A crash course in the British economy

Made in Britain is a new show on presented by Evan Davies (of Dragon's Den fame). Unsurprisingly it is about the British economy the deficit and basically, whether Britain has gone down the pan.

It is without doubt an excellent programme. It explained relatively complex issues in such a way that anyone can understand them. It breaks some of the myths surrounding our economy such as 'manufacturing industry good, service industry not good' and ' low tech manufacturing is essential to our economy and its decline is the end of us'.

If I could, I would make it so that everyone gets shown this programme from an early age. Hopefully they would get the implied message, if you don't have a specific skill that someone in China doesn't have, then soon enough someone in China is going to be doing your job. Lets face it, that is what people in school need to be aware of. In the last few decades people could do unskilled work and get paid enough to live in the UK, but soon enough if you do an unskilled job, you will only be able to afford to live in China. Sure there will be exceptions, but that is the general rule.

One of the things that surprises me however is that when you look at manufacturing, which I accept needs to grow in the UK, some of the factories here are the most efficient in the world. In fact, Nissan's car factory in Sunderland is the most efficient in the whole of Europe*. Now that amazes me. The Germans are known for their efficiency, and the French have three big car firms. We don't have one, and yet we have the most efficient factory. How does that work?

Well, I think I have the answer. If you look at the all cars that are designed in the UK, Land Rover, Jaguar, Aston Martin, they are all owned by foreign companies. Generally they do not work well then they are owned by a UK firm, then they are sold and they do well. Japanese firms come over here and set up hugely successful factories, but British manufacturers fail. Why?

It could be that the management are retarded, and so when foreign management come along they run the factory well and everything works and the world becomes a better place. But I highly doubt it. For a start most of the management will be British too. Sure the very top might be Japanese, or the owners might be Indian, but most of the management are realistically going to be British. So it is unlikely to be that.

It could be that the principles by which companies are run are superior outside of the UK. I'm sure that is part of it. But generally such principles, once they have proven their worth, are adopted throughout the world.

No, I'm willing to bet there is an entirely different reason why British companies fail and foreign firms succeed in the UK: Unions.

When you think of the last time we had a car industry, back in the 1970s what characterised that period? Strikes. If you think of British Airways, the flag carrier of the country, which is making a loss, why has it been in the news? Best service? Huge profit? Award winning? Nope, strikes. What about transport for London? Is it known for its efficiency? No, it is known for its 1970s style 'fire a single person and we will bring London to a standstill' negotiation tactics.

So lets look at companies based here, Nissan, Honda, no strikes there. Easy Jet? Don't think so. Hmmm, a pattern here?

The thing is, no one is going to strike against these companies because they are foreign. There is no reason they have to be here tomorrow, and no reason why they can't up sticks and head to France, Germany or the Czech republic. Which means if a factory started striking, it would quickly be closed. As a result, the workers don't strike and the factories are a paradigm of efficiency.

In contrast to this when it comes to a British company the Unions assume that they can strike as much as they want and it doesn't matter because:

a) a British companies will no close its operation and move abroad;
b) the British gov will bail out the company when it is losing money hand over fist... because it is British.

The problem with this, mainly, is that it is a load of rubbish. Premise 'a' might be reasonable, but 'b' is undoubtedly completely false.

For a start the rules of the EU forbid state aid, second the country is bankrupt and three the government learned in the 1980s that it is cheaper to let inefficient companies die than to eternally prop them up with subsidies.

Union leaders however, appear rather thick, and haven't quite grasped this fact. So instead of getting what they want with BA for example, they are just going kill off another big company and when they do, it will take quite some time for them to work out what happened... or they will just blame it on everyone else for not capitulating to their demands.

I don't know if other countries have this problem, but judging but the fact that the most efficient European manufacturer's factory is owned by a French company.... and based in Spain I'd say this might be the case.

Then you look at MG, this company failed in the UK. It is now being made in China, I imagine it will do quite well too. While it was UK owned they could not cut costs of staff, although this was partly due to the lack of capital, now that it is Chinese owned they can design it in the UK and build it in China and no one can complain. Can you imagine what would have happened if they had tried this before Chinese ownership? Exactly, chaos, whereas no now one bats an eyelid. No doubt the price will be more competitive too.

Going back finally to the programme "Made in Britain", there were a couple of companies that were held up a British success stories. One of those was GSK, or GlaxoSmithKline. One of the things that the representative of GSK said really resounded with me. He noted, 'there is no reason why there should be a British company based here or called GSK. Therefore if we don't innovate the next generation of products successfully then we won't exist in future. That is what drives us'.

I guess that explains why GSK is still here. They don't think the gov will always back them up because they are British, or because they are a big employer or because they have a right to do what they do. And I'm happy to suggest, that they day they think that there will/should always be a GSK... there won't. But at least then a foreign firm can buy them and make them efficient again.

*although this was on output, units per worker which seems unfair when comparing bigger cars with smaller, less complex ones.

May I order some decent music, please?

Before we start I think I should point out I don't think I'm autistic, neither do I have aspergers. But for some reason I take song lyrics slightly too literally, with the result that they really annoy me.

Don't take this too seriously, but I'm not going to reel off a load of lyrics to get them out of my system.

"I can do it like a brother, do it like a dude" Jessie J

Most catchy song every, also the most annoying. No you can't do it like a brother, neither like a dude. Someone please give her an anatomy lesson.

"Russian roulette is not the same without a gun" Lady Gaga

Profound. For those who don't know Russian roulette is where one has a revolver with a bullet in one of its six chambers. The chamber of the gun is then spun randomly so that the user of the weapon does not know whether or not the weapon is loaded or empty. So Russian roulette isn't the same without the gun... it isn't possible without the gun. Who writes this stuff?

"The boys they wanna sex me" Black eyed peas.

This is wrong for two reasons. One, grammatically, it sounds like someone with an IQ of 25.5 has been writing songs (hardly the ideal example). I know they were just desperate to fit something into the line to make it rhyme but could they really not think of anything better? Lets face it Black eyed peas songs sell in their millions, could they not afford just to spend an extra minute trying to think of an ACTUAL sentence.

Two, the tacit agreement between song writers and the public at large is that when writing popular songs they are only ever to use innuendo. This is a fundamental rule that ought never be broken. It is a courner stone of radio broadcasting. Why? Because when people follow the rule the the only people who hear the intent of the writer are those who are already aware of the concepts being sung. Those who are innocent of such concepts remain so, and thus songs can be played at 9 o'clock in the morning without causing too much harm. This song totally and utterly bins this rule and forsakes the tacit agreement and for what? A really quite terrible line in a 'not particularly good song'. Come on writers, you're paid a wage, do your job and start writing lyrics that at least meet the lofty standard of someone who can just about string a whole sentence together.

Rihanna... where to start, first, shouldn't your name be spelt Rhianna. Otherwise it would be pronounced "Ree-hanna" which just seems wrong.
Second, when Rihanna first started she had a song with a line that I actually liked:

"cause in the dark, you can't see shiny cars " Rihanna

Now, least inportantly it makes literal sense. Yes, in the absence of light it is not possible to perceive a shiny car using the visible light spectrum. Check.

Next I like the metaphorical meaning too. When things are going badly material wealth doesn't really make much difference and therefore becomes rather unimportant. Wow, was that actually something deep in a pop song? I nearly fell off my chair.

Since then though, Rihanna has apparently given over her song writing duties to someone who it appears confuses his work for that of a lyical pimp.

I would quote a few lyrics but frankly I don't have the time and I wouldn't want to repeat them in case I offend someone with taste. Out of 5 of her songs that have been played on the radio, two of them refer to sex explictly and two others refer to riding (maybe she's an equestrian fan), but in fairness there is nothing in the song with Eminem about sex. I guess the focus there was more on beating your partner, so presumably Eminem thought that the mood shouldn't be ruined with sexual references.

I started this rant talking about stupid songs, but I have to admit sometimes I actually am greatful for them.

"Cause I'd get a thousand hugs, From ten thousand lightning bugs" Owl City

Now this is a pretty absurd line of a song. Getting hugs from insects? Right, someone has a vivd imagination, but when this comes on, I think so myself, great, a song that doesn't involve show jumping or domestic violence. What a refreshing change!

And maybe that brings me full circle in this argument. Yeah, there are some seriously retarded lyrics out there, but frankly I'm grateful for them if them give me a break from the monotony of sex, violence and cocaine. I even heard one DJ complaining that for a time Eminem was producing songs that didn't include the 3 topics mentioned above. Instead he was rapping about how he felt about his family. Yeah, because there are just so many songs like that out that Eminem was just flooding the market?

I guess I'm just asking for a bit more. Sure a song with a catchy tune is great, but is it that hard to think of something a little bit deeper, about which to sing, than basically a Friday night in a dive end of town?

Who knows, maybe if they can get their head around that then the lyrics might even start to make sense and we won't have to listen to what someone scribbled down in their lunch break.

In the mean time maybe I'll just have to spent more time hangin' with my hommes Mozart and Beethoven, or maybe Tim Hughes...

I can finally fire my Butler

Yesterday, I was astounded. This was because I was given a tea maker.

Why was I astounded by a tea maker, you may ask. Well this particular tea maker is to be set by your bedside so that in the morning when it is time for you to wake up you wake automatically to a fresh cup of tea. You don't even have to turn it on, it is on a timer so when you wake up, it does too.

So why is this amazing? I just can't believe how good the standard of living is at this point. The idea of having hot tea when you wake up is something that, years ago, would have been reserved for the landed gentry, those who could afford a gentleman's gentleman: a butler.

Now in today's Western modern world a veritable nobody of reasonable economic standing can be presented with such a gift.

This raises a couple of questions in my head. The main one being, do we all realise how blessed we are to have such a life style? Am I the only one who wakes up in the morning and thinks to myself I can't believe that I have such an astoundingly high standard of life, I cannot count my blessings if I had all day.

It also raises another question however.

Why isn't every Westerner really happy?
I guess there are a few reasons, one being that there are other big issues such as health (even if we have the best health care too). But I guess the fundamental point is what we knew already: having 'stuff' doesn't make you happy.

I guess it goes back to a fridge magnet I've seen, it said "the best things in life aren't things".

It is sort of strange that if you took a poll in the UK to see who was happy it would probably yeild the same results as in Africa or Asia or anywhere where the 'standard of living' would generally be considered lower.

The other thought is that is life so good because we work hard or because we're in so much debt we've just taken all the money the next generation is going to make and spent it on ourselves?

Strangely at this point I don't think I have an answer to that question. Still, if we are going to spend the next 70 years paying high tax with low public services at least there is this consolation; with less money and more time to focus on the things of life that really are important (God, family etc) we'll probably be a lot happier.

Are long haul flights managed by Guantanamo bay?

After the previous post that had been sitting in my mind for some time, slowly percolating away, concerning me about the serious nature of the British public's mind set, I find myself on a more trivial topic today.

Recently I had the pleasure of visiting a beautiful country far, far away. But in order to reach this sun kissed paradise, first I had to get there. This as you may guess involved not walking or sailing, but flying.

There was a time when air travel was considered glamorous but since the 1920s things have changed a little. Budget airlines are functional and practical even if the cabin crew wear suits so shiny I can actually see my face in them and we accept that our experience on them is going to be pretty dull. But I was flying on a major carrier so you'd expect the time spent flying to be a little more enjoyable.

To an extent it was. On the flight out they had recent movies and plenty of entertainment. The staff were very friendly and always helpful. I could watch a film, play my friend at battleships or just read if I wanted. All very nice.... on the flight out.

The flight back was exactly the same except for one difference: it was at night. That meant that I really wanted, nay, needed to get some sleep. Things started well. I had a free seat next to me so I could try to lie down across two seats and the kind woman behind me didn't mind me putting my seat back to recline a little more. All this meant that as 1:00am rolled up I was read to start trying to drift off.

At first it was reasonably successful. I can't quite tell how successful, one never can when you're in that 'inbetween state' of not quite fully asleep but not completely awake either, but I think between 2 and 3 I was in a sort of sleep state.

At this point however the carrier apparently decided to go from luxury airliner to prison cell 'wanna-be', because at 3am the lights came on in glorious style waking me up and making sure there was little chance to go back to sleep. I've heard that in Guantanamo Bay and in other POW camps it is standard practice to leave a light on in the cell 24 hours a day to sleep deprive and disorientate the 'visitor'. I didn't realise that this ideas had now been incorporated into the airliners service agreement. Presumably it was in the small print.

Second are the seats. Now I get that the seat has to conform to a million different requirements and by the time they're adhered to there is little in the way left for comfort, especially when you want to squeeze as many people onto a plane as possible but isn't there someway to make it possible to sleep on them? Lets be honest, take out the luggage bins and I'd be able to sleep in the overhead space, its long and flat which is pretty much all I'd need since they had already provided a pillow.

Third, and this is on the one that really gets me: air conditioning. I say air conditioning although this feels like the wrong word, unless it is used in the same sense as 'North Korean spies are conditioned by the state'. So basically ruined.

Air is a pretty plentiful commodity, admittedly not at 30,000ft but it is generally and so I think we take it for granted. This complacency is easily removed for my by a trip in a Boeing.

First of all the air was cold, which was a welcome break from the oppressive heat of paradise. However after 5 hours of flying its far less welcome. The air was not cool but cold and since when you're trying to sleep your body temperature drops, a cold breeze is the last thing you need to help you sleep and yes I had already turned the vents off, but the pressure was so high it was getting through anyway.

Second, the dryness of the air was, is and always has been, horrid. I don't know what the engineer of the system knows about human beings but apparently they think that we're used to air that seems to have come across the Sahara and as a result has been striped of every last bit of moisture. The result of which is that you're constantly dehydrated and your nasal passages dry up. This is particularly bad as drying out your nasal passages makes you more likely to catch colds and other airborne infections. Which isn't what you want when sharing the same air with 280 other people.

Thanks to the complete lack of moisture even though I had several drinks through an 8-9 hour flight I never used the toilet once, not once. Is this a ploy? Less toilets? More drinks sold? I don't know, all I do know is that the moment they start a service for 1st class air in your cabin, I'll give serious though to an upgrade!

I don't know what to suggest for the airlines really. Obviously the aim is to stop people sleeping and its seems they have it down to a tee. Perhaps maybe they could also employ someone to occasionally kick you in the head just as you're about to drop off to sleep, just to get the fuller experience?

Either way I can happily say for all my ramblings that those points I've mentioned aside, the flight was prompt, the service was great, the destination was simply staggeringly beautiful and the company (that is the people present, not the airline corporation) was incomparable.

Is it David Cameron coming in shining armour?

The Government must solve all our problems.

Is it just me or is that basically the attitude that is adopted today by everyone. And I mean, pretty much everyone. There was a woman on the radio the other day complaining because as an alcoholic she had been given an ASBO. But that didn't make any difference she claimed. She was banned from drinking in pubs but she could still drink at home and then go outside and cause problems.

What sort of attitude is that? It is almost like complaining because she hasn't been locked up and sent to prison. Oh, they haven't totally stopped me doing what I want, so there is no point trying to give me a nudge into the right direction.

This is prevalent in other areas too. If too many people get knifed, then the answer must be in legislation making a the sentences higher for people carrying a knife.

Look people the government making the sentence higher for carrying a knife will have no impact at all. What will, parents sitting their children down and saying to them in a loving tone "I love you very much, but if you ever carry a knife I'll break your fingers", ok not literally that, but you get the picture.

As a result we have to pay high taxes so that each time society fails to do something properly the government can 'look' like it is doing something.

As a lawyer we see this all the time. The mortgage repossession pre-action protocol. What effect did it have? Well, not much. Maybe some extra paper work for the banks, a bit more paper work for the lawyers (so basically higher fees for everyone) and some extra work for the government.

Each time they have to run around, pretend the law has changed, or in some other way spend some money to make everyone feel better, because after all that is what the government does, it solves every problem and controls everyone, except of course, we all know it doesn't.

Sadly criminal behaviour is more controlled better by one sentence of a Mum or Dad than a several sentences from a Criminal Court.

Banning things also rarely solves a problem, after all, an air rifle is less dangerous in the hands of someone responsible than a brick (availble from all local builders merchants) in the hands of someone who isn't.

We're starting to see this in the economy too. Governments must make some program to get people back on their feet and in their next job. Great idea I'll grant you, but do you really think that the government, if it had a way of getting more people into jobs wouldn't have done it already?

Getting people in jobs is a gold mine for a government, it means people love you and your tax revenue goes up. Everyone's a winner! So why do people believe that a government wouldn't do it if there really was a way to make it happen.

Looking around the world we can see that the US has the best growth most of the time. This isn't down to government initiatives, it is down to letting people keep the money they earn and not taxing it all away, ironically to pay for silly initatives that make the public feel like its all going to be ok, now that there is a minister being paid to think up some scheme.

Paying people for what they do and not paying them much for what they don't is the best back to work scheme the world has every known. Sadly well intentioned programmes tend to just be misused by companies to get free labour and then fire the person at the end. Valuable experience? Maybe, but these aren't usually law jobs, or accountancy where experience is useful, they are jobs where being competant and commited is more valuable than experience.

Government does have a purpose, and a very important one, don't get me wrong.

With a good road network, business prospers. So directing investment is part of the job. Likewise the government should act as a moral compass when it comes to new laws. Should murderers be jailed? Should certain drugs be illegal? Should there be a television campaign to tell people about the risks of smoking and promiscuous sex?

It is a bit of a sliding scale, so you can understand how the government can quickly be expected to deal with everything. But as the public, I think we need to start to recognise something. The real influence in life, the real unit of community that will make a difference to the next generation is not the Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom, but rather it is the family.

What Mum and Dad say (or doesn't say) to little Timmy will have more impact on the next generation that what David Cameron says, what Jonathan Ross says, what the Kasier Chiefs say or even what the local Magistrates say.

Until then the idea that the government can sort everything out is sadly misguided. To think that just means more of our money taxed and spent on people feigning activity and action to make us all feel like 'its going to be ok, the government will sort it out with their huge pot of money'.

Such an almost emotional dependance isn't good. But maybe I'm just confused and some would say I too need to look to central government for salvation. But for many reasons least of all looking at what happened in Russia and what still goes on in China I'm going to go with "no".

This is the most important lesson we might learn in modern times

So this Wikileaks chap has finally be released on bail.

But what a challenge it was. Can you believe how much the US government has gone through to nail this guy? Quite a lot I'm guessing. But I want to look at it from another angle.

First of all, I have no idea whether the information that wikileaks publishes is damaging or not. Most of the cables that were published just say what we already knew. The only difference is, it is the political establishment that is usually so coy, saying it.

But that isn't my concern. The fact that Saudi wants the US to bomb Iraq isn't that surprising, even if it is damaging, what is surprising is the control that can, and clearly has been exerted on almost every institution that should be resilient to control, for the purpose of protecting freedom and preventing the fascist state.

Ordoliberalism is a school of thought that developed during the Nazi period in Germany. They opposed the Nazis and hated their practices. The hated them so much that they spent alot of their time thinking of ways to make sure that the fall of a republic never need happen again. They'd watched the Weimar Republic go to pot, and they wanted to make sure that sort of thing never happened again. They decided private power, was the cause and as such, this should be limited.

In this case, however, it is not private power being used to manipulate political power, but the other way around. And that has demonstrated some staggering consequences.

So here are a few huge corporations that have given in to the man in black suit from the CIA:

• Amazon;
• 'Swiss bank';
• Paypal;
• Mastercard;
• Visa.

That is before we get on to the Swedish government themselves.

Now these are huge companies. They by rights should be able to stand up to the government, but clearly are even more at risk, as after all, they have more to lose.

This is a scary situation. The only way that Julian Assange can get bail is by cash or cheque, although if a cheque is being used then he'd have to wait until it cleared, which would just leave him in prison for a week. The reason why this is so concerning is that banks, in the name of efficiency have recently decided they want to scrap cheques by 2018. Further, it is the dream of the government to one day banish cash altogether. After all, if this is done, then every transaction can always be monitored... and it would appear, stopped.

So is that it? The government leans on a company and then they stop you having access to your own money? Just think, by Mastercard not letting anyone pay for Julian Assange's bail, they are stopping everyone, you, me, anyone from spending our money. They are dictating what we can use our money for, and not just in the sense of stopping buy crack with my income, I mean buying a man's freedom.

This concerns me.

What happens if a government considers you a dissident? What if they decide that they don't like your hair colour or your accent or your passion for freedom of speech? Does that mean they will lean on the Swedish government to arrest you? What about me? Will they lean on your bank to close your account? Will they lean on your card provider to stop people from helping you? Will they make sure that "that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark" of their approval? That is an unpleasant thought.

I know this all sounds like scare mongering, but let me put it this way, the US is a country that prizes freedom above all others. I would say that in many ways they have it ingrained into them to cherrish their freedom and protect it. Now, if the US cares about freedom so much and yet even their government can act in such a tyrannical way we can learn this: any government can be turned into fascists you just have to piddle them off enough.

So next time you think that getting rid of cash is a good idea because you don't use it anyway, next time you vote laws to your government because they'd never use them irresponsibly. Just remember what I said.

I'm not an anarchist and I not anti authoritarian, but I am, seriously, pro-freedom.

Now you've gone and destroyed the bar....

When they told me the bar was dying, I thought they were joking.

Ho ho ho, I thought to myself. That just means that if you become a Barrister these days you won't earn £200,000. Instead you'll have to survive on a mere £120,000 instead. That is what I thought, how wrong could I be? Answer: incredibly wrong.

What got me thinking about this was when I saw a guy driving around, who studied at Oxford before going on to the same law school as me. He had got pupillage in a local set (a highly respected one) and was working in the independent bar. He was still practicing, I knew this because he had the White book on his parcel shelf.

So what was he driving? "A Porsche of course! He's a barrister after all! He went to Oxford, he worked his butt off, he is minted!" You're thinking. But no. Not a Porsche, or an Aston martin. Not even a Mondeo or a BMW 3 series. He was driving a banger, no seriously a real banger. Something that would probably cost between £500 and £1,000. Worse than that, I first noticed his car (when he wasn't even in it) because it was tucked away on a side street with the hazards on.... that is to say, he was dodging having to pay to park.

This is a fully qualified barrister, pretty much the top of his class in everything and after 3 years of working he can't afford to pay for parking in a city centre and this isn't in London, this is in a provincial city. "This is taking the mick" I thought to myself. So I decided to do more investigation.

I started talking to other people who also went to law school with me and started working out what the wages were like. The answer: the bar is dead. Well, ok, not dead, there are still people working as barristers, but basically if the bar was a man, he would be stumbling toward the guillotine wondering why he has not been put out of his misery.

"No, you're wrong, I've read about a barrister who charges £200 per hour!" I hear you say. Well thats nice for them, but who cares, of course newspapers are going to focus on the 30 barristers who earn more than £2,000,000. But lets face it the best of any profession is always going to be paid far more than the rest of them. And if we're going to take the highest salaries of the job why not talk about the board of Barclay's Bank who are paid over £8,000,000? The best footballers are paid £30,000,000 but these are always the freaks, the unusual amounts, that is why they are getting reported, if they were getting a normal wage, it wouldn't be in the news.

It was reported not long ago that a man called Paul Dalton charges £5,000 to wash cars. There are usually cars worth a fortune in themselves and cannot be trusted to some chump with a sponge. Now to look at the top barristers and think that all are well paid is to look at Paul Dalton and think that if you get a bucket and sponge you can have £5,000 in your pocket by lunch.

"Fine, but I still know a Barrister who makes £80-100,000." Really? Do you? I guess that sounds like a lot of money but lets put this in perspective, if you are the manager of a Tesco Extra you get £100,000 p/a and a company car. Now lets compare the lifestyles, if you are the manager of Tesco and you make a mistake the tomatoes have to be thrown away and you have to bring in new ones. If you make a mistake as a barrister then someone may lose 15 years of their life when they shouldn't, a man will never get to see his own children again or a murder will walk the streets once more. I don't know about you, but I know which one I'd rather have on my conscience; rotten tomatoes all the way.

"But £80,000 is still a good salary", well first of all, you don't earn £80,000. You start off earning £10,000-£15,000. That is about the same as what you earn while you're working in a shop full time. There are people who work at factories who earn similar amounts and they don't have to pay chambers fees or pay for the fuel to get to court 50 miles away. Some people in Criminal sets (the worst paying) in London, don't even make a profit for the first few years, that is to say their wage does not even cover the cost of living. Which means only those whose parents are going to sub them for the next 3-5 years can even attempt to work as a Barrister.

Does it even pay later on? As I was investigating I found out about one barrister excited at the prospect that by the time they were 40 they may be making £40,000! Wow, how good would that be? Except if you're any good at what you do you could be making £50,000 working for a company.... and if you're not any good then you really shouldn't be working at the bar.

The fact is the only thing left at the bar is the reputation. The latent respect for a profession once filled with intelligent, wonderful people who could use words in ways so brilliant that they alter the mind of the person to whom they speak: persuasion. This one strand of dignity remains in the bar, it means that when you tell someone you're a barrister you receive instant respect. I dearly hope that this gets destroyed sooner rather than later. Why? You ask. Simple at the moment the best people are drawn to law, and then they leave realising it is an empty shell of what it used to be. Those who remain do so either for the faux status or because they are incompetent and they get a good living for an incompetent person. Either way if this is striped away people will start to realise that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

There does need to be reform in the law. I think, this may already be on its way. I worked for a advocacy company and as a starting wage (because I moved) I was earning a decent wage. This was far more than the £10,000 that one gets for their pupillage year. I was doing the same work, I was getting paid more and I was hired on merit by a firm, not on neoptism by chambers. This it appears is far more sensible.

It could well be that some of the bread and butter of the junior bar, £60 applications for this and that, have now been usurped by advocacy companies and therefore there isn't the critical mass of work to sustain a junior member of the bar like there used to be. If there was much more working going around previously I can imagine a day when a junior used to make a decent wage. But not any more.

The problem is, Chambers have made them almost impossible to defend. Advocacy companies can provide (albeit infrequent) work to those people who are based outside of the cities with chambers. They can also dedicate staff to recruitment and essentially they hold little sway for neopotism.

It appears that the advocacy companies take on more people than they can actually provide with sufficient work. Then those who can last and succeed do and those who don't leave, leaving you with those who have lasted.

This system isn't perfect, it means that many advocates don't have much money. But then, how is that different to the rest of the bar? In fact the only thing that should change is the name. Why is a trained barrister who does a barristers work said to be 'not practicing' just because the got into a firm instead of chambers?

But the benefit of this system is that people are taken on and those who want it badly enough can stay around. It isn't glamourous, it isn't well paid but it is a bit more fair.