of work they do and the value of it, attempting, somehow, top come to some number that balances the various values she has in play.
Entirely missing the point that we have a method of determining what someone should be paid without having to go through such complex and subjective arguments.
It\’s called a market. There are some 3 or 4 thousand people who actually stand to be an MP each general election. There\’s at least a similar number who vie within the parties for nomination to a seat that could possibly be won.
There are, what 655 seats?
As to qualifications: we cannot actually set any qualification bar in a democracy, can we? We cannot even say that we want to attract intelligent people, people in high paid jobs, in fact we cannot even whisper that we would like more or less of any type, profession, gender or skin colour. For the entire point is that the general citizenry get to decide, not any who would manipulate the intake.
So, we have over application for the job: thus the first answer to our question of how much MPs should be paid is \”less\”.
In fact, back when MPs were not paid at all we still had a surplus of applications. Thus MPs should probably be paid nothing.