Uber Protests Level Playing Field

[Update at end of post]

The saga of driver and rider matching service Uber, its impact on London’s black cab trade, and the perverse championing of the app by the supposedly free-market libertarian right, has been brought back on to newsdesks around the capital and elsewhere by Transport for London (TfL) putting a series of regulation proposals, to be applicable to all taxi and private hire vehicles and drivers, out to consultation.

The proposals include many items which should not prove controversial, nor which any provider of taxi or private hire vehicles should find problematic - like ensuring all drivers have a grasp of spoken English, their vehicle is properly insured, and that TfL know who is being used to drive the public around the capital. Instead, in a predictable move, Uber’s lobbying muscle has been mobilised to leak the proposals and then play the victim.

Yes, as so often, hard-pressed hacks are being urged to “look over there” by a company that is worth billions, and indeed, which has the odd billion Dollars in cash to play with. Uber employs former US Presidential advisors. The black cab trade, in contrast, is made up of one-man and one-woman bands, all of whom are self-employed, and have invested many years of their lives, and a shed load of cash, in their livelihoods.

Bring on the cheerleaders

The OTT press reaction has been magnificently exemplified by freesheet City AM, which has a front page splash headlined “TFL BOWS TO ANTI-UBER PRESSURE … Popular app could face clampdown as black cab lobby boasts of influence”. Pride of place is given to the obligatory rent-a-quote Uber spinner whining “These bureaucratic new rules will not improve your ride”, which is bullshit-speak of the highest order.

The City AM stance is no surprise, given it is now edited by Uber fan Christian May, who gave the company’s deeply unpleasant CEO Travis Kalanick a soft soap interview at a recent IoD event. But it is not the worst example of Uber grovelling: for that, we have to visit May’s pals, the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog, who have reacted as if the End Times were upon us.

How to guarantee an accessible vehicle in London

After splashing a copy of the proposals - which, by themselves, show only that most of the content is uncontroversial - the Fawkes blog has screamed “Transport for London are launching a consultation today on proposals to kneecap Uber’s business”, before claiming the blog “understands Number 10 are furious with Boris for allowing the consultation to go ahead and are actively seeking ways of forcing him to back down”.

Given that Bozza now has an MP’s job to do, and was hardly hands-on before that, it’s entirely possible he had little to do with the consultation other than to nod when someone else suggested it. Meanwhile, it is noted that Uber want everyone else to come down to their standard, rather than the industry all play by the same admittedly rigorous, but necessary, rules. And that they are prepared to spin rather than engage constructively.

Regulations are there for a reason. And they are not something to pick and choose.

[UPDATE 1 October 1300 hours: the spin, verging on forthright dishonesty, has continued, with Uber fans at the Guido Fawkes blog claiming "On the pollution point, Uber is planning to go all-electric in the next few years".

No such claim has been made. The Great Guido has his trousers alight once again.

Meanwhile, Uber and its supporters are claiming that over 100,000 have signed the online petition in favour of the driver-and-rider-matching service. However, and here we encounter a significantly sized however, the petition can all too easily be faked.

Not only are there many examples of fake names in circulation right now - whether Sillius Soddus or Biggus Dickus have been included is not known - but a short video showing how easy it is to fake signatures is also available.

Not a good result for all that PR expenditure, Uber people, is it?]