Selling time

My favourite New Yorker cartoon is of two large, plump cats, either side of a mouse-hole. One is saying to the other, “If we were lawyers, this would be chargeable time.” It says it all. My partners have had to put up with my constant refrain, when we discuss billing strategies, that we should not be in the business of selling time, but instead should be persuading our clients to pay for value. The problem is that time cost as a measurement seems so simple, clients may not like it but are used to it, and everyone else does it, so why should we change. Well, things are changing. Front page of the FT on Monday was the report Lawyers in UK reform hourly charges. This began,

Leading London-based law firms are reforming their system of hourly charges as they come under fire from clients who feel they are paying too much at a time of soaring legal industry profits.

Leading firms told the Financial Times that they were offering alternatives to hourly rates and making more use of cost-cutting business practices, such as putting services offshore. The shift highlights growing external pressures on the legal profession to change, after a period of dramatic earnings growth achieved through expanding internationally and exploiting the corporate takeover boom.

British firms have for the most part been slower than their US counterparts to examine alternatives to hourly billing. In the US, firms have for several years been under significant pressure to reform.

All I will add is about time to. It is not enough to argue that because it is easy, it must be the right way to do it. And if this is happening in the City, how long before it reaches the rest of us?

Another gimmick

Although James Forsyth in Coffee House had a point on Friday when he asked What on earth were the Tories thinking?, the comments on Michael White’s post Not Smart in the Guardian’s Politics Blog are instructive (those on Forsyth’s post somewhat more predictable). For example, and from Not Smart:

“On some levels, he has a point. How are these children going to be selected? Is it just going to be the top students who go, or will it be a lottery. I think it should be open to all ages (and classes) and not just sixth-formers. And what about genocide happening today in Darfur? Wouldn’t the money be better spent on providing aid to victims suffering now?”

He’s right though. Teach children properly about what happened rather than sending a couple on a tourist trip. But effective teaching doesn’t get so many headlines.

And 48 hours on, there are new headlines and new stories.

So farewell, Gorbals Mick?

The convention may be that MPs do not openly criticise Mr Speaker, but time is surely running out for Michael Martin? Although he would like us to think that the criticism he is presently enjoying is simply the result of good old fashioned snobbery, the truth is not quite so clear. Nick Robinson has an excellent post, Theories on the Speaker, which looks at why Martin has suddenly got so many friends at Westminster: and why some want him to go. Certainly he has done himself no favours, but having the Gordon Brown encomium,

When asked about Mr Martin’s predicament, Mr Brown said: “It’s a matter for the House of Commons. Mr Martin has been a very, very good Speaker”

is probably the kiss of death.

Scrambled eggs

I remember laughing at an early Delia Smith programme, that looked at how best to boil an egg. This was something I learnt to do at an early age. Scrambled eggs were much the same: watching my ma scramble eggs, and later doing it myself; and then learning how to make breakfast even better, by adding smoked salmon and cream to the eggs. It is not, however, a dish that everyone can make. I had always thought that our eldest child made the worst scrambled eggs in the world until last week, when the eggs produced at a lawyers’ Breakfast Club in Plymouth showed that were depths she had still to plumb! Don’t whatever you do ask for scrambled eggs at Future Inns in Plymouth. The rest of the breakfast was already out when the eggs appeared; crumbling, scarcely yellow with what seemed to be brown gritty sand, and looking, smelling and tasting quite disgusting. Not a dish I recall with any pleasure, and definitely one I will not be ordering there again. It was a pleasure to read Christopher Hirst’s Can’t be beaten in the Weekend Telegraph magazine. An article (sadly not on the Telegraph website) I will be sending to the eldest; although I won’t bother doing the same with the Plymouth hotel. Instead, I will just stick to the sausages.

Flat-tops

A timely article on the government’s commitment to two new aircraft carriers in the FT. Michael Quinlan writes:

” The defence budget is in deeper trouble than at any time since Labour came to power. But so are the general public finances, so the Treasury will not come to the rescue. In such situations, squeeze-and-postpone never suffices. Nettles have to be grasped – the sooner, the better.”

This follows an article in the latest edition of The Economist on Rusty Lusty, HMS Illustrious, and the “hollowing out of the navy as defence spending becomes tighter”. The stark facts are

“Such ambitions come at a cost. The new carriers have enlarged an already big hole in the defence budget. Despite plans to increase real expenditure by 1.5% a year, defence sources say there is an “eye-watering” shortfall of £500m next year, rising to about £2 billion in 2011-12. On February 20th service chiefs and civil servants will try to agree on a savings plan for approval by Des Browne, the double-hatted secretary for defence and for Scotland. Budgeting involves grim inter-service fighting at the best of times, but the current round is the toughest in decades. About £2 billion must be taken out of the £12 billion annual equipment budget over the next two years in order to balance the books while paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and improving soldiers’ pay and conditions.

Britain is still fighting two wars on peacetime budgets. It needs to decide whether to increase defence spending to match its global ambitions or accept the permanent loss of some military capabilities. Instead, to put off the reckoning, ministers will probably delay the new carriers by a year or more, chop a few more ships and submarines, push back new transport aircraft, downgrade future armoured vehicles and skimp on maintenance.

All this distorts the military posture. It creates an even bigger hole in the budget from 2010, sucks out funds to keep old kit going, increases the unit costs of delayed and reduced future equipment, and penalises those at the end of the procurement pipeline. On current plans, for example, the air force is taking full delivery of 232 Typhoon jets, but it is doubtful that Britain will buy the 150 JSFs it would like.”

I have just finished Nemesis, Max Hastings’ account of the final year of the war against Japan. By the start of that final year the great carrier engagements were history, but Nimitz’s fleet carrier task forces played a key role in interdicting Japan’s seaborne trade and supporting US forces on the ground. What is clear, however, is that the flat-tops required enormous logistic support and each task force was exactly that: a fleet carrier and a retinue of destroyer radar pickets, anti-submarine frigates and more and more. 60 years on, what has changed, other than the fact that the chances of our being engaged in global war is remote; instead we fight asymmetric wars where carriers are most unlikely to play a decisive role.

The last word should perhaps be from Michael Quinlan:

“Defence planning has to make choices that limit what we can do. But with direct military threat a remote possibility, almost everything we take on far from home is ultimately optional. Do big carriers give us choices that other forces do not and that are wide, important and likely to warrant the costs? Carriers are an expensive way of providing a modest amount.

Carriers are an expensive way of providing a modest amount of air power. Like all forces, they have limitations. They are more vulnerable than airfields and harder to repair after damage, even if not sunk. Against serious opposition much of their effort goes into defending themselves, and they need a protective entourage. Even then, a single carrier is at severe risk within range of enemy air power (or missiles, or submarines). It cannot give much if any support if the operational theatre is deep inland. Two carriers cannot guarantee, as a basis for political commitment, the timely availability of one in the right place. A distinguished admiral has said that there is a case for three or none, but not two.”