politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Theresa May sends a strong reminder that she’s still in the
Comments
-
I expect that Theresa May will be quite happy with these headlines. She's managed to upstage Boris Johnson, who supposedly delivered his best speech ever yesterday. She's put a marker in folk memory that she's anti-immigration.
So when she actually does run in a few years' time she won't need to mention this again and can run on more inspirational stuff because she will generally be assumed to be "sound" on immigration (those that aren't persuaded about this aren't persuadable).
Mind you, is the stage in Manchester on an incline or is she practising snowboarding in that Times picture?0 -
I don't believe that Uber is running roughshod over laws in the UK. The only possible argument you could make is that they be required to do "fixed fares", to bring them into line with minicabs.Charles said:
And when I've used it (in SF) it has been very good.rcs1000 said:Given we're all talking Uber, can I share an experience I had in San Francisco earlier this year. I had dinner at a friend's house near Candlestick Park (which is a pretty rundown, working class area). Historically, getting a cab there was incredibly difficult, and public transport (the bus) was infrequent.
Anyway: at the end of dinner, I got out my phone and pressed the button for an Uber.
Instead of ordering an UberX, as I normally do, I found myself accidentally ordering an UberPop.
What is UberPop? It's a $7 flat fee service from anywhere in San Francisco to anywhere else. But there's a rub. It's not a direct run. The car probably has a passenger or two in when you get in, and then delivers one of them, and picks up another along the way. In other words, they use complicated algorithims to dynamically route cars.
In the car with me for my journey were two construction workers, who were working on the night shift of some large project. They told me that before UberX they walked to the bus stop, waited for it, then got the bus to the subway stop before transferring. At 11pm at night, this could be an hour and 20 to get to work. Now it took them 20 to 25 minutes, and cost them just $7. (The same price as public transport.)
Uber for me was just a way of saving money and getting a car when I needed it. For these guys, Uber had literally changed their lives.
There is clearly demand for its services.
But that doesn't put it above the law, above taxation, above doing business in a moral and sustainable way.
What TFL proposes (5 minute cooldown between rides, not being allowed to show cars on a map) are ultimately just attempts to hobble competition.
(I can't believe they make money in the UK - or anywhere else - so I'm not sure the taxation point is currently real.)
0 -
I imagine most of the right wing attacks on May have been by supporters of her potential leadership rivals however rather than due to the substance of her speech.SouthamObserver said:
Indeed - but he is a Tory. The point being that the claim May has been attacked solely by metropolitan lefties is demonstrably false.Sean_F said:
Alex Massie is scarcely a right wing commentator.SouthamObserver said:Corbynistas Alex Massie and James Kirkup attack Theresa May's speech in far left publications the Spectator and the Daily Telegraph:
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/theresa-mays-immigration-speech-was-as-tawdry-as-it-was-contemptible/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11913927/Theresa-Mays-immigration-speech-is-dangerous-and-factually-wrong.html0 -
Good ones aren't. There's just a lot of varied quality. But I've never really understood being able to read maps as a skill. Other than knowing Ordnance Survey markings, it's a pretty intuitive thing to be able to do.Sean_F said:
Sat Navs can be very unreliable, in my experience.Cyclefree said:
Knowing your way around a place and being able to read maps are not redundant even in the days of satnavs, IMO.OldKingCole said:
If black cabs and “the knowledge” are being rendered redundant by sat navs etc, isn’t that just the way of the world? After all, it was their grandfather’s superior technology which allowed them to supercede horse-drawn hansom cabs.Sean_F said:
Speaking personally, black cabs are by far my preferred method of getting round central London, if I'm not walking.malcolmg said:
Black cabs seem to be a real con. I got one from Heathrow recently to a meeting , just a few miles , almost £30 pounds. On the way back I got a private hire cab and it was £11. No wonder they do not like their monopoly being threatened.rcs1000 said:
Boris and TFL's actions are utterly disgusting. Uber (and I'm sure other virtual taxi firms in time) is increasing choice and availability for consumers, while lowering prices. It allows flexible working for drivers (who give up a far smaller share of their earnings than they did when they worked for minicab firms).Casino_Royale said:
London black cabs are a closed shop.rcs1000 said:I would rate May's chances ahead of Johnson's. Still, I doubt either will be PM.
(Caveat: if she leads the "Out" charge, and "Out" wins, then that could change.)
(To add: since Boris Johnson's article on Uber, I would rather cut my own hand off than vote for him in any capacity.)
And it brings quality control: Uber drivers need to keep scoring 4.5/5.0, otherwise they get dropped from the system.
I feel for taxi drivers, I really do. They spent three years educating themselves, and the value of that knowledge has declined. But regulation must always be consumer led. And the existence of Uber is unambiguously good for consumers. Artificial measures (5 minute cooldowns, for example) to try and make Uber less attractive are a travesty.
I could never vote for Boris. I could never vote for a Conservative Party he led.0 -
She needs to show she can make real progress in Scotland first - such as adding more MSPs and challenging SLAB for 2nd place. There are no major signs of her building a substantial membership base and organisation - next May will be a key test.Plato_Says said:One person I'd like to see stand for the leadership is Ruth Davidson, she's impressive.
0 -
May's Achilles heel is her record. She took credit for falls in immigration, but blames the LibDems for rises. My guess is that her opponents may not be shy in pointing this out.antifrank said:I expect that Theresa May will be quite happy with these headlines. She's managed to upstage Boris Johnson, who supposedly delivered his best speech ever yesterday. She's put a marker in folk memory that she's anti-immigration.
So when she actually does run in a few years' time she won't need to mention this again and can run on more inspirational stuff because she will generally be assumed to be "sound" on immigration (those that aren't persuaded about this aren't persuadable).
Mind you, is the stage in Manchester on an incline or is she practising snowboarding in that Times picture?
0 -
I agree TFL's proposals are self-interested rubbish.rcs1000 said:
I don't believe that Uber is running roughshod over laws in the UK. The only possible argument you could make is that they be required to do "fixed fares", to bring them into line with minicabs.Charles said:
And when I've used it (in SF) it has been very good.rcs1000 said:Given we're all talking Uber, can I share an experience I had in San Francisco earlier this year. I had dinner at a friend's house near Candlestick Park (which is a pretty rundown, working class area). Historically, getting a cab there was incredibly difficult, and public transport (the bus) was infrequent.
Anyway: at the end of dinner, I got out my phone and pressed the button for an Uber.
Instead of ordering an UberX, as I normally do, I found myself accidentally ordering an UberPop.
What is UberPop? It's a $7 flat fee service from anywhere in San Francisco to anywhere else. But there's a rub. It's not a direct run. The car probably has a passenger or two in when you get in, and then delivers one of them, and picks up another along the way. In other words, they use complicated algorithims to dynamically route cars.
In the car with me for my journey were two construction workers, who were working on the night shift of some large project. They told me that before UberX they walked to the bus stop, waited for it, then got the bus to the subway stop before transferring. At 11pm at night, this could be an hour and 20 to get to work. Now it took them 20 to 25 minutes, and cost them just $7. (The same price as public transport.)
Uber for me was just a way of saving money and getting a car when I needed it. For these guys, Uber had literally changed their lives.
There is clearly demand for its services.
But that doesn't put it above the law, above taxation, above doing business in a moral and sustainable way.
What TFL proposes (5 minute cooldown between rides, not being allowed to show cars on a map) are ultimately just attempts to hobble competition.
(I can't believe they make money in the UK - or anywhere else - so I'm not sure the taxation point is currently real.)
For me the issue is around security, insurance and the treatment of drivers as employees rather than contractors. I'm willing to bet they don't pay social security contributions, for instance, on drivers' earnings.
Fundamentally if someone's primary source of income is through Uber then they are an employee.0 -
In my case, it's always trying to get me onto motorways. If you switch off the motorway function, it comes up with some incredibly convoluted routes.SouthamObserver said:
My SatNav (a Garmin) gets you to the vicinity, but very rarely the actual address. It seems to believe we live in an alley about 100 yards from our actual house!Sean_F said:
Sat Navs can be very unreliable, in my experience.Cyclefree said:
Knowing your way around a place and being able to read maps are not redundant even in the days of satnavs, IMO.OldKingCole said:
If black cabs and “the knowledge” are being rendered redundant by sat navs etc, isn’t that just the way of the world? After all, it was their grandfather’s superior technology which allowed them to supercede horse-drawn hansom cabs.Sean_F said:
Speaking personally, black cabs are by far my preferred method of getting round central London, if I'm not walking.malcolmg said:
Black cabs seem to be a real con. I got one from Heathrow recently to a meeting , just a few miles , almost £30 pounds. On the way back I got a private hire cab and it was £11. No wonder they do not like their monopoly being threatened.rcs1000 said:
Boris and TFL's actions are utterly disgusting. Uber (and I'm sure other virtual taxi firms in time) is increasing choice and availability for consumers, while lowering prices. It allows flexible working for drivers (who give up a far smaller share of their earnings than they did when they worked for minicab firms).Casino_Royale said:
London black cabs are a closed shop.rcs1000 said:I would rate May's chances ahead of Johnson's. Still, I doubt either will be PM.
(Caveat: if she leads the "Out" charge, and "Out" wins, then that could change.)
(To add: since Boris Johnson's article on Uber, I would rather cut my own hand off than vote for him in any capacity.)
And it brings quality control: Uber drivers need to keep scoring 4.5/5.0, otherwise they get dropped from the system.
I feel for taxi drivers, I really do. They spent three years educating themselves, and the value of that knowledge has declined. But regulation must always be consumer led. And the existence of Uber is unambiguously good for consumers. Artificial measures (5 minute cooldowns, for example) to try and make Uber less attractive are a travesty.
I could never vote for Boris. I could never vote for a Conservative Party he led.
A further issue is that map-reading and navigation helps to keep one's mind active.
0 -
No one has argued that. Kirkup is also on the right, but he's still one of the metropolitan liberal types.SouthamObserver said:
Indeed - but he is a Tory. The point being that the claim May has been attacked solely by metropolitan lefties is demonstrably false.Sean_F said:
Alex Massie is scarcely a right wing commentator.SouthamObserver said:Corbynistas Alex Massie and James Kirkup attack Theresa May's speech in far left publications the Spectator and the Daily Telegraph:
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/theresa-mays-immigration-speech-was-as-tawdry-as-it-was-contemptible/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11913927/Theresa-Mays-immigration-speech-is-dangerous-and-factually-wrong.html
Look, I don't have a problem with people taking a pro-high immigration position and arguing their case. What I detest is the way such people call ANY argument towards a low immigration position as "divisive" and "inflammatory". They are trying to silence the other side of the debate, and then act as if they are being morally superior by doing it.0 -
In my experience, half the problems are the users. A classic example is someone going down the in sliproad off a roundabout as the SatNav said "take next left" a few seconds too early, and he took the turn without looking.Sean_F said:
Sat Navs can be very unreliable, in my experience.Cyclefree said:
Knowing your way around a place and being able to read maps are not redundant even in the days of satnavs, IMO.OldKingCole said:
If black cabs and “the knowledge” are being rendered redundant by sat navs etc, isn’t that just the way of the world? After all, it was their grandfather’s superior technology which allowed them to supercede horse-drawn hansom cabs.Sean_F said:
Speaking personally, black cabs are by far my preferred method of getting round central London, if I'm not walking.malcolmg said:
Black cabs seem to be a real con. I got one from Heathrow recently to a meeting , just a few miles , almost £30 pounds. On the way back I got a private hire cab and it was £11. No wonder they do not like their monopoly being threatened.rcs1000 said:
Boris and TFL's actions are utterly disgusting. Uber (and I'm sure other virtual taxi firms in time) is increasing choice and availability for consumers, while lowering prices. It allows flexible working for drivers (who give up a far smaller share of their earnings than they did when they worked for minicab firms).Casino_Royale said:
London black cabs are a closed shop.rcs1000 said:I would rate May's chances ahead of Johnson's. Still, I doubt either will be PM.
(Caveat: if she leads the "Out" charge, and "Out" wins, then that could change.)
(To add: since Boris Johnson's article on Uber, I would rather cut my own hand off than vote for him in any capacity.)
And it brings quality control: Uber drivers need to keep scoring 4.5/5.0, otherwise they get dropped from the system.
I feel for taxi drivers, I really do. They spent three years educating themselves, and the value of that knowledge has declined. But regulation must always be consumer led. And the existence of Uber is unambiguously good for consumers. Artificial measures (5 minute cooldowns, for example) to try and make Uber less attractive are a travesty.
I could never vote for Boris. I could never vote for a Conservative Party he led.
I'm fairly at home with maps, and I tend to rely on the map on screen rather than the spoken directions.
Sat Navs do not remove the need for common sense on the part of the user.0 -
Her moving to Westminster would also show that the Tories see Scotland as a second rate country like SLAB, it would reinforce everything the SNP say about the unionist parties. Davidson is better deployed in Scotland rebuilding the party there while SLAB are weak and the SNP have serious governance issues.TCPoliticalBetting said:
She needs to show she can make real progress in Scotland first - such as adding more MSPs and challenging SLAB for 2nd place. There are no major signs of her building a substantial membership base and organisation - next May will be a key test.Plato_Says said:One person I'd like to see stand for the leadership is Ruth Davidson, she's impressive.
0 -
They are expressing an opinion. The only way a debate can be silenced is if there is no response. The debate about immigration - which, apparently, has been repressed and silenced - has been raging in the country's newspapers and on its television screens for at least 15 years now.JEO said:
No one has argued that. Kirkup is also on the right, but he's still one of the metropolitan liberal types.SouthamObserver said:
Indeed - but he is a Tory. The point being that the claim May has been attacked solely by metropolitan lefties is demonstrably false.Sean_F said:
Alex Massie is scarcely a right wing commentator.SouthamObserver said:Corbynistas Alex Massie and James Kirkup attack Theresa May's speech in far left publications the Spectator and the Daily Telegraph:
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/theresa-mays-immigration-speech-was-as-tawdry-as-it-was-contemptible/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11913927/Theresa-Mays-immigration-speech-is-dangerous-and-factually-wrong.html
Look, I don't have a problem with people taking a pro-high immigration position and arguing their case. What I detest is the way such people call ANY argument towards a low immigration position as "divisive" and "inflammatory". They are trying to silence the other side of the debate, and then act as if they are being morally superior by doing it.
0 -
All of this is in the price, though. If you don't like what they are doing for any of many legitimate or fatuous reasons....don't use them.Sean_F said:
Sat Navs can be very unreliable, in my experience.Cyclefree said:
Knowing your way around a place and being able to read maps are not redundant even in the days of satnavs, IMO.OldKingCole said:
If black cabs and “the knowledge” are being rendered redundant by sat navs etc, isn’t that just the way of the world? After all, it was their grandfather’s superior technology which allowed them to supercede horse-drawn hansom cabs.Sean_F said:
Speaking personally, black cabs are by far my preferred method of getting round central London, if I'm not walking.malcolmg said:
Black cabs seem to be a real con. I got one from Heathrow recently to a meeting , just a few miles , almost £30 pounds. On the way back I got a private hire cab and it was £11. No wonder they do not like their monopoly being threatened.rcs1000 said:
Boris and TFL's actions are utterly disgusting. Uber (and I'm sure other virtual taxi firms in time) is increasing choice and availability for consumers, while lowering prices. It allows flexible working for drivers (who give up a far smaller share of their earnings than they did when they worked for minicab firms).Casino_Royale said:
London black cabs are a closed shop.rcs1000 said:I would rate May's chances ahead of Johnson's. Still, I doubt either will be PM.
(Caveat: if she leads the "Out" charge, and "Out" wins, then that could change.)
(To add: since Boris Johnson's article on Uber, I would rather cut my own hand off than vote for him in any capacity.)
And it brings quality control: Uber drivers need to keep scoring 4.5/5.0, otherwise they get dropped from the system.
I feel for taxi drivers, I really do. They spent three years educating themselves, and the value of that knowledge has declined. But regulation must always be consumer led. And the existence of Uber is unambiguously good for consumers. Artificial measures (5 minute cooldowns, for example) to try and make Uber less attractive are a travesty.
I could never vote for Boris. I could never vote for a Conservative Party he led.
They cost less than black cabs and the transparency and mutual feedback mechanism is what people (what I) like.
As for putting black cabs out of business so we are left with Uber only? Well the black cabs could put Uber out of business tomorrow morning if they lowered their fares.
Edit: I'm sure black cab fares are determined statutorily but the principle remains.0 -
The map on screen is undoubtedly, a very useful function.JosiasJessop said:
In my experience, half the problems are the users. A classic example is someone going down the in sliproad off a roundabout as the SatNav said "take next left" a few seconds too early, and he took the turn without looking.Sean_F said:
Sat Navs can be very unreliable, in my experience.Cyclefree said:
Knowing your way around a place and being able to read maps are not redundant even in the days of satnavs, IMO.OldKingCole said:
If black cabs and “the knowledge” are being rendered redundant by sat navs etc, isn’t that just the way of the world? After all, it was their grandfather’s superior technology which allowed them to supercede horse-drawn hansom cabs.Sean_F said:
Speaking personally, black cabs are by far my preferred method of getting round central London, if I'm not walking.malcolmg said:
Black cabs seem to be a real con. I got one from Heathrow recently to a meeting , just a few miles , almost £30 pounds. On the way back I got a private hire cab and it was £11. No wonder they do not like their monopoly being threatened.rcs1000 said:
Boris and TFL's actions are utterly disgusting. Uber (and I'm sure other virtual taxi firms in time) is increasing choice and availability for consumers, while lowering prices. It allows flexible working for drivers (who give up a far smaller share of their earnings than they did when they worked for minicab firms).Casino_Royale said:
London black cabs are a closed shop.rcs1000 said:I would rate May's chances ahead of Johnson's. Still, I doubt either will be PM.
(Caveat: if she leads the "Out" charge, and "Out" wins, then that could change.)
(To add: since Boris Johnson's article on Uber, I would rather cut my own hand off than vote for him in any capacity.)
And it brings quality control: Uber drivers need to keep scoring 4.5/5.0, otherwise they get dropped from the system.
I feel for taxi drivers, I really do. They spent three years educating themselves, and the value of that knowledge has declined. But regulation must always be consumer led. And the existence of Uber is unambiguously good for consumers. Artificial measures (5 minute cooldowns, for example) to try and make Uber less attractive are a travesty.
I could never vote for Boris. I could never vote for a Conservative Party he led.
I'm fairly at home with maps, and I tend to rely on the map on screen rather than the spoken directions.
Sat Navs do not remove the need for common sense on the part of the user.0 -
Is Kirkup right wing either? He was hammered in the comments. Suspended at 3,000+ when I checked in yesterday.Sean_F said:
Alex Massie is scarcely a right wing commentator.SouthamObserver said:Corbynistas Alex Massie and James Kirkup attack Theresa May's speech in far left publications the Spectator and the Daily Telegraph:
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/theresa-mays-immigration-speech-was-as-tawdry-as-it-was-contemptible/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11913927/Theresa-Mays-immigration-speech-is-dangerous-and-factually-wrong.html
0 -
Use your phone!SouthamObserver said:
My SatNav (a Garmin) gets you to the vicinity, but very rarely the actual address. It seems to believe we live in an alley about 100 yards from our actual house!Sean_F said:
Sat Navs can be very unreliable, in my experience.Cyclefree said:
Knowing your way around a place and being able to read maps are not redundant even in the days of satnavs, IMO.OldKingCole said:
If black cabs and “the knowledge” are being rendered redundant by sat navs etc, isn’t that just the way of the world? After all, it was their grandfather’s superior technology which allowed them to supercede horse-drawn hansom cabs.Sean_F said:
Speaking personally, black cabs are by far my preferred method of getting round central London, if I'm not walking.malcolmg said:
Black cabs seem to be a real con. I got one from Heathrow recently to a meeting , just a few miles , almost £30 pounds. On the way back I got a private hire cab and it was £11. No wonder they do not like their monopoly being threatened.rcs1000 said:
Boris and TFL's actions are utterly disgusting. Uber (and I'm sure other virtual taxi firms in time) is increasing choice and availability for consumers, while lowering prices. It allows flexible working for drivers (who give up a far smaller share of their earnings than they did when they worked for minicab firms).Casino_Royale said:
London black cabs are a closed shop.rcs1000 said:I would rate May's chances ahead of Johnson's. Still, I doubt either will be PM.
(Caveat: if she leads the "Out" charge, and "Out" wins, then that could change.)
(To add: since Boris Johnson's article on Uber, I would rather cut my own hand off than vote for him in any capacity.)
And it brings quality control: Uber drivers need to keep scoring 4.5/5.0, otherwise they get dropped from the system.
I feel for taxi drivers, I really do. They spent three years educating themselves, and the value of that knowledge has declined. But regulation must always be consumer led. And the existence of Uber is unambiguously good for consumers. Artificial measures (5 minute cooldowns, for example) to try and make Uber less attractive are a travesty.
I could never vote for Boris. I could never vote for a Conservative Party he led.0 -
Dave laying into pollsters. Good.0
-
Christ! You were debating?ReggieCide said:
No point debating with you , you are fixated on hatred of SNP and I cannot believe I was even stupid enough to reply to one of your pathetic posts. I will resume normal service and ignore your second hand drivel. Come back if you ever get to the point where you have your own opinion on anything.malcolmg said:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/article4578383.eceScott_P said:
And the level of debate we have come to expect from the SNP too...malcolmg said:You thick turnip
Natland is a hermetically sealed universe, secure from doubt and the temptations of nuance. A network of committed newspapers and websites allows the most fervent to wall themselves off from upsetting facts. When you read every day that the SNP are plucky patriots under fire from quislings who lie to serve their masters in London, you will become angry as you strain to rationalise away evidence to the contrary.
One normally savvy nationalist blogger enraged by the Thomson coverage harrumphs: “We might just not open the papers at all and be better informed”. The certain are in possession of the answers; they have no need of questions.
To big a word for your pea brain insecticide0 -
I think it is reasonable to require them to have general contracting liability. If a service is using your brand as a mark of trust, then you should be responsible for that trust.rcs1000 said:
I don't believe that Uber is running roughshod over laws in the UK. The only possible argument you could make is that they be required to do "fixed fares", to bring them into line with minicabs.
What TFL proposes (5 minute cooldown between rides, not being allowed to show cars on a map) are ultimately just attempts to hobble competition.
(I can't believe they make money in the UK - or anywhere else - so I'm not sure the taxation point is currently real.)
How would they not be making money anywhere?0 -
Were there any odds on Dave saying "comrade", must have been massive.0
-
yesterday you whined they were destroying jobs , today you whine they are creating jobsTGOHF said:SNP donor wins big ferry contract...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQs8RzpWoAAPPvL.jpg:large0 -
It is the principle of upward mobility. A big impediment to building has been the ridiculous govt and council set % of "affordable homes" often needing to be financed by the unaffordable homes so fewer homes get built as the financing is more difficult.Pulpstar said:I think the requirement to build "starter/affordable homes" should be scrapped. In the round if say 1,000,000 new 5 bedroom luxury homes are built - the people from the 2 and 3 beds with decent equity will move to the new 5 beds, and then those 2 and 3 beds etc can be bought by first time buyers etc.....
0 -
LOLPlato_Says said:One person I'd like to see stand for the leadership is Ruth Davidson, she's impressive.
0 -
Maintainance is but a small part of the problem. Of more concern is insurance and driver vetting.TOPPING said:
No need to over-dramatise things Charles. Other options are available for your wife. It sounds like the market is working perfectly. You don't like this whole Uber malarkey so you can exercise your freedom never to take them and so can your wife.Charles said:
Wrong.TOPPING said:
Calm down Charles. It's only a taxi; it's not micro-surgery.Charles said:
I'd look at addressing some of the real concerns about Uber - requiring regular vehicle checks, requiring the company to take out insurance on the fleet, establishing that Uber bears the responsibility for the actions of its drivers (ie that there is an employer-employee relationship rather than this "self-employed agent" bullshit). Those would all be reasonable things to address.
The market will sort it out. Or should be able to. Boris is all over the shop on this, but the shop is firmly on the wrong side of everything.
Sometimes bad drives out good.
In this case, with lower protection for consumers, Uber can charge less. Consumers won't realise it's a problem until it's too late - by which time the traditional black cab business model may have been fatally undermined. The answer is simple: put in minimum regulatory standards and require Uber to stand behind its drivers.
And it's not "only a taxi". It's a safe journey home late at night for my wife.
For you both the world of black cabs and 24-hr mini-cab offices awaits.
I think differently. If I read in the newspapers that Uber cars are flying off the road into buildings because of faulty maintenance or suchlike I might think again. But for the moment, I will continue to use them.
Isn't the market wonderful?
If your prefer more direct language - how many rapes is too many..?0 -
Watson will get his comeuppance eventually. He is usually forced to resign after some major c*ckup.john_zims said:@JosiasJessop
'One does have to wonder how much Tom Watson's hand is in all of this. His hands are either deep in the muck, or he's been a very useful idiot. Either way, it does not reflect well on his position as deputy leader of the Labour party.' When can we expect a public apology from Watson ? He then needs to stop the grandstanding & shut the f$ck up.
0 -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2015
O/T Canadian Tories seem to be edging back into the lead. Nanos is the only pollster currently giving a lead to the Liberals, and it's falling.
The New Democrats seem to have been squeezed into a firm third place.0 -
Can anyone explain to me why we're still short of the right types of skilled immigrants we need whilst we're at record levels of immigration.
This is the circle both myself and half the general population are trying to square up. Surely with 350k net migration we can get enough doctors/engineers or whatever into that lot ?!0 -
And providing moonlighters have appropriate insurance, CRB checks and good quality cars there is no issue with that in my mind.Pulpstar said:
I'd guess its a mix of primary earners and some moonlighters.Charles said:
Fundamentally if someone's primary source of income is through Uber then they are an employee.0 -
Surely Uber is just an agency that finds you thé work.Charles said:
I agree TFL's proposals are self-interested rubbish.rcs1000 said:
I don't believe that Uber is running roughshod over laws in the UK. The only possible argument you could make is that they be required to do "fixed fares", to bring them into line with minicabs.Charles said:
And when I've used it (in SF) it has been very good.rcs1000 said:Given we're all talking Uber, can I share an experience I had in San Francisco earlier this year. I had dinner at a friend's house near Candlestick Park (which is a pretty rundown, working class area). Historically, getting a cab there was incredibly difficult, and public transport (the bus) was infrequent.
Anyway: at the end of dinner, I got out my phone and pressed the button for an Uber.
Instead of ordering an UberX, as I normally do, I found myself accidentally ordering an UberPop.
What is UberPop? It's a $7 flat fee service from anywhere in San Francisco to anywhere else. But there's a rub. It's not a direct run. The car probably has a passenger or two in when you get in, and then delivers one of them, and picks up another along the way. In other words, they use complicated algorithims to dynamically route cars.
In the car with me for my journey were two construction workers, who were working on the night shift of some large project. They told me that before UberX they walked to the bus stop, waited for it, then got the bus to the subway stop before transferring. At 11pm at night, this could be an hour and 20 to get to work. Now it took them 20 to 25 minutes, and cost them just $7. (The same price as public transport.)
Uber for me was just a way of saving money and getting a car when I needed it. For these guys, Uber had literally changed their lives.
There is clearly demand for its services.
But that doesn't put it above the law, above taxation, above doing business in a moral and sustainable way.
What TFL proposes (5 minute cooldown between rides, not being allowed to show cars on a map) are ultimately just attempts to hobble competition.
(I can't believe they make money in the UK - or anywhere else - so I'm not sure the taxation point is currently real.)
For me the issue is around security, insurance and the treatment of drivers as employees rather than contractors. I'm willing to bet they don't pay social security contributions, for instance, on drivers' earnings.
Fundamentally if someone's primary source of income is through Uber then they are an employee.0 -
Cameron delivering a sunny uplands speech, full of hope.0
-
TCPoliticalBetting said:
It is the principle of upward mobility. A big impediment to building has been the ridiculous govt and council set % of "affordable homes" often needing to be financed by the unaffordable homes so fewer homes get built as the financing is more difficult.Pulpstar said:I think the requirement to build "starter/affordable homes" should be scrapped. In the round if say 1,000,000 new 5 bedroom luxury homes are built - the people from the 2 and 3 beds with decent equity will move to the new 5 beds, and then those 2 and 3 beds etc can be bought by first time buyers etc.....
I think that is correct. Forcing developers to build unprofitable affordable homes skews the market too much. They shouldn't be forced to do it, instead the government should invest in it themselves and commission builders to do it for them at a fixed margin.
0 -
I've just remembered an anecdote. When I was on my coastal walk in 2003, a friend came down to visit us in west Cornwall, equipped with the latest Sat Nav. He picked up my GF from a car park and then drove to meet me near Mousehole. My GF had driven around the area a little and kept on telling him: "You're heading the wrong way". He insisted that the Sat Nav was right.Sean_F said:The map on screen is undoubtedly, a very useful function.
he only admitted he was wrong as they descended the hill down into St Ives. He'd entered the wrong postcode.0 -
Lucky you have your Dad to get you a job , what a load of mixed up inaccurate minceMaxPB said:Without wanting to wade into the Scottish argument too far, what I would say is that the argument for Holyrood needs to focus on the SNP record, not on unionism, leave that for Westminster. The Tories and Labour need to attract the 10% of unionists who vote for the SNP because they are the only serious party of government in Scotland. The Tories may have realised this and their attacking of the SNP record on student fees, housing and cronyism seems to be bearing fruit in the locals with their vote share up on average. Labour seem to be falling back on scare stories about independence which didn't work last time and given the result of the referendum, also won't work this time. There is still time before the Holyrood election for them to build a proper policy platform, but they are so bereft of any real talent that their campaign will most likely be a rerun of the referendum campaign which saw their most loyal supporters vote for independence.
I seriously think that the Tories have a good chance of coming second to the SNP, what are the odds for that?0 -
Cameron's just fired the starting pistol.
"As you know, I'm not going to fight another election as your leader."
Is he going to defect to Labour?
0 -
LOL , Mundell and anything or than dribbling is an oxymoronScott_P said:@JournoStephen: "Slashing college places for working-class kids to pay for free university for the wealthy" - @DavidMundellDCT laying into SNP record #cpc15
0 -
TUD why would that matter to these crack headsTheuniondivvie said:
How much has McColl donated to the SNP?TGOHF said:SNP donor wins big ferry contract...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQs8RzpWoAAPPvL.jpg:large0 -
But if you think that we should have 300,000 immigrants rather than 500,000 then you are being characterised as a racist. It is simply chanting a mantra, not making an argument at all.SouthamObserver said:
They are expressing an opinion. The only way a debate can be silenced is if there is no response. The debate about immigration - which, apparently, has been repressed and silenced - has been raging in the country's newspapers and on its television screens for at least 15 years now.JEO said:
No one has argued that. Kirkup is also on the right, but he's still one of the metropolitan liberal types.SouthamObserver said:
Indeed - but he is a Tory. The point being that the claim May has been attacked solely by metropolitan lefties is demonstrably false.Sean_F said:
Alex Massie is scarcely a right wing commentator.SouthamObserver said:Corbynistas Alex Massie and James Kirkup attack Theresa May's speech in far left publications the Spectator and the Daily Telegraph:
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/theresa-mays-immigration-speech-was-as-tawdry-as-it-was-contemptible/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11913927/Theresa-Mays-immigration-speech-is-dangerous-and-factually-wrong.html
Look, I don't have a problem with people taking a pro-high immigration position and arguing their case. What I detest is the way such people call ANY argument towards a low immigration position as "divisive" and "inflammatory". They are trying to silence the other side of the debate, and then act as if they are being morally superior by doing it.0 -
Great line: "Twitter isn't Britain"MaxPB said:Dave laying into pollsters. Good.
0 -
Cammo carving in conference concrete that he will go at the end of this 5 year parliament.
Let battle/s commence.0 -
As I said yesterday, it feels a lot like it did here in May. One pollster drowning everyone else out and the loudest voices drowning out the silent majority. I could see Harper ending up with almost enough seats to form a majority.Sean_F said:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2015
O/T Canadian Tories seem to be edging back into the lead. Nanos is the only pollster currently giving a lead to the Liberals, and it's falling.
The New Democrats seem to have been squeezed into a firm third place.0 -
@ScottyNational: Cameron: SNP MPs react to Cameron's pledge to build more houses - 'Just let us know if any might get repossessed so we can by them cheap'0
-
It's the same as that nitwit in the Staggers yesterday who wrote about May's speech re immigration and he talked about racism instead as if they're the same thing.JohnLilburne said:
But if you think that we should have 300,000 immigrants rather than 500,000 then you are being characterised as a racist. It is simply chanting a mantra, not making an argument at all.SouthamObserver said:
They are expressing an opinion. The only way a debate can be silenced is if there is no response. The debate about immigration - which, apparently, has been repressed and silenced - has been raging in the country's newspapers and on its television screens for at least 15 years now.JEO said:
No one has argued that. Kirkup is also on the right, but he's still one of the metropolitan liberal types.SouthamObserver said:
Indeed - but he is a Tory. The point being that the claim May has been attacked solely by metropolitan lefties is demonstrably false.Sean_F said:
Alex Massie is scarcely a right wing commentator.SouthamObserver said:Corbynistas Alex Massie and James Kirkup attack Theresa May's speech in far left publications the Spectator and the Daily Telegraph:
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/theresa-mays-immigration-speech-was-as-tawdry-as-it-was-contemptible/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11913927/Theresa-Mays-immigration-speech-is-dangerous-and-factually-wrong.html
Look, I don't have a problem with people taking a pro-high immigration position and arguing their case. What I detest is the way such people call ANY argument towards a low immigration position as "divisive" and "inflammatory". They are trying to silence the other side of the debate, and then act as if they are being morally superior by doing it.0 -
Yes her last , worst Tory vote in history was not exactly stellar. Picking up a handful of list consolation seats is not success. She will get nowhere as she is simple a London sockpuppet. Until we see the semblance of a Scottish Conservative party they will remain a mere irritant.TCPoliticalBetting said:
She needs to show she can make real progress in Scotland first - such as adding more MSPs and challenging SLAB for 2nd place. There are no major signs of her building a substantial membership base and organisation - next May will be a key test.Plato_Says said:One person I'd like to see stand for the leadership is Ruth Davidson, she's impressive.
0 -
Are you watching Jeremy Corbyn0
-
That's their argument. Two responses:JohnLilburne said:
Surely Uber is just an agency that finds you thé work.
(1) Customers think they are buying Uber's service in the sense of them providing the drivers rather than just sourcing independent contractors. So they are relying on the Uber trust - there's an element of misrepresentation.
(2) Drivers who earn the majority of their income from Uber are the same as "independent contractors" working for one company. It's a tax dodge.
Fundamentally Uber needs to take responsibility for its actions rather than hiding behind a clever structure. They want to participate in the market: fine. But they shouldn't be allowed to leech off it.0 -
Is he saying he doesn't think we are tw@ts?rottenborough said:
Great line: "Twitter isn't Britain"MaxPB said:Dave laying into pollsters. Good.
0 -
OuchtasticBig_G_NorthWales said:
Are you watching Jeremy Corbyn
0 -
I cannot stop chuckling at that, more chance of putting Humpty Dumpty together again. Your imagined view from London is a hoot.MaxPB said:
Her moving to Westminster would also show that the Tories see Scotland as a second rate country like SLAB, it would reinforce everything the SNP say about the unionist parties. Davidson is better deployed in Scotland rebuilding the party there while SLAB are weak and the SNP have serious governance issues.TCPoliticalBetting said:
She needs to show she can make real progress in Scotland first - such as adding more MSPs and challenging SLAB for 2nd place. There are no major signs of her building a substantial membership base and organisation - next May will be a key test.Plato_Says said:One person I'd like to see stand for the leadership is Ruth Davidson, she's impressive.
0 -
Cam : Corbyn "Britain hating" ...
0 -
Shouty soundbite about Corbyn, designed the get the most repetition.0
-
AfD also on their highest ever national poll rating. One wonders if a post Merkel CDU/CSU would prefer a centre right coalition with them or a continuation of the grand coalition.
The CSU is also in real trouble, AfD are surging in Bavaria and are threatening to limit the CSU to under 5% of the national vote. It would be a huge defeat for Merkel to lose the CSU alliance.0 -
Cameron laying into Corbyn:
"My friends, we cannot let that man inflict his security threatening, terrorist sympathising, Britain hating ideology on this country."
To a standing ovation.0 -
And on the subject of protecting our country from terrorism, let me just say this:
Thousands of words have been written about the new Labour leader.
But you only really need to know one thing: he thinks the death of Osama bin Laden was a “tragedy”.
No.
A tragedy is nearly 3,000 people murdered one morning in New York.
A tragedy is the mums and dads who never came home from work that day.
A tragedy is people jumping from the towers after the planes hit.
My friends – we cannot let that man inflict his security-threatening, terrorist-sympathising, Britain-hating ideology on the country we love.
BOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMM0 -
Labour are finished.JosiasJessop said:Cameron laying into Corbyn:
"My friends, we cannot let that man inflict his security threatening, terrorist sympathising, Britain hating ideology on this country."
To a standing ovation.0 -
@PCollinsTimes: The contrast with last week is so deeply embarrassing I just want to cry.0
-
The people jumping to their deaths was the thing that really stuck with me.Slackbladder said:
And on the subject of protecting our country from terrorism, let me just say this:
Thousands of words have been written about the new Labour leader.
But you only really need to know one thing: he thinks the death of Osama bin Laden was a “tragedy”.
No.
A tragedy is nearly 3,000 people murdered one morning in New York.
A tragedy is the mums and dads who never came home from work that day.
A tragedy is people jumping from the towers after the planes hit.
My friends – we cannot let that man inflict his security-threatening, terrorist-sympathising, Britain-hating ideology on the country we love.
BOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMM0 -
Standing ovation for the UK armed forces.0
-
4 new Tridents subs confirmed.0
-
Awesome speech from Cameron.0
-
@paulwaugh: Cam: Govt will order new nuclear subs. Wonder if he'll cause even more probs for Labour by putting back maingate vote until AFTER Lab conf?0
-
Re (2): Isn't that also true of *all* minicab firms (certainly including Addison Lee), then?Charles said:
That's their argument. Two responses:JohnLilburne said:
Surely Uber is just an agency that finds you thé work.
(1) Customers think they are buying Uber's service in the sense of them providing the drivers rather than just sourcing independent contractors. So they are relying on the Uber trust - there's an element of misrepresentation.
(2) Drivers who earn the majority of their income from Uber are the same as "independent contractors" working for one company. It's a tax dodge.
Fundamentally Uber needs to take responsibility for its actions rather than hiding behind a clever structure. They want to participate in the market: fine. But they shouldn't be allowed to leech off it.
Also: if a black cab driver is getting the majority of income from Get Taxi or Hailo, then surely the same rule must apply to them.0 -
7%!MaxPB said:AfD also on their highest ever national poll rating. One wonders if a post Merkel CDU/CSU would prefer a centre right coalition with them or a continuation of the grand coalition.
The CSU is also in real trouble, AfD are surging in Bavaria and are threatening to limit the CSU to under 5% of the national vote. It would be a huge defeat for Merkel to lose the CSU alliance.
Interestingly, the Greens and the Left Party have also lost votes (and the CDU/CSU is still on 39%), suggesting AfD is drawing from all parties.0 -
Inspirational dynamic and slaying labour in one speechDanSmith said:Awesome speech from Cameron.
0 -
Yep. I wonder how long it will be before HMRC start looking at IR35 compliance?Charles said:
That's their argument. Two responses:JohnLilburne said:
Surely Uber is just an agency that finds you thé work.
(1) Customers think they are buying Uber's service in the sense of them providing the drivers rather than just sourcing independent contractors. So they are relying on the Uber trust - there's an element of misrepresentation.
(2) Drivers who earn the majority of their income from Uber are the same as "independent contractors" working for one company. It's a tax dodge.
Fundamentally Uber needs to take responsibility for its actions rather than hiding behind a clever structure. They want to participate in the market: fine. But they shouldn't be allowed to leech off it.0 -
Mr Observer,
"They are expressing an opinion."
The problem is that they are expressing a subjective opinion about the people who disagree with them not the subject under discussion.
Q: What number is too many? A: Racist.
Q: What sort of immigrants do we want and need? A: Racist
And that's the polite response.
Edit: I think some immigration is useful and needed but that is never considered.0 -
It's hard to see how three or fewer subs could meet the requirements. You'd have to either massively change the requirements, for example by dropping the 'constantly at sea' capability (*), or develop a new delivery mechanism at massive expense (and probably to operate as well).Plato_Says said:4 new Tridents subs confirmed.
(*) Hoping that's what it's called...0 -
Likewise, if you think we should have 500,000 instead of 300,000 you are characterised as an out of touch metropolitan elitist who personally benefits from immigration and does not care about the adverse effects it has on members of the white working class.JohnLilburne said:
But if you think that we should have 300,000 immigrants rather than 500,000 then you are being characterised as a racist. It is simply chanting a mantra, not making an argument at all.SouthamObserver said:
They are expressing an opinion. The only way a debate can be silenced is if there is no response. The debate about immigration - which, apparently, has been repressed and silenced - has been raging in the country's newspapers and on its television screens for at least 15 years now.JEO said:
No one has argued that. Kirkup is also on the right, but he's still one of the metropolitan liberal types.SouthamObserver said:
Indeed - but he is a Tory. The point being that the claim May has been attacked solely by metropolitan lefties is demonstrably false.Sean_F said:
Alex Massie is scarcely a right wing commentator.SouthamObserver said:Corbynistas Alex Massie and James Kirkup attack Theresa May's speech in far left publications the Spectator and the Daily Telegraph:
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/theresa-mays-immigration-speech-was-as-tawdry-as-it-was-contemptible/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11913927/Theresa-Mays-immigration-speech-is-dangerous-and-factually-wrong.html
Look, I don't have a problem with people taking a pro-high immigration position and arguing their case. What I detest is the way such people call ANY argument towards a low immigration position as "divisive" and "inflammatory". They are trying to silence the other side of the debate, and then act as if they are being morally superior by doing it.
We have had this debate for 15 years. We have had lots of accusations and name calling from both sides. And immigration rises whoever is in power.
It's been a shockingly poor debate.
0 -
Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound 45 secs46 seconds ago
This may be the easiest speech any leader has made in 50 years. Standing ovations for opposing terrorism, supporting nuclear deterrence etc0 -
It's the "Continuous at sea" deterrent, FWIW.JosiasJessop said:
It's hard to see how three or fewer subs could meet the requirements. You'd have to either massively change the requirements, for example by dropping the 'constantly at sea' capability (*), or develop a new delivery mechanism at massive expense (and probably to operate as well).Plato_Says said:4 new Tridents subs confirmed.
(*) Hoping that's what it's called...0 -
Uber drivers in London go through exactly the same checks as any mini cab driver.Sandpit said:
Maintainance is but a small part of the problem. Of more concern is insurance and driver vetting.TOPPING said:
No need to over-dramatise things Charles. Other options are available for your wife. It sounds like the market is working perfectly. You don't like this whole Uber malarkey so you can exercise your freedom never to take them and so can your wife.Charles said:
Wrong.TOPPING said:
Calm down Charles. It's only a taxi; it's not micro-surgery.Charles said:
I'd look at addressing some of the real concerns about Uber - requiring regular vehicle checks, requiring the company to take out insurance on the fleet, establishing that Uber bears the responsibility for the actions of its drivers (ie that there is an employer-employee relationship rather than this "self-employed agent" bullshit). Those would all be reasonable things to address.
The market will sort it out. Or should be able to. Boris is all over the shop on this, but the shop is firmly on the wrong side of everything.
Sometimes bad drives out good.
In this case, with lower protection for consumers, Uber can charge less. Consumers won't realise it's a problem until it's too late - by which time the traditional black cab business model may have been fatally undermined. The answer is simple: put in minimum regulatory standards and require Uber to stand behind its drivers.
And it's not "only a taxi". It's a safe journey home late at night for my wife.
For you both the world of black cabs and 24-hr mini-cab offices awaits.
I think differently. If I read in the newspapers that Uber cars are flying off the road into buildings because of faulty maintenance or suchlike I might think again. But for the moment, I will continue to use them.
Isn't the market wonderful?
If your prefer more direct language - how many rapes is too many..?
There will be rapes committed by Uber drivers, there will be rapes committed by mini cab drivers, there will be rapes committed by black cab drivers.
At least in the latter case, you know exactly which car picked you up0 -
I haven't seen anyone sensible calling May a racist. Certainly Massie and Kirkup do not throw that charge at her.CD13 said:Mr Observer,
"They are expressing an opinion."
The problem is that they are expressing a subjective opinion about the people who disagree with them not the subject under discussion.
Q: What number is too many? A: Racist.
Q: What sort of immigrants do we want and need? A: Racist
And that's the polite response.
Edit: I think some immigration is useful and needed but that is never considered.
0 -
I think I have a different view of employment law. (1) not sure what the customers have to do with it. If you hire a temp from an agency you are buying the agency's services, but it is perfectly possible for the temp to be on a self employed basis. (2) many Uber drivers are part time, and I don't think HMRC would see the arrangement as a way to circumvent employment law. The driver is after all responsible for providing their own tools of the trade (the car) and can decide whether or not to accept a particular job.Charles said:
That's their argument. Two responses:JohnLilburne said:
Surely Uber is just an agency that finds you thé work.
(1) Customers think they are buying Uber's service in the sense of them providing the drivers rather than just sourcing independent contractors. So they are relying on the Uber trust - there's an element of misrepresentation.
(2) Drivers who earn the majority of their income from Uber are the same as "independent contractors" working for one company. It's a tax dodge.
Fundamentally Uber needs to take responsibility for its actions rather than hiding behind a clever structure. They want to participate in the market: fine. But they shouldn't be allowed to leech off it.
But I agree with you on ensuring that vehicles are roadworthy, drivers are insured for hire and reward, and have had DBS checks.0 -
Joy of Tax - 64 positions and none of them work - LOL0
-
That is how a "ride sharing service" is supposed to work, and with proper regulation is a good thing.rcs1000 said:Given we're all talking Uber, can I share an experience I had in San Francisco earlier this year. I had dinner at a friend's house near Candlestick Park (which is a pretty rundown, working class area). Historically, getting a cab there was incredibly difficult, and public transport (the bus) was infrequent.
Anyway: at the end of dinner, I got out my phone and pressed the button for an Uber.
Instead of ordering an UberX, as I normally do, I found myself accidentally ordering an UberPop.
What is UberPop? It's a $7 flat fee service from anywhere in San Francisco to anywhere else. But there's a rub. It's not a direct run. The car probably has a passenger or two in when you get in, and then delivers one of them, and picks up another along the way. In other words, they use complicated algorithims to dynamically route cars.
In the car with me for my journey were two construction workers, who were working on the night shift of some large project. They told me that before UberX they walked to the bus stop, waited for it, then got the bus to the subway stop before transferring. At 11pm at night, this could be an hour and 20 to get to work. Now it took them 20 to 25 minutes, and cost them just $7. (The same price as public transport.)
Uber for me was just a way of saving money and getting a car when I needed it. For these guys, Uber had literally changed their lives.
It's very different to running a taxi company and calling it something different - purely to avoid all the laws that apply to taxi services.0 -
Ah, thanks. I thought it sounded wrong as I read it. Right jist though,TheWhiteRabbit said:
It's the "Continuous at sea" deterrent, FWIW.JosiasJessop said:
It's hard to see how three or fewer subs could meet the requirements. You'd have to either massively change the requirements, for example by dropping the 'constantly at sea' capability (*), or develop a new delivery mechanism at massive expense (and probably to operate as well).Plato_Says said:4 new Tridents subs confirmed.
(*) Hoping that's what it's called... 0 -
I think they will become a serious danger to the CSU if they continue to surge in Bavaria where the anti-migrant sentiment is strongest.rcs1000 said:
7%!MaxPB said:AfD also on their highest ever national poll rating. One wonders if a post Merkel CDU/CSU would prefer a centre right coalition with them or a continuation of the grand coalition.
The CSU is also in real trouble, AfD are surging in Bavaria and are threatening to limit the CSU to under 5% of the national vote. It would be a huge defeat for Merkel to lose the CSU alliance.
Interestingly, the Greens and the Left Party have also lost votes (and the CDU/CSU is still on 39%), suggesting AfD is drawing from all parties.0 -
Uber drivers in London need to sign up with TFL in the same way minicab drivers do. There is no lessening of standards, and you are still required to have a PCO license and commercial insurance.JohnLilburne said:
I think I have a different view of employment law. (1) not sure what the customers have to do with it. If you hire a temp from an agency you are buying the agency's services, but it is perfectly possible for the temp to be on a self employed basis. (2) many Uber drivers are part time, and I don't think HMRC would see the arrangement as a way to circumvent employment law. The driver is after all responsible for providing their own tools of the trade (the car) and can decide whether or not to accept a particular job.Charles said:
That's their argument. Two responses:JohnLilburne said:
Surely Uber is just an agency that finds you thé work.
(1) Customers think they are buying Uber's service in the sense of them providing the drivers rather than just sourcing independent contractors. So they are relying on the Uber trust - there's an element of misrepresentation.
(2) Drivers who earn the majority of their income from Uber are the same as "independent contractors" working for one company. It's a tax dodge.
Fundamentally Uber needs to take responsibility for its actions rather than hiding behind a clever structure. They want to participate in the market: fine. But they shouldn't be allowed to leech off it.
But I agree with you on ensuring that vehicles are roadworthy, drivers are insured for hire and reward, and have had DBS checks.
0 -
It's not a question of "majority of income" - not well phrased. I was trying to distinguish between a professional driver and a moonlighterrcs1000 said:
Re (2): Isn't that also true of *all* minicab firms (certainly including Addison Lee), then?Charles said:
That's their argument. Two responses:JohnLilburne said:
Surely Uber is just an agency that finds you thé work.
(1) Customers think they are buying Uber's service in the sense of them providing the drivers rather than just sourcing independent contractors. So they are relying on the Uber trust - there's an element of misrepresentation.
(2) Drivers who earn the majority of their income from Uber are the same as "independent contractors" working for one company. It's a tax dodge.
Fundamentally Uber needs to take responsibility for its actions rather than hiding behind a clever structure. They want to participate in the market: fine. But they shouldn't be allowed to leech off it.
Also: if a black cab driver is getting the majority of income from Get Taxi or Hailo, then surely the same rule must apply to them.
A black cab that picks up passengers off the street as well as using Hailo or Get Taxi has multiple clients.
An Uber driver who gets all his passengers from Uber has a different relationship with the firm in that, effectively, they can put him out of business by excluding him from their app.0 -
Not sure how they will get developers to sell houses at a loss, but we need to see the detail.0
-
Nevertheless, if you work as a minicab with Addison Lee or Swiss Cottage Cars or whatever, you have always been considered a contractor.Charles said:
It's not a question of "majority of income" - not well phrased. I was trying to distinguish between a professional driver and a moonlighterrcs1000 said:
Re (2): Isn't that also true of *all* minicab firms (certainly including Addison Lee), then?Charles said:
That's their argument. Two responses:JohnLilburne said:
Surely Uber is just an agency that finds you thé work.
(1) Customers think they are buying Uber's service in the sense of them providing the drivers rather than just sourcing independent contractors. So they are relying on the Uber trust - there's an element of misrepresentation.
(2) Drivers who earn the majority of their income from Uber are the same as "independent contractors" working for one company. It's a tax dodge.
Fundamentally Uber needs to take responsibility for its actions rather than hiding behind a clever structure. They want to participate in the market: fine. But they shouldn't be allowed to leech off it.
Also: if a black cab driver is getting the majority of income from Get Taxi or Hailo, then surely the same rule must apply to them.
A black cab that picks up passengers off the street as well as using Hailo or Get Taxi has multiple clients.
An Uber driver who gets all his passengers from Uber has a different relationship with the firm in that, effectively, they can put him out of business by excluding him from their app.
Why should it be different with Uber?
[Edit to add: so if I sign up with both Lyft and Uber, and use both services as a driver, I can be self employed?]0 -
I agree with you there. Debates on security vs civil liberties, or drug legalisation, are as bad.SouthamObserver said:
Likewise, if you think we should have 500,000 instead of 300,000 you are characterised as an out of touch metropolitan elitist who personally benefits from immigration and does not care about the adverse effects it has on members of the white working class.JohnLilburne said:
But if you think that we should have 300,000 immigrants rather than 500,000 then you are being characterised as a racist. It is simply chanting a mantra, not making an argument at all.SouthamObserver said:
They are expressing an opinion. The only way a debate can be silenced is if there is no response. The debate about immigration - which, apparently, has been repressed and silenced - has been raging in the country's newspapers and on its television screens for at least 15 years now.JEO said:
No one has argued that. Kirkup is also on the right, but he's still one of the metropolitan liberal types.SouthamObserver said:
Indeed - but he is a Tory. The point being that the claim May has been attacked solely by metropolitan lefties is demonstrably false.Sean_F said:
Alex Massie is scarcely a right wing commentator.SouthamObserver said:Corbynistas Alex Massie and James Kirkup attack Theresa May's speech in far left publications the Spectator and the Daily Telegraph:
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/theresa-mays-immigration-speech-was-as-tawdry-as-it-was-contemptible/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11913927/Theresa-Mays-immigration-speech-is-dangerous-and-factually-wrong.html
Look, I don't have a problem with people taking a pro-high immigration position and arguing their case. What I detest is the way such people call ANY argument towards a low immigration position as "divisive" and "inflammatory". They are trying to silence the other side of the debate, and then act as if they are being morally superior by doing it.
We have had this debate for 15 years. We have had lots of accusations and name calling from both sides. And immigration rises whoever is in power.
It's been a shockingly poor debate.
But if a less-immigration supporter comes out with practical economic or social reasons he is still shouted down as racist.0 -
I know quite a few self-employed people who use an agency to find work. The only serious issue AFAIK is where their “place of work” is for tax reasons, i.e. are they working at home and going somewhere to do something, or going to work in the same way as an employed person is. IIRC it’s something to do with whether they work at the same place often, or regularly.JohnLilburne said:
I think I have a different view of employment law. (1) not sure what the customers have to do with it. If you hire a temp from an agency you are buying the agency's services, but it is perfectly possible for the temp to be on a self employed basis. (2) many Uber drivers are part time, and I don't think HMRC would see the arrangement as a way to circumvent employment law. The driver is after all responsible for providing their own tools of the trade (the car) and can decide whether or not to accept a particular job.Charles said:
That's their argument. Two responses:JohnLilburne said:
Surely Uber is just an agency that finds you thé work.
(1) Customers think they are buying Uber's service in the sense of them providing the drivers rather than just sourcing independent contractors. So they are relying on the Uber trust - there's an element of misrepresentation.
(2) Drivers who earn the majority of their income from Uber are the same as "independent contractors" working for one company. It's a tax dodge.
Fundamentally Uber needs to take responsibility for its actions rather than hiding behind a clever structure. They want to participate in the market: fine. But they shouldn't be allowed to leech off it.
But I agree with you on ensuring that vehicles are roadworthy, drivers are insured for hire and reward, and have had DBS checks.
Agree about the second point, IF the drivers are free to refuse, and whether there’s a penalty if they do.0 -
Most of the Uber drivers I've spoken to have always been minicab drivers, and left working with traditional services because of:Charles said:An Uber driver who gets all his passengers from Uber has a different relationship with the firm in that, effectively, they can put him out of business by excluding him from their app.
1. The much lower commission Uber charges and
2. The possibility of earning surge pricing0 -
It comes down to whether you are effectively exclusive to one party (actually I think you need 3 clients to be an independent contractor). But I'm not an expert on IR35.rcs1000 said:
Nevertheless, if you work as a minicab with Addison Lee or Swiss Cottage Cars or whatever, you have always been considered a contractor.Charles said:
It's not a question of "majority of income" - not well phrased. I was trying to distinguish between a professional driver and a moonlighterrcs1000 said:
Re (2): Isn't that also true of *all* minicab firms (certainly including Addison Lee), then?Charles said:
That's their argument. Two responses:JohnLilburne said:
Surely Uber is just an agency that finds you thé work.
(1) Customers think they are buying Uber's service in the sense of them providing the drivers rather than just sourcing independent contractors. So they are relying on the Uber trust - there's an element of misrepresentation.
(2) Drivers who earn the majority of their income from Uber are the same as "independent contractors" working for one company. It's a tax dodge.
Fundamentally Uber needs to take responsibility for its actions rather than hiding behind a clever structure. They want to participate in the market: fine. But they shouldn't be allowed to leech off it.
Also: if a black cab driver is getting the majority of income from Get Taxi or Hailo, then surely the same rule must apply to them.
A black cab that picks up passengers off the street as well as using Hailo or Get Taxi has multiple clients.
An Uber driver who gets all his passengers from Uber has a different relationship with the firm in that, effectively, they can put him out of business by excluding him from their app.
Why should it be different with Uber?
[Edit to add: so if I sign up with both Lyft and Uber, and use both services as a driver, I can be self employed?]0 -
But if the financial relationship is between the customer and the agency (rather than the contractor/driver) then the agency has responsibilities towards the customer, such as making sure their contractor is complying with applicable regulations.JohnLilburne said:
Surely Uber is just an agency that finds you thé work.Charles said:
I agree TFL's proposals are self-interested rubbish.rcs1000 said:
I don't believe that Uber is running roughshod over laws in the UK. The only possible argument you could make is that they be required to do "fixed fares", to bring them into line with minicabs.Charles said:
And when I've used it (in SF) it has been very good.rcs1000 said:Given we're all talking Uber, can I share an experience I had in San Francisco earlier this year. I had dinner at a friend's house near Candlestick Park (which is a pretty rundown, working class area.
Anyway: at the end of dinner, I got out my phone and pressed the button for an Uber.
Instead of ordering an UberX, as I normally do, I found myself accidentally ordering an UberPop.
What is UberPop? It's a $7 flat fee service from anywhere in San Francisco to anywhere else. But there's a rub. It's not a direct run. The car probably has a passenger or two in when you get in, and then delivers one of them, and picks up another along the way. In other words, they use complicated algorithims to dynamically route cars.
In the car with me for my journey were two construction workers, who were working on the night shift of some large project. They told me that before UberX they walked to the bus stop, waited for it, then got the bus to the subway stop before transferring. At 11pm at night, this could be an hour and 20 to get to work. Now it took them 20 to 25 minutes, and cost them just $7. (The same price as public transport.)
Uber for me was just a way of saving money and getting a car when I needed it. For these guys, Uber had literally changed their lives.
There is clearly demand for its services.
But that doesn't put it above the law, above taxation, above doing business in a moral and sustainable way.
What TFL proposes (5 minute cooldown between rides, not being allowed to show cars on a map) are ultimately just attempts to hobble competition.
(I can't believe they make money in the UK - or anywhere else - so I'm not sure the taxation point is currently real.)
For me the issue is around security, insurance and the treatment of drivers as employees rather than contractors. I'm willing to bet they don't pay social security contributions, for instance, on drivers' earnings.
Fundamentally if someone's primary source of income is through Uber then they are an employee.0 -
Didn't know that. Sounds OK to me then. Black cabs need to find ways of competing then.rcs1000 said:
Uber drivers in London need to sign up with TFL in the same way minicab drivers do. There is no lessening of standards, and you are still required to have a PCO license and commercial insurance.JohnLilburne said:
I think I have a different view of employment law. (1) not sure what the customers have to do with it. If you hire a temp from an agency you are buying the agency's services, but it is perfectly possible for the temp to be on a self employed basis. (2) many Uber drivers are part time, and I don't think HMRC would see the arrangement as a way to circumvent employment law. The driver is after all responsible for providing their own tools of the trade (the car) and can decide whether or not to accept a particular job.Charles said:
That's their argument. Two responses:JohnLilburne said:
Surely Uber is just an agency that finds you thé work.
(1) Customers think they are buying Uber's service in the sense of them providing the drivers rather than just sourcing independent contractors. So they are relying on the Uber trust - there's an element of misrepresentation.
(2) Drivers who earn the majority of their income from Uber are the same as "independent contractors" working for one company. It's a tax dodge.
Fundamentally Uber needs to take responsibility for its actions rather than hiding behind a clever structure. They want to participate in the market: fine. But they shouldn't be allowed to leech off it.
But I agree with you on ensuring that vehicles are roadworthy, drivers are insured for hire and reward, and have had DBS checks.0 -
Cynically, the other benefit is that it makes it easier for overseas supporters to donate money.FrankBooth said:Also notice that the government is changing the laws on expats' voting rights to make them lifelong - presumably in the (not necessarily correct) assumption that most of them are Tories.
Less cynically, the actual policy is obviously correct. More and more people are living outside the country they're nationals of, but the world isn't getting any less nationalistic, so it's unusual to be able to vote in the place where you live rather than the place you were born or whatever. (Although the latter would make more sense, IMHO). It's not in anyone's interests to disfranchise huge chunks of the world's population so they only way they can have their say is by buying politicians or setting fire to things.0 -
AIUI, Uber claims that the financial relationship is between the customer and the driver; they are just providing services such as sourcing bookings and processing payments.Sandpit said:
But if the financial relationship is between the customer and the agency (rather than the contractor/driver) then the agency has responsibilities towards the customer, such as making sure their contractor is complying with applicable regulations.JohnLilburne said:
Surely Uber is just an agency that finds you thé work.
If Uber had the same responsibilities as an agency firm re: ensuring quality of service I'd be much more comfortable with that0 -
Minicab drivers are all self employed - because technically it is the man who gets into your car, and not the agency that sets up the ride who is your customer.Charles said:
It comes down to whether you are effectively exclusive to one party (actually I think you need 3 clients to be an independent contractor). But I'm not an expert on IR35.rcs1000 said:
Nevertheless, if you work as a minicab with Addison Lee or Swiss Cottage Cars or whatever, you have always been considered a contractor.Charles said:
It's not a question of "majority of income" - not well phrased. I was trying to distinguish between a professional driver and a moonlighterrcs1000 said:
Re (2): Isn't that also true of *all* minicab firms (certainly including Addison Lee), then?Charles said:
That's their argument. Two responses:JohnLilburne said:
Surely Uber is just an agency that finds you thé work.
(1) Customers think they are buying Uber's service in the sense of them providing the drivers rather than just sourcing independent contractors. So they are relying on the Uber trust - there's an element of misrepresentation.
(2) Drivers who earn the majority of their income from Uber are the same as "independent contractors" working for one company. It's a tax dodge.
Fundamentally Uber needs to take responsibility for its actions rather than hiding behind a clever structure. They want to participate in the market: fine. But they shouldn't be allowed to leech off it.
Also: if a black cab driver is getting the majority of income from Get Taxi or Hailo, then surely the same rule must apply to them.
A black cab that picks up passengers off the street as well as using Hailo or Get Taxi has multiple clients.
An Uber driver who gets all his passengers from Uber has a different relationship with the firm in that, effectively, they can put him out of business by excluding him from their app.
Why should it be different with Uber?
[Edit to add: so if I sign up with both Lyft and Uber, and use both services as a driver, I can be self employed?]
It seems perverse to change that for Uber.
What is Uber other than a more efficient way to call for a minicab?0 -
@MikeGapes: I agree with David Cameron on this. But presumably I will now be denounced on Twitter for saying so. Can't wait. https://t.co/2m4JCYze760
-
Mr Observer,
"Certainly Massie and Kirkup do not throw that charge at her.
Not directly. They say she is speaking to and at the crowd, the rabble who are racist, and she should not do it.
A fine distinction.
Nothing's totally black and white, but if the most of one side prefer to stick fingers in their ears and go na-na-na, where is the discussion?0 -
IR35 is aimed at people who are effectively employees and have none of the attributes of a self employed business. Uber drivers provide their vehicle and accept the risk of not getting customers.Charles said:
It comes down to whether you are effectively exclusive to one party (actually I think you need 3 clients to be an independent contractor). But I'm not an expert on IR35.rcs1000 said:
Nevertheless, if you work as a minicab with Addison Lee or Swiss Cottage Cars or whatever, you have always been considered a contractor.Charles said:
It's not a question of "majority of income" - not well phrased. I was trying to distinguish between a professional driver and a moonlighterrcs1000 said:
Re (2): Isn't that also true of *all* minicab firms (certainly including Addison Lee), then?Charles said:
That's their argument. Two responses:JohnLilburne said:
Surely Uber is just an agency that finds you thé work.
(1) Customers think they are buying Uber's service in the sense of them providing the drivers rather than just sourcing independent contractors. So they are relying on the Uber trust - there's an element of misrepresentation.
(2) Drivers who earn the majority of their income from Uber are the same as "independent contractors" working for one company. It's a tax dodge.
Fundamentally Uber needs to take responsibility for its actions rather than hiding behind a clever structure. They want to participate in the market: fine. But they shouldn't be allowed to leech off it.
Also: if a black cab driver is getting the majority of income from Get Taxi or Hailo, then surely the same rule must apply to them.
A black cab that picks up passengers off the street as well as using Hailo or Get Taxi has multiple clients.
An Uber driver who gets all his passengers from Uber has a different relationship with the firm in that, effectively, they can put him out of business by excluding him from their app.
Why should it be different with Uber?
[Edit to add: so if I sign up with both Lyft and Uber, and use both services as a driver, I can be self employed?]0 -
Scale.rcs1000 said:
Minicab drivers are all self employed - because technically it is the man who gets into your car, and not the agency that sets up the ride who is your customer.Charles said:
It comes down to whether you are effectively exclusive to one party (actually I think you need 3 clients to be an independent contractor). But I'm not an expert on IR35.rcs1000 said:
Nevertheless, if you work as a minicab with Addison Lee or Swiss Cottage Cars or whatever, you have always been considered a contractor.Charles said:
It's not a question of "majority of income" - not well phrased. I was trying to distinguish between a professional driver and a moonlighterrcs1000 said:
Re (2): Isn't that also true of *all* minicab firms (certainly including Addison Lee), then?Charles said:
That's their argument. Two responses:JohnLilburne said:
Surely Uber is just an agency that finds you thé work.
(1) Customers think they are buying Uber's service in the sense of them providing the drivers rather than just sourcing independent contractors. So they are relying on the Uber trust - there's an element of misrepresentation.
(2) Drivers who earn the majority of their income from Uber are the same as "independent contractors" working for one company. It's a tax dodge.
Fundamentally Uber needs to take responsibility for its actions rather than hiding behind a clever structure. They want to participate in the market: fine. But they shouldn't be allowed to leech off it.
Also: if a black cab driver is getting the majority of income from Get Taxi or Hailo, then surely the same rule must apply to them.
A black cab that picks up passengers off the street as well as using Hailo or Get Taxi has multiple clients.
An Uber driver who gets all his passengers from Uber has a different relationship with the firm in that, effectively, they can put him out of business by excluding him from their app.
Why should it be different with Uber?
[Edit to add: so if I sign up with both Lyft and Uber, and use both services as a driver, I can be self employed?]
It seems perverse to change that for Uber.
What is Uber other than a more efficient way to call for a minicab?0 -
Hmm. Could've sworn I saw a Corbyn tweet denouncing Cameron for smearing him, but it's not there. May've been a parody account (although I thought it was real), or may've been deleted.0
-
@paulwaugh: That's a HUGE announcement (but like many detailed policies, didn't get huge applause):
*Every* school an academy.0
