Taxing Times
In response to Rachel Cunliffe’s article, Uber-hating London cabbies deserve only a little sympathy, let me introduce myself. I am one of the very taxis driver you speak of.
None of the taxi trade bodies have called for the closure of Uber, in fact the trade has been unusually united in its demands. These demands are simple and honourable because all we are demanding is the law as laid down by Parliament is enforced, surly the expectation of any right thinking person.
The prospect of competition is neither an issue or a fear – indeed we have faced competition from private hire since 1961 and have flourished. The regulations that govern our daily lives are far more of a threat to our prosperity than Uber or any other minicab company for that matter.
The media need to focus more on the employees of Uber, and especially the rate of churn of Uber’s “partners” as this is a better gauge of Uber’s success. If the website www.uberpeople.net/ is any guide, Uber drivers are not a happy lot, requiring benefits paid for by people like you to subsidise their incomes. At the same time Uber spirits away its corporate income to Amsterdam, avoiding both corporation tax and VAT to the detriment of the UK economy.
John Berry, London, UK
As a black cab driver I am tired of the tirade of unjustified opinions of our trade by people who seem to have an agenda of wholeheartedly supporting Uber.
We as a general rule do not want Uber banned but to adhere to the law and not ride roughshod over any person or organisation that does not support them. Why does it need to spend £25000 a month on PR if it is such a good company? It’s trying to cover up the facts about its business model:
* Uber does not pay its fair share of UK tax, as profits are routed via the Netherlands.
* Drivers may not be properly insured to take paying passengers.
* Drivers who don’t know the city can end up getting lost and taking a longer route, costing passengers more.
* After expenses, some drivers may have to work 60-80 hours to earn a living, if Uber is their only source of income.
We all talk about fair trade coffee and bananas. I think that Uber drivers deserve a decent rate for their job and to not be ripped off by an American company whose only purpose is to make as much money in a race to the bottom.
Maurice Walsh, London, UK
What is unfair is that the regulator, TfL, has allowed Uber to be licensed without being compliant with existing regulations, giving them unfair and unequal treatment and an advantage in comparison with every other London minicab company, as well as Taxis.
Jackie Curtis, London, UK
Tory Vengeance
Daniel Hannan’s article, Leftie yahoos consumed by their hatred, is a good piece in that it evidences familiar phenomena, gives you pause for thought. I can’t stand the hypocrisy of intolerant bullies.
But I wonder if the visceral hatred of Cameron and the Tories is partly down to the terms of the debate that they themselves have set. They use polarising concepts which you can only really be comfortable with if you’re on the ‘right side’. So for many, there’s a sense that Cameron has defined what it means to be a ‘good citizen’ (a ‘striver’) and also labelled what it means to be someone who doesn’t work and doesn’t contribute (a ‘shirker’). We can feel satisfied because we’re part of the striver club. But what if you or someone you knew could only possibly be a ‘shirker’, because, for reasons that are unique to you, and complex and difficult, you simply cannot work or do what’s expected of you? When the government is accused of being ‘out of touch’, I think this is to do with them not truly being able to imagine the misfortune of some people’s situations.
Yes there’s a minority who cheat the system etc (legitimate ‘shirkers’) but there’s a far bigger group, I’d guess, who suffer from misfortune and struggle every day.
It’s generational and socio-economic, and then things like mental health will also be contributors. What’s the Tory record on mental health support? The Lib Dems did good stuff on this when in coalition. Corbyn has mentioned it as a key issue.
The Tories do need to get better at acknowledging that life is really really difficult for many people – and not because they’re bad people – and adding some depth to their theory of how the personal success of individuals who work hard and do the right thing will help lift those who are less fortunate.
Rose Van Orden, London, UK
A Hungarian Tragedy
Dr Andrea Hosszu’s analysis (The West must stop bullying Hungary and Central Europe) is very thorough, readable, profound, and even-keeled. She points out those fallacies in the analysis of the events which the so-called mainstream media is culpable of failing to comprehend, and so glosses over. She points out that the present EU configuration and its governance is a grotesque mockery of those ideals that prompted the Founding Fathers of Europe following the tragedy of WWII, and which is now played out by a bunch of lavishly paid but incompetent puppets.
Leslie Torok, York Region, Canada
Healey: a missed opportunity
In response to your coverage on the death of Denis Healey, by Bruce Anderson, Andrew Robers, and Oliver Kamm, the process of reforming the British economy was well underway under Denis Healey – one of Britain’s best ever Chancellors. Like Margaret Thatcher, Healey knew that many of the core elements of the economy had to change, not least the role of the Trade Unions. Sadly for Labour and for Britain there were two missed opportunities. Callaghan did not go to the country in the autumn of 1978 – an election he probably would have won. Secondly when the winter of discontent led to Thatcher’s 1989 victory and subsequently to Calaghan’s resignation as Labour leader, Healey narrowly missed being his successor.
Healey as leader would have avoided the SDP. A united Left could have won in 1983 under Healey. He would have pursued some of the same policies in office as the Blessed M, but he would not have done so with her divisiveness. He would have blown the bloody doors off – but he wouldn’t have blown up the whole vehicle.
Paddy Briggs, Teddington, UK | @PaddyBriggs
Blowing his own Trump
I normally respect Daniel Hannan and am surprised how wrong his views on Donald Trump are (Dear America, please don’t choose Donald Trump). Donald is the right person for this time in America’s history. Hannan completely misreads the time and temperament of We The People in today’s America. We want competence. Trump has $10 billion in wealth to show he is a winner. We have an illegal immigration problem. He knows how to build walls and make Mexico pay for it. He is a success story both in his personal life, his profession, and entertainment career. He knows the Art of the Deal and will stop the trade ripoffs to America.
America chooses its party candidates in primaries (unlike UK) and not the party money boys. Trump is of, by, and for the People which annoys the establishment greatly. Hooray Trump, 2016.
Robert Burnett, Las Vegas, USA
It all comes back to Hayek
I agree with Jared Mayer’s excellent points on Hayek, in particular: “Hayek understood that for a constitutional system to succeed in protecting those whom it governs, there must be both fair and neutral judges and laws that are coherent and understandable by normal citizens – not just lawyers and accountants.”
A people cannot survive in chaos, nor can a land. For this reason, the first duty of any who would rule is to maintain order. Too much order and a land becomes a prison where nothing is accomplished, save keeping order. Before long in such a land, there will be neither food nor clothing and order itself will vanish as each person struggles to find nourishment and shelter for himself and those he holds dear. Too little order and no one respects anyone else, neither his neighbour, nor his ruler, and that land too, will fall into ruin and anarchy.
The lessons of history have illustrated all too clearly that, despite what people say about the need to do good and to respect the persons and property of others, most beings will only do good and respect others either when it costs them nothing or when they fear a greater power will cause them suffering should they not respect others. Using power to instil order and respect, without turning a land into a prison, that is the task of a ruler.
Power is not respected or feared when it is never exercised. Yet, if it is exercised excessively and in an arbitrary fashion, people will become unhappy and unproductive, and that will cause the order of that land to decline. People also become unhappy when power is always used harshly and disproportionately to an offense against order. Likewise, they become confused when laws governing the use of power are complex and difficult to explain or understand.
Thus, the laws of a land must be both fair and simple. Sometimes, this is not possible, and if it is not, a ruler should err on the side of simplicity, because no matter how hard administrators and rulers attempt to assure fairness, absolute fairness is by nature impossible, and attempts to create it always lead to a wider and more complex set of rules and laws, which seem unfair because of their very complexity. In the end, attempting to create absolute fairness will create a greater impression of unfairness than maintaining a firmer and simpler set of rules.
Common sense and moral conscience are eroded where attempts to create absolute fairness are made. By imposing complicated laws which attempt to apply order to every possible situation, people have no need for moral interpretation or desire to learn all rules. A people who do not know or respect some laws of a land will, eventually, loose respect for all the laws of that land.
The last precept about laws is this: Create no law that is not absolutely necessary to maintain simple order. Beyond the minimum for maintaining order, laws are like fleas or leeches. The more of them that exist, the more they vex a land and bleed it into chaos and anarchy.
Frank Verno, Dunfermline, UK
