"For the EU, it fills what would otherwise be a sizable hole in the budget while taking Britain away from the EU’s core meetings (which an extension of the formal withdrawal period under Article 50 wouldn’t). For both sides, it avoids a damaging disruption of trade and of goodwill."
Re: David Herdson's point: The last sentence is more important than the first one. We must not forget that under WTO, the EU countries would also receive duties on their imports from the UK. It may not fall exactly proportionately in the ratio of monies paid in by member countries towards the EU budget but collectively I don't think it will make that big a difference.
However, the last sentence is important. Both sides will be affected a little because prices paid by the importing country will be relatively higher than compared to alternative but I don't think it will make a huge difference. Moving supply chain is not that easy. Over time it will happen but it happens today as well.
The problem will be jurisdiction. The UK effectively wants to stay in the single market two years more. The EU more than likely will accept it. However, some in the UK, like the Moggster, says the ECJ can have no part in it.
Why should they accept ? After all, it is the UK's choice to stay longer in the SM. The EU understandably will not agree to any change in the jurisdiction.
Some of the Brexit debate is beginning to sound like Medieval theologians arguing over angels on pinheads or whatever.
I mean what on earth does it matter if the ECJ has jurisdiction for an additional couple of transition years? How many actual cases involving UK would even be heard in that time?
Agreed. But did you hear what the Moggster was saying last night. I am not sure he understands the ramifications. But creating unnecessary red lines just creates more trouble.
However, the Leavers are shifting fast. First, Brexit will be Brexit allied with the EU will be desperate to make a deal regarding FTA as "they need us more than we need them".
I didn't hear the details of Mogg's views I'm afraid.
He said (in so man words) that ECJ jurisdiction during transition was a red line. He was choosing his words carefully, but seemed less than entirely gruntled by the speech. I suspect he is in a small minority in the Party, and smaller still in the country at large.
Planning for no deal is self defeating. If they sent in the diggers in Kent, the world would see that we were heading for that outcome and business and the markets would react accordingly.
Brexit is utterly and completely doomed.
Even Corbyn still backs Brexit, let alone the Tory leadership so unless you are predicting a Vince Cable landslide next time unlikely
The Tories continue to delude themselves. Virtually no one apart from DUP types like what's her name are Remainers. Labour crafted their policy carefully but has now openly shifted. In fact, the Tories have caught with Labour now.
Young Labour voters, indeed 75% amongst all supporters, are Remainers.
80% of the country also oppose the Euro, as I said earlier Europe will likely split again between the Eurozone EU/old EEC nations and EFTA in due course and that will be the case whether we do hard or soft Brexit
Interesting polling, closer than I thought it would be and lots of DKs outside London.
I wonder how many of those replying to the poll actually read the reasons behind TFL’s decision yesterday? My view is that they should be allowed to operate, if they play by the same rules as any other minicab company, and that TfL’s decision was correct.
If they comply more with the regulations most likely
Yes, ironically London is far more pro Uber than the UK as a whole (perhaps due to most Black Cabbies having moved out of London to Essex and Kent)
Uber will be back with their wings clipped and under tighter control. Those Tory voting Black Cab drivers should be driven out of business.
A clear example of putting marketplace above tradition and sentiment, perhaps rightly but a purely libertarian rather than conservative or socialist viewpoint
My knowledge of Spanish is minimal and comes via Sharpe, so I, helpfully, know the words for needle, wolf, castrator, and whore. (Aguja, lobo, castrador, puta).
I'm trying to guess the sentence in which you would use all those words. Could be a fun party game!
As a needle is to a castrator, so is the wolf to a whore?
Eric Cantona?
"Is it right to shout abuse at me, just because I am on ze football pitch?"
They will inherit far more though thanks to the Tory inheritance tax cut
If they have well-off parents. Ah, the meritocratic Conservative party, 1979-2012[1]. I remember it so well...
[1] or whenever it was Osborne instituted HTB (spit)
60% of the country are still homeowners so 60% of the country will still inherit a significant amount
I'm not sure "you see, we can afford to ignore poor people" is tenable long-term...
Poor people always mostly vote Labour, Corbyn got his highest voteshare with DEs. It is ABs, C1s and skilled working class C2s the Tories need. Plus of course even many poor people have aspiration to create more wealth to pass onto their children
Interesting polling, closer than I thought it would be and lots of DKs outside London.
I wonder how many of those replying to the poll actually read the reasons behind TFL’s decision yesterday? My view is that they should be allowed to operate, if they play by the same rules as any other minicab company, and that TfL’s decision was correct.
Lots of DK's outside London, as Uber does not exist in most of it. I've never taken one, and have no idea how I would go about it. An out-of-touch media polling a local story as a national one. Not seen breathless reporting, or nationwide polls on the Birmingham bin strike for example.
Planning for no deal is self defeating. If they sent in the diggers in Kent, the world would see that we were heading for that outcome and business and the markets would react accordingly.
Brexit is utterly and completely doomed.
Even Corbyn still backs Brexit, let alone the Tory leadership so unless you are predicting a Vince Cable landslide next time unlikely
We will Brexit - but bar the loss of our MEPs and our PM attending the council of ministers every few months will any one be able to tell the difference. Taxation without representation?
Well we will certainly confirm our place outside the movement towards Federalism of the EU inner core and Eurozone
They will inherit far more though thanks to the Tory inheritance tax cut
If they have well-off parents. Ah, the meritocratic Conservative party, 1979-2012[1]. I remember it so well...
[1] or whenever it was Osborne instituted HTB (spit)
60% of the country are still homeowners so 60% of the country will still inherit a significant amount
I'm not sure "you see, we can afford to ignore poor people" is tenable long-term...
Poor people always mostly vote Labour, Corbyn got his highest voteshare with them. It is ABs, C1s and skilled working class C2s the Tories need. Plus of course even many poor people have aspiration to create more wealth to pass onto their children
Fair point, but you are creating (have created?) a country where the probability of success is dependent on the wealth of parents, not on the ability of self. That's not a meritocracy.
They will inherit far more though thanks to the Tory inheritance tax cut
If they have well-off parents. Ah, the meritocratic Conservative party, 1979-2012[1]. I remember it so well...
[1] or whenever it was Osborne instituted HTB (spit)
60% of the country are still homeowners so 60% of the country will still inherit a significant amount
60 per cent of HOUSEHOLDs are owner occupied I agree - not necessarily 60 per cent of people are owners.
One household could be a single pensioner occupying a 4 bed home but it could equally be a couple with three priced out adult kids still living in their childhood bedrooms or a group of 3 friends renting. Living in an owner occupied property does not make you an owner - your parents own it.
A household could have 1 vote or 5. And yes people may inherit - but it's not necessarily much comfort in your 20s and 30s that you might have to wait until your 60s to inherit perhaps one third of a home from your parents. And if you live in London but your parents are in the north that won't be much use either if you aim to buy near where you work.
Voters and households aren't the same - I would actually bet the number of owners on property deeds is below 50 per cent of the population. And even then they have kids and grandkids who they want to see buy a home for their family and get on in life.
The Tories used to get that - but if they don't address housing what has happened to them in London will extend elsewhere. Cos you cannot take away a generation's hopes and dreams and expect them to support you.
Interesting polling, closer than I thought it would be and lots of DKs outside London.
I wonder how many of those replying to the poll actually read the reasons behind TFL’s decision yesterday? My view is that they should be allowed to operate, if they play by the same rules as any other minicab company, and that TfL’s decision was correct.
Lots of DK's outside London, as Uber does not exist in most of it. I've never taken one, and have no idea how I would go about it. An out-of-touch media polling a local story as a national one. Not seen breathless reporting, or nationwide polls on the Birmingham bin strike for example.
They will inherit far more though thanks to the Tory inheritance tax cut
If they have well-off parents. Ah, the meritocratic Conservative party, 1979-2012[1]. I remember it so well...
[1] or whenever it was Osborne instituted HTB (spit)
60% of the country are still homeowners so 60% of the country will still inherit a significant amount
I'm not sure "you see, we can afford to ignore poor people" is tenable long-term...
Poor people always mostly vote Labour, Corbyn got his highest voteshare with them. It is ABs, C1s and skilled working class C2s the Tories need. Plus of course even many poor people have aspiration to create more wealth to pass onto their children
Fair point, but you are creating (have created?) a country where the probability of success is dependent on the wealth of parents, not on the ability of self. That's not a meritocracy.
Not necessarily, if for example you go from being poor to an investment banker or corporate lawyer or self made entrepreneur or Premier League footballer or pop star you will still be richer longer term and have a bigger house than someone on an average salary who just happens to have parents with an expensive detached or even semi detached house in the Home Counties.
Just there are rather more of the latter than the former and always will be, only a small minority will go from being poor to rich but a much larger percentage will have a reasonable amount of family wealth to try and conserve
Or alternatively, even if we do crash out, we could still leave the border open and wait to see if the EU demands that the Irish put up border posts.
Thank goodness somebody else gets it! I've been banging on for weeks about how people comprehensively misunderstand tariffs[1]. The question is not simply whether we will enforce a ROI/NI border and impose tariffs on goods coming into NI, but whether Dublin will enforce one and impose tariffs on goods going out of NI.
This is a big question...which is I think one of the reasons why Varadkar is not having a good time.
[1] they are a tax imposed by the domestic government on domestic taxpayers who purchase goods coming in, NOT imposed by the foreign government on foreign manufacturers on goods going out.
Under WTO rules there is no choice, is there? Both sides have to.
I suspect that there'll be something in one of the N Ireland agreements that could be used to prevent that default, given enough legal imagination.
If I was Theresa I'd sack Boris now. The Brexit Ultras now hold him in contempt after his capitulation yesterday, so he'd be powerless, unloved, isolated and no further threat to Theresa.
Hezza's carers could at least have changed him out of his pyjamas and dressing gown for his important intervention.
It's a bit rich of him to attack Boris given what he did to Thatcher. Although it might have been dramatic had Boris flounced out of Cabinet on principle. As you say he looks like he has just got out of bed and is still in his pyjamas - did the council carers not turn up today?
If I was Theresa I'd sack Boris now. The Brexit Ultras now hold him in contempt after his capitulation yesterday, so he'd be powerless, unloved, isolated and no further threat to Theresa.
Boris is the Hezza of today, if she sacks him now he could end up ultimately toppling her, as Heseltine did to Thatcher 4 years after he left Cabinet. Perhaps Tom Tugendhadt would then be Major if she promotes him quickly enough?
They will inherit far more though thanks to the Tory inheritance tax cut
If they have well-off parents. Ah, the meritocratic Conservative party, 1979-2012[1]. I remember it so well...
[1] or whenever it was Osborne instituted HTB (spit)
60% of the country are still homeowners so 60% of the country will still inherit a significant amount
60 per cent of HOUSEHOLDs are owner occupied I agree - not necessarily 60 per cent of people are owners.
One household could be a single pensioner occupying a 4 bed home but it could equally be a couple with three priced out adult kids still living in their childhood bedrooms or a group of 3 friends renting.
A household could have 1 vote or 5. And yes people may inherit - but it's not necessarily much comfort in your 20s and 30s that you might have to wait until your 60s to inherit perhaps one third of a home from your parents. And if you live in London but your parents are in the north that won't be much use either if you aim to buy near where you work.
Voters and households aren't the same - I would actually bet the number of owners is below 50 per cent. And even then they have kids and grandkids who they want to see buy a home for their family and get on in life.
The Tories used to get that - but if they don't address housing what has happened to them in London will extend elsewhere. Cos you cannot take away a generation's hopes and dreams and expect them to support you.
Yes valid. But this is what happens when we have a decade of insane interest rates and increase the population by 4-5% at the same time ( and of course that 4-5% is concentrated more or less where pressure was greatest anyway).
I'd suggest we need to build big time and to be honest I don't see much urgency from HMG unless Hammond is doing something in the budget to jog things along.
We've kept the "jobs economy" going at an amazing rate post financial crisis but at the cost of colossal distortions in housing and bonds (and hence pension problems). Ideally we need a long run of over target inflation at about 4% to raise rates and let real prices fall gently. Tricky balance indeed.
Interesting polling, closer than I thought it would be and lots of DKs outside London.
I wonder how many of those replying to the poll actually read the reasons behind TFL’s decision yesterday? My view is that they should be allowed to operate, if they play by the same rules as any other minicab company, and that TfL’s decision was correct.
Ludicrous. Most of the country has no idea how Uber works, as we can tell from the inane and ignorant commentary on here. They've never encountered it, never used it.
The only important bit of this poll is the London subset, which should deeply disturb Khan. His decision is supported by just 29%, and 60% oppose.
This is why he is ALREADY beginning to backpedal. Here's his response to the half million signatures on the petition.
"I suspect it will take some time before this situation with Uber fully plays out. "
That's code for, Oops, I don't want my very own dementia tax, we'll fudge some face-saving compromise a few months down the line...
A commitment by Uber to follow the rules followed by them keeping their licence would allow all to save face. But I honestly don't have a clue which rules aren't being followed already.
Boris is the Hezza of today, if she sacks him now he could end up ultimately toppling her, as Heseltine did to Thatcher 4 years after he left Cabinet. Perhaps Tom Tugendhadt would then be Major if she promotes him quickly enough?
Boris will do her in at the first opportunity whether she sacks him or not. If she thinks otherwise she's even stupider than we thought.
If I was Theresa I'd sack Boris now. The Brexit Ultras now hold him in contempt after his capitulation yesterday, so he'd be powerless, unloved, isolated and no further threat to Theresa.
Boris is the Hezza of today, if she sacks him now he could end up ultimately toppling her, as Heseltine did to Thatcher 4 years after he left Cabinet. Perhaps Tom Tugendhadt would then be Major if she promotes him quickly enough?
The difference is that Hezza had a powerful anti-Thatcher base amongst the Heathites. Boris tried to ingratiate himself with the Brexit Ultras with his resignation threat, but they won't trust him now after yesterday's wimp-out. He's a vastly shrunken figure.
Interesting polling, closer than I thought it would be and lots of DKs outside London.
I wonder how many of those replying to the poll actually read the reasons behind TFL’s decision yesterday? My view is that they should be allowed to operate, if they play by the same rules as any other minicab company, and that TfL’s decision was correct.
Ludicrous. Most of the country has no idea how Uber works, as we can tell from the inane and ignorant commentary on here. They've never encountered it, never used it.
The only important bit of this poll is the London subset, which should deeply disturb Khan. His decision is supported by just 29%, and 60% oppose.
This is why he is ALREADY beginning to backpedal. Here's his response to the half million signatures on the petition.
"I suspect it will take some time before this situation with Uber fully plays out. "
That's code for, Oops, I don't want my very own dementia tax, we'll fudge some face-saving compromise a few months down the line...
Agree. On my most recent trip to the metropolis (Newcastle) I saw an Uber. My reaction was Oh, there's one of those things Londoners talk about like Ocado or a public bus service. They might as well be speaking Swahili.
They will inherit far more though thanks to the Tory inheritance tax cut
If they have well-off parents. Ah, the meritocratic Conservative party, 1979-2012[1]. I remember it so well...
[1] or whenever it was Osborne instituted HTB (spit)
60% of the country are still homeowners so 60% of the country will still inherit a significant amount
60 per cent of HOUSEHOLDs are owner occupied I agree - not necessarily 60 per cent of people are owners.
One household could be a single pensioner occupying a 4 bed home but it could equally be a couple with three priced out adult kids still living in their childhood bedrooms or a group of 3 friends renting. Living in an owner occupied property does not make you an owner - your parents own it.
A household could have 1 vote or 5. And yes people may inherit - but it's not necessarily much comfort in your 20s and 30s that you might have to wait until your 60s to inherit perhaps one third of a home from your parents. And if you live in London but your parents are in the north that won't be much use either if you aim to buy near where you work.
Voters and households aren't the same - I would actually bet the number of owners on property deeds is below 50 per cent of the population. And even then they have kids and grandkids who they want to see buy a home for their family and get on in life.
The Tories used to get that - but if they don't address housing what has happened to them in London will extend elsewhere. Cos you cannot take away a generation's hopes and dreams and expect them to support you.
Of course if you are the typical child of a 2.1 children family and you live in the North or Midlands and your parents own a property in London or the South when they pass away you will get half the value of their home and inherit a small fortune in terms of property you can buy north of Watford.
I agree that does not mean that the Tories can ignore housebuilding but already round my way locals are already up in arms about the large numbers of houses Javid wants the Council to build on the green belt and nearby greenfields beyond just the brownbelt. So if the Tories don't build enough they are attacked by Labour if they build too much they are attacked by the LDs for threatening the countryside, it has to be a balance
They will inherit far more though thanks to the Tory inheritance tax cut
If they have well-off parents. Ah, the meritocratic Conservative party, 1979-2012[1]. I remember it so well...
[1] or whenever it was Osborne instituted HTB (spit)
60% of the country are still homeowners so 60% of the country will still inherit a significant amount
I'm not sure "you see, we can afford to ignore poor people" is tenable long-term...
Poor people always mostly vote Labour, Corbyn got his highest voteshare with them. It is ABs, C1s and skilled working class C2s the Tories need. Plus of course even many poor people have aspiration to create more wealth to pass onto their children
Fair point, but you are creating (have created?) a country where the probability of success is dependent on the wealth of parents, not on the ability of self. That's not a meritocracy.
Not necessarily, if for example you go from being poor to an investment banker or corporate lawyer or self made entrepreneur or Premier League footballer or pop star you will still be richer longer term and have a bigger house than someone on an average salary who just happens to have parents with an expensive detached or even semi detached house in the Home Counties.
Just there are rather more of the latter than the former and always will be, only a small minority will go from being poor to rich but a much larger percentage will have a reasonable amount of family wealth to try and conserve
I'm not sure that's contradicting my point, more explaining it...
But I have things to do, so if you'll excuse me I have to do some shopping.
Interesting polling, closer than I thought it would be and lots of DKs outside London.
I wonder how many of those replying to the poll actually read the reasons behind TFL’s decision yesterday? My view is that they should be allowed to operate, if they play by the same rules as any other minicab company, and that TfL’s decision was correct.
Ludicrous. Most of the country has no idea how Uber works, as we can tell from the inane and ignorant commentary on here. They've never encountered it, never used it.
The only important bit of this poll is the London subset, which should deeply disturb Khan. His decision is supported by just 29%, and 60% oppose.
This is why he is ALREADY beginning to backpedal. Here's his response to the half million signatures on the petition.
"I suspect it will take some time before this situation with Uber fully plays out. "
That's code for, Oops, I don't want my very own dementia tax, we'll fudge some face-saving compromise a few months down the line...
Agree. On my most recent trip to the metropolis (Newcastle) I saw an Uber. My reaction was Oh, there's one of those things Londoners talk about like Ocado or a public bus service. They might as well be speaking Swahili.
Really? I see them all the time in Leeds. I've never used one outside of Lille (very handy they were there though) but I'd be surprised if there's not just a market but an Uber presence in most cities now.
They will inherit far more though thanks to the Tory inheritance tax cut
If they have well-off parents. Ah, the meritocratic Conservative party, 1979-2012[1]. I remember it so well...
[1] or whenever it was Osborne instituted HTB (spit)
60% of the country are still homeowners so 60% of the country will still inherit a significant amount
I'm not sure "you see, we can afford to ignore poor people" is tenable long-term...
Poor people always mostly vote Labour, Corbyn got his highest voteshare with them. It is ABs, C1s and skilled working class C2s the Tories need. Plus of course even many poor people have aspiration to create more wealth to pass onto their children
Fair point, but you are creating (have created?) a country where the probability of success is dependent on the wealth of parents, not on the ability of self. That's not a meritocracy.
Not necessarily, if for example you go from being poor to an investment banker or corporate lawyer or self made entrepreneur or Premier League footballer or pop star you will still be richer longer term and have a bigger house than someone on an average salary who just happens to have parents with an expensive detached or even semi detached house in the Home Counties.
Just there are rather more of the latter than the former and always will be, only a small minority will go from being poor to rich but a much larger percentage will have a reasonable amount of family wealth to try and conserve
I'm not sure that's contradicting my point, more explaining it...
But I have things to do, so if you'll excuse me I have to do some shopping.
Sure, I have got to go out in a second too but it is no surprise the Conservative Party wants to conserve wealth, it is the Liberal Party under Cable which wants to shift from taxing income to taxing wealth more, Labour under Corbyn of course wants to increase tax on both income and wealth
If I was Theresa I'd sack Boris now. The Brexit Ultras now hold him in contempt after his capitulation yesterday, so he'd be powerless, unloved, isolated and no further threat to Theresa.
Boris is the Hezza of today, if she sacks him now he could end up ultimately toppling her, as Heseltine did to Thatcher 4 years after he left Cabinet. Perhaps Tom Tugendhadt would then be Major if she promotes him quickly enough?
The difference is that Hezza had a powerful anti-Thatcher base amongst the Heathites. Boris tried to ingratiate himself with the Brexit Ultras with his resignation threat, but they won't trust him now after yesterday's wimp-out. He's a vastly shrunken figure.
Hezza was also a capable minister who was genuinely up to the job of PM.
Boris is the Hezza of today, if she sacks him now he could end up ultimately toppling her, as Heseltine did to Thatcher 4 years after he left Cabinet. Perhaps Tom Tugendhadt would then be Major if she promotes him quickly enough?
Boris will do her in at the first opportunity whether she sacks him or not. If she thinks otherwise she's even stupider than we thought.
If I was Theresa I'd sack Boris now. The Brexit Ultras now hold him in contempt after his capitulation yesterday, so he'd be powerless, unloved, isolated and no further threat to Theresa.
Boris is the Hezza of today, if she sacks him now he could end up ultimately toppling her, as Heseltine did to Thatcher 4 years after he left Cabinet. Perhaps Tom Tugendhadt would then be Major if she promotes him quickly enough?
The difference is that Hezza had a powerful anti-Thatcher base amongst the Heathites. Boris tried to ingratiate himself with the Brexit Ultras with his resignation threat, but they won't trust him now after yesterday's wimp-out. He's a vastly shrunken figure.
That depends, if the transition period starts to look more permanent Boris will switch to opposing it as fast as he switched to backing it
I very rarely use taxis so I don't really care about Uber, but I did hear one interesting thing on the radio this morning. Apparently, the most dangerous place you can be at night in London is on the top deck of a London bus.
"For the EU, it fills what would otherwise be a sizable hole in the budget while taking Britain away from the EU’s core meetings (which an extension of the formal withdrawal period under Article 50 wouldn’t). For both sides, it avoids a damaging disruption of trade and of goodwill."
Re: David Herdson's point: The last sentence is more important than the first one. We must not forget that under WTO, the EU countries would also receive duties on their imports from the UK. It may not fall exactly proportionately in the ratio of monies paid in by member countries towards the EU budget but collectively I don't think it will make that big a difference.
However, the last sentence is important. Both sides will be affected a little because prices paid by the importing country will be relatively higher than compared to alternative but I don't think it will make a huge difference. Moving supply chain is not that easy. Over time it will happen but it happens today as well.
The problem will be jurisdiction. The UK effectively wants to stay in the single market two years more. The EU more than likely will accept it. However, some in the UK, like the Moggster, says the ECJ can have no part in it.
Why should they accept ? After all, it is the UK's choice to stay longer in the SM. The EU understandably will not agree to any change in the jurisdiction.
Some of the Brexit debate is beginning to sound like Medieval theologians arguing over angels on pinheads or whatever.
I mean what on earth does it matter if the ECJ has jurisdiction for an additional couple of transition years? How many actual cases involving UK would even be heard in that time?
Agreed. But did you hear what the Moggster was saying last night. I am not sure he understands the ramifications. But creating unnecessary red lines just creates more trouble.
However, the Leavers are shifting fast. First, Brexit will be Brexit allied with the EU will be desperate to make a deal regarding FTA as "they need us more than we need them".
I didn't hear the details of Mogg's views I'm afraid.
He said (in so man words) that ECJ jurisdiction during transition was a red line. He was choosing his words carefully, but seemed less than entirely gruntled by the speech. I suspect he is in a small minority in the Party, and smaller still in the country at large.
I'd agree. What is the principle behind accepting ECJ jurisdiction until 2019 but not until 2021? Not accepting it indefinitely, I can understand.
I'd agree. What is the principle behind accepting ECJ jurisdiction until 2019 but not until 2021? Not accepting it indefinitely, I can understand.
Well we have no choice but to accept ECJ jurisdiction until 2019. After 2019 we are choosing voluntarily to extend their jurisdiction.
However it is entirely reasonable to expect jurisdiction to continue during transition so his only alternative can be to oppose any transition. I don't think anyone (besides Farage but who cares about him anymore) will really oppose transition.
Interesting polling, closer than I thought it would be and lots of DKs outside London.
I wonder how many of those replying to the poll actually read the reasons behind TFL’s decision yesterday? My view is that they should be allowed to operate, if they play by the same rules as any other minicab company, and that TfL’s decision was correct.
Like most innovations it's one of those things where users like seanT think evetyone's using it and non-users view it with vague suspicion. I'm fairly tech-savvy but I've never used it, or talked to anyone who mentioned using it. My vague impression is that they've slipped up on various issues and thought they needn't bother to fix them. The polite CEO response suggests they'll now sort them out, in which case I expect they'll succeed on appeal. Doubt if it will have any lasting political consequences for Khan or anyone else.
A glance at the papers in the supermarket shows May's speech typically on page 5, reported fairly politely, though Farage's scornful response gets a splash in one.
If I was Theresa I'd sack Boris now. The Brexit Ultras now hold him in contempt after his capitulation yesterday, so he'd be powerless, unloved, isolated and no further threat to Theresa.
Heseltine is a nasty piece of work with a real problem with women at he top
I'd agree. What is the principle behind accepting ECJ jurisdiction until 2019 but not until 2021? Not accepting it indefinitely, I can understand.
Well we have no choice but to accept ECJ jurisdiction until 2019. After 2019 we are choosing voluntarily to extend their jurisdiction.
However it is entirely reasonable to expect jurisdiction to continue during transition so his only alternative can be to oppose any transition. I don't think anyone (besides Farage but who cares about him anymore) will really oppose transition.
I think the EU might oppose it, or at the very least demand an eye watering amount of money.
He [JRM] said (in so many words) that ECJ jurisdiction during transition was a red line. He was choosing his words carefully, but seemed less than entirely gruntled by the speech. I suspect he is in a small minority in the Party, and smaller still in the country at large.
This yesterday from readyformogg.org
"Dear Ishmael,
Theresa May made it clear today that she wants to leave the European Union in name only.
We'll remain part of all integrated aspects.
That's not what we voted for - it's a slap in the face to 17.4 million people.
The political establishment think they can get away with it, meanwhile loud lefties are rejoicing.
We need Jacob Rees-Mogg to be part of the Brexit process more than ever before!
That's what we're campaigning for right now. Our ultimate aim is to see Jacob as leader of the Conservative Party, but in the meantime Jacob must be our voice for Brexit.
To make this happen we need your support.
Will you consider donating a few pounds to help move our campaign forward?"
moggism is I think an idea whose time has now gone.
Interesting polling, closer than I thought it would be and lots of DKs outside London.
I wonder how many of those replying to the poll actually read the reasons behind TFL’s decision yesterday? My view is that they should be allowed to operate, if they play by the same rules as any other minicab company, and that TfL’s decision was correct.
Ludicrous. Most of the country has no idea how Uber works, as we can tell from the inane and ignorant commentary on here. They've never encountered it, never used it.
The only important bit of this poll is the London subset, which should deeply disturb Khan. His decision is supported by just 29%, and 60% oppose.
This is why he is ALREADY beginning to backpedal. Here's his response to the half million signatures on the petition.
"I suspect it will take some time before this situation with Uber fully plays out. "
That's code for, Oops, I don't want my very own dementia tax, we'll fudge some face-saving compromise a few months down the line...
Agree. On my most recent trip to the metropolis (Newcastle) I saw an Uber. My reaction was Oh, there's one of those things Londoners talk about like Ocado or a public bus service. They might as well be speaking Swahili.
Really? I see them all the time in Leeds. I've never used one outside of Lille (very handy they were there though) but I'd be surprised if there's not just a market but an Uber presence in most cities now.
It is entirely possible that they are ubiquitous in Newcastle too. However, I go there maybe 3 or 4 times a year. They certainly don't exist outside the city.
I very rarely use taxis so I don't really care about Uber, but I did hear one interesting thing on the radio this morning. Apparently, the most dangerous place you can be at night in London is on the top deck of a London bus.
v interesting, I would have hoped the driver had some way of detecting bad stuff happening upstairs, and telling the Old Bill about it.
If I was Theresa I'd sack Boris now. The Brexit Ultras now hold him in contempt after his capitulation yesterday, so he'd be powerless, unloved, isolated and no further threat to Theresa.
Boris is the Hezza of today, if she sacks him now he could end up ultimately toppling her, as Heseltine did to Thatcher 4 years after he left Cabinet. Perhaps Tom Tugendhadt would then be Major if she promotes him quickly enough?
The difference is that Hezza had a powerful anti-Thatcher base amongst the Heathites. Boris tried to ingratiate himself with the Brexit Ultras with his resignation threat, but they won't trust him now after yesterday's wimp-out. He's a vastly shrunken figure.
That depends, if the transition period starts to look more permanent Boris will switch to opposing it as fast as he switched to backing it
The give away is two years. It's taken over half that to get to where we are now. It is a figure plucked from the air because it doesn't sound that long. If they had said 5 years with a few key milestones it would have been a bit more credible. The transition period will be just a cover until a way can be worked out to wriggle out.
I'd agree. What is the principle behind accepting ECJ jurisdiction until 2019 but not until 2021? Not accepting it indefinitely, I can understand.
Well we have no choice but to accept ECJ jurisdiction until 2019. After 2019 we are choosing voluntarily to extend their jurisdiction.
However it is entirely reasonable to expect jurisdiction to continue during transition so his only alternative can be to oppose any transition. I don't think anyone (besides Farage but who cares about him anymore) will really oppose transition.
I think the EU might oppose it, or at the very least demand an eye watering amount of money.
The EU wants money. If we pay to follow their rules without getting a say in them as part of a transition that's a win-win for them.
Interesting polling, closer than I thought it would be and lots of DKs outside London.
I wonder how many of those replying to the poll actually read the reasons behind TFL’s decision yesterday? My view is that they should be allowed to operate, if they play by the same rules as any other minicab company, and that TfL’s decision was correct.
Ludicrous. Most of the country has no idea how Uber works, as we can tell from the inane and ignorant commentary on here. They've never encountered it, never used it.
The only important bit of this poll is the London subset, which should deeply disturb Khan. His decision is supported by just 29%, and 60% oppose.
This is why he is ALREADY beginning to backpedal. Here's his response to the half million signatures on the petition.
"I suspect it will take some time before this situation with Uber fully plays out. "
That's code for, Oops, I don't want my very own dementia tax, we'll fudge some face-saving compromise a few months down the line...
Agree. On my most recent trip to the metropolis (Newcastle) I saw an Uber. My reaction was Oh, there's one of those things Londoners talk about like Ocado or a public bus service. They might as well be speaking Swahili.
Really? I see them all the time in Leeds. I've never used one outside of Lille (very handy they were there though) but I'd be surprised if there's not just a market but an Uber presence in most cities now.
Uber have saved me massive hassle in Lyon, Rome and Sydney (the last was particularly grim - I was staring at a 4 hour walk with no public transport on a Sunday - then I suddenly thought: Uber!
He [JRM] said (in so many words) that ECJ jurisdiction during transition was a red line. He was choosing his words carefully, but seemed less than entirely gruntled by the speech. I suspect he is in a small minority in the Party, and smaller still in the country at large.
This yesterday from readyformogg.org
"Dear Ishmael,
Theresa May made it clear today that she wants to leave the European Union in name only.
We'll remain part of all integrated aspects.
That's not what we voted for - it's a slap in the face to 17.4 million people.
The political establishment think they can get away with it, meanwhile loud lefties are rejoicing.
We need Jacob Rees-Mogg to be part of the Brexit process more than ever before!
That's what we're campaigning for right now. Our ultimate aim is to see Jacob as leader of the Conservative Party, but in the meantime Jacob must be our voice for Brexit.
To make this happen we need your support.
Will you consider donating a few pounds to help move our campaign forward?"
moggism is I think an idea whose time has now gone.
Agree. It was interesting yesterday, that the vast majority (of PB people) whether left or right, or leavers or remainers were talking about the quality (or lack of quality) of the speech. There were few who were actively opposed to the actual details therein.
Interesting polling, closer than I thought it would be and lots of DKs outside London.
I wonder how many of those replying to the poll actually read the reasons behind TFL’s decision yesterday? My view is that they should be allowed to operate, if they play by the same rules as any other minicab company, and that TfL’s decision was correct.
Ludicrous. Most of the country has no idea how Uber works, as we can tell from the inane and ignorant commentary on here. They've never encountered it, never used it.
The only important bit of this poll is the London subset, which should deeply disturb Khan. His decision is supported by just 29%, and 60% oppose.
This is why he is ALREADY beginning to backpedal. Here's his response to the half million signatures on the petition.
"I suspect it will take some time before this situation with Uber fully plays out. "
That's code for, Oops, I don't want my very own dementia tax, we'll fudge some face-saving compromise a few months down the line...
Agree. On my most recent trip to the metropolis (Newcastle) I saw an Uber. My reaction was Oh, there's one of those things Londoners talk about like Ocado or a public bus service. They might as well be speaking Swahili.
Really? I see them all the time in Leeds. I've never used one outside of Lille (very handy they were there though) but I'd be surprised if there's not just a market but an Uber presence in most cities now.
There is, but 80% of their UK drivers (and passengers, one presumes) are in London. Or at least that was the case when that employment tribunal went against them, I seem to recall the 80% figure was in the judgment.
Whether we like it or not European geo politics and power is conducted within the framework of the EU. We have absented ourselves from that and left other powers to dominate the block in a way that does not suit our interests.
The EU was increasingly dominated by the Eurozone countries and acting in their, not our, interests
We now have freedom of action as a significant medium sized power vs part of a sclerotic medium sized power with little interest in force projection
One example being Russia: German politicians personal interests (yes, Schroeder I'm looking at you) meant that Europe was silent at a time where a robust response would have been optimal
Has our influence on our neighbours gone up or down?
Our influence on the world has gone up.
Nice swerve. Note you couldnt answer the question. Please provide evidence of our growing world influence.
It wasn't a swerve: you were taking a Eurocentric view, which is the wrong lens to look through
We are finished, we have no influence anywhere nowadays, well past sell by date. Totally irrelevant and ignored and derided universally. EU are wiping the floor with UK.
I'd agree. What is the principle behind accepting ECJ jurisdiction until 2019 but not until 2021? Not accepting it indefinitely, I can understand.
His argument was that it was not what the country voted for. If there is one thing I have learned from this site over the past year is that what the country voted for, other than Leave, is a matter of intensely, but purely, personal opinion.
Interesting polling, closer than I thought it would be and lots of DKs outside London.
I wonder how many of those replying to the poll actually read the reasons behind TFL’s decision yesterday? My view is that they should be allowed to operate, if they play by the same rules as any other minicab company, and that TfL’s decision was correct.
Lots of DK's outside London, as Uber does not exist in most of it. I've never taken one, and have no idea how I would go about it. An out-of-touch media polling a local story as a national one. Not seen breathless reporting, or nationwide polls on the Birmingham bin strike for example.
Exactly , a story for London plonkers only, meanwhile in the real world people have real problems to worry about.
I just read an interesting article about Uber, by an uber driver.
In a nutshell, Uber drivers running for 60 hours a week may earn £23 k a year, self employed, no pension, no employment protection etc. IN LONDON.
They are totally at the mercy of the online reviews of users, their employer does nothing to protect their position, signing up more and more drivers to compete with you.
This is just the worst kind of capitalism. People who celebrate Uber are essentially celebrating servitude and poverty. Thats what the Uber driver is, your servant. Its like we are going back a hundred years.
Happy to be a luddite idiot who uses black cabs, I don't want anything to do with this type of exploitation.
I just read an interesting article about Uber, by an uber driver.
In a nutshell, Uber drivers running for 60 hours a week may earn £23 k a year, self employed, no pension, no employment protection etc. IN LONDON.
They are totally at the mercy of the online reviews of users, their employer does nothing to protect their position, signing up more and more drivers to compete with you.
This is just the worst kind of capitalism. People who celebrate Uber are essentially celebrating servitude and poverty. Thats what the Uber driver is, your servant. Its like we are going back a hundred years.
Happy to be a luddite idiot who uses black cabs, I don't want anything to do with this type of exploitation.
I just read an interesting article about Uber, by an uber driver.
In a nutshell, Uber drivers running for 60 hours a week may earn £23 k a year, self employed, no pension, no employment protection etc. IN LONDON.
They are totally at the mercy of the online reviews of users, their employer does nothing to protect their position, signing up more and more drivers to compete with you.
This is just the worst kind of capitalism. People who celebrate Uber are essentially celebrating servitude and poverty. Thats what the Uber driver is, your servant. Its like we are going back a hundred years.
Happy to be a luddite idiot who uses black cabs, I don't want anything to do with this type of exploitation.
Not a great deal of Uber in my neck of the woods, but I don't want to see my local, family-owed mini-cab firm go under when they do arrive in numbers. I'm often taken by the same three or four drivers, who have been with them for a number of years.
Interesting polling, closer than I thought it would be and lots of DKs outside London.
I wonder how many of those replying to the poll actually read the reasons behind TFL’s decision yesterday? My view is that they should be allowed to operate, if they play by the same rules as any other minicab company, and that TfL’s decision was correct.
Lots of DK's outside London, as Uber does not exist in most of it. I've never taken one, and have no idea how I would go about it. An out-of-touch media polling a local story as a national one. Not seen breathless reporting, or nationwide polls on the Birmingham bin strike for example.
Exactly , a story for London plonkers only, meanwhile in the real world people have real problems to worry about.
Unfortunately Malc Uber will be with you anon. Unless Scotland has some regulatory block I am unaware of.
Interesting polling, closer than I thought it would be and lots of DKs outside London.
I wonder how many of those replying to the poll actually read the reasons behind TFL’s decision yesterday? My view is that they should be allowed to operate, if they play by the same rules as any other minicab company, and that TfL’s decision was correct.
Lots of DK's outside London, as Uber does not exist in most of it. I've never taken one, and have no idea how I would go about it. An out-of-touch media polling a local story as a national one. Not seen breathless reporting, or nationwide polls on the Birmingham bin strike for example.
Exactly , a story for London plonkers only, meanwhile in the real world people have real problems to worry about.
Unfortunately Malc Uber will be with you anon. Unless Scotland has some regulatory block I am unaware of.
I just read an interesting article about Uber, by an uber driver.
In a nutshell, Uber drivers running for 60 hours a week may earn £23 k a year, self employed, no pension, no employment protection etc. IN LONDON.
They are totally at the mercy of the online reviews of users, their employer does nothing to protect their position, signing up more and more drivers to compete with you.
This is just the worst kind of capitalism. People who celebrate Uber are essentially celebrating servitude and poverty. Thats what the Uber driver is, your servant. Its like we are going back a hundred years.
Happy to be a luddite idiot who uses black cabs, I don't want anything to do with this type of exploitation.
Not a great deal of Uber in my neck of the woods, but I don't want to see my local, family-owed mini-cab firm go under when they do arrive in numbers. I'm often taken by the same three or four drivers, who have been with them for a number of years.
Yep. Same here. I always tip the decent drivers because it is a grim job and poorly paid.
Actually, being a taxi driver is one of the most dangerous jobs you can do because of all the dodgy people and business you end up being party to. One of my friends who used to drive a taxi drove a gang in to a cabin in a remote location, on the way they started talking openly about hijacking the taxi and getting rid of him.
They will inherit far more though thanks to the Tory inheritance tax cut
If they have well-off parents. Ah, the meritocratic Conservative party, 1979-2012[1]. I remember it so well...
[1] or whenever it was Osborne instituted HTB (spit)
60% of the country are still homeowners so 60% of the country will still inherit a significant amount
Of course if you are the typical child of a 2.1 children family and you live in the North or Midlands and your parents own a property in London or the South when they pass away you will get half the value of their home and inherit a small fortune in terms of property you can buy north of Watford.
I agree that does not mean that the Tories can ignore housebuilding but already round my way locals are already up in arms about the large numbers of houses Javid wants the Council to build on the green belt and nearby greenfields beyond just the brownbelt. So if the Tories don't build enough they are attacked by Labour if they build too much they are attacked by the LDs for threatening the countryside, it has to be a balance
Life expectancy is now in the mid 80s.
Are you supposed to wait until your late 50s or early 60s to inherit half a house - long after any kids you might have had grown up? That means spending 30 years plus renting with all the uncertainty that comes with that including the possibility you can be two months away from being chucked out on the street even if you pay you rent on time every month. Not much comfort - don't worry things will be alright for you in 30 years?!
People want and need security for their families on their 30s - not their 60s when they would probably be downsizing for retirement anyway.
Rising homeownership was a great vote winner for the Tories in the 80s - it's decline will be their downfall too if they don't address is. Why would people vote for a party who wants to maintain a system that you have no stake in.
No wonder Corbyn seems superficially attractive - he wants to take down a system you see has ruined your future. Not Mays fault - Osborne drove this - but she bore the consequence last June.
That is the entire logic of this type of service (e.g. AirBnB, Uber ...) They work because they take up slack capacity that already exists - be it people's spare (or unemployed) time, or spare capacity in a house, or unused time for equipment such as a car.
The business-model ceases to make as much sense when people have to buy/invest in the 'excess' capacity or rely on it as a full-time job.
Whether we like it or not European geo politics and power is conducted within the framework of the EU. We have absented ourselves from that and left other powers to dominate the block in a way that does not suit our interests.
The EU was increasingly dominated by the Eurozone countries and acting in their, not our, interests
We now have freedom of action as a significant medium sized power vs part of a sclerotic medium sized power with little interest in force projection
One example being Russia: German politicians personal interests (yes, Schroeder I'm looking at you) meant that Europe was silent at a time where a robust response would have been optimal
Has our influence on our neighbours gone up or down?
Our influence on the world has gone up.
Nice swerve. Note you couldnt answer the question. Please provide evidence of our growing world influence.
It wasn't a swerve: you were taking a Eurocentric view, which is the wrong lens to look through
We are finished, we have no influence anywhere nowadays, well past sell by date. Totally irrelevant and ignored and derided universally. EU are wiping the floor with UK.
At least you are using "we". That's progress of a sort...,
That is the entire logic of this type of service (e.g. AirBnB, Uber ...) They work because they take up slack capacity that already exists - be it people's spare (or unemployed) time, or spare capacity in a house, or unused time for equipment such as a car.
The business-model ceases to make as much sense when people have to buy/invest in the 'excess' capacity or rely on it as a full-time job.
That is the 'logic behind the service", but the reality is that most of the time airbnb is just an unregulated hotel, and uber is an unregulated taxi service. It may be that they start out with noble intentions, but they take on their own momentum and follow the money.
This is just unregulated capitalism masquerading as innovation and disruption. They are basically parasitic entities that destroy decent jobs and livelihoods.
I get the impression that the black cab drivers are fighting the first battle in a war they've already lost. In going for the pure protectionism route, they've left a massive hole in their lines that will be exploited, if not by Uber, than by a.n.other.
They've been fighting this for a few years, and they might have been much better off producing and/or publicising an alternative, perhaps (shock, horror) in conjunction with their old enemy, the private hire. Gett apparently doesn't cut the mustard, especially amongst all the other competitors.
That is the entire logic of this type of service (e.g. AirBnB, Uber ...) They work because they take up slack capacity that already exists - be it people's spare (or unemployed) time, or spare capacity in a house, or unused time for equipment such as a car.
The business-model ceases to make as much sense when people have to buy/invest in the 'excess' capacity or rely on it as a full-time job.
That is the 'logic behind the service", but the reality is that most of the time airbnb is just an unregulated hotel, and uber is an unregulated taxi service. It may be that they start out with noble intentions, but they take on their own momentum and follow the money.
This is just unregulated capitalism masquerading as innovation and disruption. They are basically parasitic entities that destroy decent jobs and livelihoods.
I don't disagree with you about how they have evolved. I stayed at a AirBnB in Boston - first and last time. It was a doss house in everything but name. Totally deceptive advertising. I'll never use AirBnB again.
I get the impression that the black cab drivers are fighting the first battle in a war they've already lost. In going for the pure protectionism route, they've left a massive hole in their lines that will be exploited, if not by Uber, than by a.n.other.
They've been fighting this for a few years, and they might have been much better off producing and/or publicising an alternative, perhaps (shock, horror) in conjunction with their old enemy, the private hire. Gett apparently doesn't cut the mustard, especially amongst all the other competitors.
Anyone who drives for a living is completely screwed in the long term.
I get the impression that the black cab drivers are fighting the first battle in a war they've already lost. In going for the pure protectionism route, they've left a massive hole in their lines that will be exploited, if not by Uber, than by a.n.other.
They've been fighting this for a few years, and they might have been much better off producing and/or publicising an alternative, perhaps (shock, horror) in conjunction with their old enemy, the private hire. Gett apparently doesn't cut the mustard, especially amongst all the other competitors.
Anyone who drives for a living is completely screwed in the long term.
In the very long term, maybe.
My rather bearish views on autonomous cars are well known.
I just read an interesting article about Uber, by an uber driver.
In a nutshell, Uber drivers running for 60 hours a week may earn £23 k a year, self employed, no pension, no employment protection etc. IN LONDON.
They are totally at the mercy of the online reviews of users, their employer does nothing to protect their position, signing up more and more drivers to compete with you.
This is just the worst kind of capitalism. People who celebrate Uber are essentially celebrating servitude and poverty. Thats what the Uber driver is, your servant. Its like we are going back a hundred years.
Happy to be a luddite idiot who uses black cabs, I don't want anything to do with this type of exploitation.
It's bollocks tho. I take Ubers all the time, and I often take pains to ask the drivers how they feel about the job. I'd say 70% like it, 20% are neutral, 10% dislike it but have no choice.
They specially like the total freedom - the opposite of servitude and slavery. They can pick and choose when they work. They can knock off for an hour, it's up to them. No one is in charge. They can quit the job any day, for good.
I guess all these drivers could be lying to me, but I doubt it. Driving an Uber is a desirable job for someone with low skills. All you need is SatNav, a decent car, a polite attitude, and you're off. And many of them do it part time.
Maybe they are happy. It strikes me though, being in that game, it probably isn't a good idea to moan about what you do to your paying customers. Thats a pretty standard rule for any business. If I speak to HSBC telephone services and ask them how their day is going, it will probably be going well.
Being an UBER driver for 60 hours a week is an improvement on being homeless. But that doesn't make it acceptable.
Its a structural deficit, though. This is poorly paid, insecure work. It has no place in a civilised society.
My rather bearish views on autonomous cars are well known.
I somewhat agree if you mean full autonomy, but even things like driving assistance, remote control, and automated navigation are reducing the skills required to be a "driver".
My rather bearish views on autonomous cars are well known.
I somewhat agree if you mean full autonomy, but even things like driving assistance, remote control, and automated navigation are reducing the skills required to be a "driver".
Until you have full level-5 autonomy then drivers will still be needed, and the jobs safe.
My rather bearish views on autonomous cars are well known.
I somewhat agree if you mean full autonomy, but even things like driving assistance, remote control, and automated navigation are reducing the skills required to be a "driver".
Until you have full level-5 autonomy then drivers will still be needed, and the jobs safe.
Yep, and the road between where we are and L5 is not a smooth one. The current L3 automation is bloody dangerous, in that it expects the driver to be paying full attention to take control at a moment’s notice if required - something that humans are not good at doing at all.
To me, a self driving car needs to be able to work empty or with a completely inattentive/drunk/sleeping passenger. It should take me to work as I read the newspaper, drop me off outside the door, go and park itself, pick me up at the end of the day and take me to dinner, then take me home happily merry and sleeping in the back. It needs to be like having a chauffeur.
My rather bearish views on autonomous cars are well known.
I somewhat agree if you mean full autonomy, but even things like driving assistance, remote control, and automated navigation are reducing the skills required to be a "driver".
Until you have full level-5 autonomy then drivers will still be needed, and the jobs safe.
Yep, and the road between where we are and L5 is not a smooth one. The current L3 automation is bloody dangerous, in that it expects the driver to be paying full attention to take control at a moment’s notice if required - something that humans are not good at doing at all.
To me, a self driving car needs to be able to work empty or with a completely inattentive/drunk/sleeping passenger. It should take me to work as I read the newspaper, drop me off outside the door, go and park itself, pick me up at the end of the day and take me to dinner, then take me home happily merry and sleeping in the back. It needs to be like having a chauffeur.
They will inherit far more though thanks to the Tory inheritance tax cut
If they have well-off parents. Ah, the meritocratic Conservative party, 1979-2012[1]. I remember it so well...
[1] or whenever it was Osborne instituted HTB (spit)
60% of the country are still homeowners so 60% of the country will still inherit a significant amount
Of course if you are the typical child of a 2.1 children family and you live in the North or Midlands and your parents own a property in London or the South when they pass away you will get half the value of their home and inherit a small fortune in terms of property you can buy north of Watford.
I agree that does not mean that the Tories can ignore housebuilding but already round my way locals are already up in arms about the large numbers of houses Javid wants the Council to build on the green belt and nearby greenfields beyond just the brownbelt. So if the Tories don't build enough they are attacked by Labour if they build too much they are attacked by the LDs for threatening the countryside, it has to be a balance
Life expectancy is now in the mid 80s.
Are you supposed to wait until your late 50s or early 60s to inherit half a house - long after any kids you might have had grown up? That means spending 30 years plus renting with all the uncertainty that comes with that including the possibility you can be two months away from being chucked out on the street even if you pay you rent on time every month. Not much comfort - don't worry things will be alright for you in 30 years?!
People want and need security for their families on their 30s - not their 60s when they would probably be downsizing for retirement anyway.
Rising homeownership was a great vote winner for the Tories in the 80s - it's decline will be their downfall too if they don't address is. Why would people vote for a party who wants to maintain a system that you have no stake in.
No wonder Corbyn seems superficially attractive - he wants to take down a system you see has ruined your future. Not Mays fault - Osborne drove this - but she bore the consequence last June.
Which is why Javid announced a big housebuilding programme in London and the Home Counties recently. However even that is storing up opposition from locals in the shires who want to protect the greenbelt
You're probably right on the fudge coming, but you're wrong on Uber's wild popularity. That's genuine.
Uber has 40,000 drivers in London, and 3.5m Londoners have downloaded the app. It's enormous and ubiquitous. You must have a very very restricted number of older wealthier central London friends if you don't know anyone that takes an Uber (you are also missing out personally, they are incredibly useful).
There is a reason Uber has raced to 530,000 signatures on its petition in 24 hours. I note that, in contrast, the petition for a 2nd EU referendum has reached 108,000 signatures....after several months
Hah
You may be right, suspecting personal acquaintance to be typical is dangerous. Personally it's not that I take taxis, I just take the tube/walk 95% of the time - can't remember when I last took a taxi for private use (occasionally to go to a work meeting with stuff to transport). I think that many Londoners are sufficiently budget-conscious to do the same, or take the bus. The night tube was big news as far as I'm concerned, Uber a bit oh-well.
Just so I understand. With no customs what is our policy on Chinese counterfeit medicines for example.
And what would be the situation if an entrepreneur decided to offer said pharmaceuticals via a shell company based in NI and importing via Cork->Belfast->Liverpool?
No tariffs does not mean no customs. We would still be able to prevent counterfeit medicines as that is already covered by WTO agreements .
Logistics. How would such medicines be policed in the absence of a hard ROI/NI border? You're looking at small parcels sent via post and targeted at individuals (or small chemists) and containing pharmaceuticals that are not illegal and are not controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act, and for which the recipient holds a legitimate scrip. Would the post be intercepted? Is this already done via IRL and if so at what volume would it become problematic? This is on the verge of becoming a genuine question...[insert smiley for puzzled face here ]
You are conflating arguments. I as not referring to the NI border but to a general principle regarding zero tariffs. Besides the NI border is open now but since it leads to another EU country and will continue to do so after Brexit whether it is open or not makes absolutely no difference to the ability or otherwise to smuggle counterfeit drugs onto the UK. Unless of course you are suggsting that our current membership of the EU is causing this to hsppen.
I just read an interesting article about Uber, by an uber driver.
In a nutshell, Uber drivers running for 60 hours a week may earn £23 k a year, self employed, no pension, no employment protection etc. IN LONDON.
They are totally at the mercy of the online reviews of users, their employer does nothing to protect their position, signing up more and more drivers to compete with you.
This is just the worst kind of capitalism. People who celebrate Uber are essentially celebrating servitude and poverty. Thats what the Uber driver is, your servant. Its like we are going back a hundred years.
Happy to be a luddite idiot who uses black cabs, I don't want anything to do with this type of exploitation.
It's bollocks tho. I take Ubers all the time, and I often take pains to ask the drivers how they feel about the job. I'd say 70% like it, 20% are neutral, 10% dislike it but have no choice.
They specially like the total freedom - the opposite of servitude and slavery. They can pick and choose when they work. They can knock off for an hour, it's up to them. No one is in charge. They can quit the job any day, for good.
I guess all these drivers could be lying to me, but I doubt it. Driving an Uber is a desirable job for someone with low skills. All you need is SatNav, a decent car, a polite attitude, and you're off. And many of them do it part time.
I was in Moraira in Spain last week. I needed to get to the airport in Alicante. I was pointed in the direction of a service called Beniconnect. It provides anything from a car to a bus which is shared by anyone wanting to travel to the destination but it picks up from a small number of starting points ( hotel, car park, and in my case a restaurant). You can book on line or by phone. The firm adjusts the mode of transport to the number of people booking. It worked really well and got me to the airport in good time.
Comments
I suspect he is in a small minority in the Party, and smaller still in the country at large.
An out-of-touch media polling a local story as a national one.
Not seen breathless reporting, or nationwide polls on the Birmingham bin strike for example.
One household could be a single pensioner occupying a 4 bed home but it could equally be a couple with three priced out adult kids still living in their childhood bedrooms or a group of 3 friends renting. Living in an owner occupied property does not make you an owner - your parents own it.
A household could have 1 vote or 5. And yes people may inherit - but it's not necessarily much comfort in your 20s and 30s that you might have to wait until your 60s to inherit perhaps one third of a home from your parents. And if you live in London but your parents are in the north that won't be much use either if you aim to buy near where you work.
Voters and households aren't the same - I would actually bet the number of owners on property deeds is below 50 per cent of the population. And even then they have kids and grandkids who they want to see buy a home for their family and get on in life.
The Tories used to get that - but if they don't address housing what has happened to them in London will extend elsewhere. Cos you cannot take away a generation's hopes and dreams and expect them to support you.
I'll get me coat...
Just there are rather more of the latter than the former and always will be, only a small minority will go from being poor to rich but a much larger percentage will have a reasonable amount of family wealth to try and conserve
I'd suggest we need to build big time and to be honest I don't see much urgency from HMG unless Hammond is doing something in the budget to jog things along.
We've kept the "jobs economy" going at an amazing rate post financial crisis but at the cost of colossal distortions in housing and bonds (and hence pension problems). Ideally we need a long run of over target inflation at about 4% to raise rates and let real prices fall gently. Tricky balance indeed.
I agree that does not mean that the Tories can ignore housebuilding but already round my way locals are already up in arms about the large numbers of houses Javid wants the Council to build on the green belt and nearby greenfields beyond just the brownbelt. So if the Tories don't build enough they are attacked by Labour if they build too much they are attacked by the LDs for threatening the countryside, it has to be a balance
But I have things to do, so if you'll excuse me I have to do some shopping.
However it is entirely reasonable to expect jurisdiction to continue during transition so his only alternative can be to oppose any transition. I don't think anyone (besides Farage but who cares about him anymore) will really oppose transition.
A glance at the papers in the supermarket shows May's speech typically on page 5, reported fairly politely, though Farage's scornful response gets a splash in one.
"Dear Ishmael,
Theresa May made it clear today that she wants to leave the European Union in name only.
We'll remain part of all integrated aspects.
That's not what we voted for - it's a slap in the face to 17.4 million people.
The political establishment think they can get away with it, meanwhile loud lefties are rejoicing.
We need Jacob Rees-Mogg to be part of the Brexit process more than ever before!
That's what we're campaigning for right now. Our ultimate aim is to see Jacob as leader of the Conservative Party, but in the meantime Jacob must be our voice for Brexit.
To make this happen we need your support.
Will you consider donating a few pounds to help move our campaign forward?"
moggism is I think an idea whose time has now gone.
I'd agree. What is the principle behind accepting ECJ jurisdiction until 2019 but not until 2021? Not accepting it indefinitely, I can understand.
His argument was that it was not what the country voted for. If there is one thing I have learned from this site over the past year is that what the country voted for, other than Leave, is a matter of intensely, but purely, personal opinion.
I just read an interesting article about Uber, by an uber driver.
In a nutshell, Uber drivers running for 60 hours a week may earn £23 k a year, self employed, no pension, no employment protection etc. IN LONDON.
They are totally at the mercy of the online reviews of users, their employer does nothing to protect their position, signing up more and more drivers to compete with you.
This is just the worst kind of capitalism. People who celebrate Uber are essentially celebrating servitude and poverty. Thats what the Uber driver is, your servant. Its like we are going back a hundred years.
Happy to be a luddite idiot who uses black cabs, I don't want anything to do with this type of exploitation.
Not a great deal of Uber in my neck of the woods, but I don't want to see my local, family-owed mini-cab firm go under when they do arrive in numbers. I'm often taken by the same three or four drivers, who have been with them for a number of years.
https://twitter.com/rougeit/status/911301402395324421
Actually, being a taxi driver is one of the most dangerous jobs you can do because of all the dodgy people and business you end up being party to. One of my friends who used to drive a taxi drove a gang in to a cabin in a remote location, on the way they started talking openly about hijacking the taxi and getting rid of him.
The business-model ceases to make as much sense when people have to buy/invest in the 'excess' capacity or rely on it as a full-time job.
This is just unregulated capitalism masquerading as innovation and disruption. They are basically parasitic entities that destroy decent jobs and livelihoods.
They've been fighting this for a few years, and they might have been much better off producing and/or publicising an alternative, perhaps (shock, horror) in conjunction with their old enemy, the private hire. Gett apparently doesn't cut the mustard, especially amongst all the other competitors.
My rather bearish views on autonomous cars are well known.
Oh Jeremy Corbyn etc
Being an UBER driver for 60 hours a week is an improvement on being homeless. But that doesn't make it acceptable.
Its a structural deficit, though. This is poorly paid, insecure work. It has no place in a civilised society.
NEW THREAD
To me, a self driving car needs to be able to work empty or with a completely inattentive/drunk/sleeping passenger. It should take me to work as I read the newspaper, drop me off outside the door, go and park itself, pick me up at the end of the day and take me to dinner, then take me home happily merry and sleeping in the back. It needs to be like having a chauffeur.