How is the recession affecting barristers and pupillage chances?

Read an article in today's Times that says that 10,000 solicitors have lost their jobs because of the current recession. On top of this, many law firms are deferring their trainees for a year.

What I would be interested to know is: how has the recession affected practising members of the Bar and is it somehow affecting pupillage chances too for wannabe barristers?

I would be grateful for anyone's thoughts but also if anyone could direct me to some articles in the press that have discussed this question, that would be great too.

Oral v. Written Communication

I was thinking recently about just how good my communication skills are. To begin with I was just wondering how I came across to other people. A friend told me recently that she always found that I always spoke with a lot of weight. When I asked her to go into more detail, she said that if we were talking in a group and I started saying something others would have to stop talking and listen. When I said that was probably for the simple reason that we don't talk over each other, she said no - it was more than that. I think I finally got to the bottom of what she was trying to say when she concluded that I had a voice that people enjoyed listening to. I was very surprised to hear such remarks. It made me start listening to my own voice critically. When I spoke to her on another day she said I sounded different. I said that couldn't possibly be the case: since the last time we had spoken my voice hadn't changed one bit. I couldn't convince her - she said I was trying too hard now! Maybe I was, maybe I wasn't.

Anyway, now I've been thinking about the importance of oral communication skills to a barrister. The one point of comparison that I do have is with my written communication. I have always felt that my written communication - especially when arguing points in essays etc - is stronger than my oral communication. I don't believe its the case that I have the opportunity to revise my written remarks for submitting a final version. In fact I hardly ever do that. I just feel that when I put pen to paper, ideas flow more freely and in a more organised fashion. It could be that because writing takes more time, I have a little bit more time to think. I'm convinced that is not the case though.

What I want to know is if this is the case for any other wannabe barristers or practising barristers out there? Are your written communication skills better than your oral communication skills? And would you say that you are at a disadvantage to practitioners who are the opposite?

As a side issue: I asked a friend of mine who recently secured tenancy at her chambers what surprised her about a barrister's life during pupillage. Her response was that she had underestimated the importance of skeleton submissions to judges. So maybe it isn't all bad if my strengths are in my writing rather than my speech.

I know anyone reading this doesn't know how I sound but I'm interested in your opinions generally on these two forms of communication.

Thanks for your help.

Encounter with the Court Usher at the County Court

I arrived at the County Court at 9.05a.m.in my usual hurried and unsatisfactory state. My tie was reaching down to my knees and this was supposed to be my lucky one. I felt like I hadn’t eaten for 48 hours.

As is usually the case, the Court Usher was not to be found behind his desk, so I rang the bell. Probably racing through the corridors of the building moving parties from room to room, I thought. I always like how they wear security outfits: it really shows that they mean business.

When he appeared, it was from the same entrance that I had just come through. I introduced myself and said that I was here to work.
“You’re late”
“Oh, I’m sorry, the traffic was…”
“You walked here”. I did but how did he know that my facial expression inquired.
“You’re out of breath and I saw which direction you came in because I was outside the building”
“Oh…” I said flustered.
“You can’t lie to me, boy; I know everything there is to know about everything. Now what do you need me for?”
“Could you tell me where I need to be please. It’s my first day and…”
“Second floor. Take the stairs not the lift. Ask for Mrs Needle at the desk.”
“Thank you”

I was at the County Court for one reason only: to meet barristers. Specifically barristers from a nearby set of chambers where I would really like to complete my pupillage at. It’s a Chambers where I did a mini-pupillage at last summer when my decision to pursue a career as a barrister was made. The next step of course is to do the Bar Vocational Course but as my decision came so late in the year I was forced to take an impromptu year out.

In the meantime I have been working at a local supermarket for the money. During this time, I have found myself questioning my desire to become a barrister. With academic study of the law completed, I have found myself outside of the law so to speak. Although, I have often found myself recalling my knowledge of Contract law when remembering whether an offer to buy is made when customers pick up items from the shelves or when they present them at the counter. I started thinking about something else that I could do that could help my career option. The thought occurred to me that maybe I could see if there were any jobs available at the local courts. There was and that is how I found myself at the County Court on Monday morning.

At the desk on the second floor I rang yet another bell and found myself waiting for Mrs Needle. The time was 9.13a.m. Big smile, I thought – still plenty of opportunity to make a good impression. Mrs Needle has to be one of the thinnest women I have come across when she came and introduced herself. She cannot have weighed more than a flower and I prayed that I would not sneeze in front of her for fear that I would blow her across the room. I cannot say for sure what Mrs Needle’s job is: she didn’t tell me and I didn’t ask. We went to her desk which is just outside the office of the Court Manager’s – maybe she is her secretary? But then we were given a thorough rendition of the safety rules around the office, where the fire exits are, what to do with any suspicious packages I saw lying around (I’m still not sure but I’d feel stupid asking) and a whole host of other tips and rules. My favourite was the take-home booklet I received on how to prevent data from being lost – better not forget that document on the bus, I thought.

When we got down to business, I was told that I had been assigned to the family section for the time being. I was introduced to the three members of the section: Kenneth, Diane and Leanne. Kenneth was the section’s fountain of all knowledge and, rather appropriately, I thought was a towering middle-aged man. Diane had been the section’s longest serving member having worked there for nearly forty years. Her story was in her pronounced facial expressions and in the way she moved around the office. Leanne was the youngest member of the team; her defining features were her mouth and hands. Unfortunately for the Ministry of Justice, rather than putting these features to use whilst on the phone and handling files, Leanne preferred to feed herself continuously. These weren’t all the members of the section. There were the same number of empty desks and I was assigned to one of them. My task for the day would be to deal with a backlog of divorce petitions that had to be put into the system.

This proved to be quite an informative exercise actually. My decision never to have chosen to study Family law seemed to be the right one for me because I find the whole area to be just one big soap opera. Divorces, custody disputes, non-molestation orders: its your average episode of Eastenders and I can’t stand it. I did get an enormous amount of pleasure, however, in reading the statements backing up the ground upon which divorce was being petitioned for. Especially the ones for behaviour and adultery – they really stood out from the more the more basic reason that the married couple had lived apart from each other for an extended period of time. My favourite was this 35 year old woman who was petitioning for divorce because she repetitively caught her husband on premium rate sex phone lines. Her statement detailed each and every way that she discovered her husband’s fetishes and the sort of compromises they came to try to make their marriage work. By the end of the statement, the wife had discovered that her husband had moved onto visiting local prostitutes. Ouch.

Before my day was over I had to pass Edward, the Court Usher, in order to leave the building. I had hoped that I would be able to pass without drawing attention to myself but the confines of the reception area and Edward’s watchfulness prevented me from doing so.
“End of the day for you, is it?” Edward asked.
“Yeah and I’m glad for it because I’m knackered” I replied, “How about yourself? When do you finish?”
“Oh, I’m always the last to leave the building.”
“Really, I thought they would have let you go earlier.”
“Who would let me go?” he demanded.
“Well….your boss…whoever is in charge of you”
Edward let out a laugh with his head tilted back and then became serious all at once. “Nobody is in charge of me, boy. I am the highest authority in this building” he said gravely.
“Really?” I remarked rhetorically.
“You bet. I am in control of everyone who comes into this building. Everyone from the judges to the employees at the bottom of the ladder”
“Well, that clears that up then. Goodnight.” With that still in the air, I turned my back and left the building after my first day as an employee at the County Court. Not yet a practising barrister and not even a flea on the Court Usher’s black jumper, I had been told.

Just Bonuses!

I was discussing the topical issue of Bankers and their bonuses with a solicitor today who wanted to know my opinion based on my knowledge of contract law.

I caught most of the recent parliamentary committee meeting with the Bankers (the one where they all apologised) and I watched the Prime Minister before a different parliamentary committee this morning. I thought all of these hearings were pretty tedious and I can't see how much good could come out of it. I think the government could have done a better job of preparing for the current public disquiet over bonuses when it decided to bail them out.

One of the bankers before the committee informed the MPs that, having sought legal advice, they had been told that they were obliged to pay bonuses if they were stipulated in an employee's contract. With this in mind, I found one particular question by an MP quite surprising. This MP asked a banker whether he could appreciate the view of the wider public that these bankers should not be paid the bonuses they were promised in their employment contract and that surely they shouldn't be paying them out. I thought it was strange how this MP was being so callous in his analysis of an employee's right to be paid their due.

My conclusion is: the bankers aren't to be blamed in this respect. I think there is an inherent problem in the word 'Bonus'. By itself, it suggests that its something surplus to standard requirements; and, in a banking context, the wider public see it as something of an excessive windfall. Now, I acknowledge that, applied to certain bankers, this definition rings true. But it absolutely doesn't for certain bankers in the low-mid level of the profession.

If this issue was to be litigated before the courts, it seems to me that the word 'bonus' itself should be considered closely. For some employees, a bonus isn't a bonus in the real sense of the word but rather no more than their standard salary. The court's assessment should take into account the employee contract itself and what the employee has come to expect in practice in light of the work he does. If its clear that a windfall is being made where not a lot of work is being done, then they should not be rewarded.

Finally, the government is partially to blame for their failure to consider the Bonus issue at the time they bailed out the banks.

The best form of defence is attack!

Apologies for the absence of recent posts on this blog.

I mentioned a while back that I got a job as an assistant at a local supermarket. The pay is good and the hours aren't too bad. Also I need to start saving now to pay off those expensive BVC fees I will be dealing with soon.

The job is quite enjoyable really. Most of the people I work with and serve are really intersted in my prospects of a legal career. You won't believe the number of people that have told me that they will be my first customer as soon as I start practising. Whilst this is a very nice thing to hear it always makes me think of the many mountains that I still need to climb to get where I want.

Others want their legal advice sorted out immediately. I recently spent an hour and a half talking to this one guy who wants to sue this 'large company' because he wasn't satisfied with the service he got. By the way, I'm not being intentionally simplistic in this description because of client confidentiality! This is literally all that he gave me to go on and he wanted an answer. I have absolutely no idea of what sort of services this company offers or what his complaint is. An hour and a half, can you believe that?!

More interesting, though, are the people who stop me to talk about topical legal issues. I've spoken to loads of people about the recent De Menezes court case. This required me to have more knowledge about court procedure, jury cases and coroner's direction than I knew. Initially I was satisfied just to guess and use a confident tone; however, I decided that that wasn't the best way to go about things, so I've been trying to get more informed and keep ahead. The best form of defence is attack.

There's No One as Irish as Barack Obama!

This is a very catchy song that I can't get out of my head. Watch it and sing along. Its great!



No one as Irish as Barack OBama O'Leary, O'Reilly, O'Hare and O'Hara There's no one as Irish as Barack O'Bama

You don't believe me, I hear you say But Barack's as Irish, as was JFK His granddaddy's daddy came from Moneygall A small Irish village, well known to you all

Toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a lama There's no one as Irish As Barack O'Bama

He's as Irish as bacon and cabbage and stew He's Hawaiian he's Kenyan American too He’s in the white house, He took his chance Now let’s see Barack do Riverdance

Toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a lama There's no one as Irish As Barack O'Bama

From Kerry and cork to old Donegal Let’s hear it for Barack from old moneygall From the lakes if Killarney to old Connemara There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama

O'Leary, O'Reilly, O'Hare and O'Hara There's no one as Irish as Barack O'Bama From the old blarney stone to the great hill of Tara There's no one as Irish as Barack O'Bama

2008 the white house is green, their cheering in Mayo and in Skibereen. The Irish in Kenya, and in Yokahama, Are cheering for President Barack O’Bama

O'Leary, O'Reilly, O'Hare and O'Hara There's no one as Irish as Barack O'Bama

The Hockey Moms gone, and so is McCain They are cheering in Texas and in Borrisokane,

In Moneygall town, the greatest of drama, for our Famous president Barack o Bama

Toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a lama There's no one as Irish As Barack O'Bama

The great Stephen Neill, a great man of God, He proved that Barack was from the Auld Sod They came by bus and they came by car, to celebrate Barack in Ollie Hayes’s Bar

O'Leary, O'Reilly, O'Hare and O'Hara There's no one as Irish as Barack O'Bama

Who is your favourite fiction writer?

I will be logging onto Amazon sometime soon and purchasing a fair few books. Some will be Christmas presents but mostly they will be for me. When it comes to Christmas presents and deciding what to get to someone, I always find it easiest to decide which book to buy for them (if that is the type of present I have chosen for them). I think this is because of two reasons. Firstly, because I love wandering about bookshops and perusing literary review articles and thinking whether I would enjoy a particular book. Secondly, because there is just so much to choose from and so you are bound to find something. The thing about books is, there may seem to be an awful lot of them but you can always find a good bookshop that sells all the books you could want to buy for someone under one roof.

Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to ask some blawgers what their favourite novels are and who their favourite literary writers are. Its just a point of interest for me really. I want to see whether I am surprised by anybody's choice. They don't necessarily have to be law-related i.e. the likes of Bleak House or To Kill a Mockingbird but if you want to state your favourite in that category, do so.

Finally I thought I would mention one novel that I will be re-reading over the Christmas period: Netherland by Joseph O'Neill. I read it shortly after it was long-listed for this year's Man Booker Prize. The reason that I will be re-reading it so soon is because its turned out to be on everybody's Christmas favourite list. I do remember feeling that the novel made me think a lot after I finished it but I can't, for the life of me, remember why. Joseph O'Neill by-the-bye was formerly a barrister practising in Ireland. The novel is about cricket a subject dear to about 95% of the barristers that I have come across; but, interestingly, the plot takes place in New York. So why do you suppose a novel about cricket in New York has turned out be so popular - read it and find out for yourself is my advice.

EDIT By the way, I can't explain why the front cover of Netherland has a picture of an ice-skater on it. I remember thinking that I didn't come across any ice-skating happening in the novel. The only explanation that I have is: if the front-cover had a batsman on it, it wouldn't be flying off the American bookshelves as it has been.

The Barristers on the Beeb

I have of course been closely watching 'The Barristers' on the Beeb and have to say that I have enjoyed it very much. The series has been successful in getting across the role of the barrister in the legal system, how they go about their work and how tough it is to become a barrister.

I was left stricken, though, by the final episode of the series. In this episode, Kakole Pande - having been awarded tenancy in the previous week - was facing the possibility of having her tenancy revoked just shortly after her first appearance in a Crown Court as defence counsel. The head of Kakole's chambers first told us that having awarded tenancy to some of its pupils, about four old members of the chambers were now having second thoughts. Accordingly, Kakole was summoned back to her Chambers - to face up to, we were told, 30 members - for another interview for a position she had already been told she had. I was shocked. In the end it went just fine for Kakole who was able to vindicate herself in the eyes of the members of chambers that had a problem with her.

Unfortunately, just like we didn't get to see the House of Lords in session during the progression of a case, we didn't get to see the members of chambers who had a problem with Kakole! I'm guessing it was because they didn't want to be shamed on national television. The camera did after all follow Anna, another student, into one of her pupillage interviews.

Now, my feelings could all be premised on a misunderstanding; but, isn't it the case, that once you become a tenant, you have as much right to be in the chambers as any of its former members? Also, what if Kakole did not agree to this last interview? Wasn't she able to?

Legal Secretary application: what to do next?

I sent off an application for a legal secretary position at a high-street law firm back in August. The position was to commence in September. About three weeks after sending off my application I phoned up the firm to get an idea of what progress was being made on my application and when I could expect to hear from them. The partner that I spoke to seemed to be pretty interested in my application. Our conversation ended by him saying: 'I'll need to give this some more thought'. I've basically waited patiently since. I was surprised that all through September and October the position was still being advertised in my local newspaper. Even with the words 'to commence in September' throughout all of this period.

Now, half-way through November and the position isn't being advertised any more and I don't know what to do. The partner that I spoke to on the phone seemed pretty interested in me and its still something I desparately want to do. It occurs to me that, what with the credit crunch and all, they may be unable to pay another employee. That's a possibility, right? Well, for a while at least, I'd be prepared to work without being paid. I'm wondering whether I should perhaps phone up and make some inquiries. But, just how far should I go?

Your thoughts would be much appreciated :)

President-elect Obama

Obama won yesterday's Presidential election with, what will probably be, 364 electoral college votes to McCain's 174.

I say 'probably' because a couple of states - North Carolina and Missouri - have not officially been called yet. Obama is likely to win North Carolina; and McCain is likely to win Missouri.

In my prediction (see previous blog entry) Obama won with 325 electoral college votes to McCain's 213. I was off by three states worth 39 electoral college votes. They were: Indiana (11), Virginia (13) and North Carolina (15). All of these were so-called 'battleground' states and showed a very small, but remarkable, lead by Obama in the days before the election. I thought McCain would have won them back in the final push of his campaign where he visited these states.

Election night for me began when the first batch of polls closed and ended when the last batch of polls closed. It was at 04:00 a.m. that the race was finally called here in the U.K. for Obama, immediately after the polls in California closed and the Democratic nominee was projected to win. The race, for McCain, ended much sooner than that though. Three important states with hefty electoral college votes were among those to close early: Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio. Obama could win the presidency with one of these (at a stretch); McCain, however, needed at least two of these go red for him to be within a chance of winning. All three, as I predicted they would, went for Obama.

The highlight of the night was watching McCain's concession speech and Obama's victory speech. Both speeches are being compared very favourably with the best of those given in previous presidential elections. McCain seemed to have accepted defeat very well. Obama was more cautious - he didn't want to gloat and he wanted to be quick to push the success away from himself and into the hands of the American electorate.

It was a night of democracy and powerful oratory in action and it was just beautiful to watch.

My Prediction: Obama v McCain 325-213

What follows is my prediction for Tuesday's Presidential election.

There are a total of 538 Electoral college votes to be awarded. A candidate needs at least 270 votes to be elected President. In my prediction, Obama wins with 325 electoral college votes to McCain's 213.

Here are the states that I think each candidate will win. The corresponding electoral college votes are in brackets afterwards.

Obama (325)

California (55), Colarado (9), Columbia (3), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Florida (27), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), Iowa (7), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Michigan (17), Minnesota (10), Nevada (5), New Hampshire (4), New Jersey (15), New Mexico (5), New York (31), Ohio (20), Oregon (7), Pennsylvania (21), Rhode Island (4), Washington (11), Vermont (3), Wisconsin (10),

McCain (213)

Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arizona (10), Arkansas (6), Georgia (15), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), Mississippi (6), Missouri (11), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Carolina (15), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (8), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas (34), Utah (5), Virginia (13), West Virginia (5), Wyoming (3)

In recent weeks the election has been fought in the following 13 battleground states worth 158 electoral votes:

Colarado (9)
Florida (27)
Georgia (15)
Indiana (11)
Missouri (11)
Montana (3)
Nevada (5)
New Mexico (5)
North Carolina (15)
North Dakota (3)
Ohio (20)
Pennsylvania (21)
Virginia (13)

I think Obama will win the 6 states in bold which are cumulatively worth 87 electoral college votes. In winning the other 7 states, 71 electoral college votes will be in the McCain column. 87-71.

This, though, makes the election seem closer than it really is. Outside of these states, Obama has a much clearer lead over McCain. Also, calling some of the above states 'battleground states' is a bit misleading because some of them clearly aren't. In New Mexico, Ohio and Pennsylvania, Obama is ahead by at least 5 points. He is up in Florida too, but not by much. The reason that I put Florida in Obama's column is because I think he has ran a really successful campaign there. On the ground, he's pushed lots of Democrats and Independents to the polls in his early voting drive. The Obama campaign has further topped that off with adding a historic amount of new voters there. McCain definitely has support down there; but I think Obama has more. Just don't ask me how much!

Apologies for not being able to present the above numbers in an electoral college map. If I can find a way to do that, I will try to get it up.

University Report Cards

The national media is reporting today of a new scheme that will be piloted in 18 UK universities following the publication of a report suggesting that the traditional degree classification system is outdated because of its failure to recognise important skills.

To quote directly from today's Times on the purpose of the report cards:

The report cards will give information on students' performance throughout their time at university, such as a breakdown of grades by modules and details of areas in which they have excelled. They will be given alongside a graduate's traditional final degree grade, and aim to give employers, higher education institutions or other interested parties more contextual detail about a candidate's abilities.

Confusingly, The Times is saying that the report cards are intended to supplement the traditional degree classification system whereas the Guardian talks about them being an eventual replacement of the '200-year-old degree classification system'. The Guardian refers to them as 'achievement reports', though. Achievement reports will contain, amongst other things, a full breakdown of results for modules studied and any prizes won. The report cards are likely to be particularly useful to employers because they contain assessments of the student's presentational skills and ability to work effectively in a team.

Any student seeking a legal career after graduating will view this differently. Recruiters in the legal profession already, in my experience, manage to successfully identify an applicant's presentational skills and team-working skills. Especially on the solicitor side. Typically, as part of a training contract application to a city law firm (or really any commercial law firm) you will be required to write about examples of when you used these skills in application forms. After that, if invited to an assessment centre, the graduate recruitment team at the firm will be able to test your competency in these areas themselves.

Even recruiters in the legal profession might welcome this proposal, though. This is because it is veritable evidence that the applicant actually did the activities they say they did and used the skills they say they developed. At the moment, I don't believe the same checks exist by university tutors who, in their references to employers, are only really required to ensure the applicant has achieved the first and second year grades they stated in their application form.

U.S. Election - Al Smith Dinner

This is hilarious. An absolute must watch. The Al Smith dinner is something fans of The West Wing might know a little about from early on in season 7 of the hit show. It is an event held in New York at which the Presidential nominees from both parties speak at. Arnie Vinnick, the Republican nominee in The West Wing, didn't want to go it because he didn't want to be in a room with members of the Church. Matt Santos, the Democratic nominee for President in The West Wing called it the most "political non-political event". That is an apt description of it. Here's the clip from YouTube of Obama's speech - it is hilarious. Who needs debates on policy when this Presidential race can be decided by determining who the best stand-up comedian between them is?!

U.S. Election - Final Presidential Debate

The third and final Presidential debate took place last night and having watched all three (as well as the Vice-Presidential debate <--Nerd Alert) I can say, without a doubt, that it was the best one so far.

Both candidates were on the ball. Many of the problems that I highlighted of the previous debates were not repeated, only hinted at. In the last debates, Obama had attacked McCain's campaign comment that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong". McCain had defended that he was referring to the American workforce and was not being delusional about the current financial crisis. Likewise, McCain attacked Obama on his campaign statement in which he expressed an apparent willingess to sit down with the President of Iran "without preconditions". Both of the candidates were stretching their interpretation of the other's remarks. But not in last night's debate.

Instead, over an hour and a half, the candidates were both asked questions on eight issues. The first question (as with previous debates) was the economy. McCain immediately found what would become for both candidates a point of reference: a plumber in the toss-up state of Ohio by the name of Joe Wurzelbacher (or just Joe). McCain tried to explain how his economic and tax plans would be best for Joe's small business and how under an Obama presidency, he would be taxed heavily. This was a bad example though. Obama countered (as in previous debates) that because Joe earned less than $250,000 per annum he would not have to pay more tax. McCain said that Obama was intent on "spreading wealth around Americans" which he called a form of "class warfare". But that's a clear distortion of what Obama is actually doing.

The third and fourth questions were about the candidates leadership in the current election campaign and their respective verdicts on their opponents running-mate. Both stated that they were unhappy with the way the campaign has turned negative in recent weeks. Obama did well in clearing up the misconceptions over his actual relationship with Steven Ayers and ACORN, a voter registration service, that has been in the news because of allegations of corruption.

Interestingly, when it came to discussing the respective running-mates of the candidates, McCain had more negative things to say about Biden than Obama did have about Palin (which was, in fact, nothing). McCain identified Palin as a role model who, in particular, understood children with special needs. Obama simply agreed with McCain on these points; however, in his support of Biden, he was able to offer more substantial evidence: his foreign policy experience and his record for fighting crime.

The sixth question was about healthcare and the same spiel was regurgitated by both candidates only this time they addressed Joe from Ohio in particular. What a lucky guy he must be! On top of all of his current worries he's probably being pursued by the press and being asked about his views on how the candidates performed in the debate.

The final topics debated were: Roe v. Wade and Education. The former question is important because the next President is likely to appoint at least one judge to the bench (probably two). So what criteria will they be using? McCain is in favour of overturning Roe v. Wade and stated that he will not require a litmus test to be passed by potential appointees. Obama stated his position on a woman's right to choose and the specific requirements on which he would ban partial birth abortion (i.e. the mother's life is not put under risk). For this part of the debate at least, your either for one candidate or against them. I support a woman's right to choose.

On education, neither candidate was able to pin down the reason why America is able to invest so much in its students yet it performs consistently less better than it should against other countries. Obama, however, was the only one to identify the element of parental responsibility in showing children the benefits of knowledge and learning.

It was clear from this debate that McCain hasn't changed the content of his policies so much as he has changed the way he expresses them. Obama, as commentators have pointed out, tried to play it as cool as possible. This strategy is obviously because it was difficult to tell what sort of tone McCain would adopt in the debate. That McCain was angry can be seen from a statement that he made early on in the debate: "Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush you should have done so four years ago". Ouch. This didn't stop Obama concluding at the end of the debate that only he can effect the requisite change required in America and that American cannot afford to commit itself to four more years of the "same failed politics and the same failed policies" of the past eight years.

Man Booker Prize 2008 Winner - The White Tiger, Aravind Adiga

Aravind Adiga has won this year's Man Booker Prize for his novel The White Tiger.

This was the first novel that I read after it was long-listed back in July. I thought it was a pretty decent book at the time but I didn't expect it to get shortlisted or be the winner in the long run.

What I did like about the book was that it was thoroughly original, modern and very readable because of its engaging characters. However, I didn't like the way the novel was structured. The main character - the White Tiger of the novel - is Balram Halwai. We learn early on in the novel that he kills his master (at the end of the first chapter in the book, I think). Over most of the next chapters, the author explores Balram's relationship with his master and this is really where the novel is at its best. Adiga used humour well and there were some interesting subplots. Then I quickly found myself at the end of the novel and I still didn't understand why Balram had to kill his Master to get what he wanted. I understand his entrepreneurial ambitions but not why they lead to him committing such a vicious act. The socio-political parts of the book were the best parts, I thought, and were what remained with me after closing the book.

In my last post I mentioned that dream winner would be Steve Toltz's A Fraction of the Whole. This was a much longer book that Adiga's and whilst some of the criticisms that I have made of Adiga could equally be applicable to Toltz, I found the novel resonated with me much more. In fact, when Michael Portillo this year began to announce the winner, he said: "The Winner of the Man Booker Prize 2008 is a debutante novelist..." - this meant either Toltz or Adiga from the shortlist and I leapt up with joy, but it was not to be.

The Power of Literary Writers

This is something that I was in awe of recently: the Power of Literary Writers. Some people are a able to conceptualise problematic issues in special ways and deal with them accordingly. A select few of those are able to go one further and write about them in interesting and engaging ways. Yet fewer of those are able to write about them through the medium of a novel.

Three different examples that I have read about recently help emphasise my point. These are: the Man Booker Prize, Toni Morrison's endorsement of Barack Obama and a selection of 42 Writers who have each written pieces arguing against the 42 day detention proposal being debated in the Lords today.

The Man Booker Prize 2008

The shortlist for this year's prize was published at the beginning of September and the winner will be announced on Wednesday. I have nearly finished reading all the shortlisted books. My dream choice to be awarded the prize would be Steve Toltz's A Fraction of the Whole. I thought it was a tremendous epic novel. This 700 page masterpiece dealt with a variety of themes, including: betrayal, love, rebellion against accepted norms in society and a fantastic exploration of a father-son relationship.

This is the first novel that the author has published. I have read a couple of interviews by this author since being shortlisted and the thing which struck me was just how successful a philosopher he is on the aforementioned oft-appearing themes in his novel.

Toni Morrison's endorsement of Barack Obama

Toni Morrison was the winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1993. She famously called former President Bill Clinton America's first black president. Morrison is supporting Barack Obama this year and has done so since early on in this year's election season.

Why is this particular endorsement special? Well, it came in the form of a letter that she wrote to Senator Obama; here is an excerpt taken from the New York Observer:

In thinking carefully about the strengths of the candidates, I stunned myself when I came to the following conclusion: that in addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don't see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom. It is too bad if we associate it only with gray hair and old age. Or if we call searing vision naivete. Or if we believe cunning is insight. Or if we settle for finessing cures tailored for each ravaged tree in the forest while ignoring the poisonous landscape that feeds and surrounds it. Wisdom is a gift; you can't train for it, inherit it, learn it in a class, or earn it in the workplace--that access can foster the acquisition of knowledge, but not wisdom.

When, I wondered, was the last time this country was guided by such a leader? Someone whose moral center was un-embargoed? Someone with courage instead of mere ambition? Someone who truly thinks of his country's citizens as "we," not "they"? Someone who understands what it will take to help America realize the virtues it fancies about itself, what it desperately needs to become in the world?

Our future is ripe, outrageously rich in its possibilities. Yet unleashing the glory of that future will require a difficult labor, and some may be so frightened of its birth they will refuse to abandon their nostalgia for the womb.

There have been a few prescient leaders in our past, but you are the man for this time.

Good luck to you and to us.

I agree with all of what Morrison writes and think that it is an excellent precis of why Obama is a special candidate. The level of understanding that Morrison reaches in her letter is something that I haven't really seen elsewhere.

42 Writers against 42 day detention proposal

Visit 42writers.com and you will be able to read several well-known writers take on the government's proposals for 42 days detention of suspected terrorists. Its not just their views, though. They are all against the proposal; but the point is that they have such valid and interesting reasons for opposing it. For some, like Hardeep Singh Kohli, its about the length itself. For others, like Linda Grant (a short-listed author for this year's Booker prize), its the additional words 'without trial'.

My favourite is the writing by Sadie Jones. In such a short piece, Jones is able to demonstrate the different interpretations of the phrases: terror, war on terror and war on terrorism and why this is problematic.

Fair Game

We are currently observing a turning point in the American election season and I think it is the most crucial part of this election. Various polls are showing that Barack Obama has a comfortable lead over John McCain and the polling in the important toss-up states suggests that news is even worse for McCain. So what do you do if you're McCain? The answer is you attack and having just watched one of his rallies in the toss-up state of New Mexico it is obvious that he is doing just that.

Attacking is a good strategy to win elections. If you can get a good soundbite of something that your opponent believes in or thinks that sounds stupid or reprehensible and if you say it again and again, it could easily be something that the voters will think of immediately before casting their vote on November 4th. Governor Palin has been attacking Obama for befriending a domestic terrorist, William Ayers. When I first heard that she said this, I gave her the benefit of the doubt and read more about the case she was referring to. It quickly became obvious though that its a non-story. Obama's website - Fight the Smears - has been updated to fight this particular one too.

In his speech in New Mexico, McCain said that when he tried to question a particular view of Obama's he gets the cold shoulder from him. "For a guy that has written two memoirs", said McCain "he's hardly an open book". A good line and certainly one that some voters will remember, for want of more accurate and reliable information, before casting their vote. This is simply not the case though, in my opinion. McCain, it seems obvious to me, is trying to move away from speaking about the economy - the real issue that matters. This must be frustrating for the American voter. During their first debate, well over half an hour was spent on the bailout plan and a real attempt was made by the moderator to force the candidates to talk about the situation between themselves. Neither candidate sufficiently engaged with each other. This is disappointing because it would have been a fantastic opportunity to get a genuine one-over on the candidate.

The Obama camp has been on the attack too. However, their attack is valid, in my opinon. It comes in the form of a short documentary (13mins) called Keating Economics on their website. This documentary links a rather shady period of McCain's period in the Senate with his current (and future) attitude towards the economy. It shows that he doesn't have good judgment or people's best interests at heart when he is functioning as a leader. Having watched the documentary, I think its content is fair game. The same cannot be said for some of McCain's and Palin's most recent attacks on Obama.

This brings me to the reason that I am writing this. Tonight is the second Presidential debate. The bailout plan has now been passed by congress. Both candidates should be able to openly talk about the economy and get across to voters why their recovery plans are better than their opponents. Furthermore, both candidates should be able to commit to answering the question. This sounds silly; but, for example, if asked which parts of their plans for government are no longer feasible because of the need to be tight on the purse strings, they should be able to single particular areas out no matter how unpopular their ideas would be.

Tonight's debate is going to be won by the candidate that is most willing and able to engage with the key issue affecting voters: the economy. If McCain brings along his tacky one-liners, the American people should send him packing. If Obama isn't able to demonstrate his command over issues relating to the economy, then he should be judged weak too and voters, rightly, shouldn't vote for him because he's a Democrat. That wouldn't be fair game either.

Update

Having decided to take an impromptu year out before commencing the BVC in 2009, I have been giving thought to how I could fill that year best.

I haven't taken a gap year previously and this is actually something that I have regretted since. However, for some reason the idea of traipsing leisurely across the world doesn't really appeal to me right now because I feel I would prefer to get some good experience on my C.V.

I like the idea of working in the legal sector and earning money at the same time. This is because I would probably have something useful to talk about on my C.V. and I would be earning actual money. The next question I've had to consider is what sort of legal position am I interested in and where am I interested in doing the work. The answer to these questions respectively are: firstly, either a legal secretary or a paralegal position would be preferred; and secondly, as close to home as possible.

So far I have managed to fire off an application for a legal secretary position that was being advertised by a local law firm. I have since called about the position and to see how my application is progressing but, unfortunately, I have received no indication either way. The recruiting solicitor at the firm seems interested in my application but hasn't really taken any further steps since telling me so. The position remains advertised and I don't know what to do. I don't want to keep nagging at the solicitor so as to frustrate him; however, at the same time I would like to know where I stand.

Everybody I talk to about this gives me the same response: "Oh, well its the credit crunch, isn't it? These places will be having a tough time taking anyone on right now".
I'm not so sure though. If the economy is to blame, which it may well be, I would like to know. Mostly because its something I can tell my grandchildren about in a few years time and feel important about: "Your generation has got it easy. In my day, by the time I had graduated and was looking for a job, I had the challenge of doing so during the Greatest Depression on record!"

This has led me to start thinking of a short non-legal career. The easy one would be to get a job at the local supermarket. Long hours; not bad money; but a lower self-esteem is required than I am prepared to offer, I think. I am, though, teetering on the brink of firing off an application to them too. At least I will be earning something.

On the distant Bar-related side of things: I still haven't joined an inn yet. That is the first thing that I need to do. I think I might be in London later this year and so will try and fit a visit to some of the inns that I am interested in in my travel plans.

Obamamania

Reasons why I support Barack Obama for the presidency of the United States:

1. He is a Democrat. I am somewhat of a lefty. Therefore it is natural that I would be attracted to supporting the candidate that the Democrats nominated. I believe in a larger government than most people on the right of the political spectrum would favour. Although this does not mean that I am in favour of government prying into aspects of private life where they don't have a place.

2. Not only is he a Democrat, he opposes the war in Iraq and has plan to remove American troops from there. I think the war was illegal: the reasons that the Bush administration and a lot of other Republicans gave for going to war in Iraq were because that it posed an imminent threat, had WMDs and harboured terrorists. None of these reasons turned out to be true. I would have supported an invasion of Iraq if the reason was to dispose of a cruel military dictator. However, I would have expected a much better planned and better executed invasion than the one that we did get. I think the world will be better with Obama as Commander-in-Chief of the USA's armed forces. Having listened to how he conceptualises the existing threats against America, I think he is better placed to make the correct decisions on how they should be handled. McCain may have the military background but I don't think he has as sounder judgment as Obama on foreign policy issues. I think he would be too ready to involve American military power where it shouldn't be.

3. Having said that last point, this point may seem to conflict with it, but I hope I am able to explain why I don't think it does. Obama has stated that he is prepared to attack terrorists in Pakistan if they have actionable intelligence and the President of Pakistan isn't prepared to go after them himself. McCain, like Bush before him, is determined to keep Pakistan as an ally of America. I don't understand how a distinction could have been made between Mussharaf (the then President of Pakistan) and Saddam Hussein, by the Bush administration. They were both military dictators. If America is for freedom every where, why didn't they liberate Pakistan too? At least they shouldn't have classified it as an ally. Obama hasn't said that Pakistan will no longer be an ally of America; however, his attitude to the country is an improvement, I would say.

4. Obama is a smart guy. The first time that I read about Obama was shortly after the Democratic National Convention in 2004 (when John Kerry was nominated). The Independent had an article about him. I remember thinking that he was obviously a very clever and charismatic person - a born leader. I read a little about his background: his work in Chicago as a community organiser and his work in the Illinois state legislature. Most of the article was concerned with the speech he had made to the convention in which he talked of America not being disparate blue states and red states but one United States of America. I always thought of America being like in the former and so I was very interested in someone who was talking of an America that was just one entity. I think someone who is so fond of this idea of togetherness and working with friends and foes side-by-side to get things done is admirable. McCain is far more of a divisive character in my opinion.

5. I don't know exactly what Obamamania is. However if there is such a thing as an Obamamaniac, I am probably one of them. I mention these strange words because I think it helps highlight the fact that Obama is somewhat of a brand now. And that brand or that slogan is about the overcoming of a challenge and reaching heights that haven't been reached before. This is a guy who openly called the existence of slavery in America the 'greatest sin in the nation's history' - he is prepared to state what he thinks because, even though it pains him, he has a vision for making his country a better place. No easy feat.

6. I have read one of the books that Obama has written: The Audacity of Hope. In it, as well as describing the policy positions that he stands for, he talks about his life experiences that helped shape those positions. Obama is, in my opinion, a genuine politician who can connect with ordinary citizens of the country and understand their problems. How many houses does McCain have? Well actually I don't care how many houses McCain has. He can have 10 or 100 - but he must be able to state, in under 2 seconds, how many houses he has and not refer the question to his own advisors.

7. Obama chose Biden; McCain chose Palin. This, for me, shows how much more responsible Obama is. He could have chose Clinton and wrapped-up the election now, but he didn't want the distraction that choosing her would entail because it would impinge on his promise of change. Obama is prepared to look at the bigger picture, McCain is small-time in comparison. He is a self-proclaimed maverick which I actually think is dangerous. He pulls stunts: consider his most recent: suspending his election campaign to go back to Washington and deal with the financial crisis. Now, consider the current position: things aren't resolved, he is to blame for putting other members of congress on edge, and he's suddenly trying to benefit from his actions by saying he was right and Obama was wrong in the course of his election campaign. Well, for me, when he suspended his campaign, he suspended his campaign. He can't go back on what he said and use his actions to support his campaign. There was no need for him to suspend his campaign - he was clearly pulling a stunt.

Tony Blair on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Tony Blair recently appeared on what has to be my favourite thing on television at the moment: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I really can't get enough of this show: it is just so funny in its righteousness. I've watched the show religiously pretty much all through this year. Yep: I can remember the early primaries in the current election cycle and how they were 'documented' by the show. Basically, Stewart takes to town lots of different television commentators on political issues and demonstrates how ridiculous some of their ideas and views are. There is, obviously, a continuous thread of Bushisms which is always very funny.

I have seen Ricky Gervais appear a couple of times as guest on the show and both times it was such a treat - it really made me laugh my heart out. This week Tony Blair was to appear on the show and so again I thought it would be quite interesting. Maybe Stewart was really going to take him to town over his relationship with George Bush or maybe focus in particular on the war in Iraq. It turns out both of these issues were covered equally and the interview segment of the show was especially doubled to accommodate this. Having not heard Blair speak for such a long time, it was quite strange hearing his voice. He looked pretty fit - I think he's lost weight and got a bit of a tan. However, he was also pretty hesitant and not at all that engaging with Stewart like some of his other interviewees are. I guess that's because not many of his interviewees are former leaders of countries though. There was a great part in this interview where Blair says: 'No two democracies have ever fought each other'. Stewart points to Argentina and England, Blair manages to wiggle himself out of that one though.

I really recommend the show. Here is the Blair interview (its in two parts):