Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Again I don't see your point in this context. This decision is not being justified by any fanciful notion of cost saving. Since cost saving could only be achieved by keeping the business in public hands, this decision is one based on an ideological commitment to privatise as much of the NHS as possible. In financial terms, the decision has no basis whatsoever.

I don't care. I just see it as something that is being picked at by a biased critics and biased media. It may well be the case that it is being proposed by biased politicians or managers - and that on the other side a biased media is not being critical.

Which is why I'm inclined to detach from the likes of the Guardian and the Labour Party and the Government and its crony media and just want it laid out and explained - without the emotion, dogma, and politicking.

From my perspective anybody pointing the finger and mentioning profiteering and ideology and greedy middlemen or whatever isn't being objective - just taking part - intentionally or indavertently in the polticking.

And saying its not necessary to lay out that explanation seems to me like an excuse to avoid the truth and point fingers regardless. You may be right - but the information laid out so far leaves me dissatisfied with both sides.
 
I don't care. I just see it as something that is being picked at by a biased critics and biased media. It may well be the case that it is being proposed by biased politicians or managers - and that on the other side a biased media is not being critical.

Which is why I'm inclined to detach from the likes of the Guardian and the Labour Party and the Government and its crony media and just want it laid out and explained - without the emotion, dogma, and politicking.

From my perspective anybody pointing the finger and mentioning profiteering and ideology and greedy middlemen or whatever isn't being objective - just taking part - intentionally or indavertently in the polticking.

And saying its not necessary to lay out that explanation seems to me like an excuse to avoid the truth and point fingers regardless. You may be right - but the information laid out so far leaves me dissatisfied with both sides.

I'm not sure what else you actually need to know in order to comprehend what a bad idea this is for the NHS and the taxpayer.

A 75% share in a public organisation that saves the NHS £70m per year is about to be sold for £50m to a private firm. Private agencies currently charge 15% - 30% more to recruit staff than the public one that is about to be sold. All of this is being reported in a variety of on-line, print and broadcast media and I have yet to see the figures disputed anywhere.

So is that objective enough for you or would you still need more time to pontificate about the wider "ecosystem" ??
 
He's 85 years old and been an MP since 1970... I would hazard a guess that he does not feel intimated by Corbyn's Momentum and will speak his mind.

But to be fair to Labour... the reality is that Brexit has always been a non-party-political issue really, with both Labour the the Conservatives internally divided over it.

Perhaps the pertinent point here is that the Conservatives managed to close ranks over this issue, while Labour did not (as yet)?
 
ignored - I thought we didn't discuss politics or football? time for a change?
Are we now going to lose the UK Politics thread??
Not being so politically savvy as many other competent contributors, I have at times found it to be quite educational.

Steve
 

It simply proves what we have always known.

Whether it's unemployment figures, the rate of inflation, NHS waiting lists, educational achievement in schools, crime figures etc. etc. etc. - we simply can't trust Governments to produce honest information when they have a vested interest in producing different information which meets their political needs.
 
On rereading the article... I think they are missing the point a bit by focusing on the definition and numbers, while they should have also at the same time considered the trend.

In other words, they are explaining what the official figures do NOT tell us, but they do not try and explain what these figures DO tell us - they seem to suggest that because of the way the unemployment definition was made, the figures are meaningless, something that I intuitively disagree with.

Assuming that the same 'erroneous' method of counting the unemployed has been maintained over the years... then it will still show the trend with regards to those who fit the 'unemployed' category.

It's a bit like manufacturers' official MPG figures - if car A has an official combined cycle figure of (say) 68mpg, and car B has (say) 42mpg, then yes in real life neither car will actually achieve their quoted figures... but at the same time you can rest assured that the 68mpg cars will be far more frugal than the 42mpg car, etc.

I guess what I am trying to say is that when I read an article whose authors appear to be quite clever and also very knowledgeable.... and all the facts support their point of view but none of the rather obvious counter-arguments are included... then I consider the article to be purposely biased, and which point I am no longer sure if I can really trust the facts mentioned in it?

In short, I would have found the article more reliable if the authors covered all angles rather than just those that suit them... so at this point I don't really know what to make of it.

Rant over :)
 
Last edited:
Im still waiting for the General election we were assured by someone would be here by now.
 
No more Uber in London - a sensible move, or a political victory for Sadiq Khan and Labour? Or both? Discuss :)
 
Wes Streeting, Labour MP for Ilford North, welcomed the move on Sky News today.

When asked what he thought about all those Uber drivers who will lose their jobs.. he said he was indeed concerened, and that many of these will be from his own constituency, but then added that he expects a respectable multinational company like Uber to compensate those drivers who will lose their jobs, and pay them redundancy payments.

In the US they call it 'passing the buck'...
 
I am pleased about UBER,we have had the safest taxi's in any capital in the world by having legislation since the 1800's ,and up until now any person with a sat nav and a car could ply for hire in our capital,that has to be wrong,I am pleased London has stopped them.
 
I am pleased about UBER,we have had the safest taxi's in any capital in the world by having legislation since the 1800's ,and up until now any person with a sat nav and a car could ply for hire in our capital,that has to be wrong,I am pleased London has stopped them.
For how long I wonder?
 
I am pleased about UBER,we have had the safest taxi's in any capital in the world by having legislation since the 1800's ,and up until now any person with a sat nav and a car could ply for hire in our capital,that has to be wrong,I am pleased London has stopped them.

In the UK we've had 'Private Hire' cabs which are effectively Uber without the smartphone app.

Many of the drivers have used satnavs.

In the UK Uber just connects the smartphone to private hire.

Judging by our local private hire company operate ..... they're basically becoming Uber without the branding and scale and user smartphone app. Drivers have a smartphone - call centre assigns fares to them. We don't get the routed receipts - but we get texts to update pickup status.

It's not that different.

And as for drivers - ISTR that in Glasgow a few years ago there was a scandal regarding the type of people who wedre able to successfully apply for a private hire licence.

I think TFL have to tread carefully. It does look to an outsider as if Uber are being specifically targeted - which means if TFL get this wrong there will be serious questions to ask about their ethics.

There are plenty of customers who prefer Uber and seem rather unhappy now. Plenty of scope for a backlash if TFL have got this wrong.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom