Friday, 6 April 2012

Effectiveness - the true bottom line?

So, now we know what six-figure sums Boris and Ken earn (Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone, two candidates for Mayor of London, see That may be interesting, but many commentators seem to be acting as though remuneration is the only "bottom line", and high pay is being spun as a negative. Most companies would consider cost-effectiveness as the true bottom line. In their personal lives most people would strive towards happiness and/or fulfilment, and in their work lives towards job-satisfaction. I consider that voters too are concerned about cost-effectiveness from their elected representatives, and they want society generally to be improved by the political process - social-effectiveness. It is up to the politicians to persuade their electorate how effective they will be in delivering what people want. Once transparency in monetary reward has been achieved, the pay is a distraction. The real political bottom line should be effectiveness, embracing both cost and social components. For an individual, the bottom line includes fulfilment; happiness; job-satisfaction. There are no readily apparent units to quantify these terms, but surely ££s are not an effective substitute measurement either?