On the face of it I might have gone along with the motion were it not so hermetically shut in.
Governments - of the people, by the people, for the people - on whose behalf and for whom they firstly act cannot simply turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to excesses generated in any given society.
Excesses are largely to do with income disparity that if left to grow scandalously wide create great social 'unease', to put it euphemistically very mildly.
I would not get drawn into the moral hazard argument as I am sure it easily, inevitably indeed, slips into the shaky grounds of subjective interpretation.
However, I hold the view that at the core of it lies no doubt a moral consideration.
How many times more is a CEO worth than the man/woman he hired to get the meanest/humblest job in his organization done?
Without whose work his company cannot function properly.
Is this a non-issue or is this THE issue?
Work is work at any professional level.
It is about sets of tasks that need doing by people possessing different skills or unskilled, yet each and everyone deserving full dignity both in pay and conditions.
What happened recently as the financial meltdown unfolded itself to reveal too many cracks, bad management when not outright abuse to varying degrees provides enough evidence that some sort of 'checks' are required.
If this should apply to public companies where the case is nearly straightforward, even the private sector should possess some sort of binding ethical code governing pay and perks at the top end and on pay ratios between the highest and lowest salary within an organization.
While not advocating outright government pay regulation I am keenly aware of just how hard it may become to deal effectively with this issue.
Yet never before was the need felt as acutely to restore a measure of balance to top management pay and relative pay.
In market economies the arguments for and against will remain as passionate as ever.
But when poor or underperforming companies or banks seem to leave pay (plus millionaire perks and stock options) at the top unaffected, governments simply cannot - should not I expect - back away from at least be seen to be doing something finding a way to right things...
Call it regulation, call it what you will.
We the public, the citizens, the consumers, the market aggressively targeted by every single one of those Boardrooms demand and have a right to transparency.
And expect nothing less than integrity in Boardrooms of the corporate world.