I agree entirely with Max Hutchinson that architects often have an "immature attitude to fees" - I believe that this might stem from historic [unthinking?] reliance on the fee scales themselves, rather than, for example, understanding your costs, determining the profit you intend to achieve and constructing your fee from there. There are also myriad ways of expressing a fee - in some situations enabling an entrepreneurial attitude to practice - that the scales didn't address. A part of why fees have been hammered down subsequent to the abolition of the mandatory scale has been that the successor 'indicative' scales have been based on survey data of previously achieved fees. Being non-mandatory these scales became the measure against which certain clients expected architects to bid [in effect undercut]. Ultimately, when successful, these low bids themselves became a part of the source data for the scale - thereby causing it to act as a downward ratchet. Plus at the lower end of the scales the fees provided weren't high enough.
Comment on: Ruth Reed in failed bid to oust Harry Rich
Wholeheartedly agree with the immediate comment above - all this noise by/about the region is distracting from the brilliant work that gets done. Tamsie, Mike Althorpe and the rest of the team are a real credit to us in London - I sometimes wonder - what if the RIBA in general had the same clarity of purpose and drive..?
Plenty as it happens.